An open reply. In this, I don’t mean to attack anyone, but try to change their viewpoints.
I will address each point as brought up in the previous posts (that this is reblogged from). This is going to be very long, as I am adding on to a previous post of mine, as well as trying to make this a comprehensive response to all post add-ons. In this, I will add I likely not agree with all people anti-animal sacrifice on all points. In a debate that is personal (i.e. not competing and given a side) I strive to be as objective as possible, and I encourage all participants to do the same. If you decide to reply try to keep your feelings out of your reply, in a debate morality and life outweigh feelings and excuses. If you do bring in your feelings, I’ll likely have to point to the lesser fallacies to show the flaws in your argument and these arguments will just compound unto me just pointing you in the direction of a point or sub point, which is a waste of space, time, and could be easily done in messenger. I will attempt to describe each fallacy, not to be condescending, to those who already have a knowledge on debate, but for the fact that laypersons often aren’t confronted by these condensed explanations of flawed logic. Any points that were brought up multiple times I will try to only adress once.
There have been many responses to this, and no one in the debate has replied to or messaged me, though I’ve been trying to be involved in the discussion.
On this post I will have rebuttals to the above arguments
A) Just because something is legal does not make it right or wrong objectively. Many horrible atrocities have been legal, does this make them any more right?
B) I don’t believe that discouraging animal sacrifice is inherently racist. If you have any statistics on races that practice animal sacrifice, I would be very interested. That being said, the most stereotyped group to perform sacrifices would likely be theistic Satanists or Luciferians, a group primarily thought of to be white. Oppressed groups are statistically more likely to sympathize with non-human sentient beings and be vegan/vegetarian (i.e. Israel, China, India)
C) Saying that your morals are correct simply because they are personal is a rhetorical fallacy known as the appeal to subjectivity or the relativist fallacy, just as it is true that there are two sides to every argument, in a purely logical argument one ought to outweigh another.(Def: The subjectivist fallacy is committed when someone resists the conclusion of an argument not by questioning whether the argument’s premises support its conclusion, but by treating the conclusion as subjective when it is in fact objective. ) c) If you believe death and pain should be avoided for yourself then in order to justify the death of another and remain objective and logical the death must be 1) thoroughly justified (i.e. self-defense or defense of a weaker party or 2) have an unarbitrary line drawn that differentiates you and the sentient being you kill or bring harm to. In 2) you also under the formula of metaethics accept anthropomorphic views in the anthropocentric form unless such a distinguishing factor is given. If you think of any such factors you have questions on, feel free to reply or inbox me.
D) Just because an argument has been had before does not mean the outcome was morally correct (or even right in general, we have an appeals system for this very reason. Again, just because something is legal does not make it moral or right), and just because a “battle has been lost” does not mean people will not continue to try to give the animals voices.
______________________________________________________________
I will now be responding to former quotes of arguments, if you would like to see the other arguments made if full they are likely still in the notes
______________________________________________________________
“A lot of indigenous/folk traditions require animal sacrifice for some rituals. It is our religious right.”
“White magic witches” shunning ancient practices yet again
E) Sweeping generalization (i.e. because they are “white witches they don’t believe in animal sacrifice), guilt by association fallacy (pointing out that a debater is of/could be of a group considered "undesirable”. I personally have nothing against white witches, and personally do not know if the person being addressed is a white witch or not.), ad hominem (claiming to know someone/ an entire group i.e. people against animal sacrifice, whether someone is a “white witch” is irrelevant) , circumstance ad hominem (if a white witch was arguing against animal sacrifice), they can still remain objective, strawman (I am not a white witch, and everyone opposed to animal sacrifice is not a white witch)
F) appeal to tradition (just because something is ancient or has been done a long time does not make it morally right)
“You do know what sacrifice frequently involves, don’t you?
G) Just because in your view you are “honoring the animal” does not justify its death. Refer to point Cc1 and Cc2. In this example, the anthropomorphic view (not given a distinguishing factor) would be imagining yourself being sacrificed for a religion against your own will (this would be evident as animals struggle when they know you are attempting to kill them).
“We shouldn’t be shaming cultures that sacrifice animals.”
H) I am not trying to shame the cultures themselves, but the practice of killing sentient beings.
