That actually might be a cultural thing. Where I'm from (the Netherlands) we use it mostly when someone is being too hard on themselves. So here it's most often used to say "stop complaining and cheer up". Or even more common is when the person complaining recognises it in themselves and tells themselves "nobody's perfect" to accept failure and move on. — Benkei

Where are you from? I talk to friends on a regular basis from all over the world. Netherlands, Norway, UK, Argentina, Denmark, Sweden, Canada, etc.... I've never heard anyone use the term this way. And as I said in a previous comment, I've watch plenty of movies/shows, and not even in the fictional character world, have I heard an actor/actress use the term 'Nobody's perfect', in any other way than defending someone.

That's absurd, you have quite a way of thinking about things. "Nobody's perfect" can mean different things based on the context, it absolutely never means "I'm disputing your position that you're perfect" except when perfection was actually claimed but I am genuinely amazed that you've taken it that way. — Judaka

The phrase carries a lot of baggage. Similar to the definition of God. Nobody would ever say, "When I say I believe in God, I am referring to this coffee cup." - If they were to say that, they can. But they are grossly ignoring the how the word 'God' is actually defined and/or used. You can claim that when people say "Nobody's perfect", it has a plethora of meanings to it, but you're ignoring the most common use of the term and appealing to the rare situation. I've been alive for quite a while, and have known people from 20+ different countries, watched countless movies and shows, and I have never once heard someone use "Nobody's perfect" in a way you are talking about. They have only ever used it as a way to defend a person who is being criticized.

It's obvious that things can have different meanings, based on the context. But just as with the God example, sometimes it is a bit absurd to ignore how something or some phrase is used by almost everyone on the planet.

I do enjoy how you've tried to misrepresent the phrase as being a way of apologising for rapists and feeling as if since you did that there's no possible utility to the phrase anymore. — Judaka

I've actually talked to Christians and other people who have said this very thing for murders and rapists. That nobody's perfect, and we shouldn't judge them, etc... The phrase doesn't have utility in the way you want it to. Just like the term 'God' doesn't have utility when I define 'God' as my coffee cup. I could use it that way if I want to, but it doesn't make much sense does it.

I hate that one too, arghhhhh

In your example it's unhelpful. If you'd drop my favourite mug and I reply with "well, nobody's perfect" I trust it helps you to understand I value you more than my mug. — Benkei

In this case, you're recognizing that it was an accident. "Nobody's perfect" in your example is similar to saying "Don't worry about it." - I think the saying is still a bit silly. Because it is almost implying that I claimed I am perfect, and you're somehow enlightening me by letting me know I am not, and neither is anyone else. I also don't like the indirectness of the saying itself. Rather than saying, "Nobody's perfect", why not say what you actually mean? In your example, you could just tell me, "It's ok, I value you more than my mug" - In other examples, for the most common use, people say "Nobody's perfect" when they defend a wrongdoer. In essence, what they are saying is, "It's ok that they did something wrong, because we all do wrong things. Therefore, he doesn't need to take responsibility for what he has done."

You really gave stupid examples, intent matters and context matters. You can't make a phrase sound bad by giving ludicrous examples of people using it to say absurd things like "forgive your rapist nobody is perfect" and whatnot lmao. — Judaka

There is no context where "nobody's perfect" is useful or helpful. Unless you're talking to 5-year olds, who think that some people may indeed be perfect (such as their parents), grown people do not believe anybody is perfect. Therefore, staying that 'nobody's perfect' is a red herring. Things that are useful can be consistently used throughout any example, similar to a moral principle.

lol wth...

What do you mean "unnecessary"? As long as "nobody's perfect" adds something to the statement, then it serves a purpose, and in this scenario it's a functional or rhetorical answer to the question it posed. — VagabondSpectre

I'm unclear as to what purpose it serves? I guess the main concern here is, this is assuming that the person on the opposing end of that statement, doesn't apparently know that perfect people don't exist. Do you think anybody on this planet believes that a perfect person exists?

It points out that failing to achieve absolute perfection is not the same as achieving overall failure. — VagabondSpectre

Absolute perfection is impossible. So pointing it out which be a red herring. Unless you're referring to 'never losing a match' as absolute perfection? In chess, I would label 'absolute perfection' as never making the wrong move within the chess board. It's like saying, an NBA achieved absolute perfection by never losing a game during the regular season. But I wouldn't call it perfection, unless they didn't miss a single shot, didn't allow the opponent make a single point, etc...

Suppose Mary is yelling at Harry for having made some mistake, and Harry responds, "everybody makes mistakes" or "nobody's perfect". Which one is being more unreasonable? It depends on the circumstances. — Relativist

Of course Mary could be yelling in an unreasonable fashion, but a response from Harry such as "nobody is perfect", literally adds nothing to the situation. Something actually productive to the situation could be a statement like, "Mary, why are you getting so upset over this specific issue? Is something else bothering you?"

