I have a pretty good idea of what I am talking about, after all it is part of career. What is not part of my career is dealing petulant bitter vegans on social media, who learn a word or two and suddenly perceive that they an expert.
Oh honey quit whilst you are ahead. In future if you would like to offer your counter argument, journals within the last ten years are good sources. You have a good life, hopefully it's protein rich.
aka you have no idea what you're talking about. You don't need some peer reviewed journal to create a vegan dish with a reasonable amount of protein in it. For example I just went on MFP and threw together a vegan wrap meal with 20g of protein in it.
Also, if there's rampant protein deficiency in veganism why don't we see vegans walking around with bloated bellies from their ascities? Oh that's right, we don't.
You have no idea what you're talking about, and don't try deflect by saying "reee go read a journal" as if that's going to give any sort of confirmation for your argument. Besides, I'm sure I could find some paper that says high protein diets are bad for you - then what? Who's right at that point?
How is it sperging when it's just pointing out how obviously factually wrong someone is? If anything the guy talking out his ass about 'protein deficiency' is sperging my man
Every time I see "false equivalence" used on Reddit it's being used wrong. There's a 96% chance that anyone who says it unironically ate lead paint chips as a child. My other pet peeve is "dog whistle," which is a retarded analogy because only dogs can hear a dog whistle, so if you're hearing "veiled racist undertones" you're the dog/racist.
You're right about false equivalence (/u/taterbizkit what were you thinking? dummy) but I think the dog whistle analogy makes sense. Maybe it's not so much that you're hearing it, but you're watching the person blowing into the whistle with no sound and the other non-dogs aren't paying attention... I guess. Ok maybe it's a stretch.
Not to mention dog whistles don't sound like one thing to humans and another to dogs. They only sound like the one thing. So the analogy is wrong twice.
I think a better analogy would be "I forgot to take my anti-paranoia drugs today and am seeing meanings that don't exist".
/u/Omnibeneviolent how are you this fucking retarded. Just eat your fucking tofu and stfu about what everyone else eats. It doesn't affect your diet or health in the least.
Yes, I'm not confused because individuals imply humans when you talk like that. Learn to fucking English or is the lack of protein affecting your cognitive abilities? Do you worry about individual potatoes too? Do you cry a little inside when individual insects are killed from pesticide?
Stop throwing the word individuals around you fucking mouthbreather. BTW, I literally finished off some sausage before typing this.
I wish I could blame it on that, but my tests have come back fine, year after year. Maybe a deficiency will show up on my next bloodwork. crosses fingers
I am not saying humans are the same as nonhuman animals. Calling another being an individual is not saying they are the same. Individuals can be different.
This isn't about freedom of speech you mongoloid. If someone sounds retarded they aren't free from criticism. I am not telling you you aren't allowed to be stupid.
I didn't use the word animal in this case because it has too much baggage and doesn't accurately convey my point.
I'm not concerned simply about harming animals, but individuals. The word individual in this case refers to beings that are capable of being wronged; sentient individuals. I am not concerned with non-sentient animals.
Automaton - A self-operating machine, or a machine or control mechanism designed to automatically follow a predetermined sequence of operations, or respond to predetermined instructions.
I think it uses an inaccurate definition of free will. We may feel like we have free will, and we may very well be able to make decisions based on our will, but that doesn't mean they were free.
I think the definition is the common sense one. In other words, that you are able to act within your will. Seems that the kind of freewill we have is the only one that is coherent or even worth wanting.
I don't deny that we are able to act within our will. I just see no evidence to suggest that we freely choose these actions. We have so much external influence in our lives that our will seems entirely deterministic. We obviously have no choice but to live as if our decisions are free.
We have will and we can make choices from that will, but where that will originates is the question.
Being able to be the ultimate author of you own intention seems to me to be a meaningless benchmark for "free" will. The only kind of freedom that matters is being able to act within the will you have, in my opinion. I think the "evil scientist" thought experiment does a good job of showing why acting within your intention is what's important.
Had you wanted to do something different, you could have. If I can eat a burger or a taco and the only thing deciding which is my internal states, then I'd say that's as "free" a decision as can exist. If something has to be completely detached from any causation to be "free" then I'd have to be God. But it seems equally clear to me that there is a difference between "free" choices and coerced ones. A difference which is relevant enough to differentiate.
Had you wanted to do something different, you could have. The question now is, could you have wanted to do something different, given your past experiences, influence, genetics, and other factors that you do not control?
That seems contradictory to me. If you can't control your wants, how could you choose differently? In order to choose differently, don't you have to want to?
What would it mean to "control your wants"? I'd have to want to want something. And to do that, I'd have to want to want to want something. Ect. Ultimately, this will lead me back to simply needing to be the ultimate cause of any of my desires. I don't think this is a common sense or reasonable approach to what we should mean by "free will". Ultimately, an action is free in so far as it is not coerced. There seems to be a clear difference between the kind of decision that we make because we want to and the kind of decision that we make because someone has a gun to our heads. I'd say that difference is that one is free while the other isn't. I don't see why I need to be the beginning of some causal link of my desires for me to have made a free choice. It's enough for me to be able to act within the desires that I have.
It sounds like we have different definitions of "free." I think that for any action or decision I make to have truly been free, it would have had to been possible for me to have chosen otherwise. I think it's kind of silly to speak of coercion or having guns to our heads when we are talking about volition, because even if I had a gun to my head, I could "choose" to do the opposite of what the gunman wanted me to choose. I'm not talking about being forced to choose something, but rather not having a choice at all.
You can act on the desire you have, but if ultimately those desires are not of your own making, you couldn't have acted otherwise. If there are forces beyond our control implanting our desires to choose one option over another -- forces of which we are unaware, and give the illusion that those desires arise from within us -- can we really say to be making free choices? We are one link in a billions of years old causal chain.
Sure. An evil scientist hires a hitman to kill his wife. The scientist wants to ensure the job gets done so, as a kind of "insurance policy", when the hitman shows up he knocks him out and implants a chip in the hitmans brain (the hitman doesn't know about this or remember the procedure). The chip that was implanted has a very specific function. It reads the hitmans brain and if the he decides to not go trough with the murder, it will override his brain and force him to do it anyways. Fast forward a couple days to the date of the murder. The hitman is driving to the location where he will execute the hit and he thinks to himself "I wonder if I should be doing this kind of thing? Is this wrong?" After some deep contemplation though, he decides that he doesn't care quite enough to prevent him from wanting the huge paycheck that will inevitably come from the job. He goes through with the hit and kills the scientist's wife. The chip in his brain never goes off and he would have acted identically if the chip had never been implanted in the first place. Now, he couldn't have done other than what he did. If he had decided to do differently, his brain would have been overridden and he'd have done the hit anyways. Even though he couldn't have done otherwise, it appears as though he is blame worthy for committing the hit and he wouldn't have been had the chip taken over his brain. This is because if the chip took over his action would no longer have been "free". This highlights the fact that what appears to matter is that we are able to act within our own volition. The very fact that he "couldn't have done otherwise" is irrelevant to whether or not he is blame worthy in this scenario.
