When I say "just eat plants" I'm simply generally referring to the plant-based alternative foods available.
Ok, so, plant derived foods then yes?
Now you're moving onto the SECOND point of discussion that I wanted to delve into. That's all good and whatnot
Not reeeeeally, I'm just elaborating and giving my reasoning. We can move on any time you like if you want to start focusing on another point?
but on this first point I'd like for you to stay
Oh :/ Alright, let's keep going round in circles.
I'll address this large comment of yours later on because there's a good chunk of context, intent and elements that you're leaving out which demonstrate the difference between the two. Not sure if it's deliberate.
Now, hang on just a second. I appreciate you saying you're going to reply to my larger comment later, and that's fine - however - I've replied to (I believe) every single sentence you've posted so far, yet
I'm leaving out context? Seriously? I'm the one ADDING context here, certainly not leaving it out.
Also, you do realize that with veganism it isn't an all "100% ethical-free zone"/"100% no killing at all" type of case, right? It's about reducing as much unnecessary death/exploitation/suffering as possible, reasonably so. Please quote this to tell me you're at least on board with this gist, gotta get this straight for our second point if we even delve in there.
Consider it quoted. And yes, I do realise that's compatible with the definition you're working with. Which you might actually want to provide at some point.
Best stop funding the liquidising of rabbits then eh? Whilst I obviously realise you can't stop the liquidising all by your self, that would be absurd and unrealistic, you can definitiely stop funding it - quite reasonably so.
NB - I am aware of the definition of veganism Guy is using, but he is yet to post it here, it's not really my place to post it for him.
Do you concede to point of meat, yes or no?
This is slightly malformed but I believe I know what you're asking so...
I'm not going to count how many times, but certainly not for the first time -
NOMeat IS, whether you approve or not - food.
Meat DOES, whether you approve or not - sustain hunger
Meat DOES, whether you approve or not - provide nutrients/fuel for the body
I HAVE, whether you acknowledge it or not - offered to provide examples of justifiable killing, outside of extremes like survival and desert islands - you are yet to take me up on this offer
Are there things other than meat that we can eat? Yes, obviously. I didn't realise that needed pointing out. In fact it already has been pointed out.
You're jumping to another point of wheat (point two of discussion) as if it negates the one about meat
No - I'm not "jumping to another point" - it's
PART OF the
SAME point.
You have raised, so far, as your main point the question of necessity in the form of "needlessly killing animals" - you have repeated this over and over. I then asked you to define "need" - you went with the more workable definition, so we aren't talking about life or death (outside of sheer survival etc) so the definition is now something along the lines of "is it reasonable" to kill animals and eat them. I have answered that YES, it IS. So if NEED is the criteria (still working with the definition agreed upon) do you NEED to fund the liquidising of rabbits so you can have bread? I am baffled as to how you think this is "another" point - it's exactly the same point. You wish to argue that killing for meat is wrong, based on need, so I'm asking you if killing for wheat is ok, based on need. How is this "another point" ?
Yes or no? If it is not required to kill for these animal products then the killing of itself is indeed needless. Please answer this question before pointing to wheat, which will be the next point to address.
Still no. For the umpteenth time. I have explained why it is not "needless"
The question has been answered, I have offered to provide you with examples, real world not "far out there" examples. Would you like to discuss one of the many I have to offer?
That's completely irrelevant when you just acknowledge that you don't need to eat animal products for; survival, nutritious reasons and health.
You don't NEED to eat wheat, cabbage, lettuce, kale, other cereal crops to survive, you don't need them for nutritional reasons or health - stop mincing rabbits alive in your selfish pursuit of bread. How many times? You can eat other things that don't liquidise rabbits in the process.
You are doing EXACTLY what I predicted - you want to use a very strict definition of "need" when it comes to the question of killing for meat, but a wishy-washy, far less strict definition when it comes to things you eat/do/indulge in which also kills animals as a direct result. At this point I don't really know if it's intentional on your part or if you just don't get it, or if you just want to resist the point because it's detrimental to the argument you want to offer. What I do know is I'm not going to repeat this point again unless we actually get to what you say is your second point, even though I contend it's part of the first. Do you want to move on to that so we can actually get to it? Although I think it's already been covered sufficiently I'm fine with zeroing in on it more closely.
Sure, in the context of extreme "survival" and whatnot then yes, we've been over this
Cool
But we're talking about the context of your position in society today
Which I have, several times by now, offered to provide examples of direct killing IN MY POSITION IN SOCIETY TODAY so not desert islands, not aliens, not plane crashes, not teleportation to another dimension, not some weird and wonderful hypothetical that has no bearing on reality - where I can easily justify blowing the heads off sentient beings and from there consume their carcasses. Do you want to talk about this or not? I'd like to, but it's your call.
No, I do know what a red-herring is.
Ok, good. Stop accusing me of committing one then. Thank you.
I specifically ask you a question in direct contingent to the meat point (needless point) and you divert away subtlely and point to wheat and other needless things without addressing and staying fully on point to what I was arguing in that particular argument
Yes, and you've just included the word "needless" right in that very sentence. I haven't diverted away, the wheat point is DIRECTLY FUCKING RELEVANT to the "NEED" point - IT IS ON POINT. It relates directly TO your point about NEED/NEEDLESS. I realise it's poor form to swear in a written debate but this is repetitive. If you can't grasp why ME talking about NEED is ON POINT when you're WHOLE ARGUMENT SO FAR is about NEED then I don't know what else to say to you on this point. It ISN'T a red herring.
