AOC 2028
Free Palestine
Level
24
Pro Zombie Persecutor
500 XP
 
 
Veganism is the radical notion that it's wrong to torture and kill others for fun.
https://www.philosophyforpalestine.com/


“Either you repeat the same conventional doctrines that everybody else is saying,... or else you say something which in fact is true, and it will sound like it's from Neptune.”
― Noam Chomsky
View more info
Currently Offline
Profile Awards  9
Badges  18
Inventory   
Screenshots  57
Artwork  2
Groups  11
Taylor Swift is our God
902 Members
Taylor Swift Fan Club
5,042 Members
Taylor Swift
523 Members
Friends  65
310
murasame
Offline
205
検出
Offline
201
bleed
Offline
100
[GWJ] Keithustus
Offline
97
What A Bummer
Offline
89
Taylor Swift Lover
Offline
Artwork Showcase
And while we're at it, why don't suffragists and abolitionists get off their high horses too?
Every anti-vegan argument ever made
"BuT LiOns ThO" aka "it's natural, it's circle of life, food chain, animals eat other animals, humans are omnivores, etc."

Is-ought gap. It has been understood for a few centuries. Might wanna look into it.

"it's PeRsONAL cHOice" aka "don't force your morals on me"

Being a pdf file is a personal choice, don't force your morals on me! Also, maybe don't make normative claims that are self-undermining, could help your case. (And before you respond the way I know you're going to, maybe learn what a counter-example is)

"Plants are alive too!"
And yet no brain, just like you

"CrOp dEAThs tHo"
Good thing the 100 billion farm animals killed and tortured every year eat only air, that way we can avoid crop deaths by eating them.

"BUT MUH PROTEIN"
Where do you think the animals you eat get their protein from? There is, in fact, protein in plants. It's also just as good for muscle synthesis. And eating only plants lowers your risk of cancer, heart disease, and diabetes - the three biggest killers of humans. So don't pretend there are nutritional reasons to eat meat. You're doing it for pleasure, that's it.

If any of these obnoxiously brain-dead arguments even crossed your mind, then there isn't even a scintilla of grey matter left in your head.




Comments
AOC 2028 22 Nov @ 11:39am 
"X is shown to be the case by overwhelming amounts of evidence, so I'm going to believe ~X"

"Even though X is overdetermined, it isn't logically necessary, so I'm going to believe ~X"

"X is shown to be the case through human reasoning and perception, the only things we can base our beliefs on, so I'm going to believe ~X"

Not sure what on earth is going on here, but if you believe plants are sentient, you should go vegan so you kill less plants.
(TTN) Jackson 22 Nov @ 8:51am 
i think they are. just because we perceive what sentience is through a very human based lens doesnt mean their are not other means of which something can achieve sentience
AOC 2028 17 Nov @ 5:34am 
plants are not sentient, that's all that needs to be said.
(TTN) Jackson 15 Nov @ 12:47pm 
you say plants cant feel pain and have no brain but when cut plants produce defense signals and emit electrical signals and even produce ultra sonic sounds when stressed and can sense temp. just because something does feel pain that isnt identifiable to you or through means that arent normal to you doesnt mean that they arent feeling pain in reality. and we need proteins from meat mostly because its so high in it and not every single plant has protein in it so getting a large guaranteed source of protein from animals makes more sense in nature and for large scale human populations.
rfk jr's brain worm 24 Oct @ 2:31pm 
That just sounds like a broader form of consequentialism to me.
AOC 2028 23 Oct @ 6:07am 
The prof has reason to do X, most reason to do Y, the killer has no moral reason to do Z and lots of reasons to not do Z. I don't see why the delta in strength between X and Y vs the reasons to not do Z would be 1-to-1 with the number of lives. For one, moral reasons will be competing with prudential reasons, and two, in many or maybe most practical real cases, reasons to not actively kill will be stronger than reasons to save.

I think what is unacceptable is claiming the professor is more blameworthy than the killer, or that he is a worse person than the killer. I don't think those intuitions are in contention with utilitarianism. I don't have fully formed theory of permissibility, but I'm sympathetic to sentimentalist accounts.

More broadly for killing/letting die: Someone dying is equally bad regardless of whether they were killed or let die, but this doesn't mean someone has equal reason to save vs not kill, nor does it mean these actions are necessarily just as blameworthy.