Thank you, that was very interesting and thought provoking.
That said, all it does is just add another layer. The hitman still "chose" to go through with the hit. Let's imagine the scientist forgot to activate the chip. The hitman still could not have chosen to act any other way than he did.
There is no mechanism analogous to the chip in our brains that will prevent us from making a decision. The issue isn't that we are being forced to choose other than we would want to choose; it's that we don't have a choice at all.
The key point is that there is a categorical difference between a decision which is made within your own volition and one that isn't. We can identify this as the difference between a "free" choice and a coerced one. Our understanding of free will needs to be in accordance with the science and we know that causality is a thing. I'll paraphrase Dennet here: There was a time when we thought that the sunset was the sun moving away from and below the earth. When we learned that the earth is what moved and that the sun remained in place, we didn't conclude that sunsets didn't exist. We concluded that they exist, they just aren't what we think they are. We now know that being detached from causality is probably unrealistic. It doesn't mean free will doesn't exist. It's exists, it's just not what ancient people thought it was.
Even in the case where the hitman made the choice to go through with the hit, where did that choice come from? Regardless of if there are electrodes in his brain, he still made the choice -- that will had to come from somewhere. Even if we granted that he was the author of this decision, he didn't make this decision in a vaccum -- he has his genetics and decades of past experiences to which ultimately determined his choice.
The sunset analogy is interesting, but it seems to be just an effort to redefine the term so that an illusory will is counted as free will.
Being subject to causality precludes free will, based on the definition I am using.
I just don't think it's illusory. Seems real to me. I'd say that applies to the sunsets analogy. Sunsets aren't illusions just because they aren't what we once thought.
Right, but the phenomena of a "sunset" still exists. It's just not what we once though. Anyways, I don't think it's that important but I used to be a hard determinist and no longer find it to be the best position.
And the phenomena of "free will" still exists, but like the sunset it is only an illusion.
I see no way to get out of hard determinism in a deterministic universe. If everything we know of is subject to the laws of causality. Why would our minds be any different?
All that does is just move the question back one more step. Let's assume that you made the choice with your own volition. What caused you to use your will in this way? Is is something you could have changed?
I think it does. We do not choose our own experiences or how those experiences shape our decision making.
Think of all of our past experiences and genetics as raw data. Our minds are processing that data and spitting out decisions. The decisions are dependent on that data.
Imagine a scenario where you have to choose between A & B. There are countless unique sets of data that could be fed into your mind, but some will result in you willing to choose A and some will result in you willing to choose B. If you were fed a data set that result in you willing to choose A, the only way you could change that would be if you were to somehow go back in time and change it so that you were fed one of the data sets that resulted in you willing to choose B. As this is impossible, we cannot conclude that you could have chosen any way other than the data set determined.
Keep in mind that even if you willed yourself to choose to go back in time and feed yourself another data set, that itself is a decision based on a completely different data set. You could not have chosen to do otherwise.
I agree that we "couldn't do otherwise" I just don't think that means free will is an illusion. I used to feel that way, but changed my mind in the last year or so.
It's free in that it is not a coerced decision. The restriction is my own desire. Being free to do what I want to do is about as much freedom as I can imagine being realistic. I don't see why I need to be able to want to want what I want for it to be free. It's enough that I can do what I wanted to.
I think that works if we redefine free in this context as simply "doing what one wants." My decisions are, after all, in line with my wants and desires.
My only concern with this definition is that it only accounts for a tiny portion of the puzzle of free will and determinism. As we do not have control over the origin or cause of our desires, we can only make a "free" choice as much as rock is free to roll down a hill rather than up the hill. I think the word free ends up losing all meaning.
Well exactly, 'control your wants' is impossible, which is exactly why free will is impossible. It only exists as a concept because people by and large don't think too hard about it, and go with their innate instincts.
The incompatibilist definition of 'free will' is so different from how lay people discuss and think about it. The implication of a person fundamentally deserving punishment or reward, which is widely taken as read, only follows from the incompatibilist view, not the compatibilist one. Really, the compatibilist definition of 'free will' is what is generally referred to as 'freedom'. The actions of a person to enact their will might be free and uncoerced but the will is never free of causality.
It only exists as a concept because people by and large don't think too hard about it
That's weird to say when compatibilism is overwhelmingly more popular among experts on the subject. Hard Determinism is a very unpopular position among people who think about this most seriously.
I'm not referring to experts on the subject, I'm referring to lay people. My argument here is that compatibilists use a definition divorced from the one understood and used by the general public. It's essentially jargon. That's fine in the right context but misleading when talking to a general audience as in a thread like this.
I actually don't think that's true. I don't think the average person thinks they have to be the ultimate causal link of their own intentions for an action to be free.
Most people don't give it much thought at all, and there's an inborn feeling that we do create our thoughts from nothing. People talk in terms of others being fundamentally good or bad, deserving punishment or reward, beyond the practicality of ensuring an incentive for good social behaviour. That kind of thinking isn't satisfied by the compatibilist definition of free will.
Of course, but how do they come to that conclusion? That person has no ability to not make the choices that causality sets them up to make.
Also, how do they draw an objective line between the big obvious coercions, like a gun to the head, and the innumerable tiny coercions of how everyday experiences prime our thoughts? How about a brain tumour or a rush of hormones, deliberate brainwashing or an abusive childhood?
Yeah "blameworthyness" is probably a spectrum not a dichotomy. We don't believe that someone has to be the ultimate cause of their own intentions to make a "free" choice. A choice where you're acting within your own volition is significantly different to the "gun to the head" scenarios you brought up. We call the first kind of decision "free"
If they're not the ultimate cause, then in what meaningful sense are they the cause at all? If someone isn't the cause of something, it seems strange to me to assign them blame or praise for the outcome. You wouldn't blame the middle domino in a line for knocking the next one down.
I think it's more likely that blame/praise-worthiness and free will as they are widely understood don't really exist. I think we have a strong nebulous sense of these concepts innately as a product of evolution, but conscious scrutiny shows them to be pretty irrational.
If they're not the ultimate cause, then in what meaningful sense are they the cause at all?
In the sense that they acted within their own desires and weren't coerced externally.
