''It's frowned upon.''

[ThrobbingEgo]

*snip*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature

Appeal to nature is a fallacy of relevance consisting of a claim that something is good or right because it is natural, or that something is bad or wrong because it is unnatural or artificial. In this type of fallacy nature is often implied as an ideal or desired state of being, a state of how things were, should be, or are: in this sense an appeal to nature may resemble an appeal to tradition.

Several problems exist with this type of argument that makes it a fallacy. First of all the word "natural" is often a loaded term, usually unconsciously equated with normality, and its use in many cases is simply a form of bias. Second, "nature" and "natural" have vague definitions and thus the claim that something is natural may not be correct by every definition of the term natural; a good example would be the claim of all-natural foods, such as "all-natural" wheat, the claimed wheat though is usually a hybridised plant that has been bred by artificial selection. Lastly, the argument can quickly be invalidated by a counter-argument that demonstrates something that is natural that has undesirable properties (for example aging, illness, and death are natural), or something that is unnatural that has desirable properties (for example, many modern medicines are not found in nature, yet have saved countless lives).

Generic forms of an appeal to nature are:
"X is Y because it is natural." (Y being a desirable property)
"X is Z because it is unnatural." (Z being an undesirable property)
Or simply when a desirable or undesirable property is implied:
"X is natural."
"X is unnatural."

This fallacy is exemplified, for instance, on some labels and advertisements for alternative herbal remedies. The labels often have the phrase "all-natural" to assert that the product is safe. The idea that natural herbs and plants are always safe ignores the many toxic plants found in nature (hemlock, nightshade, belladonna, poisonous mushrooms, to name a few) and any possible side effects the herbs might have. Cocaine, for instance, is an "all-natural" medicine derived from the coca plant, and which was prescribed for many years for everything from chest colds to depression, yet it is highly addictive and can wreak havoc on the body's organs. Whether a product is "all-natural" or not is irrelevant in determining its safety or effectiveness.

The presence of this fallacy is manifest in the logic behind certain objections to evolution, specifically objections to evolution's morality. Those who object for this reason assume that if behaviors such as polygamy, infanticide and violence are shown to be natural, that would make them acceptable. This misunderstanding has fueled some animosity towards evolutionary biologists, for example sociobiology was criticized from this angle in the latter half of the twentieth century. (See also sociobiological theories of rape.) Others, while not believing 'natural' to be 'right' themselves, assume that those advancing evolutionary theories do. This objection should not be confused with the closely related criticism that biologists in these fields are suggesting genetic determinism. This fallacy is often present in arguments for the legalization of marijuana or other drugs such as peyote.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

Hypocrisy is important because it weakens your message. Debate fallacy or not, it is infinitely easier to make condemning comments from the sidelines than to keep to your own message. Also, in your message, Bill is technically speaking from experience, smells horrid, and is probably coughing, which adds to the message. Like a rape victim saying rape is bad. A yuppie complaining about the plight of animals while he wears equally disgustingly produced leather is just sounding like a douchebag. Bit of a difference there but don't let me get in the way of your moral high ground.

Also, I don't really care about chickens. So no... Besides, I take it you never read about the fact that fat content from animals is how we evolved our brains in the first place? That higher mental functions came from the higher energy found in animal fat? I am all for free range but inevitably, I have bigger problems.

Hypocrisy doesn't weaken any message. Hypocrisy has nothing to do with the message. It's not smart to be a hypocrite, because then unscrupulous people with competing messages may exploit that hypocrisy, but it has nothing to do with the validity of the message. Take a critical thinking or propaganda studies class, or something.

If you don't care about chickens, well, you could either take that for granted, or examine why that is. But saying "I don't care" by itself, is not an argument. It's a conclusion that you've come to, unexplained. An argument ideally provides a listener with a roadmap to your conclusion.

Also, man, you might want to bone up a bit more on evolutionary theory. The consumption of fat content shouldn't cause genetic mutations. You should be greatly concerned if it did.

