thc wrote:Why do you draw the line where you do. Why is tool usage or the ability to recognize self in mirrors important in any moral capacity? My belief is that it isn't: when dealing with matters of empathy, the capacity to feel physical pain and the capacity to feel emotional pain are the two relevant "intelligence" ingredients. And if you can recognize those two ingredients in other beings, I feel you have a moral obligation to treat those beings with respect and not eat them, unless you were starving or something.
If you agree with me this far, then we can debate whether or not lions, and generally, other animals, feel emotional pain and distress. Let's have at it.
I'll have a go at this. Why do I draw the line where I do? Because it works for me. I can't not eat, and I'm generally comfortable eating what I do. It's not at all necessary to inflict physical or emotional pain on any animal in order to eat, because I don't eat living animals; I eat dead ones. The only living things I eat are actually vegetables and microorganisms. And probably the occasional bug and spider.
I don't want the things I eat to suffer before I eat them. I work within my means to source my food ethically. But I have to weigh various priorities against each other, and so there are some sacrifices I won't make for this cause. I won't sacrifice my good health or future, or that of my wife. This doesn't make me unethical; I do follow an ethical code. It just happens to be more egocentric than your own (as applied to my diet, at least).
H2SO4 wrote:That's not how it works. If someone asks for sources, you can't say "Look for them yourself!"
I certainly can if it's common knowledge. It's like asking for a citation on the fact that lion's are mammals: at some point, it isn't my problem. But whatever. http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/inf ... ed.0040325
No, seriously. Cut that shit out. I've already addressed this exact study, and I think it's fair to say that you backed down from your position
in response. Now you're bringing it back up? I'm guessing you didn't actually read the study; even the abstract would have identified it as the one I was criticizing for being not nearly comprehensive enough to support your assertions.
Why do you argue? The answer should be that you argue to convince your audience. This is not a formal debate; there is no moderator to weigh every thrust and parry and there are no judges to declare a winner. If your audience isn't going to be satisfied with "JFGI" then you need to provide more that that. If a fact that you consider to be common knowledge isn't commonly known by your audience, OR more importantly, if it's disputed by your audience, then the onus is on you to support your claim with solid evidence in order to establish credibility with your audience. You seem to have some idea that rhetoric is an objective practice which can be analyzed independent of the context of the audience; that's a big mistake. The evidence is all in this thread; you've trashed your credibility by allowing the subject of the argument to drift away from vegetarianism to the issue of whether you're arguing correctly; which is proof in itself that you're not arguing correctly. And no, that is not a tautology. Seriously, think about this; if you're arguing to convince, who are you convincing? And if not, why are you arguing?
Link wrote:Every time I someone say "you shouldn't eat x" without them being able to provide a damned good reason for it, I am extremely tempted to eat as much x as I can stomach, purely out of spite. So, I'll have four lion burgers with baby-blood ketchup, please. Call me petty, but anyone who puts so much zeal into something without providing adequate backup to their sentiments ticks me off to no end.
What's the point of this? Seriously, when the topic of vegetarianism comes up, there are those meat-eaters who will respond this same way, every time. "You don't like that I eat meat, so I'm going to go eat something totally unreasonable to eat, just to piss you off." If you're going to troll, this is probably one of the most feeble ways to troll ever.
OOPS: ALSO YOU GUYS: "I'm not comfortable eating x" is a perfectly valid reason for not eating x, and an okay reason for not being comfortable with other people eating x. It's even an okay reason to try to convince other people not to eat x. If you respond with anger to someone trying to convince you not to eat x, that's a personal reaction you're having to the implication that you might be doing something wrong. In which case, relax and/or get over yourself.