If someone isn't the cause of something, it seems strange to me to assign them blame or praise for the outcome
They can be the cause of something, without being the Ultimate cause of it. Just because causality exists doesn't mean that I'm not to blame for torturing a dog for fun. I was free to do otherwise, had I wanted to. I can't choose to want what I want, but that's not important for freedom, in my opinion.
It's not important for freedom in some senses of the word. But it is crucial for free will. You're saying yourself that your will isn't free of causality.
How can it be right to make a consciousness suffer because it did the bad things it was predetermined to do by causality?
So do you see where I'm coming from when I say I think the compatibilist notion of free will is not necessarily the one that is swimming around in the popular consciousness?
Well hard determinism hold that determinism is true and that it negates the possibility of free will. Compatibilism holds that determinism might be true, but even if it is free will can still exist.
But in practise it seems like they're defining free will in two completely different ways. One could be a compatibilist and an incompatibilist at the same time, believing that both the compatibilist definition of free will is extant and the incompatibilist definition of free will is impossible.
It's all apart of the natural order of things. Humans just happen to be really good predators, to the extent where we breed our prey in the millions. We've mastered the art of predation.
Lions, tigers, and bears in the wild need to harm other animals to survive and be healthy. Modern humans in the developed world no longer get to use this excuse.
Umm... scientific literacy is something I have cared about for a long time, and I know that a basic understanding of how evolution works is something that many people still struggle with.
Are you saying that the reason that people shouldn't make dogs fight each other to the death is because it will damage their property? What if they bought the dog with the intention of making it fight?
The same disgust mechanism that is over represented in conservatives with regard to moral and religious purity, makes many people uncomfortable with violence and death. That doesn't make it immoral.
Non-Aggression Principle. It's an axiom that states that initiating violence first is the greatest wrong, and that all behaviors that are not aggressive towards individuals can be permitted. It's a big part of the basis for American small-"l" libertarianism.
Ad Hominem!!! False Equivalency!!! Strawman!!! Equivocation!!!
We fucking get it, you took some Philosophy classes. Every time I see this I immediately write them off. Pretentiously throwing this shit around just makes it more clear that you can't present a compelling argument in simple terms, and that you must be right because you're so suuuuper smart.
Man, people always say this shit and never explain it as if a one word argument actually refutes anything. What is it with reddit all this logic fallacy bs?
The best part is, one of the first things they teach you in logic 101 is that fallacies don't mean it's wrong. You could commit every fallacy in the world, but if the conclusion you reach is right, it's still right. You just reached it in the wrong way.
Exactly. Someone making a fallacy in their argument doesn't mean that their conclusion is wrong, just that it cannot be reached using their current argument.
Drama about zoophilia: how can anybody defend this? it's so amoral, it hurts innocent animals, animals can't give consent and animal consent is very important for us (while these and other arguments can be easily applied to animal farming too). And zoophilia is totally like human rape and pedophilia.
Drama about meat&vegans: meat eating doesn't affect humans, so it's not a problem; animals are property, we have right to do everything we want with them; i don't care if you're a vegan or meat eater, just don't be annoying. And comparing animal issues in farming to human rape or slavery is very offensive and problematic.
They "communicate" by emitting chemicals that elicit a response.
Do vegans realize that is literally how human cells especially brain and nerve cells communicate? You change "chemical" to "soundwave" and that describes human communication. Its exactly the same process.
234 comments
1 SnapshillBot 2017-08-29
I can take a 9-inch dildo up my butt, because I'm an adult and I solve my own problems
Snapshots:
I am a bot. (Info / Contact)
1 crimsonchibolt 2017-08-29
oh please these people can't use dildos, they'd have to remove the massive stick up their arse first and even then their holes are ruined.
1 SperglockHolmes 2017-08-29
/u/vegan_hope
Because of you I'm going to go buy a package of steaks just to throw away.
That way a cow died for nothing, and it's all your fault.
1 lifesbrink 2017-08-29
Hold on there, fren, I will take those steaks. Immma hungry
1 0987654231 2017-08-29
go kill your own cow
1 Ed_ButteredToast 2017-08-29
:(
1 WithoutAComma 2017-08-29
Be honest tho you're too poor to do this.
1 AlreadyPorchNaked 2017-08-29
/u/vegan_hope have you read all the arguments against sealioning?
1 sudden_potato 2017-08-29
but you're not
1 saltedpecker 2017-08-29
That's just being a dick :/
1 [deleted] 2017-08-29
[removed]
1 pizzashill 2017-08-29
Why are vegans just the worst people.
1 Unruly_tism 2017-08-29
Well "people " is a strong word
1 pizzashill 2017-08-29
That's very true.
1 UniversityDaniel 2017-08-29
(((people)))
1 xoiz 2017-08-29
Most of the vegans are white. Coincedence? I think not.
1 Unruly_tism 2017-08-29
Wtf i love mayocide now
1 pepperouchau 2017-08-29
Welcome, comrade!
1 pepperouchau 2017-08-29
Aquafabacide when?
1 LuigiVargasLlosa 2017-08-29
Indians are white?
1 xoiz 2017-08-29
That's different.
1 LuigiVargasLlosa 2017-08-29
no
1 ThatMormonMike 2017-08-29
Curry Mayocide NOW!
1 Ranilen 2017-08-29
If you only eat what my food eats, I'm going to treat you like my food.
1 ason 2017-08-29
They're full of plant farts.
1 Wraith_GraveSpell 2017-08-29
I wish Vegans would go full breatharian and then go on a fast.
1 saltedpecker 2017-08-29
What
1 O-shi 2017-08-29
Vegans are just bitter because they aren't getting some essential proteins which they need, that can only come from meat.
1 Forseti69 2017-08-29
At the very least, some cheese and jello to sooth they're skinny bodies
1 OniTan 2017-08-29
According to the cheap meals subreddits, beans and lentils are good enough.
1 O-shi 2017-08-29
You can always find alternatives but they aren't equal to the real thing.
1 Sw2029 2017-08-29
That's not how nutrition works.
1 O-shi 2017-08-29
Please do explain how exactly it works
1 sudden_potato 2017-08-29
holy shit how dumb are you
1 wwyzzerdd 2017-08-29
beans and cornbread are a "complete protein".
1 TheGhostOfRichPiana 2017-08-29
did you get your biochem degree from a cereal box?
1 O-shi 2017-08-29
Do you your little attack will take away from the issue of protein deficiency in veganism.
1 TheGhostOfRichPiana 2017-08-29
it's pretty obvious you don't know what you're talking about m8. Do you know that beans, nuts and legumes have protein in them? Shocking, I know
1 O-shi 2017-08-29
I have a pretty good idea of what I am talking about, after all it is part of career. What is not part of my career is dealing petulant bitter vegans on social media, who learn a word or two and suddenly perceive that they an expert.
