Please FFS, learn to use the quoting system and don't be so lazy. I am tired of cleaning up the mess you call a reply just so I can respond point by point, but I will do it regardless out of pure spite of your willingness to push your ignorant twisted mental state upon others.
First of all, I could give a shit less what your diet consists of, until you try to force me to share your beliefs (and diet) too. No one is attempting to stop you from being vegan.
that's like the rapist who responds to the judge: "No one is attempting to push you to rape someone"
What in the hell are you on about? More rape ffs
To be clear, let me get this right.... You are saying eating meat is equivalent to rape and slavery?
yes. And if I look at your basic moral intuitions and judgments, you have to come to the same conclusion. You think rape and slavery are very bad, and the very reason why they are bad, according to you, is the same reason why eating meat is bad. Rape is very bad because someone's body (someone's vagina) belongs to that individual and not to you, so you should not use someone's body in a way that she strongly dislikes. The same can be said about someone's muscle tissue.
I agree, rape and slavery are bad. I do not agree that animals and humans are equivalent, and this type of logic, BY DEFAULT is antihuman, because it automatically lowers all human beings to the status of barn animals under this dialectic. That is a good way to justify the subservience, neglect, and slaughter of humans while you cry about the rights of cows and chickens.
By "someone", "individual", and "victims", you mean an animal correct?
yes. or a woman, in the case of rape.
Again with the rape! You really don't believe this is obsessive behavior bringing rape into a discussion about veganism so many times? This is what I mean by antihuman. By making all animals equivalent with humans, suddenly all humans also become equivalent with animals, and it becomes a MUCH simpler task to justify bringing humanity to slaughter or other forms of maltreatment. Sociopaths and psychopaths are often known to be animal lovers too, not because they have a capacity to love in reality, but because they are of the belief that humans are just walking meat puppets at their disposal that deserve punishment, however an animal is innocent of human sin therefore they feel no need to hate the animal like they do other humans.
By "arbitrary exceptions" you mean the difference between humans and animals correct?
yes
I don't think the majority of humans on Earth would find this an arbitrary distinction. If animals were equivalent to humans they would be joining in this discussion here with us. So far I haven't heard from any pigs or cattle.
Again, by "others" do you mean animals?
in this context: yes
Again your premise that meat based diets harms "others" is based on the premise that animals are equivalent to humans. Plants are a life form too. Why are not plants included in your generalization of "others"? Are plants not harmed when you consume them as well? Is that not also destroying life to provide yourself nutrition?
but the act of eating plants is better than the act of eating someone's muscle tissue. You do agree with that, I hope.
No. There are a lot of reasons eating meat in moderation is more nutritional than most vegetable matter.
vegan diets can be nutritionally adequate for all humans:
http://www.eatright.org/About/Content.aspx?id=8357The key words you used are "can be", as in if you scoured the globe for the finest plants and cultivated your own food painstakingly, as well as eat plant matter nearly all day long, and spend the rest of your time crapping, then yes, veganism "can be" nutritionally adequate. That doesn't make it realistic for the majority of humans just because it is possible.
The reason Hitler being a vegan is relevant is because it demonstrates that some of the most twisted antihuman reasoning and actions can be delivered under a platform of moral authority.
it rather might have demonstrated that hitler did not do 100% bad things.
You refer to antihuman, but reference to humans is morally arbitrary. You and I are as much primate and as much mammal as we are human. So when you speak about antihuman, you could as well use antimammal or anti dry nosed primate. And if you are white, you could have said antiwhite.
So you are using the glass half full argument for Hitler? Yeah your right, he may have committed genocide against millions of people, but at least he treated goats with respect. Again your argument against my use of the word antihuman depends completely upon the premise that humans are equal to animals. They are not. Additionally your attempt to muddy the discussion with neo-feminist and racial talking points is a quite disingenuous attempt to attach moral authority to your argument, as if anyone who disagrees with you is a racist, sexist, or even worse a slave owning rapist.
As far as your fascination with rape, your gynocentric neo-feminist brainwashing is showing.
what do you mean with that? My fascination with rape? Gynocentric brainwashing?
I mean that you packed so many talking points used by politically motivated neo-feminist groups that it is completely transparent to me that you must spend a lot of time around these types of people being continually indoctrinated to the point where you can't help but have those ideas that were driven into your head via repetitive conditioning leak out during an unrelated discussion about your dietary choices. Furthermore you clearly seem to be attempting to use it as a shaming tactic. Frankly, I feel bad for you. I assume you are male (I may be wrong), but if not then very clearly you have had your own gender identity stolen from you and replaced with politically motivated indoctrination substitute designed to bring your subservience and slavery. Even if I am wrong about this and you are in fact a female, I still feel bad for you, because you have no idea how much harm you are bringing down upon all females (and males for that matter) by repeating such divisive politically motivated ignorance.