 

[DeathWyrmNexus]

Hypocrisy is important because it weakens your message. Debate fallacy or not, it is infinitely easier to make condemning comments from the sidelines than to keep to your own message. Also, in your message, Bill is technically speaking from experience, smells horrid, and is probably coughing, which adds to the message. Like a rape victim saying rape is bad. A yuppie complaining about the plight of animals while he wears equally disgustingly produced leather is just sounding like a douchebag. Bit of a difference there but don't let me get in the way of your moral high ground.

Also, I don't really care about chickens. So no... Besides, I take it you never read about the fact that fat content from animals is how we evolved our brains in the first place? That higher mental functions came from the higher energy found in animal fat? I am all for free range but inevitably, I have bigger problems.

Hypocrisy doesn't weaken any message. Hypocrisy has nothing to do with the message. It's not smart to be a hypocrite, because then unscrupulous people with competing messages may exploit that hypocrisy, but it has nothing to do with the validity of the message. Take a critical thinking or propaganda studies class, or something.

If you don't care about chickens, well, you could either live with that, or examine why that is. But saying "I don't care" by itself, is not an argument. It's a conclusion that you've come to. An argument ideally provides a listener with a roadmap to your conclusion.

Actually if your message has value, you adhere to it. Critical thinking works both ways. You were comparing a drug addiction to a dude with leather shoes. Bob is saying it is bad and probably wants to quit but has to deal with physical dependency. The guy with shoes just likes the look of leather on his feet.

Kind of a big difference there as perception is a big part of a person's reality. As for the message itself, sure, wisdom from the mouths of fools is still wisdom but one has to ask why is the chef slim...

So thank you, I have taken classes, I just accept the idea that presentation can be as important as the message. I am surprised that propaganda classes didn't teach you that. How do you think propaganda works? It is based on a human's instinctive need to understand something at a glance. So if you want to convey a message, you have to present a message. Just because you have the "truth" behind you doesn't exempt you from that rule. Thinking things through would prove that.

That said, here is the roadmap to my conclusion. Chickens and the suffering thereof does not bother me. Why? Because I am hungry and they don't matter to me in the grand scheme of things. My survival and the survival of my family is more important than them. I am a predator and they are prey. How I catch said prey does not matter. If it can be done more efficiently, that is my concern. If free range is more efficient, let it be. I find many things about our society inefficient and foolish, however, as you said, the hypocrisy of the system doesn't stop meat from being something I prefer so I will still eat meat just as the fools in leather shoes you're defending will continue to preach something they don't even comprehend.

I guess you just can't stop some things. I like the idea of high energy fat helping my brain do its job better. What I will continue to point out is that while you are for stopping some suffering of animals, you aren't for stopping all the suffering because, and this is an admitted assumption, it is just too inconvenient for you to not drive, not be on the computer, and not enjoy the trapping of civilization. Pardon me if I take you a tiny bit less seriously because of said assumption.

 

[technoted]

Threating the guy who bullied my little sister, it stopped him yet I went about doing it wrong and made bad choices... In my world the choices were tear him a new hole to shit out of or crush him emotionally and threaten to ruin his life if he doesn't stop his shit...

 

[Camembert]

I guess you just can't stop some things. I like the idea of high energy fat helping my brain do its job better. What I will continue to point out is that while you are for stopping some suffering of animals, you aren't for stopping all the suffering because, and this is an admitted assumption, it is just too inconvenient for you to not drive, not be on the computer, and not enjoy the trapping of civilization. Pardon me if I take you a tiny bit less seriously because of said assumption.

Oh please, what bullshit is this? What, because some people have compassion enough to try and make some difference, and to retain some integrity by refusing to do something that they are against, they should be chided for not trying hard enough? Yeah, that's really great.