1 TheGhostOfRichPiana 2017-08-29
Alright Mr expert, lay out for me how there is 'protein deficiency' in vegan diets.
1 O-shi 2017-08-29
Oh honey quit whilst you are ahead. In future if you would like to offer your counter argument, journals within the last ten years are good sources. You have a good life, hopefully it's protein rich.
1 TheGhostOfRichPiana 2017-08-29
aka you have no idea what you're talking about. You don't need some peer reviewed journal to create a vegan dish with a reasonable amount of protein in it. For example I just went on MFP and threw together a vegan wrap meal with 20g of protein in it.
Also, if there's rampant protein deficiency in veganism why don't we see vegans walking around with bloated bellies from their ascities? Oh that's right, we don't.
You have no idea what you're talking about, and don't try deflect by saying "reee go read a journal" as if that's going to give any sort of confirmation for your argument. Besides, I'm sure I could find some paper that says high protein diets are bad for you - then what? Who's right at that point?
Cunt.
1 O-shi 2017-08-29
Name calling now that's all the confirmed needed to know you are triggered ~
1 TheGhostOfRichPiana 2017-08-29
No you're just a dumb fuck who can't backup his statements
1 O-shi 2017-08-29
Nahh I just refuse to argue with you 'tis all. This is good material you are providing though.
1 TheGhostOfRichPiana 2017-08-29
nice meme
1 Matues49 2017-08-29
lol sperg more
1 TheGhostOfRichPiana 2017-08-29
How is it sperging when it's just pointing out how obviously factually wrong someone is? If anything the guy talking out his ass about 'protein deficiency' is sperging my man
1 taterbizkit 2017-08-29
Yeah, they do love that false equivalency bullshit.
1 jubbergun 2017-08-29
Every time I see "false equivalence" used on Reddit it's being used wrong. There's a 96% chance that anyone who says it unironically ate lead paint chips as a child. My other pet peeve is "dog whistle," which is a retarded analogy because only dogs can hear a dog whistle, so if you're hearing "veiled racist undertones" you're the dog/racist.
1 aqouta 2017-08-29
You forgot derailing in list of words people only use unironically when they have had alcohol squirted on the brains as infants.
1 faheytrash 2017-08-29
You're right about false equivalence (/u/taterbizkit what were you thinking? dummy) but I think the dog whistle analogy makes sense. Maybe it's not so much that you're hearing it, but you're watching the person blowing into the whistle with no sound and the other non-dogs aren't paying attention... I guess. Ok maybe it's a stretch.
1 SpectroSpecter 2017-08-29
Not to mention dog whistles don't sound like one thing to humans and another to dogs. They only sound like the one thing. So the analogy is wrong twice.
I think a better analogy would be "I forgot to take my anti-paranoia drugs today and am seeing meanings that don't exist".
1 Omnibeneviolent 2017-08-29
I think a lot of people don't like certain valid comparisons and just use calling out "false equivalency!" to shout down the other person.
1 Thulean-Dragon 2017-08-29
I'm sorry, but you used a Strawman Fallacy (you would know what this is if you had a IQ of 150 like me) which means I automatically win the argument.
1 Evolution-Happens 2017-08-29
Don't forget "gas-lighting."
1 ClickableLinkBot 2017-08-29
r/vegan
Upvote to allow me to help others. Downvote to remove this comment. PM this bot if you want your subreddit ignored.
1 trecht 2017-08-29
Ayyyyy maybe update your code so it can link to multiple subreddits at once?
1 pepperouchau 2017-08-29
Post bussy
1 sumant28 2017-08-29
Dat moment when a meattard collides with logical inconsistency
1 trecht 2017-08-29
So what you're really saying is that we really should do is stop eating meat and start raping children?
1 jubbergun 2017-08-29
I think they want to start raping meat and eating children.
1 trecht 2017-08-29
Ah right I forgot, we need to keep eating meat because if we stop eating meat we become weak limpdicks
1 jubbergun 2017-08-29
Correlation is not causation, fam.
1 trecht 2017-08-29
Oh yeah right my bad
1 pepperouchau 2017-08-29
Get you a man who can do both
1 CirqueDuFuder 2017-08-29
/u/Omnibeneviolent how are you this fucking retarded. Just eat your fucking tofu and stfu about what everyone else eats. It doesn't affect your diet or health in the least.
1 Omnibeneviolent 2017-08-29
You seem to be confused. I'm not so much concerned about what other people eat, but about the individuals they harm.
1 Matues49 2017-08-29
u/Omnibeneviolent how are you this fucking retarded?
1 heavenlytoaster 2017-08-29
Meat deficiency
1 Omnibeneviolent 2017-08-29
This.
1 CirqueDuFuder 2017-08-29
Yes, I'm not confused because individuals imply humans when you talk like that. Learn to fucking English or is the lack of protein affecting your cognitive abilities? Do you worry about individual potatoes too? Do you cry a little inside when individual insects are killed from pesticide?
Stop throwing the word individuals around you fucking mouthbreather. BTW, I literally finished off some sausage before typing this.
1 SamWhite 2017-08-29
What kind of sausage?
1 CirqueDuFuder 2017-08-29
Sausage and egg omelette on a bagel.
1 SamWhite 2017-08-29
That does sound good. I need to get something to eat now.
1 Matues49 2017-08-29
B12 deficiency is known to cause this, among other things.
1 Omnibeneviolent 2017-08-29
I wish I could blame it on that, but my tests have come back fine, year after year. Maybe a deficiency will show up on my next bloodwork. crosses fingers
1 Matues49 2017-08-29
Of course they come back fine. They'll always keep coming back so long your B12 deficiency-induced hallucinations persist.
1 Omnibeneviolent 2017-08-29
Is this real life?
1 Matues49 2017-08-29
Or is it fantasy?
1 Omnibeneviolent 2017-08-29
Why does individuals imply humans? It implies beings with subjective cognitive experiences. Are you saying that a dog is not an individual?
1 CirqueDuFuder 2017-08-29
Dude, if you don't realize how you sound like an autist that is trying to say humans are the same as animals I don't know how to save you.
You need to learn to English good.
1 Omnibeneviolent 2017-08-29
I am not saying humans are the same as nonhuman animals. Calling another being an individual is not saying they are the same. Individuals can be different.
1 CirqueDuFuder 2017-08-29
Stop being this autistic. Call them fucking animals you weirdo.
1 nemo1889 2017-08-29
ableism and idiocy. Truly the peak of internet culture.
1 Matues49 2017-08-29
In just what sub do you think you're on?