“To those who are going to reply to me with diet shaming, don’t even start, unless you want me to go ham on you about all the slave labor that’s involved with providing you with your fancy quinoa, and all the ecological destruction (i.e. animal killing) involved in land and crop cultivation. Truth is, all mass agriculture is problematic, and we need to deal with that in its entirety; not one of us is innocent regardless of our diet. Also, not everyone is privileged enough to have the money or the health to survive on such a restricted diet. Don’t even start.”
I) You bring up multiple points, I’ll address each in a sub point 1) Yes quinoa consumption in developed countries should be avoided when possible due to labor issues and ethical issues it poses by increasing the price of quinoa to the point that the people who produce and used to have it as a staple in their diet can no longer afford it. Regardless, this is what is known as a red herring, and provides no real benefit to the ultimate question, what justifies killing? 2) i) The ecological destruction caused by the needed to produce plant foods can be compared to say, car accidents that cause deaths, unintentional and sporadic, while intentionally eating animal products can be compared to repetitive intentional hit-and-runs ii) much of this crop cultivation could be avoided if animal agriculture discontinued as it takes many times more plants calorie per calorie, nutrient per nutrient, to create animal products as compared to plant products. It is highly inefficient to filter food and nutrients through animals then needlessly kill the animals. iii) Yes, problems within the production of food need to be confronted, but in its entirety, it is impossible to confront unless there was a mass dramatic shift in demand would supply massively change in its entirety (i.e. all at once). iv) yes no one is innocent within their diet and consumption habits, but striving for less of an impact and promoting similar lifestyles is vital to make a change. So is being open to change. v) Ah yes, vegan privilege. While it is true there are food deserts even within developed countries the vast majority of people do not live within food deserts. Also, there are not requirements to what you have to eat on a vegan diet. Given a properly planned varied diet with adequate calories most people do well on a vegan diet ( and everyone given the opportunity should strive to have a properly planned, varied diet with adequate calories to make the most of their life). Not one death has been attributed to veganism (since this is well beyond the argument of animal sacrifice, any health-related questions can be sent to me via messenger). As far as the health and money, personally, these have not been an issue for my family (3 vegans), even though my entire life we have lived well under the poverty line, I cannot eat fruit due to an acid problem, and my sister and I both being dual sport athletes. Calorie per calorie again, some of the cheapest foods are vegan (that are not fast food) such as beans, corn, rice, and wheat. vi) Calling the diet “restrictive” in itself isn’t a good argument against veganism as a cannibal could say the typical omnivores diet is “restrictive”, but this isn’t a moral argument.
“there are always two sides to a coin.”
J) Yes, there are two sides to every argument. But this alone does not make them both right. This is an appeal to subjectivity-refer to point C.
“It’s an important distinction to make, because that is almost always who it is targeting: indigenous rituals and minorities.”
K) This can be an appeal to common practice within a culture, just because a culture practices something does not mean it is the right thing to do. I myself am Lakota, and dance in cultural events as well as attend other cultural events but I always withstand from anything involving the death of an animal.
Also refer to point B
“animal sacrifice isn’t murder because murder is defined as “the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.”… I’m not confident that I could end a life humanely. ”
L) i) Yes this is the definition, but vegans and animal rights activist often realize there is no moral distinguishing factor, and therefore feel justified in using this term. I myself in debates do not use it just to not have to repeat the points. ii) Yes, the vast majority of animals (dogs and cats often being the only exception because of our societal biases), refer to point A. Animal rights vs. animal welfare is a different discussion (though if anyone ever wants to get into it feel free to message me). Refer to point C. iii) Just because you will not be punished for something does not make it right (if need be you can refer to point A again) iv) animal products are not “needed for life”, not even one death has been attributed to veganism. v) Can the unnecessary, unjustified, killing of a fellow sentient being ever be “humane”? Exactly what is your definition of humane?
“The act could easily be replaced with something else meaningful.” You cannot say this and have no business claiming this since you don’t even know why they do it to begin with.
M) i) (response to response) I wouldn’t personally say this, but culture is ever changing and updating, and with these changes in culture, if those you practice with or for if explained to would likely respect you for holding a sanctity for life and wanting to minimize unneeded harm. ii) Refer to point B iii) I have yet to know of any religion that mandates killing, if you have heard otherwise within a religion’s official texts I would be interested of hearing of it.
“You can’t police people on what they do or not do. It might not align with your moral code, but it’s not your business to tell people that the way they honor their God isn’t valid because it’s a “harmful” practice.”
