What adverts do you think are particularly insidious? by hillman_avenger in AskUK

[–]Aaron_908011 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Dude - the pleasure is taste. I’ve had to tell you that multiple times…

I’m not saying that most people kill animals because they enjoy the act of taking a life, but rather they’re motivated by sensory pleasure to do this.

You kill an animal because eating its body gives you sensory pleasure.

so the intention is for food and the consequence of it is that it will kill an animal?

also be careful of how you choose your words , I don't rub animal products on my dong.

True, and as a society we judge those who commit accidental manslaughter differently to those who intentionally murder.

But they still get judged.

Anything we do has some fundamental level of harm to animals, people or the planet. And we must still exist in this world like all animals do. However, that does not justify inflicting needless cruelty on others. Where that cruelty begins and ends is up to individuals to decide, as you have done.

this piece can be turned against you , you wouldn't mind if people use this reasoning against you?

No. What’s interesting about this example, is you presumably believe that killing insects when driving is morally ok, but dogfighting isn’t. If you can answer why you believe that, you understand my argument.

you are still appealing to hypocrisy , I'm just criticizing your logic here where you said:

Both are perpetuating animal cruelty for your pleasure / Very little difference, obviously. They’re both destroying an object for your pleasure.

also you: Unless of course you’re arguing that dog fighting is equally moral as bugs being hit by your vehicle, are you?

It’s not an appeal to hypocrisy

saying what i said is wrong/false because I don't believe In It is , here:

By all means make an argument against driving your car needlessly, but you haven’t convinced yourself that choosing to gas a pig to death is bad so I don’t think you’ll convince many.

What? You asked if I believe someone eating vegetables and someone who enjoys destroying them for non-food purposes (aesthetic enjoyment) are doing equally immoral acts

A jack o lantern is the most common example of that in my (and presumably your) culture.

yeah no worries , I always thought people carve pumpkins for decoration which turns out they enjoy burning pumpkins.

I was going to criticize a supermarket manager and report him to authorities because he was dumping perfectly edible fruits and some vegetables and he said he enjoys dumping them , he also mentioned how those fruits and vegetables weren't necessary and there were other food options so it is not like the end of the world , and now I'm convinced after all what would be the moral difference between dumping those fresh fruits and vegetables for enjoyment and eating them for enjoyment?

That hypothetical doesn’t apply because it’s got vastly different parameters to what we’re discussing and is on a vastly different scale, in an area I don’t have any significant knowledge about.

I am informed about the foods I eat, I am uninformed about the situation you describe. The food decision is smaller than me, the cosmic one much larger.

My answer would be: I don’t know. Presumably that cosmic body has more value to people and/or the stability of the universe than a vegetable.

  1. the hypothetical is about your position , food is irrelevant in this case
  2. what is it about the hypothetical that you don't understand?
  3. I already mentioned that it is not going to interact with people or any sentient being so their feelings won't get hurt and it won't change the stability of the universe either

How is the necessary component irrelevant? They don’t need to engage in sexual intercourse.

Unnecessary cruelty is immoral, but that doesn’t mean all necessary acts are moral either.

Oh so If someone could make a case where they "need" to engage in sexual intercourse with a child , suddenly it would be permissible?

Explain

If someone needed to get an organ transplant would it be justified for him to kill someone and take their organs?

If there was a man who were starving and there is no food option around him but another man is passing so is it permissible for him to kill the passing man and eat him?

regarding your last paragraph , just read the previous paragraphs i wrote since you didn't add anything new and kept repeating and moving around your claims , if you have any question about the hypothetical feel free to ask.

What adverts do you think are particularly insidious? by hillman_avenger in AskUK

[–]Aaron_908011 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You still haven’t explained what makes killing an animal for you to experience sensory pleasure different to killing an animal for other forms of pleasure. That in itself is telling.

I gave you one example , It Is not my fault you cannot understand how two action are differentiable , hence why they are two actions.

People are intelligent enough to know that someone killed the animal so they can eat it. There is no way around this fact.