1 nemo1889 2017-08-29
lol yeah that makes sense
1 FalmerbloodElixir 2017-08-29
isn't fucking real faggot
1 nemo1889 2017-08-29
that was perhaps the coolest and edgiest thing ive ever seen. great job
1 Omnibeneviolent 2017-08-29
They are animals. They are also individuals.
Wow you seem to have a big issue with people using words. I thought you guys were supposed to be all "freedom of speech over all else".
1 CirqueDuFuder 2017-08-29
This isn't about freedom of speech you mongoloid. If someone sounds retarded they aren't free from criticism. I am not telling you you aren't allowed to be stupid.
1 Omnibeneviolent 2017-08-29
I'm sorry words make you uncomfortable.
1 CirqueDuFuder 2017-08-29
Literally not what I said ever at any point. Political zealot vegans are legit mentally unstable train wrecks.
1 Omnibeneviolent 2017-08-29
You sound triggered.
1 Omnibeneviolent 2017-08-29
It's pretty clear that you're uncomfortable. I'm sorry.
1 Matues49 2017-08-29
You are projecting af right now, considering you're on a constant 24/7 internet crusade in order to distract yourself from your meat cravings.
1 Unicorn_Abattoir 2017-08-29
Do you always take criticism to mean that people are abridging your rights?
Deliberately using language in a different way than your audience understands it is bad rhetoric.
1 Omnibeneviolent 2017-08-29
Do you think anyone didn't understand I was referring to individual beings, and not individual humans?
I don't think we should avoid using accurate language simply because some people just don't like what it implies.
1 Unicorn_Abattoir 2017-08-29
It implies an untruth, and people are pointing that out. Why do you not use the word animal?
1 Omnibeneviolent 2017-08-29
What's the untruth?
I didn't use the word animal in this case because it has too much baggage and doesn't accurately convey my point.
I'm not concerned simply about harming animals, but individuals. The word individual in this case refers to beings that are capable of being wronged; sentient individuals. I am not concerned with non-sentient animals.
1 Bangzooka 2017-08-29
The personification of animals in Disney movies have altered the perception of animals in real life.
1 Matues49 2017-08-29
I'm sorry if this casts a shadow over your romantic life, but it's not.
1 Omnibeneviolent 2017-08-29
Do you think dogs are automatons?
1 Unicorn_Abattoir 2017-08-29
Automaton - A self-operating machine, or a machine or control mechanism designed to automatically follow a predetermined sequence of operations, or respond to predetermined instructions.
Yes, that sounds like dogs.
1 Omnibeneviolent 2017-08-29
/s?
1 Unicorn_Abattoir 2017-08-29
So you think dogs have free will?
1 lnfinity 2017-08-29
We don't know whether or not humans really have free will. Regardless of whether or not we do, it will not impact whether or not we are individuals.
1 Unicorn_Abattoir 2017-08-29
What is an individual?
1 Omnibeneviolent 2017-08-29
I don't even think humans have free will, so no.
1 nemo1889 2017-08-29
What don't you like about compatiblism?
1 Omnibeneviolent 2017-08-29
I think it uses an inaccurate definition of free will. We may feel like we have free will, and we may very well be able to make decisions based on our will, but that doesn't mean they were free.
1 nemo1889 2017-08-29
I think the definition is the common sense one. In other words, that you are able to act within your will. Seems that the kind of freewill we have is the only one that is coherent or even worth wanting.
1 Omnibeneviolent 2017-08-29
I don't deny that we are able to act within our will. I just see no evidence to suggest that we freely choose these actions. We have so much external influence in our lives that our will seems entirely deterministic. We obviously have no choice but to live as if our decisions are free.
We have will and we can make choices from that will, but where that will originates is the question.
1 nemo1889 2017-08-29
Being able to be the ultimate author of you own intention seems to me to be a meaningless benchmark for "free" will. The only kind of freedom that matters is being able to act within the will you have, in my opinion. I think the "evil scientist" thought experiment does a good job of showing why acting within your intention is what's important.
1 Omnibeneviolent 2017-08-29
If we are not the authors of our own intentions, then in what way can our will be said to be free?
1 nemo1889 2017-08-29
I think that an action can be properly called "free" if we could have acted differently had we wanted to.
1 Omnibeneviolent 2017-08-29
I agree.
If we are not the authors or our own intentions, then how could we have acted differently?
1 nemo1889 2017-08-29
Had you wanted to do something different, you could have. If I can eat a burger or a taco and the only thing deciding which is my internal states, then I'd say that's as "free" a decision as can exist. If something has to be completely detached from any causation to be "free" then I'd have to be God. But it seems equally clear to me that there is a difference between "free" choices and coerced ones. A difference which is relevant enough to differentiate.
1 Omnibeneviolent 2017-08-29
Had you wanted to do something different, you could have. The question now is, could you have wanted to do something different, given your past experiences, influence, genetics, and other factors that you do not control?
1 nemo1889 2017-08-29
No, but I don't think that's important to free will. I don't see any reason determinism isn't compatible with free will
1 Omnibeneviolent 2017-08-29
I think that not being able to choose to do something different would disqualify any notion of free will.
If I am not controlling my own wants and desires, is acting on those wants and desires truly free?
1 nemo1889 2017-08-29
I could do something different. I just can't control all causes up until that moment to want to do something different
1 Omnibeneviolent 2017-08-29
That seems contradictory to me. If you can't control your wants, how could you choose differently? In order to choose differently, don't you have to want to?
1 nemo1889 2017-08-29
What would it mean to "control your wants"? I'd have to want to want something. And to do that, I'd have to want to want to want something. Ect. Ultimately, this will lead me back to simply needing to be the ultimate cause of any of my desires. I don't think this is a common sense or reasonable approach to what we should mean by "free will". Ultimately, an action is free in so far as it is not coerced. There seems to be a clear difference between the kind of decision that we make because we want to and the kind of decision that we make because someone has a gun to our heads. I'd say that difference is that one is free while the other isn't. I don't see why I need to be the beginning of some causal link of my desires for me to have made a free choice. It's enough for me to be able to act within the desires that I have.
1 Omnibeneviolent 2017-08-29
It sounds like we have different definitions of "free." I think that for any action or decision I make to have truly been free, it would have had to been possible for me to have chosen otherwise. I think it's kind of silly to speak of coercion or having guns to our heads when we are talking about volition, because even if I had a gun to my head, I could "choose" to do the opposite of what the gunman wanted me to choose. I'm not talking about being forced to choose something, but rather not having a choice at all.
You can act on the desire you have, but if ultimately those desires are not of your own making, you couldn't have acted otherwise. If there are forces beyond our control implanting our desires to choose one option over another -- forces of which we are unaware, and give the illusion that those desires arise from within us -- can we really say to be making free choices? We are one link in a billions of years old causal chain.
