Carnism & Rationalism

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

I post something that makes plenty of arguments ...

I did read it; however, your post starts with a false proposition in the very first sentence. All those arguments you refer to stem from that. What is left for me to engage with? No insult was intended, and everything I said was addressed at what you posted, not at you. But there's just nothing there that I can say any more about, than has already been said by other responses.

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Again, I haven't heard another word with the utility this one has, have you? I'm guessing you either deny or don't appreciate it's utility since you don't seem to really appreciate the emphasis/importance of ideology in this conversation. Just think about it a bit more.

I think the utility is undermined by how people are likely to react to it. I understand what the author is trying to convey, but people really hate having their ideologies labelled for them - just look at how many people call themselves catholic despite having religious beliefs that line up more with protestantism (assuming any religious label actually applies at all). The label doesn't change what they believe, and if they were rational in this context then they could just accept it when someone points out that they actually align with a different label than they first thought. But people aren't, so its better, imo, to just concentrate on how they are wrong and were their logical inconsistencies are.

Zamboni wrote: »

Ah no.
Are atheists becoming vegans and vegetarians?
I'm out.

Yeah! I thought we were just against lame stuff like churches and boogeymen.

Eating meat though! Next thing you'll tell me it's irrational to have my 10 pints on a Friday night when I'm clearly biologically designed for it!