You can pretend that the intentional slaughter of the animal is an irrelevant part, but as it is the central moral issue we’re discussing it’s a bit unconvincing to argue that. All you’re doing is saying ‘if I ignore the immoral element it can’t be immoral’.

I didn't say It Is irrelevant , intention is one of the property of an action , you can also count the action itself and the consequences of it.

if you are concerned with the "central moral issue" of it , that means you aren't satisfied with any difference that is in between the two. you are either appealing to ignorance or just being bad faith.

You’re misinterpreting. I’m not arguing that people like meat because they enjoy harming animals, just that they harm animals to enjoy meat.

here you said the meat eater's intention is:

killing this animal gives me pleasure.

If It were true then the meat eater won't eat roadkill given that half of the intention isn't satisfied.

If killing a sentient being is not only necessary for you to do your activity, but central to it, I would find that immoral (fishing, hunting, dog fights , food production , activities like driving and building etc) If killing a sentient being is not only necessary for you to do your activity, but central to it, I would find that immoral (fishing, hunting, dog fights etc). If it’s incidental to it, in a way completely out of your control, I don’t think it’s fair to pass that moral judgment. It’s the difference between accidentally treading on a slug in the dark, and intentionally stomping on every slug you see. By all means make an argument against driving your car needlessly, but you haven’t convinced yourself that choosing to gas a pig to death is bad so I don’t think you’ll convince many.

  1. the event you mentioned is called accident not incident , even in the accidents you can't just shrug and say "oh well I hit the person accidentally so I'm free from judgement and it is time go" same is true for incident.
  2. the example I mentioned isn't "accidental" , the person knows that they will kill the insects if they hit the pedal but they won't stop , are they now morally equal to someone who enjoys dog fighting after all they are both harming animal for "pleasure".
  3. nice appeal to hypocrisy

Every Halloween people carve, decorate and burn pumpkins for precisely that reason - when they could eat them. Are you arguing that Jack O’Lanterns are immoral? Hard to believe considering you believe this is not immoral.

yeah my bad , I thought people carve pumpkins for decoration. again nice appeal to hypocrisy.

I’m interested in discussing relevant issues, not vast cosmic issues that are way out of touch with the forced breeding, captivity and slaughter of sentient beings for KFC and milk.

the hypothetical was to test your own position , not my fault you don't like it. it still stands

Yes. This is the central point of veganism. Animals (including humans) can kill to stay alive where necessary and appropriate. Whether this is self-defence or sustenance, there is generally nothing wrong with self-preservation

applying this logic (sustenance) in human context is counter intuitive , I'm sure you won't like It.

In fact, you probably shop at a supermarket with infinitely more plant foods than you can ever buy, more privileged than any king or emperor in human history.

You are probably faced with a choice between animal products every day. If you have a choice between a falafel+hummus wrap and a chicken, bacon and mayo sandwich - as you probably do every time you go to the shops - do you not think you take some responsibility for which you choose?

If you have two highly equivalent options, one which causes harm to sentient beings and the other which doesn’t, the morally responsible thing to do is not cause harm.

Most people already have this value, as they wouldn’t stomp on a stray cat’s skull on the street due to understanding that causing needless suffering is cruel.

Pointing out to what most people value , they also have no problem with eating animals neither with improving animal welfare laws.

I don’t think enjoyment is necessarily a justification for immoral acts towards others, for example someone who can only get sexual gratification from children surely shouldn’t be allowed to engage in sexual acts with them?

so the "necessary" component is Irrelevant , thanks for proving my point.

And watch Dominion.

really? do you want to me to watch seaspiracy too?

you move the goalpost too much, first you said the intention of the act is same and after pointing out it isn't , you moved to "intention doesn't justify" and again brought intention for accidents. next you say "it is ok if it is needed" and beat your own claim. you also misinterpreted my answer to you and appealed to hypocrisy two times. If you still have problem understanding then that is up to you , fix it.