1 nemo1889 2017-08-29
Have you heard the evil scientist thought experiment on this? I think it does a good job showing why "good have done otherwise" is not so important.
1 Omnibeneviolent 2017-08-29
I have not, at least that I can remember, and Google search isn't turning anything useful up. Could you lay it out for me or provide a link?
1 nemo1889 2017-08-29
Sure. An evil scientist hires a hitman to kill his wife. The scientist wants to ensure the job gets done so, as a kind of "insurance policy", when the hitman shows up he knocks him out and implants a chip in the hitmans brain (the hitman doesn't know about this or remember the procedure). The chip that was implanted has a very specific function. It reads the hitmans brain and if the he decides to not go trough with the murder, it will override his brain and force him to do it anyways. Fast forward a couple days to the date of the murder. The hitman is driving to the location where he will execute the hit and he thinks to himself "I wonder if I should be doing this kind of thing? Is this wrong?" After some deep contemplation though, he decides that he doesn't care quite enough to prevent him from wanting the huge paycheck that will inevitably come from the job. He goes through with the hit and kills the scientist's wife. The chip in his brain never goes off and he would have acted identically if the chip had never been implanted in the first place. Now, he couldn't have done other than what he did. If he had decided to do differently, his brain would have been overridden and he'd have done the hit anyways. Even though he couldn't have done otherwise, it appears as though he is blame worthy for committing the hit and he wouldn't have been had the chip taken over his brain. This is because if the chip took over his action would no longer have been "free". This highlights the fact that what appears to matter is that we are able to act within our own volition. The very fact that he "couldn't have done otherwise" is irrelevant to whether or not he is blame worthy in this scenario.
1 Omnibeneviolent 2017-08-29
Thank you, that was very interesting and thought provoking.
That said, all it does is just add another layer. The hitman still "chose" to go through with the hit. Let's imagine the scientist forgot to activate the chip. The hitman still could not have chosen to act any other way than he did.
There is no mechanism analogous to the chip in our brains that will prevent us from making a decision. The issue isn't that we are being forced to choose other than we would want to choose; it's that we don't have a choice at all.
1 nemo1889 2017-08-29
The key point is that there is a categorical difference between a decision which is made within your own volition and one that isn't. We can identify this as the difference between a "free" choice and a coerced one. Our understanding of free will needs to be in accordance with the science and we know that causality is a thing. I'll paraphrase Dennet here: There was a time when we thought that the sunset was the sun moving away from and below the earth. When we learned that the earth is what moved and that the sun remained in place, we didn't conclude that sunsets didn't exist. We concluded that they exist, they just aren't what we think they are. We now know that being detached from causality is probably unrealistic. It doesn't mean free will doesn't exist. It's exists, it's just not what ancient people thought it was.
1 Omnibeneviolent 2017-08-29
Even in the case where the hitman made the choice to go through with the hit, where did that choice come from? Regardless of if there are electrodes in his brain, he still made the choice -- that will had to come from somewhere. Even if we granted that he was the author of this decision, he didn't make this decision in a vaccum -- he has his genetics and decades of past experiences to which ultimately determined his choice.
The sunset analogy is interesting, but it seems to be just an effort to redefine the term so that an illusory will is counted as free will.
Being subject to causality precludes free will, based on the definition I am using.
1 nemo1889 2017-08-29
I just don't think it's illusory. Seems real to me. I'd say that applies to the sunsets analogy. Sunsets aren't illusions just because they aren't what we once thought.
1 Omnibeneviolent 2017-08-29
A sunset is an illusion of the sun "setting" over the horizon as a result of the Earth rotating. The sun is not actually moving.
1 nemo1889 2017-08-29
Right, but the phenomena of a "sunset" still exists. It's just not what we once though. Anyways, I don't think it's that important but I used to be a hard determinist and no longer find it to be the best position.
1 Omnibeneviolent 2017-08-29
And the phenomena of "free will" still exists, but like the sunset it is only an illusion.
I see no way to get out of hard determinism in a deterministic universe. If everything we know of is subject to the laws of causality. Why would our minds be any different?
1 nemo1889 2017-08-29
They are also subject to the laws of causation, but that doesn't prohibit freewill. The two things are compatible in my mind.
1 Omnibeneviolent 2017-08-29
I guess I still don't see how they could be compatible. If I cannot control what caused me to make a certain choice, how is that choice free?
1 nemo1889 2017-08-29
Because a free choice is, in my opinion, better defined as a decision I made within my own volition.
1 Omnibeneviolent 2017-08-29
All that does is just move the question back one more step. Let's assume that you made the choice with your own volition. What caused you to use your will in this way? Is is something you could have changed?
1 nemo1889 2017-08-29
Genetics and environment. That doesn't mean the choice isn't a "free" one.
1 Omnibeneviolent 2017-08-29
I think it does. We do not choose our own experiences or how those experiences shape our decision making.
Think of all of our past experiences and genetics as raw data. Our minds are processing that data and spitting out decisions. The decisions are dependent on that data.
Imagine a scenario where you have to choose between A & B. There are countless unique sets of data that could be fed into your mind, but some will result in you willing to choose A and some will result in you willing to choose B. If you were fed a data set that result in you willing to choose A, the only way you could change that would be if you were to somehow go back in time and change it so that you were fed one of the data sets that resulted in you willing to choose B. As this is impossible, we cannot conclude that you could have chosen any way other than the data set determined.
Keep in mind that even if you willed yourself to choose to go back in time and feed yourself another data set, that itself is a decision based on a completely different data set. You could not have chosen to do otherwise.
1 nemo1889 2017-08-29
I agree that we "couldn't do otherwise" I just don't think that means free will is an illusion. I used to feel that way, but changed my mind in the last year or so.
1 Omnibeneviolent 2017-08-29
In what sense is it "free" to choose A if you could not have chosen B?
1 haikubot-1911 2017-08-29
In what sense is it
"free" to choose A if you could
Not have chosen B?
- Omnibeneviolent
I'm a bot made by /u/Eight1911. I detect haiku.
1 nemo1889 2017-08-29
lol. This is cool
1 nemo1889 2017-08-29
It's free in that it is not a coerced decision. The restriction is my own desire. Being free to do what I want to do is about as much freedom as I can imagine being realistic. I don't see why I need to be able to want to want what I want for it to be free. It's enough that I can do what I wanted to.
1 Omnibeneviolent 2017-08-29
I think that works if we redefine free in this context as simply "doing what one wants." My decisions are, after all, in line with my wants and desires.