Scenario A: — VagabondSpectre

I doubt the judge would think that phrase has some validity to it.

Conclusion: The phrase was useless to say.

Scenario B — VagabondSpectre

The first part of the scenario's statement is a good starting point and good question, but the end is unnecessary.

Conclusion: The phrase was useless to say.

Scenario C: — VagabondSpectre

The person saying Bobby was a shit chess player was demonstrably wrong. And you can prove that by showing the games he won. Saying 'Nobody's perfect' after the rebuttal, is completely useless and adds nothing to the point.

Conclusion: The phrase was useless to say.

If there is a god, then god is perfect. — TheMadFool

This is a bit strange. Why would God be perfect if it existed?

Yeah, well, I did ask for that didn’t I? It’s obviously still raw for you. — Possibility

Nothing is raw, as nothing happened to me. But I see many responses in forums, or parents of my friends talking to them in a similar way.

Did you just want validation here, or a philosophical discussion? It wasn’t clear, sorry. This is a philosophical forum. — Possibility

I don't need validation, as I came here for discussion. Why would you think otherwise? It's strange for you to assume I am the one who has been wronged, when I have been explaining things thoroughly.

I agree with you that it’s inappropriate and insensitive to dismiss someone’s expression of negative experiences with phrases such as ‘nobody’s perfect’. I agree with you that when someone is clearly looking for validation, then the appropriate response would be to give it as required. I would have thought that was obvious, and doesn’t require discussion. I doubt you’ll have any argument on these points. — Possibility

If it was obvious, people would stop doing it. But they don't. I see it happen every week almost.

But your claim was also that the phrase was “useless and irrelevant to ANY discussion” - I disagree with this. There are situations where it could be useful — Possibility

Could you give me an example of a discussion that would benefit from someone saying, "Nobody's perfect?"

The question is why it upsets us so much to hear this consideration of the offender as a human being, as deserving of compassion as we are. — Possibility

I don't deny that the offender is a human being, but that's irrelevant when offering someone validation and/or compassion. If my daughter is raped, I am not going to tell her, "Have some consideration for your rapist. He is a human being as well." - Not only is it absurd, but it is completely dismissive of what my daughter is going through.

Would it make you feel better if the response was to denigrate this family member, label them as ‘evil’ and resolve hatred towards them? — Possibility

Absolutely not. Validation isn't necessarily about agreeing with the person on their view, or affirming their view is accurate. It is about allowing someone to feel and express their emotions and thoughts. Once the person has become more logical and out of emotion, then you can discuss the validity of their thoughts. If my wife comes to me and tell me her mother upset her, I am going to validate her emotional expression. And sympathize with her, until we reach a point we can actually talk about what happened in an objective sense. It doesn't matter how accurate her initial story is of her mother.

When you express an interpersonal interaction, you cannot always expect people to immediately relate to your position. — Possibility

Validation is irrelevant to relating. It's quite the opposite actually. If someone tells me a story about something they went through, I don't need to relate it to myself or anyone else. All I need to do is understand that they went through something, and I will initially validate their experience in what they went through.

In this case, they may relate initially to the family member instead, and may be responding defensively to your pain and anger for their own reasons that have nothing to do with you. Your taking offence at a lack of validation is based on an assumption that yours is the only position in the encounter worth consideration: either in the situation of abuse or in the telling of it to others. Sorry to burst your bubble. — Possibility

You sound like you don't understand what validation means, or how to execute it. If you're girlfriend/boyfriend comes home from work, and tells you they had a hard day because of something their co-worker did to them. Are you going to respond to them initially by telling them, "Well, your co-worker deserves some consideration here. You don't have the only position worth considering, sorry to burst your bubble here." - You would be an awful support partner if you said that.

If I respond instead by telling you how my family member physically abused me, is it because I’m expressing compassion for your situation, or because I want to position myself as more deserving of validation than you are? Being conscious of our limited perspective can be a lesson in humility. — Possibility

If you responded with that initially, without validating my story/feelings first, I would say that is completely selfish and lacking empathy and/or compassion. Someone is telling you a story to vent and/or reach out for some support, not to hear about your story as an initial response. If I tell you a story, one sign that you would be interested is for you to ask questions about what happened, why it happened, what could prevent it in the future, how to resolve it, etc... But on the contrary, if you don't say anything other than relating it to yourself, well then it's obvious how interested you were in my current frustration. This is not to say that one could never talk about themselves in response to someone's hardship, but it should never be the initial response.

It is what it is. — Wallows

lol... I hate that one too. ffs -.-

Ergo, atheism has a common problem of ableism and is morally bankrupt, etc. — JohnRB

I've been an Atheist for a while, and any time I have used amputees as an example against God's existence, it was never to demean the amputee. It was to show that God is either not all-powerful, or not all-loving. You cannot be both and sit back while people are born without limbs. If I had the power to grow someone's limbs back, I would do it. If I had the power to stop a child from being abducted, or abused, I would do it.

