Thousands of Animals Slaughtered?

[Rise]

Comedy gold, but sad.

Logical fallacy, Appeal to Mockery.

Unable to counter the truth of what I said with a valid argument, you can only try to mock it.

Of course not. But given that in 2016 36% of adults in the US were obese something should maybe change, given how much obesity causes premature death:
Obesity

Again, that'll be helpful to a lot of people.

Logical fallacy, "Politician's Syllogism".

Which takes the form of:

1. We must do something
2. This is something
3. Therefore, we must do this

You don't prove something is the right course of action to take simply because you think a course of action must be taken, and any course of action therefore becomes automatically right or good.

In fact, the opposite is true in this case. I already gave many reasons why removing all animal products from the typical American's diet would lead to a reduction in health, not an increase. You haven't attempted to deal with any of those arguments.

I've been a vegetarian for nigh on 40 years and I can't believe I've been so lucky not to fall for that mistake.

If you are a vegetarian you're still capable of eating animal protein like eggs or milk. That's not the same as veganism, which would exclude eggs and milk.

It's also a fallacy for you to try to claim that your standard American would automatically be healthier by simply cutting meat out of their diet and becoming vegetarian. Because sugar filled cake and pastries are vegetarian. Candy is vegetarian. Pizza can be vegetarian. A big buttery bowl of cheese filled pasta can be vegetarian. I can think of a million ways people can kill themselves and get sick on a vegetarian diet in the USA. There's nothing about a vegetarian diet that is inherently healthier than one with meat. Someone eating mostly fresh fruit and produce with a little bit of meat and eggs in their diet will be vastly healthier and longer lived than someone who is chowing down on truckloads of cake, candy, ice cream, and vegetarian pizza all day. Everything else you're doing with your diet will matter far more to your health than the inclusion or exclusion of meat.

 

[Secret Chief]

Logical fallacy, "Red Herring".
Your comments have nothing to do with either disproving the truth of my claims nor proving anything you previously tried to argue.

Logical fallacy, "Strawman".
You are willfully distorting my arguments and position in order to attack it because you cannot argue against my conclusions by countering the merits of my arguments.

Logical fallacy, "Appeal to Mockery" or "Ad Hominem".
Unable to counter the points I made with valid arguments of your own, you are trying to merely mock my position instead.

Logical fallacy, "Red Herring".
Your comments have nothing to do with either disproving the truth of my claims nor proving anything you previously tried to argue.

Logical fallacy, "Strawman".
You are willfully distorting my arguments and position in order to attack it because you cannot argue against my conclusions by countering the merits of my arguments.

Logical fallacy, "Appeal to Mockery" or "Ad Hominem".
Unable to counter the points I made with valid arguments of your own, you are trying to merely mock my position instead.

I find it comedic that someone who on the one hand is so keen on pointing out errors in logic also believes that humans should eat meat essentially because "Satan corrupted mankind so that he no longer followed only the voice of God and His ways, which then introduced the curse of man now mismanaging the land in ways that destroy it, because satan's goal is to kill, steal, and destroy."
There's logic for you.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Someone tried to argue that feeding the poor with sacrificed animals was unnecessary because they claimed you could grow 10 times more food for people if you used land for plant growth instead of livestock.

Sacrificed animals, perhaps, but with animals raised for slaughter, the reclaiming is not just of "land," but also of food directly grown to feed the animals. Food that could otherwise be fed to human beings - or that could stop being grown altogether in favor of other, more human-consumption-friendly crops.

I pointed out why that line of logic is false. Poor people need animal based food to be healthy too. Especially in less economically developed parts of the world.

The only reason a human being could possibly "need" "animal based food" is if their locality is incapable of producing the completely viable alternatives to animal-based proteins like nuts and beans, and their society can't/wont' trade for such things.

It's wrong to only look at how many calories you can get off a given acre of land and not consider the full range of nutrition that is required. Which also requires that you take into account the fact that very little land on earth can currently be used to grow a balanced vegan diet of the type that relatively wealthy westerners enjoy. It's not just about how many calories you get off that acre of land, if the only thing you're growing is corn you'll be severely malnourished. Further, adding to that the fact that much land used for pasturing animals isn't currently suitable for growing edible food at all anyway, so you actually would be less productive if you switched to trying to grow plants on it.

If we all worked together, then localities that could produce the protein-heavy items like nuts and beans could trade to those who produce carbohydrate-heavy crops like potatoes and rice. And those who produce things like nutritional yeast and other bacteria-based yields could kick their production into overdrive, and expand their businesses for the production of those hard-to-get nutrients like B12.

The main point being - if we all worked together to insure that everyone got the various nutrients they needed, we could feed the world with far less work going into agriculture. As it stands, some countries (like the U.S.) feed animals the lion's share of agricultural produce. For example, the estimates are that potentially 800 million people could be fed with the vegetation grown to feed U.S. livestock alone.