My only concern with this definition is that it only accounts for a tiny portion of the puzzle of free will and determinism. As we do not have control over the origin or cause of our desires, we can only make a "free" choice as much as rock is free to roll down a hill rather than up the hill. I think the word free ends up losing all meaning.
1 Zozbot 2017-08-29
zoz
1 Zozbot 2017-08-29
zle
1 Zozbot 2017-08-29
zozzle
1 nemo1889 2017-08-29
Yeah totally. I actually think free will is one of the more tedious conversations lol
1 Zozbot 2017-08-29
zoz
1 Zozbot 2017-08-29
zle
1 Zozbot 2017-08-29
zozzle
1 Zozbot 2017-08-29
zoz
1 Zozbot 2017-08-29
zle
1 Zozbot 2017-08-29
zozzle
1 Omnibeneviolent 2017-08-29
I love that we had this convo on this sub.
1 nemo1889 2017-08-29
I always come to r/drama for any kind of philosophical conversations. Better than r/askphilosophy
1 Cheese-n-Opinion 2017-08-29
Well exactly, 'control your wants' is impossible, which is exactly why free will is impossible. It only exists as a concept because people by and large don't think too hard about it, and go with their innate instincts.
The incompatibilist definition of 'free will' is so different from how lay people discuss and think about it. The implication of a person fundamentally deserving punishment or reward, which is widely taken as read, only follows from the incompatibilist view, not the compatibilist one. Really, the compatibilist definition of 'free will' is what is generally referred to as 'freedom'. The actions of a person to enact their will might be free and uncoerced but the will is never free of causality.
1 nemo1889 2017-08-29
That's weird to say when compatibilism is overwhelmingly more popular among experts on the subject. Hard Determinism is a very unpopular position among people who think about this most seriously.
1 Cheese-n-Opinion 2017-08-29
I'm not referring to experts on the subject, I'm referring to lay people. My argument here is that compatibilists use a definition divorced from the one understood and used by the general public. It's essentially jargon. That's fine in the right context but misleading when talking to a general audience as in a thread like this.
1 nemo1889 2017-08-29
I actually don't think that's true. I don't think the average person thinks they have to be the ultimate causal link of their own intentions for an action to be free.
1 Cheese-n-Opinion 2017-08-29
Most people don't give it much thought at all, and there's an inborn feeling that we do create our thoughts from nothing. People talk in terms of others being fundamentally good or bad, deserving punishment or reward, beyond the practicality of ensuring an incentive for good social behaviour. That kind of thinking isn't satisfied by the compatibilist definition of free will.
1 nemo1889 2017-08-29
The compatibilist definition does account for someone being praise or blameworthy though. That's one of its' biggest appeals
1 Cheese-n-Opinion 2017-08-29
It doesn't. If someone's will is out of ultimately out of their control then they aren't ultimately responsible.
1 nemo1889 2017-08-29
Compatibilists don't see it this way
1 Cheese-n-Opinion 2017-08-29
How do they see it?
1 nemo1889 2017-08-29
Typically they think someone is blame/praise worthy to the extent that they act within their own volition and the decision wasn't coerced.
1 Cheese-n-Opinion 2017-08-29
Of course, but how do they come to that conclusion? That person has no ability to not make the choices that causality sets them up to make.
Also, how do they draw an objective line between the big obvious coercions, like a gun to the head, and the innumerable tiny coercions of how everyday experiences prime our thoughts? How about a brain tumour or a rush of hormones, deliberate brainwashing or an abusive childhood?
1 nemo1889 2017-08-29
Yeah "blameworthyness" is probably a spectrum not a dichotomy. We don't believe that someone has to be the ultimate cause of their own intentions to make a "free" choice. A choice where you're acting within your own volition is significantly different to the "gun to the head" scenarios you brought up. We call the first kind of decision "free"
1 Cheese-n-Opinion 2017-08-29
If they're not the ultimate cause, then in what meaningful sense are they the cause at all? If someone isn't the cause of something, it seems strange to me to assign them blame or praise for the outcome. You wouldn't blame the middle domino in a line for knocking the next one down.
I think it's more likely that blame/praise-worthiness and free will as they are widely understood don't really exist. I think we have a strong nebulous sense of these concepts innately as a product of evolution, but conscious scrutiny shows them to be pretty irrational.
1 nemo1889 2017-08-29
In the sense that they acted within their own desires and weren't coerced externally.
They can be the cause of something, without being the Ultimate cause of it. Just because causality exists doesn't mean that I'm not to blame for torturing a dog for fun. I was free to do otherwise, had I wanted to. I can't choose to want what I want, but that's not important for freedom, in my opinion.
1 Cheese-n-Opinion 2017-08-29
It's not important for freedom in some senses of the word. But it is crucial for free will. You're saying yourself that your will isn't free of causality.
How can it be right to make a consciousness suffer because it did the bad things it was predetermined to do by causality?
1 nemo1889 2017-08-29
I think compatibilists would still advocate a reform based justice system, not a punitive one.
1 Cheese-n-Opinion 2017-08-29
You said earlier that lay people are generally compatibilist at heart, though. A lot of these people will be at least somewhat retributivist.
1 nemo1889 2017-08-29
Yeah that's maybe true. That's something we should try to educate people on for sure.
1 Cheese-n-Opinion 2017-08-29
So do you see where I'm coming from when I say I think the compatibilist notion of free will is not necessarily the one that is swimming around in the popular consciousness?
1 nemo1889 2017-08-29
I do. I used to fell that way too. I just no longer think hard determinism is the best description of reality.
1 Cheese-n-Opinion 2017-08-29
Are hard and soft determinism not the same thing, just using a different definition of free will?
1 nemo1889 2017-08-29
Well hard determinism hold that determinism is true and that it negates the possibility of free will. Compatibilism holds that determinism might be true, but even if it is free will can still exist.
1 Cheese-n-Opinion 2017-08-29
But in practise it seems like they're defining free will in two completely different ways. One could be a compatibilist and an incompatibilist at the same time, believing that both the compatibilist definition of free will is extant and the incompatibilist definition of free will is impossible.
1 FalmerbloodElixir 2017-08-29
All "you" are is a bunch of single-celled organisms communicating to each-other via chemicals and ions. In the end, it doesn't matter.
1 Omnibeneviolent 2017-08-29
Deep.
1 nemo1889 2017-08-29
Dogs are automatons lol. New one.
1 Unicorn_Abattoir 2017-08-29
Cool, you're one of The Lucky 10,000!
1 pubic_centipede 2017-08-29
if cows don't want to be eaten, then should have evolved to have their flesh taste like ammonia
1 Omnibeneviolent 2017-08-29
Did animals evolve to be good tasting to predatory animals, or did the predatory animals evolve to like the taste of the other animals?