People would be angry with police if a policeman sat and watched a child get tortured and killed. They would probably say things like, "You're here to protect us! You're here to serve the public and help people in need! You should be fired! You're horrible for sitting there and watching this happen!" - Yet we hold God to a lower standard than a worldly policeman? It's ok for God to sit back and watch, but not ok for us worldly people to sit back and watch. Weird...

Chatterbears: Do you believe the Bible (OT or NT or Koran) is inerrant? Do you believe that everything in the Bible or the Koran must be applied as literally and precisely as possible? — Bitter Crank

If Religious people believe God is perfect, and that his word is perfect (which they all do), then yes. They should follow it literally and as precise as possible. If they actually did that, maybe they would realize how imperfect that book actually is.

If you don't, then you should be quite happy to have people pick and choose what they want to abide by. If you do, then of course you would expect people to march in lock step with everything the Bible or Koran says. — Bitter Crank

People picking and choosing is just a form of logically inconsistency. It's like a child saying, "Everything my parents taught me is correct. But I am going to pick and choose what to follow, just because."

By the way, you may have noticed that religious law is not secular law, the law of the land. People in most societies are required to abide by secular law, first and last. If they practice slavery, then they will subject to severe punishment. If they burn witches, they should expect either the death penalty themselves, or at least a long prison term. — Bitter Crank

Yeah I think that's pretty obvious. And this is the reason why secular law was created, because people realized how absurd the laws in the Bible and other holy books actually are.

Some societies follow religious law (like strict sharia law). If the community and civil authorities are willing, maybe one can get away with burning witches or killing homosexuals. At one time, in some later-enlightened western European countries, it was possible to get away with burning/hanging/drowning witches. In New England, at one time, one could get expelled from the community for disagreeing with John Calvin. Pretty strict, they were. — Bitter Crank

Yeah, the societies that follow religious law are at least true to what they believe. If a health care professional picked and chose what practices he should initiate with patients, we probably would call them an unreliable and bad doctor. If a cop picked and chose what type of lethal force to use, depending on how he was feeling that day, we would call that a bad cop.

To become recognized as good and reliable doctor, they would use a consistent method of health care practices, which produce results that are repeatable. Same with science, and almost any other area of life. Yet, when we apply this same stand of consistency to Religious People, suddenly picking and choosing is OK to do? Being inconsistent in your beliefs and practices, is suddenly a good thing? Smh...

What kind of society do you want? One where people obey secular law and pick and chose which religious rules to pay attention to, or a society where secular and religious law are the same, and may not have a choice?

Pick and choose, Chatterbears. — Bitter Crank

Aside from you setting up a false dichotomy, I want a society where people act consistent according to their beliefs. And the thing is, people's beliefs would crumble under any type of consistency test. For example:

Chatterbears: Do you believe what is morally good is whatever God commands?
Religious Person: Yes, anything God commands is morally good.
Chatterbears: If God commanded rape, would that be morally good?
Religious Person: No, rape is bad...

There's a form of inconsistency already. And I've had similar conversations like that with many of my religious friends. So when you actually reflect and become self-aware of what your beliefs stand on, the ground under them crumbles immensely.

So you asked, what kind of society I want. One where people act consistent in accordance to their actions and beliefs. Our world would improve by 95% if people actually did that.

It's a matter of interpretation and levels of literalism you wish to impose. — Hanover

A perfect book written by a "perfect" creator should not have something as trivial as interpretation stand in his way of conveying the most important life lessons to mankind. I guess he isn't that perfect after all?

Christians are not bound by the rigorous laws of the OT, and so if you limit your inquiry to the New Testament, you can make perhaps a better argument for veganism as a Christian/love related idea, evaluating the question holistically. — Hanover

So I guess the 10 commandments are out of the water. And maybe you haven't read the New Testament, but there are things in there that are just as ridiculous as the OT. How about the blatant sexism in 1 Timothy 2:11-12 ?

"A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet."

Or the fact that slavery was still condoned and promoted. Even Jesus was not opposed to it. Jesus recommends that disobedient slaves should be beaten (Luke 12:47) or even killed (Matthew 24:51).

To say the New Testament is about "love", is very warped and corrupt.

You're thinking of statements by the Apostles Paul and Peter. — Bitter Crank

Yes, Paul conveyed those ideas, but Jesus was not against slavery in the slightest. Jesus recommends that disobedient slaves should be beaten (Luke 12:47) or even killed (Matthew 24:50-51).

Christians believe that what Jesus had to say is still in effect. — Bitter Crank

So they must be ok with slavery then right? Jesus never opposed it, as I said already.