Edit: Sorry, I should probably stay out of it - ThrobbingEgo is doing a perfectly decent job of debating you into the ground on his own.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

Are they ever around meat eaters? Maybe you just keep better company. I know of preachy vegans though. I WILL argue with them if they start preaching. But otherwise they can not eat meat all they want if thats what they prefer.

Well I'm a meat eater. In fact, it's more often the other way around - I used to be a vegetarian and would constantly have morons asking deliberately irritating questions and making fun of me for not eating meat. On the other hand, no vegan has ever tried persuading me to stop eating animal products, unless I have already expressed interest.

I just get really sick of people making fun of vegans all the time. It's admirable, it takes restraint. If you have the willpower (I do not) to give up all animal products because of your ethics then that is a great thing.

Being a vegan for ethics sake seems silly to me honestly. I don't make fun of them though, cept for one snide remark. I dont exactly know the difference between vegan and vegetarian, mostly just assume vegan is even more "hardcore" I guess. But well, a shot at the ethicy ones...difference between plants and animals...plants cant scream. (Both used to be alive before you ate it)

A vegan doesnt eat eggs milk or anything that ever came from an animal. I have a vegan friend but i honestly cant see why you cant just be free range instead. That way not only do uo not fund the unethical battery farming but you get to eat the food AND fund the ethical treatment of animals. I like to think i make more of an impact.

 

[Camembert]

A vegan doesnt eat eggs milk or anything that ever came from an animal. I have a vegan friend but i honestly cant see why you cant just be free range instead. That way not only do uo not fund the unethical battery farming but you get to eat the food AND fund the ethical treatment of animals. I like to think i make more of an impact.

That's interesting, I never thought of it that way. The free range/organic market must be encouraged as much as possible, it's true.

 

[not_the_dm]

my cousin asked me to kiss her once
the single most awkward kiss of my entire life

This has happened to me too. She was a little tipsy.

 

[DeathWyrmNexus]

I guess you just can't stop some things. I like the idea of high energy fat helping my brain do its job better. What I will continue to point out is that while you are for stopping some suffering of animals, you aren't for stopping all the suffering because, and this is an admitted assumption, it is just too inconvenient for you to not drive, not be on the computer, and not enjoy the trapping of civilization. Pardon me if I take you a tiny bit less seriously because of said assumption.

Oh please, what bullshit is this? What, because some people have compassion enough to try and make some difference, and to retain some integrity by refusing to do something that they are against, they should be chided for not trying hard enough? Yeah, that's really great.

What difference are you making exactly? The chicken isn't destined for grad school, dude. He is going to die either as a pet, prey, or random worm food as ignoble as any roadkill. Hell, what integrity for that matter? You're sitting at a computer who's infrastructure has caused and continues to cause suffering equal to or greater than whatever I eat tonight. You're probably driving the same car as the rest of us. If not, then you're probably still using rubber tires, which all leads back to the same oil nonsense as everybody else. What about that suffering, considering that is actually doing massive damage to an entire ecosystem? No... Your great endeavor is bitching about dinner. Let me just bask in your awe here. >_>

You have a cause and that's cute. The problem is when you think it gives you any kind of moral high ground. By all means, I'm sure the chick you save from the factory will write a great dissertation in thanks to all you've done for it. In the meantime, I'm going to consider my options for lunch.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

That kind of stuff is why I tend to feel smarter than most people. Sitting in english reading shakespear, it mentioned primate. I assumed everyone knew what that was. After no one answered, I did in a "duh tone" and found out the rest of the class did not know.

I love those superior moments. I read Shakespeare for pleasure when I was at school (still do actually) so I found the language a lot easier than most of my classmates. Try learning the meanings of really obscure words (tonsorial was a favourite of mine) and then if they come up you can feel that warm, knowledgeable glow.

Ugh...reading it aloud in class. The slow speaking and saying everything wrong. I made sure to always get one of the characters (everytime) so atleast someone would read it with some accuracy. (Not saying I said it all correctly, but better than them, and was praised for my feeling when reading)

I do that but always add a scottish accent. It makes me feel in character regardless of gender or setting.

