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.

Mestroyer comments on Pay other people to go vegetarian for you? - Less Wrong Discussion

12 Post author: jkaufman 12 April 2013 01:56AM

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

Comments (92)

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

Comment author: Mestroyer 13 April 2013 12:02:53AM 0 points [-]

In the case of gay sex and abortions, the disgust is the person's emotional response to something that isn't the most important (to the image provider, and perhaps to the providee too) part of the action. Dicks in butts (because anti-gay people always talk about gay men, never lesbians (probably because if they did they wouldn't get the desired response)) are less important to them than adults being able to do something they really want to do with their own bodies. Tiny bloody fetuses having been killed aren't as important as people's lives not being ruined by children they can't support, or people dying in childbirth who could have been saved by abortion.

On the other hand, piglets getting their testicles ripped out without anesthetic (and similar bad things that happens to animals) are the most important thing about eating meat.

Comment author: Mestroyer 13 April 2013 12:56:12AM 1 point [-]

Retracted cause this doesn't really work for the abortion example. It does for the gay sex one though. For the abortion one, I guess I won't condemn abortion based on some universal principle of how arguments should be conducted.

Comment author: Jiro 13 April 2013 01:57:02AM 1 point [-]

I don't think it works for the gay sex example either for the reason I gave: in order to say that using disgust is good in one example and bad in another, you need what amounts to a separate argument for vegetarianism anyway. "That's the most important thing about eating meat" is not an undisputed fact, it's something that is only believed by vegetarians. Non-vegetarians wouldn't agree with it.

This turns it into circular reasoning: You should be vegetarian because of disgust. You should accept disgust as an argument for vegetarianism because what it shows is "the most important thing". And you only believe that that's the most important thing if you're already vegetarian.

Comment author: Mestroyer 13 April 2013 02:07:26AM 1 point [-]

Most of the fence sitters it's aiming to convince care a lot more about things besides "icky dick in butt" though.

And most of the people I've argued with don't take the "animals aren't people, I don't care about them at all" route, so if they understood the scale of the problem, animal suffering probably would be important to them, and not a distraction from the big important issues.