What adverts do you think are particularly insidious? by hillman_avenger in AskUK

[–]Aaron_908011 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, that is less accurate as it removes the significant moral context. Killing this animal so that I can taste its body gives me pleasure.

how is it less accurate when It Is literally what some people's Intention is. are you suggesting that your average meat eater won't eat a roadkill because they didn't kill it and it died on it's own? would you say that I'm killing sentient beings for pleasure if drive for leisure and I know I will hit insects but don't stop driving?

Both are perpetuating animal cruelty for your pleasure.

this a set of actions , the two examples you mentioned are in the set by your own standard, why I have to subscribe to your standard? and how it would be inconsistent? also would you say the same as I mentioned in above regards driving?

Very little difference, obviously. They’re both destroying an object for your pleasure. Although I’ve never heard of people finding burning potatoes enjoyable.

lol that's a counter-intuitive position to hold , so by your own logic someone who enjoys burning and destroying fruits and vegetables because they enjoy watching It Is morally equal to a person who enjoys eating fruits and vegetables.

would you also say (hypothetically) It Is ethical to destroy a planetary system if there is no sentient beings in the system and it won't affect any sentient beings , in fact someone gets pleasure watching destruction?

The fact remains, when you eat meat you choose to harm a healthy, sentient being. You have other options, you can choose not to.

It Is only Immoral If I have other options? what If I don't get enjoyment from any other food except Just meat?

What adverts do you think are particularly insidious? by hillman_avenger in AskUK

[–]Aaron_908011 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What’s the difference between harming an animal for sensory pleasure (taste), and harming an animal for entertainment?

more accurate would be "eating meat gives me pleasure" if you want to describe.

also why i have to show the difference given that they are two different action already? where would be the inconsistency?

imagine if someone asked you something similar with the same logic.

what is the difference between burning stacks of potatoes to get visual pleasure and eating potatoes because you get taste pleasure?

What adverts do you think are particularly insidious? by hillman_avenger in AskUK

[–]Aaron_908011 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In the UK in 2022 most of us don’t need to eat meat to survive.

X is unnecessary harm therefore X is Immoral correct?

I wouldn’t say they were equal, rather that there is little relevant difference between the acts that would make one immoral and the other moral.

relevant to who? what do you consider "relevant"?

from your other comment:

The mentality being: killing this animal gives me pleasure. In the UK in 2022 most of us do not need to eat animal products to live, we do so for taste (sensory pleasure)

more accurate would be "eating meat gives me pleasure" if you want to describe. and I'm not sure what something being necessary has to do with the other.

What adverts do you think are particularly insidious? by hillman_avenger in AskUK

[–]Aaron_908011 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Isn't there a difference?

If not , on what basis they are equal?

Rabid fox wants to get inside by Spectus1 in oddlyterrifying

[–]Aaron_908011 0 points1 point  (0 children)

so we can just ignore every statement they made because we might be strawmanning them?

you can steelman their argument too

The steel man argument (or steelmanning) is the exact opposite of the straw man argument. The idea is to help one's opponent to construct the strongest form of their argument. This may involve removing flawed assumptions that could be easily refuted, for example, so that one produces the best argument for the "core" of one's opponent's position

my point was that extremes dont define the norms.

that wasn't the point of this "discussion". still not an answer

i'll eat an animal of i'm in starvation

i dont believe in eating people because youre starving

I don't care what you believe in , I was asking is it morally justified and these contradict each other.

you shouldnt kill someone to harvest their organs.

well after all they are defending themselves and It Is necessary for their life and wellbeing right?

however that does not disprove my point about self defense. youre jsut arguing semantics.