 

[Camembert]

What difference are you making exactly? The chicken isn't destined for grad school, dude. He is going to die either as a pet, prey, or random worm food as ignoble as any roadkill. Hell, what integrity for that matter? You're sitting at a computer who's infrastructure has caused and continues to cause suffering equal to or greater than whatever I eat tonight. You're probably driving the same car as the rest of us. If not, then you're probably still using rubber tires, which all leads back to the same oil nonsense as everybody else. What about that suffering, considering that is actually doing massive damage to an entire ecosystem? No... Your great endeavor is bitching about dinner. Let me just bask in your awe here. >_>

You have a cause and that's cute. The problem is when you think it gives you any kind of moral high ground. By all means, I'm sure the chick you save from the factory will write a great dissertation in thanks to all you've done for it. In the meantime, I'm going to consider my options for lunch.

I eat meat. I have no moral high ground.

Also, I don't drive. I catch the bus or cycle everywhere : |

Edit: Look, this sort of thing isn't of massive concern to me. My beliefs are relatively mild, but they are beliefs all the same. My stance is that of the 'live and let live' variety, and I do admire vegans and vegetarians for their willpower. And please, the 'moral highground' accusation is very boring indeed, not to mention unnecessary. You are engaged in a debate, where you and another human are exchanging opinions, arguments, ideas, whatever. Why try and undermine them with that useless insult?

 

[Baneat]

If you're good natured and well intended, people, and lots of them, will take advantage of it. Doesn't mean you should be stopping though.

 

[DeathWyrmNexus]

What difference are you making exactly? The chicken isn't destined for grad school, dude. He is going to die either as a pet, prey, or random worm food as ignoble as any roadkill. Hell, what integrity for that matter? You're sitting at a computer who's infrastructure has caused and continues to cause suffering equal to or greater than whatever I eat tonight. You're probably driving the same car as the rest of us. If not, then you're probably still using rubber tires, which all leads back to the same oil nonsense as everybody else. What about that suffering, considering that is actually doing massive damage to an entire ecosystem? No... Your great endeavor is bitching about dinner. Let me just bask in your awe here. >_>

You have a cause and that's cute. The problem is when you think it gives you any kind of moral high ground. By all means, I'm sure the chick you save from the factory will write a great dissertation in thanks to all you've done for it. In the meantime, I'm going to consider my options for lunch.

I eat meat. I have no moral high ground.

Also, I don't drive. I catch the bus or cycle everywhere : |

So you ride in a diesel vehicle or use rubber tires. I do commend you for commuting, though that could be for the same reason as everybody else I know stuck to it.

Here is the thing, I'm not wanting to be in your face about this. I just despise hypocrisy, especially easy to fix hypocrisy. For those who think hypocrisy in a message doesn't matter, I present to you, the world... Take note of how much isn't taken seriously because of hypocrisy and apathy. Then reevaluate your stance and realize that debate rules of fallacies only matter in debates. If the real world functioned off logic, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

Actually if your message has value, you adhere to it. Critical thinking works both ways. You were comparing a drug addiction to a dude with leather shoes. Bob is saying it is bad and probably wants to quit but has to deal with physical dependency. The guy with shoes just likes the look of leather on his feet.

Kind of a big difference there as perception is a big part of a person's reality. As for the message itself, sure, wisdom from the mouths of fools is still wisdom but one has to ask why is the chef slim...

So thank you, I have taken classes, I just accept the idea that presentation can be as important as the message. I am surprised that propaganda classes didn't teach you that. How do you think propaganda works? It is based on a human's instinctive need to understand something at a glance. So if you want to convey a message, you have to present a message. Just because you have the "truth" behind you doesn't exempt you from that rule. Thinking things through would prove that.

