Best diet, food, or nutrition for power
Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on August 18, 2020, 5:44 amQuote from Stef on August 18, 2020, 3:05 amand there is always some level of torture, pain and suffering before murder
Just one note on this: not always.
I think there could be a happy middle here, at least in many cases (or at least, a happier middle, someone will still not like the option).
I found one articulate Vegan about this important point:
"
Is There More “Wrong” with Killing Than Just Causing Pain?
If pain is really the important issue in abortion and in veganism, we should be able to develop hypothetical questions that support that viewpoint.
So what if someone killed me in my sleep tonight, painlessly? Would that be okay? I guess that would still cause pain because my family members would miss me. So let’s find another example.
What if we went to the woods, found a pack of wolves, and we somehow killed all of them painlessly in their sleep? They wouldn’t feel it, and they wouldn’t miss each other because they’re all dead. No humans would miss them because they’re wild wolves in a far-away forest. And let’s just say hypothetically that it wouldn’t disturb the ecosystem in any negative way to remove them.
Is it still wrong to painlessly kill this pack of wolves?
To me, it maybe feels less wrong than slaughtering them in a painful way… but it still feels wrong. There’s some sense I have that they have a right to their lives and to continue their experience. Why should I have the right to end it for them? It just doesn’t feel right. And I guess that’s one reason why I’m vegan."
Quote from Stef on August 18, 2020, 3:05 am
“We may continue this just for other people sake, I dont think you will change your mind or position nor will I mine, so it may be time to agree to disagree...”(emphasis is mine)
Judging from your 8 posts that followed right after that post without me interacting, I wonder if you were really able to. (Though some of it was obviously directed at Lucios' response so I'm a bit exaggerating here).
I have nothing to fear in my position, though I already made countless unrefutet arguments that all make a rock solid case. But since I’m here only responding to what you choose to -unfortunately not particularly consistently- claim, it doesn’t really feel like a honest debate whatsoever, particularly as well because of things like:
Quote from Stef on August 18, 2020, 3:05 am
“Anon, now i know what I wanted to: you are, I think, a moral extremist (or maybe you are right in your ethics and the world put us in a hard sittuation if we are not really herbivores , for you it is easy because you believe we can be 100% healthy eating only plants, I do not)”
(emphasis is mine)
Calling someone an “extremist” is meant in a way to damage him, it’s an obvious Ad-hominem and frankly a nasty move.
If I wanted to do the same back on you, I would call you, Stef, a psychopath, who expectedly will name everyone calling out psychopathic immorality nasty names.
If we're at it, talking about me personally, I’m also a not-eating-dogshit-”extremist”, and a not-raping-”extremist” as much as I am a I-do-not-torture-others-if-it-can-be-avoided-”extremist” as well as a not-drinking-gasoline-"extremist" or a not-grip-into-a-running-chainsaw-"extremist"
You are obviously against torture as well, but apparently only if you are it’s victim.
That’s the difference between us, I don’t want anyone getting tortured, you only want yourself not getting tortured.
Quote from Stef on August 18, 2020, 3:05 am
“and you preffer the human race to go extinct to the torture of just a single individual (a woman in the rape example)”(emphasis is mine)
Besides the main-point, I made already clear that this does imply that the woman would be raped until she yanks out another woman that will be raped as well, because otherwise she just replaced herself, but even more likely, until she yanked out the maximum number of other women that is possible, which will take decades of rape and forced pregnancies and births.
I find it honestly shocking that I have to argue that torture of an individual is wrong (and get called names for it). I can’t think of anything more wrong than that, other than increasing the numbers of victims, but even then, they all would still feel the badness of it as single individuals. So the argument, “torture of an individual is wrong” would be identical.
And if you were that individual I wouldn’t have to argue that obviously, because you would suddenly “get it”.
“The end justify the means” is garbage, because it can and will used to argue in favour of every imaginable atrocity, because you can always, absolutely always, find some random claimed “good thing” that will happen after that very, very bad thing.
But this is yet another example of you choosing to completely ignore what I already consistently said to that (off)topic – why are you ignoring my arguments and keep claiming or repeating stuff without responding. That’s not at all a costructive debate.
Quote from Stef on August 18, 2020, 3:05 am
“if we are not really herbivores”
I already made clear and even further clarified that I’m not at all arguing we were herbivores, that would be as ridiculous as arguing we were carnivores or omnivores. That’s called a strawman – another nasty move. And worse is that you don’t even bother to change your strawmans when they get refutet, it’s insulting.
Quote from Stef on August 18, 2020, 3:05 am
“The problem is that I have no way to know if in your Ethical system it is ok to LIE to people to save animals from torture and death, and to save women from rape ( I am not saying it is the same by the way, I dont want to be fighting feminist plus vegans at the same time), I have no clue. Or maybe you DO really believe that humans can be 100% healthy on a fruitarian diet.”(emphasis is mine)
Speaking of insulting. You openly attacked me personally again by calling me a liar (and a feminist, for arguing rape is wrong, while claiming I were “fighting” you) for making consistent arguments – a massive ad-hominem again.
It gets funny at that point.
This is the final implied admission of defeat from your side. Good luck next time, you’ll need it.
By the way, I don’t just “believe” (that's a dysphemism), as you know I demonstratebly make logical consisten rock solid cases, that you choose to ignore completely in favour of calling me names and making strawmans.
Quote from Stef on August 18, 2020, 3:05 am
"Moralist: an individual who engages in moralizing and attacks others for not following the moral framework upheld by the moralist.
