You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Mass_Driver comments on Vegetarianism - Less Wrong Discussion

29 Post author: Raemon 24 December 2010 04:57AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (165)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Raemon 26 December 2010 05:00:39PM 7 points [-]

Still pondering this. I understand why the politics taboo is necessary, but the definition of "politics" is rather hazy. I consider this approximately in the same boat as cryonics in terms of "lifestyle choice," and cryonics is a very popular topic here, but I don't know if that's a reference on what topics are acceptable or if cryonics is an exception made because there are few places on the internet where you can have frank discussions of it, period.

I'm pondering the nature of a hypothetical top level post I might make. If I do it, the crux of my argument will not be "you should all be vegetarian," but rather "I want you all to look seriously at your moral system, think about how the following three points relate to it, decide how much value an animal life has, and then, if your behavior does not line up with your actual morals, make an honest effort to change your behavior. Which might not mean becoming a full fledged vegetarian (as I said, I haven't even been successful at that myself). But I suspect that most of us, for one reason or another, are consuming far more meat than is actually rational given our respective worldviews.

Comment author: Mass_Driver 27 December 2010 03:25:40PM 2 points [-]

Sounds promising.

A fair litmus test is to show it to a non-vegetarian friend without comment and see if she thinks it's about vegetarianism or rationality. Alternatively, if you can identify the flaw in people's rationality that is apparently leading them to act inconsistently with their morals, and that flaw is something more generally applicable than "failure to take my 3 arguments seriously," then you've got a winner.