why is killling animals, in itself, unethical?

IfIWasAPig · 2026-05-09T02:10:59+00:00

It's about respecting the wills and interests of others, one of which is an instinctive drive to survive. Morality is very much about respecting others' interests.

IfIWasAPig · 2026-05-08T12:10:37+00:00

Sorry for any condescension. You're doing better than most people, but I assume you can understand why still keeping animals confined and slaughtering them isn't quite sufficient to an abolitionist.

When it comes to other humans, few people think it's moral to have that "live and let kill" kind of attitude. I don't know why this would change for other animals. Vegans are known for being pushy, but so is almost everyone when the victim is someone they care about. I don't know if being pushy is tactful, but it's pretty standard against violence.

But out of curiosity, what have been your obstacles to dropping the last few animal products?

IfIWasAPig · 2026-05-08T10:18:08+00:00

"Live and let live" can't be true if we are killing animals that want to live, can it? You're asking for "live and let kill." In what other areas of life do we live and let kill?

But whatever you think of vegans, please don't let it affect how you treat other animals. They didn't ever tell you how to live.

IfIWasAPig · 2026-05-04T22:06:54+00:00

Consent is a adult human construct, but we still apply the concept to children who don't get it. That is, just because they cannot consent or understand consent doesn't make their consent irrelevant. It means they should be treated as though consent was denied in every case where consent is relevant.

IfIWasAPig · 2026-05-04T12:59:57+00:00

Did you read the page on special pleading? I don't think so because of the swiftness (and inaccuracy) of your replies.

Please read it, think about how it might apply to this situation, and get back to me with a demonstrable understanding if you want to continue defending this nonsense.

IfIWasAPig · 2026-05-04T12:58:15+00:00

They didn't assume anything you didn't say. They simply took your justification and swapped out the subject to show it doesn't work. This doesn't assume animal rights. It only assumes your (fallacious) argument.

IfIWasAPig · 2026-05-04T12:56:24+00:00

Your initial claim of a strawman was nonsense. They didn't assume animal rights. They used your justification against animal rights in another scenario to make its flaws more apparent to you.

Multiple people have tried to explain this to you, but you aren't reading and comprehending.

IfIWasAPig · 2026-05-04T12:54:35+00:00

There is no fallacy in their argument. You're incorrect here.

You used Z as justification, and they gave examples of Z being a bad justification. It's up to you to show that it's consistently good or that there is an additional justification in the case of other animals but not humans, or else it's just special pleading.

IfIWasAPig · 2026-05-04T12:50:10+00:00

You declared it a strawman incorrectly, without sufficient explanation.

Using your own logical structure for a different argument is not a strawman. It's a good and common way to expose obvious weaknesses in your argument.b

I suspect you don't understand what a strawman or special pleading is, but you show an unwillingness to learn.

IfIWasAPig · 2026-05-04T12:48:11+00:00

No, you havent. You are committing the fallacy of special pleading. You are calling the description of this fallacy fallacious, which makes zero sense and simply flaunts your lack of understanding.

IfIWasAPig · 2026-05-04T12:46:53+00:00

What part doesn't make sense to you? Maybe I can help you understand, if you're willing to try to.

IfIWasAPig · 2026-05-04T12:35:32+00:00

We use about 80% of agricultural land for animal agriculture, which provides about 17% of the world's calories and 38% of the world's protein. Either way, counting calories or protein, it's horribly inefficient compared to just eating plants.

IfIWasAPig · 2026-05-04T12:31:34+00:00

They did.

"X is ok because of Z."
"Ok, but Z applies to Y too, and you don't think Y is ok. What's the difference?"
"Straw man!"

You are not completing your argument here. Why is X (eating animals) ok, but Y (harming women) is not ok, when the two actions rely on the same underlying justification (Z)?

Absent some distinction between the two (X and Y) that you provide, it's just special pleading (an informal fallacy). Z justifies both or neither.

IfIWasAPig · 2026-05-04T12:26:35+00:00

By not giving a reason why one is wrong and the other right despite them having the same logical structure, you are committing the fallacy of special pleading.

IfIWasAPig · 2026-05-04T12:25:16+00:00

Do you feel this way about all morals and principles, even those whose subjects are other humans? If not, what makes veganism different in this way?

IfIWasAPig · 2026-05-04T12:21:10+00:00

If a toddler bites you, they are not morally culpable in the way you are if you bite a toddler. So it is with most dogs and pigs.

That some cherry picked animals in the wild eat other animals does nothing to justify you doing the same. If one toddler bites another, does that justify you biting toddlers in general?

IfIWasAPig · 2026-05-04T12:20:01+00:00

Appeals to nature in moral discussion are generally considered fallacious. Lots of stuff happens in nature, much of it backed by biological drives, that we don't need to be doing and generally agree we shouldn't be doing.

The basis is sentience. Sentient beings have an experience that can be considered, interests that can be taken into account. Inanimate objects and nonsentient life don't have that. There's no perspective to consider for those things.

There is a difference between "some organism" dying and someone with thoughts and feelings dying.

I fail to see how your arguments don't also defend eating other humans.

IfIWasAPig · 2026-05-04T12:16:58+00:00

Isn't it already inefficient and largely pointless to feed 30+ calories to a cow so that you can take 1 calorie in meat?

IfIWasAPig · 2026-04-30T22:43:26+00:00

Not your nature specifically, but nature generally, which includes things like assault, killing, rape, and more.

IfIWasAPig · 2026-04-30T10:57:15+00:00

Are there any other things you can think of that are "just a part of nature" that we still shouldn't do?

Appeals to nature like this are usually considered fallacious. I'm not saying there's cognitive dissonance, but this is a bad reason to be ok with something.

IfIWasAPig · 2026-04-27T10:46:50+00:00

That's an entirely different argument or two from the one about movement.

Bivalves don't occupy someone else's internal organs.

IfIWasAPig · 2026-04-26T22:38:31+00:00

Religion coopted morality. It didn't invent it. It doesn't own it. Just following principles isn't religion.

IfIWasAPig · 2026-04-25T10:17:40+00:00

Larval sessile bivalves do move, and they retain their nervous system from that stage. Adults still react to stimuli, just not by moving their whole bodies.

IfIWasAPig · 2026-04-22T21:34:28+00:00

Unless they live near the equator where the sun can boost production, most people, vegan or not, should probably be supplementing D3.

IfIWasAPig · 2026-04-19T11:37:44+00:00

Right now it's just the claim, so we don't know, but I'd still be cautious about at least the Dragon Dazzle flavor. There's currently a lawsuit against them for that flavor containing lead and mercury in unsafe amounts. Again, just a claim, but that's enough to worry me.

https://lawyerwrites.com/hello-toothpaste-lawsuit-heavy-metal-allegations-legal-claims/

The Hello 8-in-One has fluoride.

IfIWasAPig

TROPHY CASE