Moralists often have a self-righteous attitude and seek a judge power position to deliver their attacks.” (emphasis is mine)
The case I made didn’t at all rely on moral arguments whatsoever, but biological facts, but you choose to not respond to those.
Apart from the fact that you necessarily as well take an moralizing attitude (“torture against others(!) is a-okay”) it’s another nasty, nasty move to call someone a “Moralist” in a debate (or “debate” with moves like that) that is as well about moral arguments.
Apart from the obvious fact that you are the one openly personally attacking here (“Liar”, “Feminist”, “Moralist”, ”Extremist”) while claiming I were.
That’s pretty much saying “I can 'moralize' in favour of blatant evil, and if you call my evil out as evil, I will attack you for it and claim you are a “Moralist” for doing so, so you have no way left to argue against my blatant immorality.” Again immensly hypocrytical.
But I’m not even mad at you, if you position is weak, all you have apparently is nasty moves, that are nothing more than smokemirrors to distract from your failure of a position, otherwise you wouldn’t need them, would you.
Quote from Stef on August 18, 2020, 3:05 am
“and all animals need animal nutrients, even the ones who only eat plants need to transfom some of the plant nutrients in the animal version, do you get it?” (emphasis is mine)
Do I get that you have no actual arguments but only make desperate, bold claims embedded in your logical fallacies and power-move-attempts? What do you think.
To summarize, you were repeteadly trying to arguing semantics (“entropy isn’t what entropy is semantically defined as”;”nuts are seeds (implied they were biologically not fruits)”) made strawmans (“we are not herbivores”) and called me names (“Liar”, “Feminist”, “Moralist”,“Extremist”).
But most reveiling, you didn’t address my countless actual consistent arguments that make a rock-solid case (gee, why might that be I wonder).
Since you are trying to pull every bad move in the book, you are demonstratebly arguing in bad faith. I won’t argue with someone desperately spewing toxic smokemirrors left and right to hide his own argumentative nakedness.
Though that still was very insightfull and a good exercise in critical thinking in general and logical fallacies in particular.
Liar: I said you may be lying or not.. But I believe someone on a mission to prevent torture and animal murder may have good reasons to lie if that helps him prevent that said torture. If peope were planing to kill a friend of mine I would most likely lie to save my friend. So i believe Ethical Vegans may be ok with lying to humans to save animals from murder. NOT SAYING YOU ARE LYING!
Feminist: I was not reffering to you at all, I was just covering my ass in case some feminist read my post, lol.
Moralist: I did that in self defense as you paint me as an "inmoral" pro rape, pro torture evil.
Extremist: Well for many people the idea of not harming animals in any way to avoid what you call unnecesary torture) is pretty extreme. ( It does not prove you are wrong). Some seemingly extreme ideas may be truth.
To be frank I would preffer if you were right and I were wrong. Because I also dislike the idea that to be 100% healthy we need to murder and eat the flesh and organs of some animals...
" demonstratebly make logical consisten rock solid cases"
Of what? of humans being fuitarians?, then why you didnt convince me nor Lucio? are we both logic-challenged?
Thats Smart Alec in your part, pretending your believes are "irrefutable solid logical perfect", when only you see it that way and not your audience.
"You are obviously against torture as well, but apparently only if you are it’s victim.
That’s the difference between us, I don’t want anyone getting tortured, you only want yourself not getting tortured."
well to me, eating only plants would be a kind of torture, as I really like the taste of meat!
made strawmans (“we are not herbivores”)
well you said this: "humans are frugivores not herbivores"
but if you look in wikipedia, a frugivore is a type of herbivore, so when i said herbivore i wanted to mean not eating animals... because from the moral point of view it is irrelevant what part of the plant you eat, or if nuts are fruits or seeds... ( in relation to the morality of killing animals and eating their flesh)
Now if you think about a fresh, bright red, sweet watermelon, some sugary sukkari-dates, pineapple, papaya, honeymelons, mangos, oranges, grapes etc. – are they appealing – even to someone who is used to artificially flavour the stuff they ingest*?
Just reading these words may have caused some salivation in your mouth.
These are instinctively attractive for humans.
all those fruits you are mentiong had being breed (artificial selection) by humans to increase their appealing qualities, the one that exist in nature may be bitter or way less appealing... some people hate the taste of fruit, you are too smart to be making an argument from personal tastes...
"And as they all are available in tropical or subtropical climates, it becomes clear that humans are tropical animals, and that’s the reason why we die quickly without clothing/fire/technology in winter in f.e. northern europe/america.
It’s not a natural human habitat and that’s why we need all kinds of technology to make it into an artificially tropical-temperated enviroment. But we still have to abide the demands of nature."
human brain is also part of nature, and it let us adapt to other climates by means different from changing our bodies. So now you also have prove that humans are tropical animals from the fact that we find sweet fruit tasty? wao!
"For several years students were taught that "Entropy is disorder," Entropy is NOT disorder! This confusion about disorder and entropy comes from 1895 before an adequate understanding of the details of energy change in atoms and molecules was possible. At that time even the existence of molecules was not acknowledged by some of the most prominent scientists in physics and chemistry. Those who proposed and elaborated the second law had no better catchall phrase to describe to others what they believed was happening. Order/disorder became increasingly obsolete to apply to entropy and the second law when the existence of quantized energy levels in physics and chemistry began to be understood in the early twentieth century."
"There is no parfum that smells like rotting corpses or a fishmarket because humans instinctivly reject it."
Well some say pussy smells like fish, and I dont se males instinctivly rejecting it all the time.