Sorry to everyone else for the length of this post.
Francois Tremblay wrote:"First you claimed that human domination of non-humans was natural and that human domination of humans was unnatural. You refused to define your terms or explain how your conception of "naturalness" (whatever that may be) justifies human-non human domination and exploitation."
Why should I? You already have decided what "natural" means, and for you it includes everything, including meat-eating. So there's no reason to debate that particular issue.
I never rejected the term "natural". In fact, I offered my definition of the concept as I understand it, which for the record I don't think is entirely meaningless. I have no problem with the term, you just declared that I do and have refused to present any alternative formulation that I can accept or reject.
I haven’t "decided" anything. I’m just offering my opinion. A debate isn’t possible otherwise, as these last few pages have shown.
The importance of my question relates to this exchange:
Francois Tremblay wrote: Donald wrote:
Zazaban wrote:Animals eat other animals, are we supposed to condemn lions for the 'genocide' of antelope?
Humans exploit and imprison other humans, that fact does not justify exploitation/imprisonment. Furthermore, lions can't survive unless they consume meat, humans can.
The difference is that predation is natural. Exploitation and imprisonment are not. Humans eating meat, on the other hand, is. So your analogy breaks down, Donald.
Your argument (or what was your argument) rests on the division between unnatural and natural domination. If you don’t want to defendéexplain your position at all, or give me a chance to come to any agreement with you, that’s fine. But your sacrificing your argument.
"Now (as far as I can tell) your claiming the issue is whether veg's can live healthy lives."
No... I have never said that was "the issue." Nor the other "issues" you propose. ..Not any of the other stuff you listed.
Forgive my mistake, I tried to determine what you believe “the issue” is by reading your arguments:
Francois Tremblay wrote:Cows do not understand the choice you are proposing.
Francois Tremblay wrote:The difference is that predation is natural. Exploitation and imprisonment are not. Humans eating meat, on the other hand, is. So your analogy breaks down, Donald.
Francois Tremblay wrote: If we're going to argue from natural constitution, you have to face the fact that humans are omnivores, not herbivores. Our evolutionary ancestors were omnivores, and our biology is omnivore.
These seem to match up with my assessment.
My only "issue" is that veg*s use spurious reasoning in order to justify what is an entirely personal choices and give themselves a moral high ground.
Well if spurious reasoning is the issue then provide arguments and evidence for your position (aka reason), simple assertions don’t count. Also, the suggestion that veg’s oppose human domination of non-humans simply out of some lust for moral superiority is ludicrous. It’s absurd to claim that veg arguments and ideas can be reduced to that. Smugness is not limited to veg’s by any stretch of the imagination. Certainly there are some like that (often people who start eating meat again after a week), but it’s absurd to claim that all veg’s are.
As far as meat being a personal choice, I’ll just re-state what I said to begin with:
It involves the domination/exploitation/commodification/torture/murder of sentient, feeling creatures. By any reasonable standard this qualifies as archy.
I didn’t bring those things up!
"I've directly addressed every one of your counter-arguments."
The only thing this conversation started with, was your claim that meat-eating implies a hierarchy. The issues of naturalness and health are not relevant to that claim.
You brought up “naturalness” and health, both as counter arguments to my claim! We’ve been dancing in bizarre circles ever since!
"You excise the bit where I ask for evidence, and I'm evading?"
You are basically saying that people who testify for something are irrelevant because you can testify for the moon being made of cheese. My conclusion is that either you are batshit insane or you are trying to evade the issue by trivializing the fact that people give testimonies about something.
Really? Thats a huge logical gap you just leaped misrepresenting what I said. A more obvious conclusion, from my perspective, is that I was asking for evidence.
Not your undocumented assertions about what other people said. I can find you just as many testimonies from veg’s who’ll say how much healthier they are now, etc. It’s entirely anecdotal and insufficient to prove your position. Well documented and researched information on what exactly is unhealthy about a veg diet is what you need.
""I can't really makes sense of the sentence "'Sentience and feels pain' is not a criterion to determine whether something is a hierarchy any more than being made of bark or used to write". I don't want to speculate as to what you might have meant, lest I be charged with evasion once again. Care to explain what you're getting at?""
What I am "getting at" is that the fact that cows are sentient and feel pain is irrelevant. Children are sentient and feel pain, and yet everyone supports their exploitation.
Again, please don’t make baseless assumptions about me or my thoughts. Anyway, I think I might now be even less clear on what you mean. Does hierarchy (and criteria for determining what qualifies) now have nothing to do with you argument? Are you saying that you support the exploitation of children (and non-humans) because it’s supported by “everyone”? Or that somehow we shouldnt care about non human exploitation because children are exploited too?
"I don't believe I've ever had any encounter with you before this. Please don't make baseless assumptions about me. I've tried to be fairly polite throughout this "discussion" but I'm beginning to get a bit fed up."
How is it a baseless assumption? Pretty much everyone in the world, including on this board, supports the parenting system (except the good people at the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement). I naturally assume you do unless proven otherwise. It's no reason for you to get offended. In fact, I fail to see why you'd be offended by people assuming that you are a normal human being!
I have severe problems with “the parenting system”. However, I have no obligation to prove a goddamn thing to you. This is just a red-herring.
I think Im near done with this. Its getting ridiculous.