And I’m saying the vegan that tells others how to live their lives is as fictional as the god who damns non-believers to hell. Even the weird publicity stunts by PETA are just to raise awareness of the issue.
And the moral implications are totally relevant as they completely explain the reasoning of someone who would care if you ate a steak, the question your original comment asks.
I’m a different person, that was my first comment here.
The way I see it, the discussion was about permitting others to commit acts which one considers immoral.
In the case of a vegan that might mean allowing someone else to eat meat, but the ethical dilemma is the very same as allowing a cannibal to eat a child. Does one have any right to intervene in their daily habits and societal norms, just because you think it’s wrong? If yes, why shouldn’t the vegan do the same?
I will say that I can’t claim to be a vegan myself. I just found your logic flawed.
Your take, broken down into its elements goes as follows:
Premises: Doing X is legal. Person Y considers doing X wrong.
Reasoning: People should be allowed to do what is legal without moral objections from others.
Conclusion: Because X is legal, Y shouldn’t object to other people doing X, despite the fact that Y thinks it’s wrong.
Why shouldn’t child abuse and rape be among the possible objectionable acts inserted in the place of variable X? The beautiful thing about logical structures is that their validity is independent of the specific words that are inserted for the variables. If you think the logic in the statement above is valid, then consider the following statements using the exact same logic, just with different variables:
Eating meat is legal. A vegan considers eating meat to be wrong. Because it is legal, the vegan shouldn’t object to other people eating meat, despite the fact that they think it’s wrong.
Eating children is legal on the cannibal island. Joe considers eating children to be wrong. Because it is legal, Joe shouldn’t object to other people eating children, despite the fact that Joe thinks it’s wrong.
The nazis set laws which made the holocaust legal. Angela considers the systematic killing of Jews, disabled people, socialists and intellectuals to be wrong. Because they made it legal, Angela shouldn’t object to other people doing it, despite the fact that Angela thinks it’s wrong.
These statements are identical in their logic. If despite this you disagree with some of the statements but not all of them, then you need to articulate your stance with more nuance.
Everything was legal before people decided certain things shouldnt. You think that happened overnight? No, people started complaining because they had moral values.
If one considers the act immoral, yet said act is legal- then one has no business telling the person that they shouldn’t do said act. It’s not their business regardless of what it is.
Do you really not see the problems with this? This discussion may be about eating meat, but you just made a general statement about when it is and isn’t okay to tell people that what they’re doing is wrong.
This is a literal defense of slavery. I’m not even misinterpreting it or taking it to a logical conclusion like that other comment I left, you are straight up saying that abolitionists are wrong when they tell slave owners that they shouldn’t own slaves if slavery is legal in their region.
Edit: y’all can read through this thread if you like, but we literally got nowhere except for this guy blocking me. Either he cannot understand the problems with his underlying logic, or he is ideologically consistent and thinks that the Holocaust was totally fine because it was legal and it didn’t hurt him.
Youre entitled to your opinion, but the argument in itself is not a valid one. Not caring about what other people do has is called anarchy. How would you rate the same argument with other context?
“Lets care less about who others kill?” (that ones actually pretty similar now that im writing it^^)
“Lets care less about who others spit on?”
“Lets care less about when your neighbors blast their music at 130dB”
Imagine those in a context where there were no laws regulating those actions yet. Someone had to step up and start demanding we regulate behavior and establish rules for generally accepted behavior. Those rules are constantly changing and they should. We need to adjust to new information as we go on. Making animals suffer for our convenience is something many people consider immoral and sometimes people point out when other do immoral things.
deleted by creator
And I’m saying the vegan that tells others how to live their lives is as fictional as the god who damns non-believers to hell. Even the weird publicity stunts by PETA are just to raise awareness of the issue.
And the moral implications are totally relevant as they completely explain the reasoning of someone who would care if you ate a steak, the question your original comment asks.
deleted by creator
Would you make the same comment if somebody else was eating a human child? If not, why?
“Just leave people alone to do their thing.” “Let’s care less about what others eat.”
Do you see how this very same logic could be used to excuse pretty much any diet or action?
deleted by creator
I’m a different person, that was my first comment here.
The way I see it, the discussion was about permitting others to commit acts which one considers immoral.
In the case of a vegan that might mean allowing someone else to eat meat, but the ethical dilemma is the very same as allowing a cannibal to eat a child. Does one have any right to intervene in their daily habits and societal norms, just because you think it’s wrong? If yes, why shouldn’t the vegan do the same?
I will say that I can’t claim to be a vegan myself. I just found your logic flawed.
deleted by creator
Your take, broken down into its elements goes as follows:
Premises: Doing X is legal. Person Y considers doing X wrong.
Reasoning: People should be allowed to do what is legal without moral objections from others.
Conclusion: Because X is legal, Y shouldn’t object to other people doing X, despite the fact that Y thinks it’s wrong.
Why shouldn’t child abuse and rape be among the possible objectionable acts inserted in the place of variable X? The beautiful thing about logical structures is that their validity is independent of the specific words that are inserted for the variables. If you think the logic in the statement above is valid, then consider the following statements using the exact same logic, just with different variables:
Eating meat is legal. A vegan considers eating meat to be wrong. Because it is legal, the vegan shouldn’t object to other people eating meat, despite the fact that they think it’s wrong.
Eating children is legal on the cannibal island. Joe considers eating children to be wrong. Because it is legal, Joe shouldn’t object to other people eating children, despite the fact that Joe thinks it’s wrong.
The nazis set laws which made the holocaust legal. Angela considers the systematic killing of Jews, disabled people, socialists and intellectuals to be wrong. Because they made it legal, Angela shouldn’t object to other people doing it, despite the fact that Angela thinks it’s wrong.
These statements are identical in their logic. If despite this you disagree with some of the statements but not all of them, then you need to articulate your stance with more nuance.
deleted by creator
Everything was legal before people decided certain things shouldnt. You think that happened overnight? No, people started complaining because they had moral values.
Do you really not see the problems with this? This discussion may be about eating meat, but you just made a general statement about when it is and isn’t okay to tell people that what they’re doing is wrong.
This is a literal defense of slavery. I’m not even misinterpreting it or taking it to a logical conclusion like that other comment I left, you are straight up saying that abolitionists are wrong when they tell slave owners that they shouldn’t own slaves if slavery is legal in their region.
Edit: y’all can read through this thread if you like, but we literally got nowhere except for this guy blocking me. Either he cannot understand the problems with his underlying logic, or he is ideologically consistent and thinks that the Holocaust was totally fine because it was legal and it didn’t hurt him.
deleted by creator
What if I like eating human meat?
Youre entitled to your opinion, but the argument in itself is not a valid one. Not caring about what other people do has is called anarchy. How would you rate the same argument with other context?
“Lets care less about who others kill?” (that ones actually pretty similar now that im writing it^^)
“Lets care less about who others spit on?”
“Lets care less about when your neighbors blast their music at 130dB”
Imagine those in a context where there were no laws regulating those actions yet. Someone had to step up and start demanding we regulate behavior and establish rules for generally accepted behavior. Those rules are constantly changing and they should. We need to adjust to new information as we go on. Making animals suffer for our convenience is something many people consider immoral and sometimes people point out when other do immoral things.
deleted by creator
Where is the false equivalency? I dont think you know what that term means.
deleted by creator
See, I told you you dont know what the term means…