Thats exactly my point. People pick and choose what they want to abide by according to their interpretation of the scripture. I’d say 99% of people are against slavery, yet it is clearly condoned in the Bible. Jesus even tells slaves to obey their masters. And for people who say Slavery was part of the Old Testament and it doesn’t apply anymore, well then I guess we should throw out the rest of the Old Testament with it too, such as the 10 Commandments.

That'd be a curious choice of words, but I guess one is entitled to their opinion. But again, claiming to be superior is probably the worst way of convincing people of one's views. — Tzeentch

Let me rephrase the statement for NKBJ. Would this be more convincing?

'I evaluate veganism as morally better to omnviorism'

Other examples:

'I evaluate punctuality as better work ethic to showing up late'
or
'I evaluate punctuality as superior work ethic to showing up late'

Both convey the same idea, but you are some how stuck on the word 'superior'. When, in the context we are using it in, just simply means "better".

Better / Improved / Superior.

Pick your choice of word, as they all mean the same thing in this context. Veganism is morally better/improved/superior to omnivorism.

Can we get over the semantics now and actually talk about the real issues with Veganism?

That's an ignorant thing to quote. You're essentially saying, unless someone is perfect, they cannot judge others who are also not perfect.

So as I have asked somebody before, if your daughter gets raped, are you going to tell your daughter that she is no better than the person who raped her, since you believe moral decisions don't make you any worse than the next person, correct?

Also. Here are some analogies so you can better understand.

1: My morals are superior to a person who condones rape.
2. My health is superior to a person who smokes, drinks and eats fast food every day.
3. My work ethics are superior to a person who shows up late every day.

Just because I am not perfect in my work ethics, doesn't mean I cannot judge someone who had poor work ethics. Just because I am not perfectly healthy, doesn't mean I cannot judge someone who is unhealthy. And just because I am not perfectly moral, doesn't mean I cannot judge someone who is acting immorally.

For some reason, people are completely content in labeling their actions as better (or superior) when it comes to most subjects, expect for morality. And anybody who does is an apparent hypocrite who should never judge the moral 'fibre' of others.

I am not against human rights, but I don't pretend to be a champion for human rights either, nor do I harbor any illusions about being morally superior to others. So whatever point it is you're making, I think it misses its mark. — Tzeentch

What are you talking about? It's very simple.

You are not against human rights.
I am not against animal rights.

You don't pretend to be a champion for human rights.
(You're not donating all your time to homeless shelters and helping impoverished people)
I don't pretend to be a champion for animal rights.
(I am not donating all my time to rescuing animals or stopping animal cruelty)

I would argue that you do "harbor the illusion" that you are morally superior to a rapist or child molester. In the same way I "harbor the illusion" that I am morally superior to someone who supports animal cruelty.

You claim I missed the mark, yet your criticism to vegans not only misses the mark, but it is an exact reflection of how you feel about human rights. Vegans extend those rights to non-human animals, while you keep it restricted to humans.

Also just in case you were wondering, have you bought anything on this list?

List of Goods Produced by Child Labor or Forced Labor
https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ilab/reports/child-labor/list-of-goods

Starts around page 7
https://www.dol.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ilab/ListofGoods.pdf

If you have purchased or consumed any of those products, you must be against human rights. Right?

Ask Yourself came out with a recent video talking about people who try and deploy this "Vegans are hypocrites" nonsense. You should check it out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJoVbNTu6Pc

I've read through most of your posts on the 1st and 2nd page, and I have a question for you.

Are you against human trafficking or human slavery? If so, I'd assume your reasoning would be to allow humans to be treated fairly and live long lives. But by your logic, you would also have to abandon most of your "luxuries" to adhere to this belief.

1.25 million people die in road crashes each year, no driving for you.
Your clothing comes from child slave work in other countries.
Your electronics are made by slave factory workers in china.
Do you watch porn? You contribute to sex trafficking and the degrading of women.
Do you take showers? Many don't have clean water. Offer to give yours up.
Do you drink filtered water? Offer that up as well.
Do you work in a country that promotes capitalism? Quit to support socialism instead.

I could on into the same illogical tirade you have displayed here. Any position you hold could be 'led' to a conclusion in which deems you as hypocritical. So if Vegans are hypocrites, you're worse.

No worries. Let's just move on and chalk up this discussion as a miscommunication.

If the law of noncontradiction is a particular that means there's just one instance of it, at a specific spatio-temporal location. Do you agree with that? — Terrapin Station

No, I don't agree. But seeing as we are going to go around in circles and disagree on how things are defined or used, let's just end the convo here. Small re-cap:

I stated that logic, math and ethics all have axioms in which one would accept to move forward with further reasoning. You state that logic and math point to objective facts, while ethics does not. You then stated that "something can't be itself and not itself at the same time." is an objective fact, while I tried to correct you and state that this is an axiom called 'the law of noncontradiction'. You claimed it wasn't the same as the law of noncontradiction, while I claim the two are identical, but just worded trivially different. We then go off on a tangent about how this relates to metaphysics (universals/particulars), in which the discussion becomes even less productive than it was initially.

