Before this all gets too tedious - I could rewrite all your stuff comparing animals to plants and I'd win - it's not obvious why you continue to bring human analogies into it - they're meaningless - animals aren't humans - they aren't treated the same - we don't arrest them for murder - we don't have a police investigation if a frog dies - I have no idea why you continue to bring up "well it's this way for humans ..." - so what?
Win at using copy-paste maybe. How exactly are plants like animals in the same way that humans are like every other animal?
Really? Humans aren't exactly the same as every other animal, therefore we don't have treat any other animal similar to a human? (ignoring how we do actually put animals through a form of due process for serious crimes against people and usually end up putting them down).
I bring in humans into this type of debate because humans are very analogous to animals in the context of this debate and everyone knows it, its why every time I've done it I get back the same massive non sequitors along the lines of "we shouldn't eat plants because they, somehow, compare to animals in the way that humans do" or "animals don't compare to humans because they can't drive". Its as stupid as saying we should animals because they are made of meat.
My first thought was "astroturfing" - the attempt to create a "movement" where there is none. Starting with the hypothesis that eating meat is irrational. I mean, of all the forums to post such nonsense, the OP picks one full of people who don't just take what other people write at face value ...
I post something that makes plenty of arguments & attempts to justify it's claims but you ignore all that, refering to it all as nonsense, & just boldfacedly claim the opposite of what the article claims without a tap of justification & to top it all off try to insult me for posting this in a forum where other people apparently don't take what others write at face value - all the while offering a counterargument that would practically be the first example given in an argument/rhetoric text of what it means to make an argument begging to be taken at face value, & in such a short amount of text too...
Yeah it doesn't really matter to the basic point of the article, just matters with regard to the claim about the article making stupid mistakes.
However the difference between this article & all the others is the emphasis on ideologies, hence why it's posted in this forum. I really don't think this should turn into a discussion on vegetarianism in the utilitarian sense, that's like one sub-argument in the general framework as regards this whole thing but the specific issue is the ideological suppositions that lead humans into contradictions with their values as a means to justify eating meat, & the "carnistic defenses" that rationalize such contradictions & the implications of all this.
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.
Well poor choice of words perhaps, as they obviously can lead to confusion, but we know what it means now.
Absolutely, but I think that in both cases you can locate the reasons for such contradictions & people usually correct these kinds of things unless there's some reason not to.
Steak this evening. Roast chicken yesterday, and a braised lamb shank on Saturday night. Nom nom.
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.
Why is it rational? (not saying I agree with the hypothesis).
The OP did ask people to offer their opinions on it, so the one forum that doesn't take articles at face value is probably the best one to discuss it, no?
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.
Are atheists becoming vegans and vegetarians?
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!
There's actually a prayer about that, well sort of, written by Rabbie Burns, but I'd better not post it.