frozen_water
I'm done discussing this with you.
I did not miss whole points, I read every bit of your rant, I pulled out the main points and addressed them, just because something wasn't quoted doesn't mean it wasn't taken into account, but it would have been impossible to hold a coherent discussion leaving in that wall of text you continually produce, you'd be served well by learning to be concise.
You keep acting as if you've proven points you've in no way proven, (your personal experiences and unsubstantiated theories as to how scenarios would play out do not constitute proof) and seem to be under the impression that just because you don't personally agree with an opinion an opposing one holds no merit.
You also don't understand the terms being discussed, you certainly don't understand what Utilitarianism is, nor do you understand what circular reasoning is. There is nothing to be gained for either one of us as you clearly have no intention of actually addressing the points I bring up (as you have failed to do so thus far, you just produce a massive text wall that repeats the same points you made previously without actually responding to the points I was nice enough to pull out in a clear and concise way) and sorting through your posts has become more of a hassle than it's worth.
If you'd like an actual discussion you need to actually listen to others ideas and address them instead of attempting to smother them with your own bias.
I am afraid I feel the same way about all of your arguments.
I have openly said, since we can't see the future, I have no proof that scenarios WILL play out the way they will. I have also said that all of my conjecture was based off of past human behavior... The rise in meat consumption and industrialized farming show clearly that humans tend to be selfish in raising their food (proven, I can drop links if you need an evolutionary biology lesson) and will likely want to consume more eggs and dairy in a vegetarian diet. These foods are programmed to taste good to us because of high fat and protein levels and we eat more of these in our modern high-stress environment (also proven and again I can drop a similar link for this if you need). And that this is just the way the world tends to work right now and will likely work in the future. You have given no reason whatsoever for your theories and have simply taken my theories and demanded proof (which I have said I have none beyond the above conjecture) and then asked why it couldn't be another way. Which it could be another way (another thing I acknowledged). Someday the world may be a sunny, shiny place free of intentional death. But there is exactly as much proof for that theory as all of mine and you haven't even shown solid past events to support it.
My idea that vegetarianism is not sound for health or ecological purposes is grounded in fact. I layed out the studies that support this earlier in the thread. It requires more space or unsustainable chemicals to feed a vegan/vegetarian diet than to feed a sustainable omnivore (both of which are equally healthy diets). And a vegetarian diet favors the destruction of male animals (as non-producing and is currently shown in our dairy/egg industries), requires more deforestation than an omnivore diet, and only therefore only holds any moral superiority if you presume that death is a detriment beyond the effect left behind on the living. I have explained this very thoroughly and you have offered no logic to oppose it. You have only said that to a utilitarian standpoint death is a detriment and immoral.
But I am not a utilitarian. And neither is the rest of the world or factory farming would already not exist. And I do not believe a society based on this would be successful since it hasn't thus far. (Again, could be but you have no proof nor past events to show it.) So while it may make perfect sense from your own personal beliefs, it does not to anyone who does not share your beliefs.
And I was naturally not arguing from a utilitarian point of view. I am not a utilitarian. I made no claim I ever was arguing from that standpoint, only you ever did. If the requirement for this debate was to make a utilitarian anti-death argument AGAINST vegetarianism then of course I would have refused. There is no way to make that argument without violating the whole basis for the debate. But from most standpoints I have shown it's not morally or ecologically sound to be a vegetarian. You have simply stated to my every attempt to prove this that I am wrong because that's not utilitarian in your opinion.
Which is what I was referring to as being circular. I say "I believe death is not detrimental and therefore being vegetarian is not in the best moral interest of anyone because of male animal deaths, poor conditions for dairy/egg animals and greater deforestation" and you say "Death is detrimental so yes it is moral." I say "That's a personal opinion. Without that opinion it lacks moral ground" so you say "Death is bad so it still holds."? That's very circular. And it does just what you accuse me of; not responding to the overarching debate... Is being vegetarian sound from a broadly moral or ecological standpoint? None of your responses have actually addressed that beyond the idea of death... A concept that is strictly personal in nature.
I am not sure where I have NOT refuted any solid logic that you have provided. And I'm really disappointed that you feel that I haven't been responding adequately. I could add more scientific references for clear social factual behavior... But I was pretty sure those were clear and easy to find on your own through a quick google search or a basic biology and sociology education.
So I support your idea to end this debate, since from my perspective you have done the exact same thing you accuse me of. I'm sorry that we disagree so thoroughly and this ended on such a poor note.
100
400
100