If you are going to use big words like "androcentrism", please learn their definitions first.
andro = male
centrism = centrally oriented
Therefore androcentrism means a male focused world view. The word you invented anti-androcentrism would therefore mean "against a male oriented central viewpoint", and I am not sure why a rapist would be arguing against a male centric viewpoint, but thats ok.
then how did you use the word antihuman?
Of course the rapist would not argue against a male centric viewpoint. I was comparing it with your claim. A meat eater says that anti meat talk is anti human. Well, than a rapist says that anti rape talk is anti male. You see the analogy? It is an analogy between two fallacious argumants.
human = homo sapiens
anti = in opposition to
antihuman = against homo sapiens
So now you are comparing me with a rapist, but me calling you malnourished is a personal attack? Your analogy ONCE AGAIN relies COMPLETELY on the premise that animals are equal to humans. I understand what you are trying to communicate with me but your premise is fallacy therefore all analogies based on it are false.
What is your obsession with rape by the way?
that it is bad. But that is not an obsession. So what do you mean with an obsession, and why do you believe i'm obsessed with rape?
Well, you only used the word rape 15 times in a discussion about veganism... that does appear a little obsessive.
As far as your other comments, are you saying disabled humans are equivalent to animals?
yes. If you disagree, than give me a morally relevant difference betwene those humans and non-human animals. But you can't give that, because from the 1000+ people i spoke with (including philosophers, slaughterhouse workers, anti-animal rights people,...) no-one could give a relevant difference.
Your willful ignorance of the arguments of others counter to your world view is not evidence of lack of arguments against it. I have one simple proof. There are no non homo sapiens animals engaging in this discussion here today because they are unable. Therefor animals can not be equivalent to humans.
Who is eating disabled people?
no-one, because that is immoral.
Well that is good to know. I still wonder why you brought it up then if it is a nonexistent problem.
I don't disagree with your personal choice to be vegan.
you can hide behind words like "personal choice" or "lifestyle", but you do know that abstaining from harming (eating, raping,...) someone is not merely a matter of personal choice.
Again, eating a hamburger is not equivalent to rape regardless of however you justify it in your twisted and abused mind. Once again your analogy rests upon the fallacious premise that animals are equivalent to humans.
I disagree with your application of moral value to your dietary choices, and your resulting grandstanding as if you hold a moral high ground because of it in a pathetic attempt to shame meat eaters into adopting your worldview while simultaneously claiming meat eaters are pressuring you to not be vegan.
conformity bias does not mean there is an intentional, conscious or overt pressure from the group. Cfr the experiment of Asch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments The group members did not overtly or consciously pressure the subject to give the wrong answer.
I am not even going to attempt to address this pathetic appeal to authority fallacy.
Now take your malnourished ass back out the door you came in from and find some more cult members so you can reassure each other of your moral superiority.
that sounds like an ad hominem. You lose credibility if you give fallacies in a discussion.
Take it however you like, I find it to be a most likely accurate observation.
including "malnourished"? That's a factual claim, and you don't even know me. You do not know what I eat and what kinds of physical activities I do. So where is your evidence that I'm malnourished?
I don't know you personally no. I have however known several people who talk just like you and preach veganism as if it was a lost book of the bible, and none of them ever looked very healthy to me.
I also am willing to bet you live somewhere in western Europe, like The Netherlands, or perhaps Sweden where this brand of brainwashing is all too common.
Belgium
But why do you use the word brainwahsing? Give me some evidence that this is brainwashed. And first give a definition, what you mean with brainwashing.
By brainwashing I mean you have been conditioned mentally to have beliefs counter to facts, reality, and probably some times even your own once organically held beliefs. You have become a vessel for others to use to spread their political ideology, and chances are you have no awareness of this. In your mind you are just saying what you think is the truth, but unfortunately the people who told you this is the truth are liars. My evidence is that you used the word rape 15 times in a discussion about veganism. The gynocentric neo-feminist movement is completely obsessed with using rape as a tool of shaming against all men, rapist or not as a form of trauma based control, shaming you via negative operant conditioning to speak as if all males are potential rapists.
If anyone denies this position, they are automatically defending rape. It is much like asking some one the question "So when did you stop beating your wife?". The question involves the assumed premise that the person being asked beats their wife, and if it were to be replied to directly would either appear as if he still continues to beat his wife, or that he used to beat his wife but has now stopped. In short you are placing everything under the context of rape in order to try to make any argument against your points indefensible without appearing to be defending rape. It is very disingenuous and dishonest.