Side Rebuttal: I could claim that my system of logic has an axiom that states "something CAN be itself and not itself at the same time." - In which I could then claim this is an objective fact, and be in the same position as you are, but on the opposing side.

In conclusion, you can claim anything to be an objective fact, but that does not make it so.

you don't understand that distinction if you're suggesting that a law or principle, objectively, could be a particular. — Terrapin Station

You said it is not a particular, while I say it is. Do we just end the convo there?

I don’t understand why you aren’t answering my question. This is the 3rd time now, for this specific question.

Do you agree that what you described is identical to the law of contradiction?

law of noncontradiction = something cannot both be and not be.
what you stated = something can't be itself and not itself at the same time.

If you agree that these are identical, then can you concede that your statement is an axiom, not an objective truth.

I told you I understand that already. And to frame your particulars/universals in the axiom context, I'll do it this way.

Universal: An axiom
Particular: the law of noncontradiction

This is irrelevant to what I asked though and you didn't answer my question.

Did you agree with my definition of the law of noncontradiction? And do you agree that it is identical to what you stated?

law of noncontradiction = something cannot both be and not be.
what you stated = something can't be itself and not itself at the same time.

If you agree that what you stated is conceptually identical to the law of noncontradiction, in the same way that "not having hair" is conceptually identical to "a bare scalp", then you are tripped up on semantics. My initially problem was how you tried to label "something can't be itself and not itself" as an objective fact. When it is not an objective fact, but instead, an axiom.

Would you say that thelaw of identity is a particular, found on just one occasion, in one spatio-temporal location, etc.? — Terrapin Station

Can we go back to definitions for a second, to make this as clear as possible.

law of noncontradiction = something cannot both be and not be.
what you stated = something can't be itself and not itself at the same time

These two statements are conceptually identical. I told you that you're referring to an axiom (the law of noncontradiction). You tell me you're not referring to laws. You tell me you're referring to something else.

I don't know what you are referring to. But can you agree that the definition for the law of noncontradiction is conceptually identical to what you have described? In the same way that "not having hair" is the same as "a bare scalp". Both refer to baldness and are conceptually identical. Both the law of noncontradiction and your statement are referring to axioms, and are conceptually identical.

Yes I understand the difference, but you could do the same thing with baldness.

You could say this.

having no hair = abstract
a bare scalp = particular

What you seem to be doing is creating your own subset of definitions and where words belong. You don't think you're defining the law of identity, when indeed you are. Because if you did conclude that your description is identical to the description of an axiom, you would understand why those axioms are related to ethical axioms.

This is what you said...

I gave the objective fact that something can't be itself and not itself at the same time. — Terrapin Station

I then responded and said, what you described is extremely similar (if not identical) to the law of non-contradiction or the law of identity.

Then you said...

I'm not referring to laws/principles. I just explained that to you. — Terrapin Station

This seems to be just a semantics issue. This is what you're doing.

Terrapin: I have no hair.
Chatterbears: So you're saying you're bald?
Terrapin: No, that's not what I'm saying. I am saying I have no hair.
Chatterbears: Ok, but aren't those the same thing?
Terrapin: I'm not referring to baldness, I just explained that to you.

I see that you and Dingo are having issues communicating as well. Maybe it would be better to start off with definitions.

My own needs are, to me, more important than your needs, even though were both human. Insofar as your human form allows you to reciprocate my behavior toward you (and insofar as that allows us to cooperate), I elevate my consideration of other humans above my consideration of lesser creatures for practical reasons. — VagabondSpectre

So to be clear, would you be fine killing mentally disabled people for food, since they cannot reciprocate your behavior (insofar as that allows you both to cooperate) in a practical way? If your answer is no, then the ability to reciprocate the behavior is not the reason you value humans as higher.

The fact is, if you're willing to kill and eat another animal, even if it is the only way to survive, then you've valued your own needs above the needs of the other. — VagabondSpectre

Yes, but we are not in a survival situation as of this point, so that doesn't apply to this discussion. I wanted to know why you are putting "higher importance" on the needs of humans, but not on the needs of non-human animals (such as pigs, goats, sheep, cows, chickens, etc...)?