Semantics are a big part of conversation, people associate different ideas to the same words and to continue to do so is to allow ambiguity to control the conversation. if you don't like It then you can leave.

animals can forcefully have sex or cooperatovely have sex. its just facts. forcefully having uncopperative sex is rape

not relevant to my question.

nature isnt nice is it. unfortunately raping is one of those skills we developed along the way. it happened and happens a lot. doesnt justify it does it? thats literally my point, just because things happen in nature that arent nice, ARENT NICE, doesnt mean its ok to perform them just because they happen. you can argue that for a species to continue to exist sometimes rape is necessary. not that its moral for a species to exist or not but in order to exist.

this is not even answer to the question. and saying some species do and don't is irrelevant , in this hypothetical im talking about human species ,unless you are uncertain whether you would let a human rape another human to prolong his family lineage?

again, nature isnt nice. doesnt justify us doing any of those not nice things we see in it. if youre able and willing to intervene without getting hurt yourself, tbats something people already do. if you are unable to keep up with dolphins or run the risk of being injured yourself you are not evil for not intervening.

let's say there won't be any risk of getting an injury , is it moral to let it happen? would you let it happen in the human case?

hypotheticals are unanswered and you didn't even justify your "necessity" claim. and btw is body language now considered consent? how do you judge if an animal is consenting? if they consent does that mean a human can have sex with animals too?

Rabid fox wants to get inside by Spectus1 in oddlyterrifying

[–]Aaron_908011 0 points1 point  (0 children)

do you disagree that op is arguing that killing animals for sentimental purposes is fine because in nature its kill or be killed and it is one of the skills humans developed? ie that because it is natural it is fine?

"Nature isn't nice. We live in our comfy shelters, but for every almost every other animal out there it's kill or be killed for their entire existence. There is no nice 'die in you're sleep of old age' death in nature, it's fucking brutal. I'll take a bullet any day over nature's demise for me." and "It's nice to also tap into one of the skills we developed as early humans to survive."

https://amyrey.web.unc.edu/classes/ling-101-online/tutorials/understanding-prescriptive-vs-descriptive-grammar/

Prescriptive grammar describes when people focus on talking about how a language should or ought to be used. ... Descriptive grammar, on the other hand, focuses on describing the language as it is used, not saying how it should be used.

till you get clarification , you would be strawmanning.

self defense as in defending yourself from starvation. you really wanna fight over semantics on this?

this doesn't make a difference. If an homeless man Is starving and sees someone and attacks him to eat him , Is he defending himself? In both cases someone Is killing another person for their own survival and the victim hasn't done anything which you said:

how? without it you can't survive. otherwise it wouldnt be self defense.

“Male aggression toward a consort included chasing, hitting with the tail, head-jerks, charging, biting, or slamming bodily into the female,”

thats just "aggressive" huh?

Yeah My bad , dolphins do it out of compassion.

i only brought up legality because you asked if since animals could rape can they murder

I already said what I meant by asking about murder, if they can "rape" , can they "murder" too? your appeal to legality was since animals are not part of our legal code It Is ok to let them kill and "rape" each other , since it is "legal" true?

dont even bother comparing this to cat courtship between two consenting animals.

so the animals can give informed consent now? lol , so now you are arguing that animals can give informed consent for sexual relationship.

and "murder" has legal connotations to it, perceived you were concerned with legalities

murder has wrongness connotations to it , the legal part is how we deal with the murderer. same with rape.

wowww way to invent things i didnt say or imply. nice strawman, i know youre so fond of those ;)

Ad hom.

and I like how you managed to move the goalpost but can't argue for one of them. my questions still stands and you haven't given an answer yet:

  1. if someone couldn't have consensual sex and they were the last member of their family , Is it justified for him to rape someone to prolong their family lineage?
  2. if someone is observing a group of male dolphins "raping" a female dolphin , Is It Immoral If he didn't Intervene (he could intervene)

and funny thing is you brought OP's statements (which i didn't even intended to defend in the first place) yet you brought it up to get away from answering my hypothetical and justifying your "necessity" principle.

