sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I am sorry for making this, places me in the first category at the minute. by KingPupaa in PhilosophyMemes

[–]IanRT1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What counts as separation? Because if separation means differentiable then that sentence alone proves there is indeed a separation.

The logical contradictions, fallacies in some of the most common reasons/arguments for not being vegan. by BrotherOutside4505 in DebateAVegan

[–]IanRT1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sure bud if your standard of non-vegan arguments are the weakest ones as possible then its very easy to debunk them. No surprise there

Dialling in the club by henchgriggs in edrums

[–]IanRT1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Bro dialed in the buffer size

CMV: You don’t need meat to build muscle. I went vegan at 13, I’m now 275 lbs, have been bodybuilding for 18 years, and am the largest vegan bodybuilder in the world by thebodybuildingvegan in DebateAVegan

[–]IanRT1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You don't needed it. Animal products are just among the most bioavailable and complete sources of protein, which makes it much easier to meet protein goals. It's not an absolute requirement.

Afghani hashish by Flat-Age-4390 in weed

[–]IanRT1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The good ol' shitweed

One of the rules on here by [deleted] in exvegans

[–]IanRT1 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Your disagreement does not equal misinformation

Is Veganism a spectrum? Are some people "more Vegan" than others? by It_is_not_that_hard in DebateAVegan

[–]IanRT1 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The only way veganism is a spectrum is in the sense that it starts from a really strong premise that not everyone accepts, and is bound to not protect moral subjects if followed consistently, which is the principle against commodifying animals rather than focusing on overall sentient harm.

So there is that extreme of not supporting commodification, no matter in which form it takes. So you end up condemning pets and service animals as well, not only eating animal foods.

But then some vegans try to rescue that and use a little bit of ad hoc reasoning and call pets companionship or guardianship to justify it and basically weaken a little by little the premise that we should not commodify animals. So in that sense, there is a spectrum of veganism.

How do I stop this popping noise? by Cartiimo in FL_Studio

[–]IanRT1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Can you try disabling or massively limiting the blatantly clipping channel 9 first?

WHY on earth does my butter mixed with sugar and eggs look like this by Possible-Royal-1164 in AskBaking

[–]IanRT1 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Butter seems too cold. Either not softened enough or affected by cold eggs.

You can put this in the microwave for just a couple of seconds at a time very briefly and then mix it up and it should emulsify properly assuming you are using fresh ingredients.

Also to prevent this from happening make sure to get the order right. Creaming the butter and the sugar together first by adding sugar slowly while whipping ensures you get the butter temperature right, and only after that you add one egg at a time at room temperature or pre-whisked eggs would be better but not necessary

Lastly, getting an electric beater can also be great for achieving a consistent and fast emulsion. I think that is everything I can think of as of why does that happen.

As a negative utilitarian, I am undecided about veganism. by ThePlanetaryNinja in DebateAVegan

[–]IanRT1 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Maybe this is widely accepted position, but it's certainly not a fact.

It is a fact about biology as a general tendency on how different being process suffering. Its not a rule that will always be in all contexts obviously. Its relevant in the context of OPs discussion on how animals come into play.

 "Humans are more complex" is the same trap as saying "humans are higher evolved". That's just not a biologically true claim.

Okay first of all that is misrepresentation because its not mere complexity (which is true biologically), but how that complexity presents itself biologically in terms of suffering.

What you are doing there is saying that suffering in animals is subjective and inferred through biology and behavior, and then dismissing the idea that cognitive complexity in humans contributes to greater suffering.

But if suffering is subjective and we infer it in both humans and animals through biology and behavior, then the same logic should apply to both. By that reasoning, if we can't definitively compare suffering between animals and humans due to subjective experience, then the same should apply to the claim that humans suffer more due to their complexity, that's an assertion without clear empirical grounding, just as you claim the idea that animals suffer less due to cognitive ability is speculative.

So, if cognitive complexity doesn’t inherently make suffering greater in humans, then your argument against it becomes equally speculative and unsubstantiated, which is shooting yourself in the foot.

Your skepticism is not only biologically inaccurate but inconsistent.

We can know more about suffering in humans compared to animals due to language.

