Zarm

I have sharp sticks for that

That's my point. You're cheating now. Lions don't cheat.

over the fire.

Carnivores can eat raw meat.

I can assure my canines function perfectly well in that role

Nah they work better for plant foods. They aren't even very sharp. Also, other herbivores have canines but whatever.

Regardless of this bs^ doesn't matter whether we have canines or not or whether they are useful or not and we both know that. I don't need to explain the natural fallacy to you.

Coherent, you're not.

But you don't have to fit into my notions of c

And canines, yep, I have some, they are sharp & pointy.

Go take down an antelope with only your teeth ;)

What are my other choices in morality besides subjective and objective?

I don't know. I was really trying to stray away from people arguing how there are no objective morals so killing and everything else is fine. I didn't want to argue about how there are no objective morals. There aren't objective morals, so I wanted to talk to people who actually had morals and would be willing to talk of them.

You don't have to fit into my false dichotomy. You do you.

I don't kill humans for the same reason you do though. I could possibly be persuaded, but I'm not exactly sure what it would be. I think it would be something of the sort following: You would either have to convince me killing sleeping (I'm just gonna use sleep as equivalent to cruelty free for convenience sake) humans is ethically fine OR that cows are different in some way other than logistically speaking (I wouldn't say that the fact that cows can't kill you is morals, that's more practicality; so something other than the two (redemption killing or trea... (read more)

How do you justify when you don't eat 'cruelty free' meat? Those animals are suffering during their.

My other question would be, I don't understand why you don't care over the logic of the first paragraph to cows?

I do get what you're saying with creating beings that do have a decent life.

Being perfectly honest, I actually don't understand what's wrong with starting with those words. Maybe this is a failure of communication on my part. I do understand that I shouldn't have said 'so surprised' and some of the other stuff, but what's wrong with asking, "Can I get your guys' perspectives on veganism?"

"I'm a vegan and invite you to squabble with me!"

I'd rather debate things coherently as that's what rationalism is about. I think I'm done here at this point though because not much is getting through on either side. Some o... (read more)

I'd like to hear the argument about why trees lives are worth antthing. Sure, they're worth instrumental value, but thats not what we're talking about. I'm arguing that trees are worth 0 and that animals are comparable to humans. Trees aren't conscious. Many animals are.

All aspiring rationalists are equally correct, but some are more equally correct than others ;)

Anything specific? That's not really a crux... yet you criticize me for mine.

What I consider "preserving my life" is weird enough that it could probably be its own conversation though :)

Sure, I could be interested in hearing this as a different topic.

Thank you for linking the crux. I'll try to explain my morality as well.

I'm using the word "suboptimal" to mean a state of affairs that is less than the highest standard. For example, I have a crick in my neck from looking down at my laptop right now, and there is not a fruit smoothie in my hand even though I want one. My life would be closer to optimal if I did not have a crick in my neck and did have a smoothie. My life would also be suboptimal if I was intense chronic pain. Suboptimal is a very broad term, I agree, but I think my usage of it

You give the benefit of the doubt to even bugs based on weak evidence.

No I don't. I never said anything close to that. In fact, I don't even think there's enough evidence to warrant me from not eating honey.

but are morally opposed to eating other brainless things like bivalves.

Again, not opposed to this. I never said anything about this either. Stop assuming positions.

Me being vegan isn't my only course of action. I convince others (on a micro level and I plan to do it on a macro level), I plan to donate to things, and push for actions like the one you said, but not really focused on school. I'm just getting into effective altruism, so obviously I'm more into consequentialist actions.

Part of me being vegan is so that I can convince others, not just the physical amount of meat I forego. You can't really convince others on a micro, macro, or institutional level if you yourself aren't following it.

Well yes it would still be wrong. I'm talking about the act itself. You would be doing better than the majority of other people because you saved a bunch but then you're stilling doing something wrong.

For instance, if you saved 100 people, its still wrong to kill one.

I think that's what you were saying? If not, could you rephrase, because I don't think I understood you perfectly.

Also, could you explain what information you have to get to change your mind?

I'd like to hear the information what a lot of you would require for your minds to be changed as well!

So the crux of the matter for me is the consciousness of mammals and birds and some other nonhuman animals. As you go down the 'complexity scale' the consciousness of certain beings gets more debatable. It is less known and likely that fish are conscious compared to mammals. And it is less known and likely that insects are conscious compared to fish. However, there is quite the amount of evidence supporting consciousness in all mammals, birds, and some oth... (read more)

Yes it does. I'm just arguing that they are comparable.

Is it some deontological objection to killing living things?

Nope

Vegetables are also alive.

And?

To killing animals in particular?

Yes, all mammals, birds, and more are conscious. Many more are self aware. Pigs are of similar intelligence to dogs, so it could be highly likely they are self aware just like dogs are.

I thought we were over this "soul" thing.

Stop being so condescending please.

Commercial vegetable farming kills animals! Pesticides kill insects with nerve gas. If they're conscious, that's a horrible way to die. But that w

Animistic cultures feel may feel empathy for sacred objects, like boulders or trees, or dead ancestors, or even imaginary deities with no physical form.

Ya.. I'm not buying this here - that's a giant false equivalency. You're comparing inanimate objects to conscious beings; you're also comparing religion and spiritual cultures to scientific arguments.

Where do we draw that line? Is it only a matter of degree, not kind? How much uncertainty do we tolerate before changing the category? If you take the precautionary principle, so that something is morally

It's not that a chicken, pig, or cow's life is worth some minimal but comparable amount. Because even then there would be some threshold were N chickens, pigs, or cow happiness-meters (for some suitably large N) would be worth 1 human's.

I'm arguing they are comparable. See, I don't think the N is that large.

is not obviously relevant to whether it is moral for humans to eat them.

Sure it is. That's the crux of the matter.

A question. Would you rather be born and live for thirty years and then be executed, or never be born at all?

I would personally rather have been born, but I am not everyone. I have an excellent life that I'm very grateful for. Like you yourself say though, I think the majority disagrees with me on this. This [the fact that most would prefer to not exist than a hellish life] is partially, only partially, why I think its wrong to kill the animals either way.

(I am planning to make extraordinary efforts to prolong my life, but what that means to me is a l

Very true. Thanks for catching me. I need to work on my communication skills.