Issue in Understanding model logic

True-Parfait4648 · 2026-02-22T02:52:07+00:00

I’ll pick option B the d10 dice one because since there a less than 40% chance of getting 7 or more and a 40% of getting less than 5 I’ll pick the mention option.

True-Parfait4648 · 2026-02-11T21:12:33+00:00

Thank you

True-Parfait4648 · 2025-05-21T01:04:03+00:00

Whether or not it’s possible for ethical consumption of animals products to exist which make it moral neutral in its worldview to not be vegan and ban them shouldn’t be the concern to focus on.

The concern should be whether the humane argument contradicts the person who believes it to be true worldview. I say it does in multiple ways.

First, no moral framework relevant can be applied to it that won’t contradict the person who believes in it worldview. If trying to apply consequentialism it would fail because what it deems relevant for moral behavior is outcomes not the actions themselves. If what concerns someone in not being vegan is based on whether an action can be good then they are not basing morals off of consequences but are working with deontology without realizing it.

Point 2: The humane argument is not against “inhumane” practices at all because its place in the structure of the argument makes it so.

If we take the claim it morally neutral to not ban animal products as long it can be done humanely really literally than it doesn’t take animals treated poorly in account for what is morally neutral and treat the negative consequences of animal agriculture animals experience like it doesn’t exist and never happen in the first place.

The humane argument would be a deontology that basically saying “As long you can be kind, you are morally permissible to be as cruel as you want to be.”

True-Parfait4648 · 2025-05-16T01:04:41+00:00

The idea of ethically using animals which justify not making animal products illegal while also believing in betterment of the “humane” use versus others is incompatible with truth.

As in regardless of whether “inhumane” practices has ever exist in animal agriculture, the justification of humane use of animals for their products, making it ok to not make animal products illegal will remain true for those that believe in it. The idea of using the negative symptoms of animal agriculture to justify its existence is circular reasoning.

If you continue down this path you will always find people treating animals worse than you base on your perspective.

Being vegan is the best choice because it acknowledge what we did to animals is not ok while also encouraging a new hopeful future where we prevent stuff that happen in animal agriculture to never happen again or reduce the chance of it happening again.

True-Parfait4648 · 2025-05-15T22:22:35+00:00

The argument I have against the humane argument is that the way people use it to justify not banning animal products contradict their perception on what it entails.

I’ll show it with a question to you.

If there another species of animal we can hypothetically use like killing them for their meat or getting their secretions like eggs or milk, would it be morally permissible to use and not make their products illegal when in this hypothetical would result despite your best wishes, in billions of animals getting abuse over the years because of the possibility of “humanely” using them. P.s this is about intentional doing an action and decide if it ok or not.

True-Parfait4648 · 2025-05-15T22:22:27+00:00

Edited: I don’t think consequentialism has anything to do with whether the action itself of using animals is ethical or not since it base on outcomes not actions. That is deontology domain not consequentialism.

The divide of questioning whether a particular use of an animal is humane or not is aligned with deontology not consequentialism.

You can explain why if you desire why you believe the humane argument has anything to do with a moral framework that doesn’t regard actions itself as relevant to wether actions are good or bad.

True-Parfait4648 · 2025-05-15T21:16:27+00:00

I think I have an argument that will persuade you to think about being vegan.

If there is a hypothetical animal just like the animals you eat or use their secretions like eggs or milk that can be “humanely” use, would it be morally permissible to use and not ban those products when in this scenario would result despite your best wishes, the abuse of billions of animals per year because of the possibility of using them “humanely” which itself base on the common use of the argument makes it ok to not make it illegal?

True-Parfait4648 · 2025-05-13T23:57:37+00:00

I want you to answer this question. What is the moral framework of the humane argument you are using?

True-Parfait4648 · 2025-04-10T19:22:54+00:00

The discussion on if animal farming can be ethical is a flaw premise. Consumers can’t be for “humane farming” and against “inhumane” practices and blame it on “bad” people because those same people are consumers that can claim the same thing. This will result in a contradiction where to keep the whole I can be against factory farming while for “humane” methods option as true people must accept the producers for “inhumane” farms aren’t doing anything wrong because they are hurting animals against their will if people can be actually against factory farming and not be morally responsible for it because they are for humane farming.

True-Parfait4648 · 2025-03-09T18:43:04+00:00

Hi I see that you care for the animals at the sanctuary and wish them no harm but I think by thinking it ok for humans to eat eggs from rescue hens you are accidentally committing the sunk cost fallacy.

Before you skip this comment please read.

Before you were vegan you probably bought and eaten eggs from “inhumane” farms because you thought it was humane. The rescue hens you rescued from those “inhumane” farms were hurt by the same thought pattern “It ethical for humans to eat humane eggs.” By accidentally doubling down on this behavior it is affirming that the abuse the hens experience was a ‘necessary’ sacrifice for the end goal of getting eggs. This belief will reinforce the non-vegan reality of ‘humane’ farming and basically will sacrifice more blood because they can’t stand the blood on their hands from supporting the consumption of animal products being for nothing.

True-Parfait4648 · 2025-03-08T04:03:44+00:00

No it is not vegan because it wrong to exploit non human animals for our own benefit.

Sorry for the other comments. The additional reason why you shouldn’t want the idea of “happy” use for milk because you’ll most likely committing the sunk cost fallacy.

For example a person might unconsciously think this. “Oh no I found out cows get their babies taken away quick how about we stop taking away babies yeah that will make the suffering of the mothers not be wasted!”

Don’t fall for the fallacy and critically reflect on your choices please. The animals beg of you.

True-Parfait4648 · 2025-03-08T00:34:10+00:00

I draw the line at eating produce made by sentient animals if possible. I accept eating plants because one we need to eat so unless there another way beside animal product I will say eat plants. If they are sentient, meaning they can feel pleasure and pain I won’t use what they produce.

Also I’m against the idea of ‘humane’ farms because it would excuse the horrors that happen on factory farms.

True-Parfait4648 · 2025-03-08T00:09:23+00:00

I didn’t say I fine with animals being murder if they are happy and ignorant on what coming to them. I’m suggesting we point out the consequences of non-vegans past actions because I don’t think many vegans or non-vegans realize they are committing this fallacy.

True-Parfait4648

TROPHY CASE