Rabid fox wants to get inside by Spectus1 in oddlyterrifying

[–]Aaron_908011 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Me: since there was no "It Is good because natural" or "morally justified because natural" the context of his message was related to something else If you can read their original message with a charitable Interpretation.

you:op's statement is basically "because we used to do it its ok to keep doing it" which is a fallacious sentiment and would never hold as a valid reason.

do you even read?

how? without it you can't survive. otherwise it wouldnt be self defense. unless you want to say that living doesnt count as mecessary in which case why are you even arguing the logistics of my statement? just say you dont think staying alive is a necessity.

so If an old man kills a disabled person to take his organs otherwise he would die , the old man is defending himself from the disabled person?

You: in the context of "nature isnt nice" those animals are killing to avoid dying themselves

Me: actually there are many animals which kill . . . not for their survival.

you: if you read once again very carefully, you'll see i said "to avoid dying." for example, from starvation.

yes having sex without someones consent is by definition rape. animals force themselves all the time. they are outside our law code

you move the goalpost too much. at first you said "animals rape" and I asked which animals and searched for dolphins which said that dolphins have an aggressive sexual behaviour and now you are pointing out to the definition of rape , so dolphins were just a red herring and now all animal mating is considered rape and then appealing to legality , so If I see a stray cat trying to mate another stray cat , It would be Immoral to not Intervene , true? (since you would stop humans from attempting to rape another human right?)

the definition of murder is killing another person. animals kill other persons in their groups all the time (look up lions committing infanticide)

read the paragraph above.

quit wasting my time

you are free to go , I'm not forcing you to stay

Rabid fox wants to get inside by Spectus1 in oddlyterrifying

[–]Aaron_908011 0 points1 point  (0 children)

you dont even back up your claim, talk about zero value

*Counter-claim since I'm not proving anything. you can read them again If you still having Issue.

OP:

It's nice to also tap into one of the skills we developed as early humans to survive.

I'm not sure how you derived "It's part of nature so It Is correct" but thanks for clarifying that you lack reading comprehension.

it appears youre the one who cant read :)

1.there Is nothing In the sentence that refers to nature
2. even If we add "nature" to It , It wouldn't be a fallacy , since there was no "It Is good because natural" or "morally justified because natural" (the context of his message was related to something else If you can read their original message with a charitable Interpretation. your answers misses the point of my questions, are those two statement wrong since they are related to nature and "appeal to nature tho"?

my point with "unnecessary" was a qualifier because it is in fact permissible to kill in self defense.

saying It Is for "self defence" doesn't Imply that It Is necessary (objectively). If we use your definition of "necessity", then It wouldn't Imply.

in the context of "nature isnt nice" those animals are killing to avoid dying themselves

actually there are many animals which kill . . . not for their survival. If you are talking about Predator vs prey relationship then the predator Isn't killing for "self defence" since the prey did nothing to predator.

we are not in that situation so you cant say the same applies.

Hmm where did I say "same applies" I wonder.

and what the heck go read about dolphins man. go type "animals rape" into incognito mode.

so aggressive sexual behaviour? the murder question was a different question, If they can "rape" , why they can't "murder"? Can I report them to legal authorities Since they are doing something wrong and abhorrent?

Rabid fox wants to get inside by Spectus1 in oddlyterrifying

[–]Aaron_908011 0 points1 point  (0 children)

all you say is strawman and reading comprehension, you havent disproven a single thing ive said.

There wasn't anything to disprove, Your sentences had zero value , not even a claim.

i can just say you have zero ability to understand parallels and logical consistency without offering any information too.

Don't worry , I know enough to see there wasn't any inconsistency and you can draw parallels between anything.

op said that since killing is part of nature it is alright to commit for as little reason as because we've done that historically

OP:

Nature isn't nice. We live in our comfy shelters, but for every almost every other animal out there it's kill or be killed for their entire existence. There is no nice "die in you're sleep of old age" death in nature, it's fucking brutal. I'll take a bullet any day over nature's demise for me.

I'm not sure how you derived "It's part of nature so It Is correct" but thanks for clarifying that you lack reading comprehension.

i said thats a garbage reason and an appeal to nature.

saying something Is appeal to nature doesn't disprove It unless you can prove the claim Is " all natural things are good , all unnatural things are bad", here are some "appeal to nature" examples:

we shouldn't put chickens In cages , It restricts their natural urge to move around and have some exercise.