 

[Rise]

I find it comedic that someone who on the one hand is so keen on pointing out errors in logic also believes that humans should eat meat essentially because "Satan corrupted mankind so that he no longer followed only the voice of God and His ways, which then introduced the curse of man now mismanaging the land in ways that destroy it, because satan's goal is to kill, steal, and destroy."
There's logic for you.

Logical fallacy, "Strawman".
I never said what you claim. You will find no quote supporting your claim. You are trying to misrepresent my argument in order to make it easier for you to attack because you cannot dispute my arguments and conclusions on their merits.

Your strawman is also part of the logical fallacy of "Red Herring" or "Avoiding the Issue", because you are not able to refute the fact that I disproved your original point. Which is you were wrong to claim my arguments had no relevance to this thread.

Unable to defend your original claim, you have turned to trying to trying to distract away from that with strawman attacks and appeals to mockery that aren't even relevant to your original claim.

 

[Rise]

So eating animal products and eating animals are one and the same for you?

I never said anything about whether or not the two are morally equivalent. Because it's not relevant to any of the points I made.

Even if you wanted to argue that they are not morally equivalent, you can't get away from the fact that it's not feasible for many people around the world to supplement their diet sufficiently on dairy or egg harvesting alone. Mainly logistical and/or economic reasons. It requires more infrastructure, caretaking, and resources, to pen up animals for the regular harvest of dairy and eggs. It's relatively easier to let animals roam around on grasslands and then harvest them for meat when they are ready. You don't have to transport food to your farm and living area, nor do you have to let them use up your immediate arable land as their pasture. You can lead the animals to inferior highlands to graze and leave your valley land for your agriculture. A purely pastoral culture (of which there have been many throughout history) based around livestock herds won't have the option of harvesting eggs because they aren't relying on static infrastructure and dwellings. You need more of a static agricultural system to do that. It's also outright impossible for hunter gatherer lifestyles to harvest either diary or eggs. And there are still people who live a hunter gatherer lifestyle today, although in small numbers.

I'm not saying it's impossible for poorer and less developed cultures to subsist on dairy and eggs without eating meat, if their environmental, social, and economic conditions allow for that; But it's hubris to not recognize that historically, and today, not everyone is in the position to be able to do that even if they wanted to.

 

[Secret Chief]

I never said what you claim.

Post #74:

Satan corrupted mankind so that he no longer followed only the voice of God and His ways, which then introduced the curse of man now mismanaging the land in ways that destroy it, because satan's goal is to kill, steal, and destroy.

 

[Secret Chief]

I already gave many reasons why removing all animal products from the typical American's diet would lead to a reduction in health, not an increase. You haven't attempted to deal with any of those arguments.

As I said before, simply removing meat from a diet is not sensible.

 

[Secret Chief]

If you are a vegetarian you're still capable of eating animal protein like eggs or milk. That's not the same as veganism, which would exclude eggs and milk.

Thanks, I am aware that a vegan diet is a category of vegetarianism.

 

[Rise]

Post #74:

You prove me correct by your quote.

You claimed:

"believes that humans should eat meat essentially because 'Satan corrupted mankind...' "

You can see from what you quoted that I never said what you claimed.

I never said you "should" eat meat. Which implies you are morally required to or obligated to.

I also never said the reason you "should" eat meat is because Satan corrupted mankind.

That's all a strawman and a willfully or ignorant distortion of what I wrote.

What I wrote:
Satan corrupted mankind so that he no longer followed only the voice of God and His ways, which then introduced the curse of man now mismanaging the land in ways that destroy it, because satan's goal is to kill, steal, and destroy.

The context of my statement, as you can see by going back to that post, was that mankind is destroying the environment by mismanagement of livestock and farming. Which they are doing because they don't have the uncorrupted wisdom of God anymore about the right way of doing things that will heal and prosper the land to grow instead of destroy it. Instead they are listening to the voice of satan, or their own lusts, which causes them to do destructive things to the earth instead.

The part of my post you are quoting had absolutely nothing to even do with saying you should eat meat. It was talking about land stewardship.

 

[Augustus]

I completely agree with @icehorse's comment, and I DO NOT EAT ANY MEAT AT ALL. What do I win?

The opportunity to receive the eternal gratitude of poor people when you tell them that they aren't getting any goat or beef this year as rich Western folk have decided to ban charitable donations of meat, but they needn't worry as you've made them a delicious, nutritious mung bean and lentil casserole instead

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

The opportunity to receive the eternal gratitude of poor people when you tell them that they aren't getting any goat or beef this year as rich Western folk have decided to ban charitable donations of meat, but they needn't worry as you've made them a delicious, nutritious mung bean and lentil casserole instead

Why don't we all eat mung bean and lentil casserole? Seriously. Why not? The most important thing is not how your food tastes, but what it does for your body and health. Would you agree? Couldn't we all share a bounty of mung bean and lentil casserole if we were more conscious of what we ate as it affected or promoted our health and less concerned with how well it made our senses produce a pleasurable response?