Surely there is some property in which you are making a distinction between humans and non-human animals. What is that distinction, in which allows humans to live free from torture and/or slaughter, but not non-human animals? — chatterbears

Intelligence. Basically, farm animals are too stupid and ill-equipped to be the masters of their own lives. In fact, unless humans rear and slaughter them on a continuing basis then they cannot live at all, let alone free of suffering; we need their meat to pay for their existence and they're incapable of surviving on their own, therefore it's impossible for them to live without slaughter. The fact that we cannot make moral agreements with animals (they're stupid) often pits us against them, where it's either our suffering or theirs. — VagabondSpectre

So you have given me two justifications as of right now. 1st reciprocation of behavior. 2nd, intelligence level. As stated above with the reciprocation scenario, I will do the same with intelligence. Are you ok slaughtering humans who are of lower intelligence (such as severely mentally disabled people)?

Why do you keep inflicting random digital refuse upon me without lifting a single finger to actually cite the material? (your method of link pasting is not an adequate form of citation, and none of these links adequately or directly address the claim I made) .....None of the articles you "cited" are scientific. One of them might have been peer reviewed, but a list of potentially misleading statistics in a publication for family physicians isn't exactly "scientific". It reads like an editorial... — VagabondSpectre

To respond to everything you wrote about the articles I sent you, I will stop sending you those for now and do further research to find you something more adequate for you. For now, we can stick to the moral arguments.

No you didn't, unless I missed it. Was it, the slaughter of animals allows humans to thrive? Why should we thrive off the suffering/torture/slaughter of another species? Because we have the power to do so? — chatterbears

Yes, the slaughter of animals contributes the the ability of humans to thrive. That's a difference between rape/torture and the slaughter and consumption of animals. — VagabondSpectre

Right now, we are currently in a over-population crisis. For us to thrive, we would need to stop growing as rapidly as we have been. Killing humans off, to lessen the population, would contribute to the ability of humans to thrive. Would you therefore claim that, if something contributes to the ability of humans to thrive, therefore it is good for humans to put into action? Humans are the cause of so much pollution and massive contribution to climate change. Killing us off (to lessen the population) would actually be better for us in the long run, as well as help restore the health of the earth and our living conditions.

Who do you mean by "we"? I know you don't mean all humans because as I've already established without contest, all humans living traditional lifestyles do need to consume meat, and second and third world countries rely on meat and animal products for their food security, so are you only talking about first world countries? — VagabondSpectre

Do you have any research on this? The cheapest ingredients in the world are plant-based. Rice, beans, pasta, fruits, vegetables, etc... To say you have established this fact without contest, is incorrect. I know many countries do rely on animal products to survive, but would you say most countries? I don't think so.

Why are you comparing raising farm animals to the holocaust? If we're being technical, the one advocating an animal holocaust is you. You could have taken the position that factory farming should not be permitted, and we would have agreed, but instead you had to take the position that to raise and then slaughter a farm animal, regardless of how well that animal was treated when it was alive, should not be permitted. By doing so, you've essentially made the statement that the life of any and every farm animal is not worth living, and you propose a final solution in the form of genocide. — VagabondSpectre

Holocaust survivors have compared factory farming to the jewish holocaust. See here: https://youtu.be/f7dZv43A0g0

Although the treatment of an animal is important, it is even more important to allow them to live when they do not want to die. You'd agree the same goes for humans. You would object to someone killing their 17 year old son or daughter, even if they told you, "But my child was treated amazingly, right before I killed them."

Lastly, the current life of farm animals is not worth living, since they suffer more than they experience pleasure, by a large margin. It wouldn't be considered a genocide to stop raping (force impregnating) cows. Once the mother cows stop being raped, they will stop producing babies. That isn't a genocide, that is a compassion release of a species that we currently have dominion over. We could keep some number of each species (cows, chickens, pigs, etc...) in animal sanctuaries.

It's funny you should mention dogs. You say "holocaust for dogs" but what you meant to say was "is it O.K for us to exploit dogs?", and the answer is yes, because we already do, and have done for thousands of years. But it's not entirely a one-sided relationship; we've used dogs for hunting and protection and companionship for so long that they have evolved into man's best friend. While they protect us from other beasts, we also protect them from injury, disease, starvation, and more. Would I be O.K with farming dogs for meat? It depends on the farm, but I would deem it foolish given how skinny they are. — VagabondSpectre

As you already stated, we have domesticated dogs as pets because it is a mutual friendship. They protect us and we protect them. We don't rape them or make them live in their own feces. We don't cage them up and don't allow them to see sunlight. We don't kill them 1-2 years into their life because we have no use for them anymore. We don't mutilate them without anesthetic. We don't neglect their medical needs and slit their throats prematurely.

I keep to my original question. Would you be ok with a holocaust for dogs? And since they are skinnier, maybe we would need a larger holocaust than our current one we have for other animals. Would you be fine with that?

Would I be O.K with farming severely mentally disable humans for meat? At the outset, I just want to say that this would never be efficient from a thermodynamic perspective (instead of feeding the human-livestock, just feed the human directly) but in some kind of fun-house reality where farming severely mentally disabled people is extremely profitable, I might not actually object. — VagabondSpectre

So you care more about profit than the lives of sentient beings, just to be clear? Especially if it was your child or someone related to you. You'd be okay with giving the mentally-disabled agriculture industry your family member, so they could exploit, torture and kill them for profit?