PLEASE drop this because you're making your self look rather silly.
Why would I even attempt to divert away from it? There is NO ASPECT of the case I want to make that would require me to argue in a dishonest fashion by deploying any herrings. Red or otherwise.
We can address the other thing you brought up next.
Tremendous.
No, we're talking about the context of what you're in NOW. Of course it wouldn't be needless throughout all contexts because there's still the extreme survival point, which you brought up, and in that instance it would not be needless, no.
When it comes to debating, whatever the topic may be, I enjoy nothing more than arguing based on reality. We have agreed that we don't need to discuss survival etc. At the risk of repeating my self once again, I can give you plenty of examples where it is necessary in life, first world life, right now. Not a million years ago. Right now.
I'm talking about the instance now, not in some hypothetical scenario where you're on a deserted island and whatnot. In today's society.
Good, so am I.
I understand the point of hypothetical scenarios, but I think they're of limited use. They can be fun to discuss, but ultimately if they're too far departed from anything resembling reality I find them little more than thought experiments. Albeit entertaining on occasion. So I'm glad you don't want to start getting into weird territory.
Of course, that's why I brought up the major differences between the contexts because I wasn't sure if you understood or deliberately left them out which pointed to the false equivalence. I would love to get into explaining these, because I'm noticing that you leave them out still.
Again, I don't see where, or how I've done this. Feel free to point it out if you consider it important but given that I've been (mostly) the one giving context rather than leaving it out I have no idea why you'd feel this way. Like I say, if it's important, point it out (quotes would be helpful) but I doubt you can make this case stand. What I can say is I'm not deliberately leaving anything out, I read my posts, usually a couple of times before I submit them and at present I feel like I've addressed everything you've said. I've also elaborated, offered context, clarified (things like the definition of "need) etc so I honestly don't know what you're referring to here.
If you wanna point to the many other "needless" things in life I hope you're talking about the infringement of sentient beings in a negative way and whatnot, like the way we were discussing.
I do, because your argument thus far is based on need. I still don't fully understand this part. Are you asking me if I realise we infringe upon sentient beings in areas other than food production? Obviously I realise that. So? I mean where are you going with that? I'm fine with building houses and factories etc which obviously displaces animal habitat. Wherever you're typing your responses from has done the same thing. I don't get this? But I can't be sure that's what you meant because your comment is once again malformed. Please clarify and if what I've taken from it in this paragraph is not what you meant then please ignore it. We don't need to discuss things we don't mean, we just need to be clear about things we do mean.
So, once more, I shall ask this question:
Guessing I've already answered but let's see....
The animals killed in the animal agricultural industry are slaughtered for food when it is not required to kill them for said products as we have alternative products to choose from. You have acknowledged the three things before. Do you acknowledge that the animals are being killed in the animal agricultural industry needlessly when it is not required? Yes or no?
I'm going to let the readers be the judge as to whether I've answered this or not. If anyone is unsure I'm willing to take the time to actually COUNT how many times I've answered this question.
The answer is NO, in case you missed it. Your question still contains the premise which I don't agree with. I don't "just" disagree with it. I can show you it's faulty. Your subtle reframing of the question here hasn't gone unnoticed, but I don't consider it a big enough deal to go major on because it won't take anything away from the case I want to make.
The whole "wheat tho" argument will be addressed if you want to appeal to it in the next argument because there's a lot of grounds to cover there
That's good, because it's certainly something I'd like to focus more closely on. You're right, there is a LOT of ground to cover there. Ground I without any doubt whatsoever know more about than you do.
But, for this question in particular do you acknowledge this killing to be needless as it is not required?
Honestly...... how many times? I mean seriously? I understand it might just be the way you draft posts, maybe you're just shooting from the hip or whatever but once is usually enough to ask a question especially when you've been given a direct, unambiguous answer.
And also, I'm talking about today's society,
Awesome, because so am I.
I explained the who "island tho" argument prior to be a bit more clear
I don't mind if you want to deploy this tactic, but I'm familiar with the "tho" list vegans seem to think is massively clever. All it is is an attempt to give the impression to the listener/reader that the argument offered is so laughably absurd it doesn't warrant serious consideration. I acknowledge that some of the items on the "tho" list are fairly crap arguments, but others aren't. Dismissing something as absurd by adding "tho" on the end just to avoid addressing it won't really get you very far with someone who's bothered to take the time to consider these things beyond a fleeting glance.
Once this point is hashed out then we can move onto the crop harvest argument which is the second point
You pick, I honestly don't mind either way. But if we move on, you can't then come back to the first point as some sort of fallback "need tho" (see how annoying that is?!) safety blanket. You either want to hash it out or you want to move on. I'm totally fine with either.
I should also let you know, I may have to post-pone soon just in case because I'm prioritizing my free hours to catch up with exam work and illustrations. If so, I'll give the call to post-pone.
I completely understand - don't let debating take priority over exams man.