N) i) You are correct I cannot police this practice. But that does not make the practice any more right. ii) Another appeal to subjectivity- refer to point C. iii) Other people practice that does not physically harm sentient beings I never butt in on. I’ve never argued for the validity of this practice, but whether it is right iv) No need to put quotes. It is harmful to the animals that it effects.
I believed multiple people have been trying to understand or debate on the meaning of reasonable or use of the terms unreasonable or unjustified
O) i) Reasonable synonyms: logical, fair
ii) Justify: show or prove to be right or reasonable
“You keep using key words which reveal your lack of understanding of the issue. You say “harming someone” despite the fact that animals are not legally or practically considered “someone” by most people in the world (vegans being the minority).”
P) Appeal to popularity, just because the majority continues to view animals as commodities and objects, does not make this view right. Refer to point Cc. By definition animals are not considered “someones” but.. refer to point Li. (again sorry, vegans have to get sidetracked into semantics arguments because vegans often use terms in a different sense because we draw lines at sentience instead of species. Also human, both legally and as far as layperson definitions are fairly vague, as with the term person)
“Eating meat is not a random reason. Humans are omnivorous and literally cannot obtain some nutrients from a plant-based diet, like B12. If you can be vegan and afford to do so and supplement everything you lack nutritionally to stay healthy, congrats, you have privilege that alot of people do not. Animal sacrifice is also not a random reason. It is based on practices and traditions woven deeply into cultures that we don’t fully understand. We don’t belong to it, so how have you decided that you understand it enough to call it arbitrary? Religion is never going away either. Billions of people of this planet are religious. You don’t get to say their gods are imaginary or their practices bullshit when you don’t even know what the fuck you’re calling bullshit in the first place.”
Q) i) Our possible past need to eat meat does not justify our current consumption of animal products, B12 is an essential nutrient to humans we used to get even before eating meat from drinking unpurified water straight from rivers streams etc. Many grains are fortified with b12, if you eat cereal at all you should be fine. Some medical insurances as well (if you’re that worried about it) will cover b12 injections if you are deficient, or if you really want to take b12 pills it can cost less than a cent per day, even for multivitamins that include nearly double the amount of b12 per day (there have been no incidents of overdose on b12 causing death) ii) For the (financial) availability to become vegan refer to point Iv iii) Appeal to tradition and appeal to common practice refer to point F.
______________________________________________________________
Now these next arguments that have been previously made I agree with, though I may comment on some
______________________________________________________________
“Harming someone in a more preferable way does not make it right. … And if your idea of respect is being slaughtered, despite having done nothing to deserve it in the first place, then I don’t know what to say to you.”
“I try to empathize with the indigenous peoples who practice animal sacrifice, my aim is not to hurt or offend or be hateful towards them. But the fact that a group has been practicing something for however long they’ve been practicing it does not make what they’re doing okay. I love learning about religions, it’s actually one of my favorite things to gain insight on, so, if anyone here is actually from one of those religions where animal sacrifice is currently mandated, and have the time and are willing to discuss it with me, I will happily listen and try to understand. But simply stating “We’ve been doing it forever, plus animals are dumb, so it’s fine” is going to elicit questions from me.”
“I am all for everyone’s choice to believe in whatever they want to believe in, but in my opinion, the freedom to exercise your religious beliefs should stop at causing another harm, not only in the case of other humans, as if we are the only lifeform on earth with thoughts, feelings, personalities, and the ability to process pain, fear, and distress, but also those animals who cannot stand up for their own right to be free from harm. And I guess that’s just something that I disagree with everyone on this post about.”
“Whether or not I or anyone else considers animals somethings or someones is irrelevant. I don’t give a heck whether or not you call an animal a thing or a one and neither does the animal. What we are discussing here are traits that both animals and humans have that make us all worthy of the basic right to be free from harm.The fact that we can be harmed. That’s exactly why we do not have moral obligations to a rock. As long as a being is capable of experiencing pain, fear, and other conscious distresses, I consider it worthy of consideration. If you do not think these traits worthy of moral consideration, then what do you? And it’s rather interesting that you continue to say that I can’t distinguish between human and animal life, when I have very clearly stated that animals are not people and do not have the same capacity to suffer psychologically as humans do. In case I was not clear enough, I will state my stance again: Animals are not people. Animals are not as intelligent as most people. Animals do not have the mental capacity to suffer as deeply as people. It does not make sense to treat animals as people, unless the experiences of the animal are comparable to the experiences of humans, as they are when talking about pain, fear, social bonds, distress, and so on. Pain is pain is pain. Animals feel pain in the same way that humans do (I’m not talking psychological, i’m talking pure sensory pain). Animals feel fear, and social animals need social bonding to thrive. I do not think that animals should be granted constitutional rights or given driver’s licenses or what have you because such things do not concern them and it doesn’t make sense to do so as they do not possess the mental capacity to understand the workings of human society.”