If you recall, my position is that the justifiability of human meat consumption in general (and in individual cases) exists on a spectrum determined by the severity of need. If it was required for our survival that we farm severely mentally disabled human livestock, how could you or I then object? As our ability to satisfy our spectrum of needs without exploitation grows, so to do out moral obligations to refrain from exploitation, in those respects. — VagabondSpectre

In the same way that animal factory farming isn't required for our survival right now, severely mentally disabled human factory farming wouldn't be required for our survival. I am asking you to swap factory farmed animals with mentally disabled humans. We would treat them exactly the same. We would rape them (force impregnate) with other sperm to ensure another mentally disabled human is born. We would even milk them, and pump more hormones into them to increase milk production. We drink the milk of another species, yet people are grossed out by human breast milk? (lol?)

No matter how many false moral equivalences you draw between animal farming and {insert random atrocity here}, you'll not out-run the thermodynamic bill that must be paid if we are to continue existing. — VagabondSpectre

You can call them false moral equivalences, but they aren't. You think it is an atrocity when a human is involved, but not an animal, or so it seems. The thermodynamic bill will be there regardless of our action, but should we not choose the best action for ourselves and others around us?

If they have adequate land for animal agriculture, they should have adequate land for plant agriculture. It would be the same as me asking you, "Do you think it is moral for growing or developing countries to consume human flesh if they don't have adequate access to the land and funds to go vegan?" — chatterbears

Ahh, see, that's something that someone who knows absolutely nothing about agriculture would say, and also perhaps someone who has not been reading my posts (not just in this thread). — VagabondSpectre

I have been reading your posts, and whether or not I know enough about agriculture is irrelevant. I understand that some crops cannot grow on some types of land, but we could definitely settle this type of thing with time. What I was asking you is something different, which was, Do you think it is moral for growing or developing countries to consume human flesh if they don't have adequate access to the land and funds to go vegan?" - You didn't address or answer this question.

P.S Are you saying that human cannibalism is worse than non-human animal consumption? — VagabondSpectre

I am not saying one is worse than the other, as they are both immoral. The only time they 'may' become morally acceptable is within a survival situation. But even then, I may still find it immoral to take the life of a human (or non-human animal), to fulfill your own selfish needs. As stated, it may be more understandable and justifiable, but I would still find it immoral on some level.

I'll respond to you in a little bit. I got side-tracked with forum psychologists who want to criticize the alleged virtue signaler.

I just don’t have the patience for this kind of thing. You have been told clearly by like, 5 people. You have been retold by those same people in even greater clarity. All the data as to why you are wrong on multiple fronts has been provided, you just don’t get it. You want quotes that are examples self righteous, so you can argue with them. Self reflect. Look at your own posts, why should I do all the work for you? Ill try to point you in the right direction, but Im done here (again). — DingoJones

You seem to have the patience to criticize, but not to offer a solution and/or provide examples of the thing you claim is wrong. As I told Jake, I'll just claim you are sexist. And if other people agree with me and have told you that you're sexist, then you must be sexist, right? They don't need to provide examples of you actually being sexist, they can just point to your "overall character".

look at the way you reacted to peoples reactions to your comparison of yourself to Martin Luthar King jr. Do not think about why you were correct in the comparison, think about why people reacted the way they did (I laughed out loud). — DingoJones

"People", meaning one other person? Not to mention, I never said I was the exact equivalent to Martin Luther King Jr. I was making a comparison between what we are standing up for, which is injustice.

Racism: prejudice against another because of a physical attribute (skin type).
Sexism: prejudice against another because of a physical attribute (sex type).
Speciesism: prejudice against another because of a physical attribute (species type)

As far as your criticism, I'll dismiss yours and jake's for now, since neither of you actually care to improve the quality of this thread, but rather blindly criticize because you don't like the way someone discusses things. Followed by, not showing an example to help and not offering a solution to fix the 'alleged' problem. When called out to show evidence for your claims, you resort to deflective behavior. "I don't have the time." - "I'm not going to do the work for you, do it yourself."

I'll stop responding to you and Jake from this point on.

This entire thread is an exercise in your positioning yourself as being morally superior on the subject of animals. Pick any of your posts, there's your evidence. — Jake

So my assumption was correct, in the fact that you will not provide an actual example. But instead, you'd rather just throw a blanket statement over your claim to try and validate it.

Please note how you continually respond to this challenge over and over again, and have even started an entire new thread on the subject. That's because your focus is on Chatterbears, not on serving animals. — Jake

And your focus is on making claims without providing evidence for them. I'll make the claim that you are sexist, and when you ask me to provide evidence for it, I'll just tell you to review this entire thread.