 

[Rise]

That's an excellent argument against a vegan diet. Thanks for the relevance fallacy. If you eat nothing but lard it will literally kill you. There's one for not eating meat.

First off, lard is not meat. Meat is muscle. Lard is fat.
And, by the way, God told the Israelites to not eat the fat of their animals. I think there's a reason for that.
But that's besides the point. I just thought that was worth pointing out...

The real issue here is you are falling into a Strawman fallacy again, as well as Red Herring because you're trying to avoid the point I made by distracting with something not relevant to that point.

It's a strawman fallacy because I never said that an unhealthy diet automatically becomes healthier by adding meat to it.

I said that nutritional deficiencies in most people's diets are solved by adding animal products to their diet. That is a factual statement you can't dispute.

In a narrow sense their diet does actually become healthier if they were deficient in nutrients that the meat now gives them. But I would never argue it that way because to do so would ignore the fact that they could still be eating a diet that is killing them and adding meat to their diet won't reverse that unless the only thing that was killing them was a nutrient deficiency the meat solved.

You, on the other hand, did try to argue that taking an unhealthy standard American diet automatically becomes healthier by removing meat from it.

I pointed out why your logic was flawed and wrong.
Therefore, you have no basis for claiming that anyone's diet is automatically improved by removing meat from it.

Again, that'll be helpful to a lot of people.

You demonstrate your ignorance of nutrition.

If all you ate was Bananas long term they'd eventually develop malnutrition, chronic illness, and die early.

 

[Secret Chief]

It's also a fallacy for you to try to claim that your standard American would automatically be healthier by simply cutting meat out of their diet and becoming vegetarian. Because sugar filled cake and pastries are vegetarian. Candy is vegetarian. Pizza can be vegetarian. A big buttery bowl of cheese filled pasta can be vegetarian.

Once again, I did not make that claim, I said of course it would not automatically improve. (Post #86)
As to these cakes, pastries and candy we're back to "a bag of sugar is vegan and only eating that will kill you" line.

 

[Secret Chief]

You prove me correct by your quote.

You claimed:

"believes that humans should eat meat essentially because 'Satan corrupted mankind...' "

You can see from what you quoted that I never said what you claimed.

I never said you "should" eat meat. Which implies you are morally required to or obligated to.

I also never said the reason you "should" eat meat is because Satan corrupted mankind.

That's all a strawman and a willfully or ignorant distortion of what I wrote.

What I wrote:
Satan corrupted mankind so that he no longer followed only the voice of God and His ways, which then introduced the curse of man now mismanaging the land in ways that destroy it, because satan's goal is to kill, steal, and destroy.

The context of my statement, as you can see by going back to that post, was that mankind is destroying the environment by mismanagement of livestock and farming. Which they are doing because they don't have the uncorrupted wisdom of God anymore about the right way of doing things that will heal and prosper the land to grow instead of destroy it. Instead they are listening to the voice of satan, or their own lusts, which causes them to do destructive things to the earth instead.

The part of my post you are quoting had absolutely nothing to even do with saying you should eat meat. It was talking about land stewardship.

Well missed. My point is this: you make a big thing of pointing out errors of logic in other people's posts, which is odd to say the least given your irrational and superstitious beliefs expounded.

 

[Rise]

As I said before, simply removing meat from a diet is not sensible.

That's not what you said here:

Of course not. But given that in 2016 36% of adults in the US were obese something should maybe change, given how much obesity causes premature death:
Obesity

Your statement tries to imply that removing meat from the average American's diet would improve their health and solve their obesity problem. And I pointed out why that's false. Your claim is based on bad logic and nutritional ignorance.

Thanks, I am aware that a vegan diet is a category of vegetarianism.

Your statement is irrelevant to what you are responding to.

I pointed out that regardless of whether you are talking about vegan or vegetarianism, you were wrong to claim that someone's diet is automatically improved by removing meat from it.

 

[Secret Chief]

Why don't we all eat mung bean and lentil casserole? Seriously. Why not? The most important thing is not how your food tastes, but what it does for your body and health. Would you agree? Couldn't we all share a bounty of mung bean and lentil casserole if we were more conscious of what we ate as it affected or promoted our health and less concerned with how well it made our senses produce a pleasurable response?

It sounds more appetising than stir fry bat.

 

[Secret Chief]

Of course not.

Thanks. Yes, that's what I said. No implication that simply removing meat was an auotomatic diet improvement.

 

[Secret Chief]

lard is not meat. Meat is muscle. Lard is fat

Really?
A bag of sugar is not a vegan diet either.

 

[Secret Chief]

I said that nutritional deficiencies in most people's diets are solved by adding animal products to their diet. That is a factual statement you can't dispute.

oh, I thought I could but I must be wrong then.

 

[Tambourine]

I never said anything about whether or not the two are morally equivalent. Because it's not relevant to any of the points I made.

It is very relevant that you conflate the two as if they were one and the same, because your entire argument hinges on the idea that everyone who argues against meat eating in this discussion demands a transition to pure veganism.