And that's still entirely irrelevant to whether or not the message is true. You know this, so you should know better. You know you're in trouble when you're trying to argue in favor of blatant logical fallacies.

That said, here is the roadmap to my conclusion. Chickens and the suffering thereof does not bother me. Why? Because I am hungry and they don't matter to me in the grand scheme of things.

Speaking of fallacies, circular logic. Good job, mate.

My survival and the survival of my family is more important than them.

Hey, another one! False dilemma! (This is fun.) You can ensure your family survives and not consume animal products. I'm also more concerned with human beings than I am concerned with animals, but that doesn't mean that I shouldn't be concerned with animal suffering. Including animal suffering for frivolous reasons, such as eating meat because I like the taste of it. (And I do like the taste of meat. I just don't think my enjoyment of meat is worth the animal's suffering.)

I am a predator and they are prey. How I catch said prey does not matter. If it can be done more efficiently, that is my concern. If free range is more efficient, let it be. I find many things about our society inefficient and foolish, however, as you said, the hypocrisy of the system doesn't stop meat from being something I prefer so I will still eat meat just as the fools in leather shoes you're defending will continue to preach something they don't even comprehend.

And now we're back to preference. Because it is preference, not survival. You can get healthy monounsaturated fats from non-animal sources.

I guess you just can't stop some things. I like the idea of high energy fat helping my brain do its job better. What I will continue to point out is that while you are for stopping some suffering of animals, you aren't for stopping all the suffering because, and this is an admitted assumption, it is just too inconvenient for you to not drive, not be on the computer, and not enjoy the trapping of civilization. Pardon me if I take you a tiny bit less seriously because of said assumption.

I'm not crusading to end all suffering. I'm just not going to contribute to mass suffering for something that can only be described as frivolous. You can belittle that by drawing attention to what I may or may not be doing, and that might ease whatever guilt you may or may not have. It might make you feel good. But it ultimately doesn't change the fact that I don't have to be contribute to the suffering of animals - suffering for no other purpose than my direct pleasure.

Two year ago I was in your shoes. Then I took an ethics course and studied Peter Singer's Animal Liberation. At the time I laughed it off. Then I did a little digging in philosophy. That stewed for a while. I began to realize that the reasons which I've laughed off the idea of veganism were all ill founded and fallacies. I had no reason not to stop eating meat, and every reason to. So, whatever man. If you want to keep telling yourself that you don't care because you like the taste of meat, and you've seen hippies wearing leather shoes, that's something you're going to have to live with.

PS: I added a paragraph in my last post about your claim that meat sparked the evolution of our bigger brains. (Which would be irrelevant, even if it was right and you just explained it wrong.)

 

[Camembert]

So you ride in a diesel vehicle or use rubber tires. I do commend you for commuting, though that could be for the same reason as everybody else I know stuck to it.

Here is the thing, I'm not wanting to be in your face about this. I just despise hypocrisy, especially easy to fix hypocrisy. For those who think hypocrisy in a message doesn't matter, I present to you, the world... Take note of how much isn't taken seriously because of hypocrisy and apathy. Then reevaluate your stance and realize that debate rules of fallacies only matter in debates. If the real world functioned off logic, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Ooh, please see edit

Edit: And you're too hung up on hypocrisy. People try to do what they can, and they can move in small steps. Some may eventually give up the enjoyment of the 'trappings of civilisation' altogether, but for now let them do what they can. Veganism is not an easy thing at all, far from it - I've never been brave enough to try it - so please give them some credit for that. They would surely be ten times as hypocritical if (like me) they felt unease about the suffering of farm animals but then went ahead and scoffed 'em anyway...?

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

A vegan doesnt eat eggs milk or anything that ever came from an animal. I have a vegan friend but i honestly cant see why you cant just be free range instead. That way not only do uo not fund the unethical battery farming but you get to eat the food AND fund the ethical treatment of animals. I like to think i make more of an impact.