Here's how to debunk all of the above. — Jake

Here's how to back up your claims: Provide evidence.

If you should discover that you lose interest in the topic if it doesn't involve moral sermonizing, then you will have enhanced your clarity. — Jake

I will ask Dingo the same question separately, but do you think Earthling Ed is also only interested in moral sermonizing, rather than helping the animals? Majority of his videos are talking to people about how eating animals is wrong and we shouldn't be doing it. His latest "debate" video was him setting up a booth and labeling a sign, "You can't love animals and eat them." - You can watch it here: https://youtu.be/PrKAycD7LRo

If you think I am "bad", in the sense of moral patronizing, then you must think people like Ed are moral monsters who are so into themselves that they need to video tape themselves and upload it to youtube so more people can see how great they are.

And then as an example I gave the objective fact that something can't be itself and not itself at the same time. That is not the same thing as the principle of noncontradiction — Terrapin Station

What you are referring to is either the law of noncontradiction or the law of identity. Either way, those two things are both axioms which do not have some object facts tied to them.

The reason is that logic and mathematics are more complicated in that regard in the way that they're based on, but not identical to, objective relations. Ethics isn't based on objective relations. — Terrapin Station

I could say the same for ethics. That ethics are based on objective relations, since it is an objective fact that sentient beings experience well-being. And it is an objective fact that sentient beings experience pain and pleasure. And it is an objective fact that 99% of sentient beings want to experience pleasure and avoid pain. And based on these 'objective facts', we can put an axiom in place that relates to these facts. And that axiom would be to maximize the rights and well-being of sentient beings.

You can disagree with my view there, of course, but disagreeing doesn't imply that I'm not familiar with the same standard material, standard views that you're familiar with. Being familiar with and understanding something does NOT imply agreeing with it. — Terrapin Station

Sure. I guess we will have to disagree on how core fundamental axioms are reached and adhered to.

To reiterate clearly, this is what I want from you, since you are criticizing my methods of discussion/debate.

1. Show me an example of me doing what you claim I am doing.
2. Give me an alternative way of what would be better.

I can see people criticizing me for my methods, without offering actual evidence to show me what they are referring to. And without offering a solution to the problem I am engaging into. So are you criticizing just to criticize? Or do you have actual constructive criticism?

(Btw, this is all irrelevant to my original point to you. Which is, how do you define axioms, and do you think axioms within logic and math are identical to axioms within ethics. Meaning,they are statements that are taken to be true, to serve as a premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments. Also, do you think an axiom can be based on preference in ethics, but not in logic or math?)

He isnt contradicting himself, you just cannot recognise it as consistent becuase it is not framed to be consistent with YOUR views and/or axioms. — DingoJones

You entirely missed the point. I wasn't referring to my views or my axioms. I was referring to axioms themselves and how they actually operate. And the rest of your response didn't address anything I asked.

This is the source of the problem you are having communicating in this thread, it is also the reason why people focus on your moralising and self righteousness. How many people will you have to engage with and have them telll you the same thing before you will seriously consider the possibility that you are entirely wrong here? — DingoJones

And what am I exactly "entirely wrong" in?

Have you made an earnest effort to actually register everyones points? From your posts, its clear you arent really listening, you already firmly believe you are right and your questions posed are just poorly disguised rhetorical questions designed to establish your own moral authority. They are not designed to understand any other perspective and are not really meant for discussion. — DingoJones

Can you post an example of me doing this?

Another symptom of this problem is your tendency to try and establish consensus against your opponents, as you just tried to do with me against Terrapin. I don’t know for sure if this stems from a habit of virtue signalling instead of forming real arguments, but I recognise the smell and Im not the only one. — DingoJones

I don't care to establish consensus against anybody, but rather a different perspective from the opposition. You seem to be on the side of Terrapin, but you seem to agree with me on smaller points, such as how axioms actually work. Which is why I posed the question to you, if you agreed with what he was saying, or if you agree with what I was saying. And if you agreed with what I was saying, maybe you could convey it in a way he understands, since I seem to be not getting my point across to him. This has nothing to do with "let's gang up on somebody", but more of creating clarity within a conversation. You, along with others, keep imposing this ill will within my perspective, when it is actually nonexistent. As I said above, can you give an example of me "clearly not listening", in which I am just out to establish my own moral authority. I'll wait for an example, as 'Jake' couldn't provide one, but I hope you can.

I always address people's points, as I have with Terrapins. Even if we come to disagreements or misunderstandings, I still address everything people say. It is rare that I do not quote everything someone says, but it is very common for people to quote a small portion of what I say and don't respond to the rest of my statements.

You need to recognise your limitations, because you arent winning any of the arguments you are having and thats why. — DingoJones

And what exactly are my limitations? And once you lay those out for me, please give me examples of me engaging into these limitations by quoting me in context within this thread.