1 IsADragon 2017-08-29
🤔
1 LedinToke 2017-08-29
Are vegans annoying by default, or do annoying people become vegans?
1 Omnibeneviolent 2017-08-29
A bit of both.
1 FalmerbloodElixir 2017-08-29
Does it matter?
It's all apart of the natural order of things. Humans just happen to be really good predators, to the extent where we breed our prey in the millions. We've mastered the art of predation.
1 Omnibeneviolent 2017-08-29
Lions, tigers, and bears in the wild need to harm other animals to survive and be healthy. Modern humans in the developed world no longer get to use this excuse.
1 lnfinity 2017-08-29
That isn't how evolution works...
1 trecht 2017-08-29
No shit sherlock. Maybe you need some protein to kick that brain back into gear.
1 Matues49 2017-08-29
Damn, you're the quintissential vegan bot. You'd even show up at a porn subreddit to reeee if you thought somebody was bad-mouthing your cult.
Kinda sad tbh.
1 lnfinity 2017-08-29
Umm... scientific literacy is something I have cared about for a long time, and I know that a basic understanding of how evolution works is something that many people still struggle with.
<Error 217: Angry vegan stereotype not found>
1 True_Jack_Falstaff 2017-08-29
Do you seriously not understand that he was making a joke?
I have no problem with veganism, but you are incredibly dense, m8.
1 Matues49 2017-08-29
Y u vegan, then?
1 CuriousNoobKid 2017-08-29
That's like saying humans should have developed bullet proof skin if they didn't want to get killed.
1 Unruly_tism 2017-08-29
Animals are not equal to humans. They are at best property and can be used however people want.
1 Omnibeneviolent 2017-08-29
I haven't claimed, nor do I believe, that animals are equal to humans.
So forcing dogs fight each other to the death is all good?
1 Matues49 2017-08-29
Only if you rape them first.
1 Gtyyler 2017-08-29
Is setting your car on fire good? Probably not. Because you can fuck up your property doesn't mean you should.
1 Omnibeneviolent 2017-08-29
Are you saying that the reason that people shouldn't make dogs fight each other to the death is because it will damage their property? What if they bought the dog with the intention of making it fight?
1 Unicorn_Abattoir 2017-08-29
The same disgust mechanism that is over represented in conservatives with regard to moral and religious purity, makes many people uncomfortable with violence and death. That doesn't make it immoral.
1 Omnibeneviolent 2017-08-29
I'm not sure I follow. What does this have to do with my comment?
1 bytewake 2017-08-29
but they literally can't fam. not without without legal repercussions. the law already extends certain protections to animals. you
1 Unruly_tism 2017-08-29
And those laws violate rhe NAP m8
1 serialflamingo 2017-08-29
The government not letting you rape your pooch isn't violence m8
1 bytewake 2017-08-29
oh you're being serious... I'm sorry the law won't let you fuck your dog
1 Unruly_tism 2017-08-29
Actually i live in canada so thats actually legal.
But no I just mean i dont care what others do with their stuff unitl it affects me
1 bytewake 2017-08-29
assuming that includes someone torturing their pets that's kinda fucked up fam
1 archiesteel 2017-08-29
It's not. Expect a visit from the OPP shortly.
1 ProtoplasmGladiator 2017-08-29
Yeah you know me!
1 nemo1889 2017-08-29
Quickest way to realize you're talking to a moron.
1 Matthew1J 2017-08-29
What does it mean?
1 Unicorn_Abattoir 2017-08-29
Non-Aggression Principle. It's an axiom that states that initiating violence first is the greatest wrong, and that all behaviors that are not aggressive towards individuals can be permitted. It's a big part of the basis for American small-"l" libertarianism.
1 nemo1889 2017-08-29
Non-aggression principle. Basically states that initiating an act of violence (loosely defined) is immoral and anything that doesn't is ok.
1 goofylimp 2017-08-29
Animals are not people. They are not individuals. They are not worthy of the same rights bestowed humans beings and their children.
1 Omnibeneviolent 2017-08-29
I never claimed they should have the same rights as human beings. Just that we ought to not harm them if and when possible and practicable.
1 JasonJewnova 2017-08-29
Are vegans allowed to eat pussy?
1 sudden_potato 2017-08-29
no
1 TotesMessenger 2017-08-29
I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:
If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)
1 RenegadeJoeson 2017-08-29
i dont care if you eat meat or not. just done be an innsufferable asshole about it. Actually, if it creates more drama go for it.
1 Wowbagger1 2017-08-29
Vegans invaded CB a couple months ago
Dunno why vegans think they can win people over by insulting them and comparing meat eating to genocide.
1 Unruly_tism 2017-08-29
/u/vegan_hope, why dont you just accept your role as a human fleshlight for superior meat eaters?
1 diversity_is_toxic 2017-08-29
Vegans have very stinky vaginas.
1 but-uh 2017-08-29
We fucking get it, you took some Philosophy classes. Every time I see this I immediately write them off. Pretentiously throwing this shit around just makes it more clear that you can't present a compelling argument in simple terms, and that you must be right because you're so suuuuper smart.
1 yourshittytherapist 2017-08-29
Man, people always say this shit and never explain it as if a one word argument actually refutes anything. What is it with reddit all this logic fallacy bs?
1 SpectroSpecter 2017-08-29
The best part is, one of the first things they teach you in logic 101 is that fallacies don't mean it's wrong. You could commit every fallacy in the world, but if the conclusion you reach is right, it's still right. You just reached it in the wrong way.
1 Omnibeneviolent 2017-08-29
Exactly. Someone making a fallacy in their argument doesn't mean that their conclusion is wrong, just that it cannot be reached using their current argument.
1 Soviet_elf 2017-08-29
Drama about zoophilia: how can anybody defend this? it's so amoral, it hurts innocent animals, animals can't give consent and animal consent is very important for us (while these and other arguments can be easily applied to animal farming too). And zoophilia is totally like human rape and pedophilia.
Drama about meat&vegans: meat eating doesn't affect humans, so it's not a problem; animals are property, we have right to do everything we want with them; i don't care if you're a vegan or meat eater, just don't be annoying. And comparing animal issues in farming to human rape or slavery is very offensive and problematic.
Inconsistent, illogical.
1 _throawayplop_ 2017-08-29
Well tried, zoophile
1 bleasehalb 2017-08-29
Stop fucking animals Cletus.
1 cleverseneca 2017-08-29
Do vegans realize that is literally how human cells especially brain and nerve cells communicate? You change "chemical" to "soundwave" and that describes human communication. Its exactly the same process.
1 mindhowl 2017-08-29
lol vegan_hope deleted his account. What a pussy!