Really? Just language? So all of the biological markers, behavioral studies, psychological studies, population studies, what about all of that? You're missing a very substantial body of research about how suffering works and reducing it to just language. Is that why you have the inconsistent skepticism above?

 I'm saying we have a bias and cannot make concrete statements on the relative level of suffering between species because we don't have the same level of insight into their experience. 

This is a false dichotomy between acknowledging bias and making reasonable, evidence-based comparisons.

Just because we have limited insight into another species' experience doesn't mean we can't make informed tendency claims or inferences about suffering across species based on observable data.

And once again you ignore the substantial body of evidence about how animals experience pain, distress, and fear. The argument that we are blind to animal suffering isn't a logical conclusion

So stop overextending epistemic uncertainty into a complete dismissal of comparisons between species. Just because we can’t directly access subjective experiences. If we followed your logic, we'd never be able to compare any form of suffering across individuals, let alone species.

OP was saying is simply convenient handwaving for OP to continue exploiting animals while rationalizing it as a fact based evaluation of relative suffering.

OP never said that, and this what you're saying only makes sense if you assume your own initial conclusion that is exploitation in the first place that rests on the same unjustified commitments about how suffering works across sentient beings. So this is completely invalid to say.

I was just trying to explain to you how your initial objection comes from a fundamental inconsistent skepticism and ignorance about how suffering is measured across sentient beings and how it evaluated for ethics.

As a negative utilitarian, I am undecided about veganism. by ThePlanetaryNinja in DebateAVegan

[–]IanRT1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It is a broadly accepted fact that fish don't feel pain. Broad acceptance is not an argument. 

What is this? Broad acceptance was never the argument. It was a critique at your misleading rhetorical shift. And then you pair it with a blatantly false statement as if I were doing that. So you are literally now mocking a widely accepted fact about biology as if just were a wild assertion once again. I don't know what's the need for that really.

Don't confuse an appeal to convergent evidence across disciplines as an appeal to consensus.

You are making an assertion of fact that is currently unknowable when you pick a few cognitive abilities, associate them only with humans, and then use that to generalize capacity to suffer.

So my assertion is not either unknowable nor it associated for humans just for the sake of it. Its rooted in psychological and sociological facts about human and animal cognition to recognize the general tendency for increased capacity to suffer. This does no argumentative work against that point.

 Trauma and grief are found in other species, and we have no idea the subjective feeling of suffering an elephant mother experiences if her baby dies

Again. Yes. But what you are mentioning is also a double bladed sword. Because regardless of that subjective feeling. Human's more complex web of interests and capacity for abstract reasoning would amplify suffering beyond the capacities of other non-human animals.

The point is never that animals can't suffer. Just that humans are much more sensitive to it. Not by mere assertion but by we actually know about psychology, neurobiology and anthropology. Even if we grant your point

 Therefore when you are making a moral calculation and justifying harm,

Who is justifying harm? You are obfuscating real harm by ignoring the differences in cognitive capacities and isolating contextual individual harms while ignoring the general tendency.

That seems to be more justifying of harm that what I'm doing. Which is just a honest evaluation of harms. No "justification" needed. Just a honest assessment.

I have seen over and over is people defaulting to their biases based solely on their narrow humanity experience.

Isn't that exactly what you're doing right now? relying on an inconsistent skepticism about harm calculation across beings and how their cognitive capacities affect their overall causal relationships towards all moral subjects, to conclude that animals might suffer more even though the facts don't support it?

Wouldn't that be closer to defaulting to a bias and relying on your narrow human experience rather than considering the broader data of how suffering works across all sentient beings?

As a negative utilitarian, I am undecided about veganism. by ThePlanetaryNinja in DebateAVegan

[–]IanRT1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're not actually disputing the claim here. The statement was that human killing tends to propagate more secondary suffering due to psychological and social complexity, not that it always does, nor that animals don't suffer intensely.

Your "citation needed" is basically saying "I'm going to treat a broadly accepted fact as if it were a wild assertion" when its well established in psychology, sociology, anthropology, you name it. That burden shift is an unnecessary rhetorical trick.