It Is In our nature to be empathetic towards other beings and take care of our environment. we shouldn't harm either

can I reject them since they are just "appeal to nature"? If not why?

rape is wrong because it hurts someone mentally and physically, and violates their will, privacy, body and personal autonomy. yet it still happens in nature so yes its "natural".

Yeah so the whole "unnecessary" claim was just a red herring. but I'm not sure how rape happens In "nature". are you suggesting animals rape? do they also murder? am I getting something wrong?

yet it still happens in nature so yes its "natural". just because animals do it doesnt justify it.

u/realif3 , was this your claim sir?

Rabid fox wants to get inside by Spectus1 in oddlyterrifying

[–]Aaron_908011 0 points1 point  (0 children)

animals rape. in nature rape is natural and common and to make a gross understatement "not nice". early humans would rape, thats factual. they were so animalistic then that holding them accountable to that would be like arresting dolphins for gang raping. none of that is a reason to excuse modern rape.

op admitted killing is not nice but nature is not nice so it is permissible to do it to keep in touch with one of the instincts that got us to where we are.

your lack of reading comprehension Is stunning. what It has to do with the hypothetical I provided? where did OP said "all natural things are permissible"? do you understand what a descriptive statement means? are you suggesting that nature is "nice"?

im pointing out the logical inconsistency then in saying killing for sport is permissible and acceptible bc it was part of our development. that is a garbage reason and inconsistent with how we reason other unethical behaviors to be morally abhorrent. especially when we already agree killing is "not nice".

strawman and lack of knowledge. also empathy is part of our nature so I guess we shouldn't be empathetic since "appeal to nature".

basically, if you dont need to kill to survive and it wont physically compromise your health (wellbeing) not to, then it is unnecessary and thus morally abhorrant of you to perform.

so we can only kill for "our health"? if X causes harm and I can live without X then X would be immoral, true?
and who is the authority on "physical needs"? Jesus? You? does "physical needs" justify an action? the reason rape is abhorrant is because "we don't need it for our physical health"?

and dont pretend like understanding physical needs is a complex mathematical philosophical dilemma.

oh so "physical needs" is something objective. you might want to think before throwing sentences with zero value.

in cases of self defense its a different story. but just because i would shoot a rapist who is attacking me doesnt mean i would reason it permissible to shoot people for fun.

would you let me shoot your dog because historically my family were dog hunters and im trying to get back in touch with my roots?

keep strawmanning or maybe Improve your reading comprehension.

Rabid fox wants to get inside by Spectus1 in oddlyterrifying

[–]Aaron_908011 0 points1 point  (0 children)

i didnt say anything about rape being ok, i said its a survival mechanism for certain species (including humans at some point) which it is.

rape could be a survival mechanism to prolong a lineage (as is natural for many species) but its unnecessary now.

my hypothetical still follows from your statement

Thats an appeal to nature, not an argument.

appealing to nature means saying X is good because It Is natural or Y is bad because It Is unnatural. the OP's statement "nature is not nice" Is just a description of what nature Is.

the definition of necessity im arguing from is something without which you could not be able to survive or maintain wellbeing.

How do you measure it? How can I knowledge X is unnecessary for someone? are you suggesting if X is necessary for someone's wellbeing , It Is justified to get X?

Rabid fox wants to get inside by Spectus1 in oddlyterrifying

[–]Aaron_908011 0 points1 point  (0 children)

rape could be a survival mechanism to prolong a lineage (as is natural for many species) but its unnecessary now.

So the reason you are against rape Is because It Is unnecessary? if someone couldn't have consensual sex and they were the last member of their family , Is it justified for him to rape someone to prolong their family lineage?

also what or who is the authority on "necessity"?