"Free-range" is little more than a marketing term. They give the chickens a few more square feet in their wire cages, maybe put the cages over a dirt floor, and leave a unaccessible window open. It'd be prohibitively expensive for your supermarket to stock meaningfully "free-range" products, what with all the land, tracking, and care requirements.

Google search.
http://www.google.ca/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=%22free-range%22+myth

 

[Camembert]

A vegan doesnt eat eggs milk or anything that ever came from an animal. I have a vegan friend but i honestly cant see why you cant just be free range instead. That way not only do uo not fund the unethical battery farming but you get to eat the food AND fund the ethical treatment of animals. I like to think i make more of an impact.

"Free-range" is little more than a marketing term. They give the chickens a few more square feet in their wire cages, maybe put the cages over a dirt floor, and leave a window open. It'd be prohibitively expensive for your supermarket to stock meaningfully "free-range" products, what with all the land, tracking, and care requirements.

Google search.
http://www.google.ca/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=%22free-range%22+myth

Really...? I mean, I knew it wasn't as rosy as people pretend - they're not frollicking about in a dappled glade or anything - but they're not even outside? The way you put it, it sounds as though they're worse off than barn hens.

 

[Count Igor]

Depends whether it was an inside bin.

 

[F-I-D-O]

*snip*

snip

I never said it was right or wrong. I tried to avoid ethical implications, instead saying that they were in fact the same. i don't have the most coherent posts, but the last few lines seemed to sum it up. They were the same problem, just with different ways of saying it. I believed humans to be natural because we are part of nature as a whole. By extension, anything humans do would be natural. It is said we (humans) are "naturally" more destructive, violent, and worse than anything else to walk on earth. But, a lion kills it's prey, slaughtering them without prior warning, destroying the prey's family, only for personnel gain. Is what the lion doing not part of what "comes naturally" to the beast?

However, I'm not saying that we should say everything we do is okay because it is natural. Don't take a bulldozer to the amazon screaming "but it's natural" as you destroy the ecosystem. Humans should take the responsibility for how we are slowly destroying the earth (through landfills, pollution etc, Global warming lacks supporting evidence from a reliable source). I was trying to use the term natural, not as a loaded term, but something occurring in the environment through processes that the animals or plants do.
Humans are omnivores. It is natural for us to eat both meat and vegetables, but we can survive on just one.
As opposed to:
Humans are omnivores. It is natural for us to eat meat and vegetables. Therefore, you are evil for not eating meat, and you are not natural. You must be punished. *lightning strikes, followed by a scream in the background*
Occurring naturally or through a natural process does not make it good or bad, but makes it a part of the environment. Keep in mind that bad things happen naturally in the environment.
Those last two lines sorta sums it up if you don't want to read the above.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

A vegan doesnt eat eggs milk or anything that ever came from an animal. I have a vegan friend but i honestly cant see why you cant just be free range instead. That way not only do uo not fund the unethical battery farming but you get to eat the food AND fund the ethical treatment of animals. I like to think i make more of an impact.

"Free-range" is little more than a marketing term. They give the chickens a few more square feet in their wire cages, maybe put the cages over a dirt floor, and leave a window open. It'd be prohibitively expensive for your supermarket to stock meaningfully "free-range" products, what with all the land, tracking, and care requirements.

Google search.
http://www.google.ca/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=%22free-range%22+myth

Really...? I mean, I knew it wasn't as rosy as people pretend - they're not frollicking about in a dappled glade or anything - but they're not even outside? The way you put it, it sounds as though they're worse off than barn hens.

There's a lot of work that goes into making the public perception look as rosy as it is. The factory farms have deep pockets and huge political lobbies. I don't know what it's like wherever you are, but in Ontario there are plenty of commercials on TV on behalf of dairy farmers, skateboarding around like arseholes, showing them on traditional farms, with, like, a single cow each.

That's not a realistic portrayal. Supply would never meet demand that way.