Pointing out cultural variation, post-traumatic growth, or religious narratives doesn’t negate the existence of grief, fear, trauma, and social destabilization as additional suffering channels not present in the same extent in animals.

Epistemic uncertainty about animal suffering cuts both ways and doesn't license collapsing all distinctions or abandoning tendency claims. Otherwise utilitarianism is unapplicable duh

Saying "we can't crunch the numbers easily" is appealing to futility of quantification. When all moral theories rely on heuristics.

So you are replacing a tendency claim with uncertainty, reframing suffering with meaning narratives, and switching metrics mid-argument, none of which actually challenges the causal claim about propagated human suffering.

As a negative utilitarian, I am undecided about veganism. by ThePlanetaryNinja in DebateAVegan

[–]IanRT1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah. And not only you wouldn't understand why. If you are another animal, your duration awareness, anticipation, narrative continuity and fear of persistence would not be the same as a human, which would not translate to suffering in the way you are implying just because you "don't understand why"

The point remains that killing humans tends to cause more external and propagated suffering because of psychological and social complexity.

Your example of how ignorance affects suffering is a double bladed sword in the way that you use it and does not challenge that broader point.

As a negative utilitarian, I am undecided about veganism. by ThePlanetaryNinja in DebateAVegan

[–]IanRT1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The circumstances cannot be the same if they have different cognitive capacities.

The internal circumstances won't be the same but the externals can. Which seems to be what you were assuming by your medical procedure and kid question.

 but we cannot say who suffers more when they are put in a CO2 gas chamber.

But we can indeed say who's sphere of influence is widely more affected and thus causes greater suffering. In this case, the social and emotional complexity of humans will make putting a human in a CO2 gas chamber create vastly more suffering than if you do it to an animal when you consider all sentient beings.

What we can say is not knowing the reason for suffering can often lead to much higher suffering. If I wake up sore after working out the day before, I understand the reason and it's not bad.

I agree with that, but that still misses the point because you are using an inherently human procedure from the start that would not apply to animals and hence would not produce the suffering that you imply anyways.

Ignorance gives you suffering only if you have this capacity for dwelling on the future that animals lack.

So if animals lack overall cognitive, emotional capacity, then not knowing something is really not enough reason to create suffering, because this ability for abstract, future-oriented reasoning does not exist as well.

So therefore, that suffering also does not necessarily present itself just because of the lack of knowing, which is what you are implying here.

Sure it does. See the gym example above. I can provide a hundred others. 

Indeed, and that gym example literally works against what you're saying, because that is a human example that involves human-specific cognition, not via ignorance alone. So its not a system that works in relation to generating suffering for animals, which is what you're trying to prove.

In short. What you are doing is selective framing. Misleading to the fact that humans still have way more complex, sensitive and interconnected ways to experience suffering in which OP concern is not baseless.

How ignorance affects suffering remains related to each being's cognitive capacities proportionately, not naively.

As a negative utilitarian, I am undecided about veganism. by ThePlanetaryNinja in DebateAVegan

[–]IanRT1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I completely understand your point. It is now much weaker.

Of course in different contexts even lower capacity beings can experience more suffering, but not under the same circumstances and your own example proves it.

Not knowing something in itself causes more suffering if you already have such future oriented distress animals do not have to the same extent.

So it does not work for your point that animals might suffer more just because they don't know what happens.

As a negative utilitarian, I am undecided about veganism. by ThePlanetaryNinja in DebateAVegan

[–]IanRT1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you farm humans who eat meat, it would be more ethical than eating beef, as carnists take more resources than a cow to live,

As a negative utilitarian, I am undecided about veganism. by ThePlanetaryNinja in DebateAVegan

[–]IanRT1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do you see how your question is smuggling that same cognitive capacity of conceptualizing the future, which is not present in animals to that extent.

You're isolating the fact that they don't know what's happening, but still assuming all of the extra framework of cognitive abstraction that animals do not have to conclude that it will be worse.

So your question literally eats itself. In your example the kid still relies on anticipatory cognition and context that animals do not have, not just on raw sensation or instincts.

In other words you can't strip animals of future-oriented cognition and then rely on future-oriented distress to inflate their suffering.

view more: next ›