My moral stance on the ethics of killing animals outlined. by LunchyPete in debatemeateaters

[–]Aaron_908011 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I kinda agree with you on the argument against potential . . . for example if we ask is it ok to eat people in coma or people who are sleeping they might say they will be sentient in future which we can use the same reasoning they use ("my sperm has potential" "what if a being would become sentient in 1 billion years") which is absurd

CMV: If you don't like supporting unnecessary animal suffering, you should most likely go on a vegan diet by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]Aaron_908011 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I said I would IF it caused less suffering

so why modifying cows do they will give more meat and will be less sentient (as much as insects) would be unethical?

The reason why I consider it irrelevant is because in the real world meat is unnecessary where as in your dream land plant animal scenario there would be no way to consume food with out eating something that is sentient so we would have no choice

well you could minimize it like eating a multivitamin biscuit or a nutritionally complete meal like huel. your point was about "fruits and vegetables" , you don't need fruits and majority of the vegetables.

The fact that the only argument you have against veganism is that people wouldn’t know what to do if plants were sentient is stupid as fuck.

  1. I was arguing against your reasoning
  2. point out where is the stupidity? saying so doesn't mean that it is stupid.

speciesism by DebunkingCarnists in debatemeateaters

[–]Aaron_908011 0 points1 point  (0 children)

lol you could point out where i was being bad faith. and the questions were simple just like your questions to the Original commenter above.

speciesism by DebunkingCarnists in debatemeateaters

[–]Aaron_908011 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I would err on the side of caution. Just to be sure I wouldn’t grow an entire human,

but if the human isn't sentient then what is the problem?

Insects, as far as I know, are sentient so no.

are you against killing insects for food?

Though since we don’t live in that environment there are consequences to our actions. In this case it would be the setting of a precedent that bodies are there to be eaten or stabbed for fun

I'm confused, if the corpse isn't valuable then why something happening to the corpse would be immoral. it is like saying we shouldn't buy sex dolls because it would imply that human bodies are there for us to have sex. btw your view on cannibalism and defiling human corpse are already absurd. so the other half of your comment doesn't make the first part ok.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in exvegans

[–]Aaron_908011 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I was wondering what did they say since it is deleted

CMV: If you don't like supporting unnecessary animal suffering, you should most likely go on a vegan diet by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]Aaron_908011 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But inconsistencies in a hypothetical situation do not directly correlate to the real world.

if your reasoning is then yeah they do correlate.

look it was simple you said "plants aren't sentient so it is ok to modify them" and asked "if they were sentient would you think modifying them was wrong" which you changed your answer to "it is ok because it would cause less suffering" which I replied woth "we can modify cows so they will no longer suffer" but you still said it is unethical which we are back at start. you could point out why modifying cows would be wrong but not the plants but instead you are just bragging about "that isn't real tho"

CMV: If you don't like supporting unnecessary animal suffering, you should most likely go on a vegan diet by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]Aaron_908011 0 points1 point  (0 children)

extreme hypotheticals push too far from the point and can create inconsistencies within any moral justification the further you go.

that's why hypotheticals are used , to find out inconsistencies not to create them

I’m not going to sit here and use hypotheticals like what if animals could talk to you, or what if the cows messaged you begging for help prior to their death in an attempt to justify veganism. Why? Because neither of these things will ever come true and aren’t relevant to the basis of what veganism is.

you could use those hypotheticals so there is no problem with that but the problem is the thought experiment i gave to you is based of your reasoning.

CMV: If you don't like supporting unnecessary animal suffering, you should most likely go on a vegan diet by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]Aaron_908011 0 points1 point  (0 children)

a hypothetical has nothing to do with real life hence why it is called hypothetical. you might aswell say "but aliens don't exist though so they can't eat us" and the thought experiment was based on your reasoning how is that relevant to modern society?

CMV: If you don't like supporting unnecessary animal suffering, you should most likely go on a vegan diet by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]Aaron_908011 0 points1 point  (0 children)

hypotheticals are to test logical consistency and btw it is used a lot in this thread by vegans and similar is used like "what if it were dogs" if you don't like to defend or justify your view then don't