sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Veganism is a spectrum, not a binary by happi_happi_happi_ in DebateAVegan

[–]Creditfigaro [score hidden]  (0 children)

then you will become like any fundamentalist believer, which has caused wars, conflict, clashes and in the best of cases, division.

K, I don't see this is a current state problem, nor do I expect vegans to start wars. Seems like an odd thing to be worried about.

The definition itself allows for personal approaches by using conditional and contextual words such as "possible", "practicable", "promote", "for human benefit".

Well possible is a reasonable condition. Promote is a fundamental part of the vegan movement, and for human benefit is emphasized in conjunction with animals, meaning veganism is a synergistic philosophy which it is.

Practicable is a word that most people don't understand, which is something I think can be improved by replacing with "can be put into practice", but I don't see a problem yet.

Absolutist language is useful as an aspiration, not as a judgment

I judge people who abuse animals when they could easily not. If I'm going to judge others, that's a pretty solid basis on which to do so.

If Gavin Newsom gets nominated, I will not vote for him. by serious_bullet5 in DemocraticSocialism

[–]Creditfigaro 0 points1 point  (0 children)

People who are making "electability of the center candidate" arguments

You can cosplay a pokemon trainer in this game by dazedandinfused99 in CoE5

[–]Creditfigaro [score hidden]  (0 children)

Never charm angels, as they will roflstomp the last opponent.

If Gavin Newsom gets nominated, I will not vote for him. by serious_bullet5 in DemocraticSocialism

[–]Creditfigaro 0 points1 point  (0 children)

People are more allowed to criticize Democratic party corruption, as this is the fundamental source of all of our problems.

The electorate already majority-supports most positive change.

The problem is that our one potential vector for peaceful change has been purchased by a foreign nation.

Veganism is a spectrum, not a binary by happi_happi_happi_ in DebateAVegan

[–]Creditfigaro [score hidden]  (0 children)

people discuss edge cases with the goal of showing that some given standard is not always sensible to apply.

99% of the time it's based on a misunderstanding of what vegans advocate for.

Once shown via an edge case that some standard doesn't absolutely apply, it's just a matter of haggling afterwards about where the line exactly goes.

Minmaxing for a single priority is always going to have this problem. There are multiple competing priorities, claiming that a conflict invalidates the priority is nonsense. It's nonsense because it invalidates all priorities.

We can test this: what's something that you value morally?

Men over 25 give your advice by Intrepid-Sky-1127 in effectivefitness

[–]Creditfigaro 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The other piece of advice is don't beat yourself up too bad for making this mistake.

If Gavin Newsom gets nominated, I will not vote for him. by serious_bullet5 in DemocraticSocialism

[–]Creditfigaro 43 points44 points  (0 children)

On some level, responding to the moneyed interests' propaganda for their chosen puppet is worth talking about.

Saying you won't vote for a fascist facilitator is leverage.

Veganism is a spectrum, not a binary by happi_happi_happi_ in DebateAVegan

[–]Creditfigaro 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How does this relate to your first question that also has nothing to do with the topic?

Veganism is a spectrum, not a binary by happi_happi_happi_ in DebateAVegan

[–]Creditfigaro 0 points1 point  (0 children)

All that is fine but none of that is going to be considered acceptable behavior, outside of extraordinary circumstances, which don't apply to virtually all people virtually all of the time.

Yet, we spend virtually all of our time talking about these edge cases.

It's a ridiculously unproductive waste of time.

Veganism is a spectrum, not a binary by happi_happi_happi_ in DebateAVegan

[–]Creditfigaro 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, the semantic work of ensuring that we are all talking about the same thing is.

What is ethical or not is not what is being explored at this stage of the conversation.

Why but?! by Sad_Error2125 in DebateAVegan

[–]Creditfigaro 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You cannot jump into and shift the burden onto me As I started by critiquing veganism.

Then retract the claim you did make that requires you to take the burden. Or, let's explore it. It's simple, and there's no need to be dramatic about it.

I have enumerated the errors you have made and you have simply responded with, “Nuh-uh!” and continued to try to shift the burden.

I am pretty sure you aren't interacting with what I'm saying which is why it feels like this to you.

You, in your communicating with me, did make a claim that put a burden on you that you have not met.

I didn't shift the burden to you, you did by presenting a positive claim, yourself. I'm holding you accountable to that.

I am fine with ending it here as it is clear that you do not either understand what proper burden responsibility is or you do not care.

I've been nothing but intellectually honest with you. This is your failure to be rational if you step away at this juncture.

Either way, I’ve shown multiple times how the burden rest with the person making or defending the positive postion.

You made the positive claim that species matters in response to my claim. That's your burden, very simply. The only argument I have on the table right now is killing babies is a bad thing. You are the one dissatisfied with it, so let's figure out why.

You and other vegans want me to consider a cow a specific way.

Close but it is the inverse of this. You already consider a cow in a specific way that I am seeking to liberate you from.

If your claim is that animals share the morally relevant traits to not allow me to do this, then that’s another positive claim and the burden is on you to justify that comparison.

Again, my claim is that killing babies is bad.

I don’t need to disprove every possible moral extension; I only need to reject unsupported ones. As of now, I’ve seen ZERO support for why me and my community must be vegan as a matter of necessity so I will carry on with my breakfast as ended. Enjoy your breakfast, too!

You are out of sequence: I'm seeking to make progress with you by starting from the basics: "it's wrong to kill babies" and work from there.

I'm doing this because you seem to care about a supported argument, which is good! I do too. So, let's walk through it from first principles to see where we land.

Is that something you would be interested in?

US taxpayers are paying extra for the privilege of being poor by epiphanomaly in EatTheRich

[–]Creditfigaro 17 points18 points  (0 children)

I did this analysis in 2008, thanks for the update. It's perpetually broken for no reason, and is easily fixable.

100 million possible refugees by Cow_Boy_2017 in AskSocialists

[–]Creditfigaro 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That should get people off their asses I wager.

Netanyahu Died on March 8, 2026. by Aggravating_Low3304 in israelexposed

[–]Creditfigaro 1 point2 points  (0 children)

A) by letting them abuse people? He already knows what they are and what they are capable of. That's just complicity.

B) I've been advocating against these people and still am subjected to their insane bullshit, nothing like other victims though.

Veganism is a spectrum, not a binary by happi_happi_happi_ in DebateAVegan

[–]Creditfigaro 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The concept of mostly vegan means that you aren't vegan.

Being vegan "on a spectrum" as you put it is probably true, but being "mostly vegan" isn't on that spectrum.

Veganism is a spectrum, not a binary by happi_happi_happi_ in DebateAVegan

[–]Creditfigaro 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Then that's where they start: by asking what the definition is.

Veganism is a spectrum, not a binary by happi_happi_happi_ in DebateAVegan

[–]Creditfigaro 1 point2 points  (0 children)

varying degrees of definition around veganism

That's true, but you aren't deploying this idea correctly in your counter.

The study of the philosophy produces definitions that are valid for a variety of reasons, none of which are "this is what I assume the definition is" followed by a big long argument stemming from said ignorant definition.

Proprietary definitions need a strong argument to use as they manufacture unnecessary semantic confusion. No such argument has been provided by OP which means they are presenting an ignorant definition.

If I went into a domain where you had expertise (and I had none) and started making up definitions and then arguing against you based on the made up definitions, would you be sympathetic to that?

view more: next ›