I agree, and arguments on semantics are, for the most part, petty. I personally try to avoid them unless there seems to be misunderstandings that are genuine.
“Eating meat is not a prerequisite to maintaining health and is wholly unnecessary for the majority of us. The difference between us and other predators is that we kill billions of animals because they taste good, not because we have a biological need to eat meat. We’ve become the species that kills upwards of 50 billion animals of other species per year because they taste good, and we are ruining the earth while we’re at it. The B12 argument is rather weak, because 1. The animals that you eat are also supplemented with B12 because they also lack the ability to produce sufficient amounts, so it’s not primarily the meat that we need to eat, its the B12 itself and 2. B12 supplements are not necessarily expensive, and are easily affordable once you consider that money that you didn’t spend on the meat in the first place. It is a common misconception that being vegan is some kind of luxury that only rich white people can afford. I think the problem is people using other people’s circumstances to say, “See! not everybody can go vegan!,” something that that no reasonable vegan has ever argued. We are aware of the existence of food deserts and allergies that severely limit what one can and cannot eat. The problem is no one ever wants to take responsibility considering the situation they are in, in which they can live without unnecessarily harming other sentient creatures.”
“A religion that one is raised in and deeply entwined into the culture is not just randomly pulled out of thin air, no, but at some point, it is the choice of the individual. It is at the point one reach the age of understanding and choosing to be a part of any religion, It becomes arbitrary. And if you could explain to me how a belief based on faith and chosen of one’s own volition, is not arbitrary, I’d appreciate it. Furthermore, the definition of arbitrary, as I know it, has to do with a choice made on a personal whim, unreasonable, and unjustified, but not necessarily harmful. In the context that I used it, it also had to do with the fact that this arbitrary choice actually was harmful. Sorry, personal choices are no longer personal choices when they have victims. I think that most people in most situations have the choice whether or not they want to participate in that aspect of a belief system that is unnecessarily harmful, and if they do have no choice, then there’s something to be said about the belief system and the culture and not the individual. “
“Killing something or someone that is capable of conscious experience is harming them.”
I wouldn’t say conscious (someone unconscious, say knocked out, sleeping, drugged etc. is still being harmed as they are killed). I draw a line at sentience to avoid going through semantics, so any vegans make sure your wording is representative of your beliefs, though we all make mistakes. Veganism is a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as is possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, sentient beings for food, clothing or any other purpose. (This is the vegan society’s definition with a word changed, just as to avoid semantic arguments)
https://www.vegansociety.com/go-vegan/definition-veganism
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/animals/rights/moralstatus_1.shtml
“People reblogging this saying it’s racist, I understand why you say that but since op didn’t said the name of any specific religion I think it’s not necessarily racist.”
Personally I agree with this statement, you may also refer to point B
______________________________________________________________
If anyone with a knowledge of philosophy, understanding of metaethics, and basic debate skills/terminology would ever like to talk/argue about animal rights, please message me. Also if you would like any information about veganism I can likely point you to several resources for any questions/concerns you might have. In my years of researching philosophy and ethics, I’ve yet to come across a good argument against the attempt to preserve and not harm sentient life as far as possible and practicable.
If you feel your points weren’t thoroughly addressed or have any questions, preferably message me if you respond or we can just chat via messenger.
Tagged here are all participants in this debate that have weighed in in some form before to which I have attempted to respond to:
@tiffanygladiator , @witch-gleaux , @lonelyshredder , @littledoomwitch , @answersfromvanaheim , @testinggrimoire , @trueriptide , @torque-witch , @girlandfox , @magicianmew , @gem-femme , @meandering-coffee , @thomas-does-witchcraft , @nothingbutwizardryremains
@ciel-noir17 @soloontherocks (both involved in argument, but unable to tag)
