The Tavern

[Cirion Spellbinder]

Have we discussed good arguements against veganism and/or atheism on this forum before? I'd imagine there has to be at least a few alright ones?

[brimstoneSalad]

Have we discussed good arguements against veganism and/or atheism on this forum before? I'd imagine there has to be at least a few alright ones?

The best argument against atheism:

Atheism may not be morally optimal. Case in point, famous atheists like Dawkins, Harris and Dennett are not vegan, despite mostly recognizing that eating meat is morally problematic. Atheists may understand morality, but are not compelled to practice it.

A religion which advocated veganism, like Jainism, may be morally superior to atheism.

Sam Harris is in the process of weakening that argument.


Best argument against veganism:

If oysters aren't vegan, then the notion of veganism may not be morally coherent, therefore another term should be used.

This argument doesn't apply if oysters are considered morally vegan.


That's it. If you have something else, let me know.

[Kyron]

Best argument against veganism:

If oysters aren't vegan, then the notion of veganism may not be morally coherent, therefore another term should be used.

This interested me so I looked up "are oysters vegan" to see if there were people debating it. I found a Gary Yourofsky interview, and while I don't really like him, himself, there was someone with a neuro-science degree that said something pretty interesting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Peb_Ad7gtgA

Do you think this is the case for fish also? I hear a lot that "fish don't feel pain" - Personally, I'm under the assumption that they do, as everything I find about it says "fish cannot feel pain.... In the same way as humans"

[brimstoneSalad]

This interested me so I looked up "are oysters vegan" to see if there were people debating it. I found a Gary Yourofsky interview, and while I don't really like him, himself, there was someone with a neuro-science degree that said something pretty interesting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Peb_Ad7gtgA

The guy is Vegan Black Metal Chef. And he's also wrong. Not on point of fact regarding nerve clusters, but with regard to behavior (he is certainly not a behaviorist).

Oysters are sessile organisms with a very small range of behavioral response to environment. They are literally glued/cemented in place (there's a lot of research into oyster's glue, by the way, it's an interesting substance).

While unlike plants, ganglia do present the possibility that they might be sentient (and they may be sentient in the larval stage, although I'm not sure about that), the possibility alone is not enough to believe that they are. In evolutionary terms, unlike many other macro fauna, particularly as adults they have no reason to be sentient because they do not negotiate their environments, or have any general need for the associative learning required for sentience. An oyster can be adequately represented by reflex.

Here's an article for you to read which goes into a little more detail:

http://sentientist.org/2013/05/20/the-e ... d-mussels/

You can also search for Unnatural Vegan's video on bivalves, or oysters. I've not seen it but I assume it will be more educational than Gary's interview with VBMC popping in with irrelevant facts.

Do you think this is the case for fish also?

No, that's nonsense. Fish are sentient.

Jellyfish may not be (I would guess not).
Sponges are certainly non-sentient.
Worms are mixed, sentient and non.

Bear in mind, also, that there are degrees of sentience and moral value.

I hear a lot that "fish don't feel pain" - Personally, I'm under the assumption that they do, as everything I find about it says "fish cannot feel pain.... In the same way as humans"

Fish probably do not feel chronic pain; they may feel a pinch or something like that; it's not very clear.
There are also humans who can not feel pain at all (if that were the case). That doesn't make them non-sentient.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congenita ... ty_to_pain

Ask the guy in the video if he's sentient, and if it's OK to kill and eat him.

Pain is a very specific sensation, and relates to specific experience of tissue damage. It's distinct from discomfort and other noxious stimuli.
Also, consider this: Waterboarding is NOT torture.
(look up the definition of torture, and what waterboarding does -- it does not involve pain)

[EquALLity]

Apparently republicans like universal healthcare and the Iran deal if they think Donald Trump does: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zNw3olLvaM

[Insert name here]

Apparently republicans like universal healthcare and the Iran deal if they think Donald Trump does: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zNw3olLvaM

It just goes to show that the average voter doesn't care at all about the policy, they care about their team winning.

[EquALLity]

Apparently republicans like universal healthcare and the Iran deal if they think Donald Trump does: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zNw3olLvaM

It just goes to show that the average voter doesn't care at all about the policy, they care about their team winning.

Yep, and republican voters in particular (how shocking).

Amazing that you can get tons of republicans to support universal healthcare, the Iran deal, affirmative action, and leaving alone Social Security just by telling them that those policy positions have the support of Donald Trump (as opposed to the support of a liberal).

The democrats changed about as much as the republicans did when it came to universal healthcare and affirmative action, but they seem to be pretty consistent on the Iran deal and leaving Social Security alone.

[Cirion Spellbinder]

This is a really good example of how the tribal mentalities found within political parties have negative effects on people's decision making processes.

[brimstoneSalad]

Apparently republicans like universal healthcare and the Iran deal if they think Donald Trump does: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zNw3olLvaM

Which is why "repeal and replace" has virtually no meaning. They'd replace it with almost the exact same thing, just with their piss on it instead of the other dog's.

[Lightningman_42]

The best argument against atheism:

Atheism may not be morally optimal. Case in point, famous atheists like Dawkins, Harris and Dennett are not vegan, despite mostly recognizing that eating meat is morally problematic. Atheists may understand morality, but are not compelled to practice it.

A religion which advocated veganism, like Jainism, may be morally superior to atheism.

If I understand this correctly, isn't Jainism an atheistic religion, advocating that the universe is eternal and therefore has no need for a creator? If so, then isn't this a moral argument against a lack of religion, rather than a lack of theism?