Meat eater: Well everyone is entitled to believe what they want to believe.
me: Sure, as long as it doesn't cause harm
Meat eater: Yeah, and animals don't feel pain
Me: Sure they do, they have a nervous system and we know what pain receptors look like. They clearly feel pain.
Meat eater: But not like us. The pain they feel is much less, so it is ok.
Me: So we can eat patients with CIP? I mean they don't feel pain like most other humans.
Meat eater: Well no, they are human, and that would be cannibalism.
Me: What is wrong with cannibalism from your stand point?
Meat eater: Well you are eating your own species. This reduces trust among your own species, given we are a social species, we need to build up trust in order to interact positively.
Me: So you don't eat humans so you can build up trust? If people would trust you if you ate humans, you would eat humans?
Meat eater: Because it is gross.
Me: What makes eating other species flesh less gross?
Meat eater: They aren't human.
Me: How do you know humans taste gross?
Meat eater: I don't. I just couldn't bring myself to eat another human being.
Meat eater: Because, I couldn't live with myself for killing them.
Me: What about if someone else killed them and you just bought the parts you wanted to eat?
Meat eater: Well, no. I would be supporting murder.
Me: So why do you eat other animals?
Meat eater: Because that isn't murder.
Me: Legally it is not. But legally dictators never murdered anyone then. Shouldn't we hold people to higher standards of ethics, rather than arbitrary ones.
Meat eater: Yes, but what is ethically wrong with eating another animal? They aren't human.
Me: You are right, they are not human. So what? Why is that your determining factor of what we can and cannot eat?
Meat eater: Because we are the top of the food chain. We have a right to eat them.
Me: You realize that the food chain is descriptive and not proscriptive. The fact that we have the ability to do something does not give us the right to do it necessarily.
Meat eater: Right. The only time it is prohibited is if it cause harm to another human.
Me: Why do you limit it to humans? You still haven't given a valid reason for this.
Meat eater: Because I am a human.
Me: You are also an animal, a living thing, a combination of atoms. What made you choose human?
Meat eater: That is the most specific thing that I am.
Me: No. You are a white, european male that is heterosexual, and identifies with their biological sex.
Me: Well that means that, by your logic, you should be able to eat anyone who is not like you. This means that you would eat humans.
Meat eater: No, because I stop at the species of humans.
Meat eater: Because I am one.
Me: But I already addressed this. You haven't given a valid reason for stoping at your species.
Meat eater: Because anything less would be too inclusive and more would be too exclusive.
Meat eater: Well no. I mean, come on. It is unethical to kill a human.
Meat eater: Because of what I said in the beginning about our species being a social one.
Me: But you also said that you wouldn't eat humans if it was deemed acceptable. So you only do things that are lawful, not ones that are ethical.
Meat eater: Laws are the basis of ethics
Me: Sometimes, but I am sure that you can think of some laws that are unethical.
Meat eater: Well, ethics and morality are subjective. So you can't really say one is better than another
Me: Sure you can. You look at the basis of the rules. Some cultures allow for rape and murder. Does that make them ethical?
Meat eater: No, but who am I to judge.
Me: I would hope a rational being who is able to contemplate the ethics and morality of actions based off of a firm basis of what is considered good and bad without discrimination.
Meat eater: But it works for them.
Me: It may work for those not getting raped or murdered. How well do you think it is working for those getting raped and murdered?
Meat eater: But in general it works out to better society.
Meat eater: I don't know. But it is working isn't it?
Me: Ok. I am going to murder you. It will make this society much better off. I don't care what you have to say about it. You are part of this society so you must be murdered.
Meat eater: That isn't the same thing.
Meat eater: You didn't demonstrate that there is a benefit.
Me: Neither did you. You just asserted there was.
Meat eater: But you can see the society is doing well.
Me: Name a society that allows murder and rape that is doing well. Also, didn't you say, like twice that humans are a social species that rely on trust? Wouldn't allowing people to rape and murder, without consequence, erode that trust?
Meat eater: But you were talking about eating a human, not murder.
Me: How are they different?
Meat eater: Eating a human goes an extra step.
Me: So murder and rape are ok, but eating crosses the line for you?
Meat eater: Well no, they are all bad, just one is worse.
Me: So it is ok to cut off your pinky finger, but not your hand. Or is it ok to cut off your hand, but not your arm?
Meat eater: I guess they all are bad.
Me: Exactly. So since you clearly were not able to defend your position for eating meat, other than saying it is legal, I have no obligation to respect that decision of yours at all.
Meat eater: Well you haven't defended your position, so I don't have to respect yours.
Me: Ok, I don't eat or use animal products because I believe that we have an obligation to not cause unnecessary harm to other sentient beings. Sentient beings are those who are are able to experience subjective experiences. Causing harm to them is unnecessary and unethical when other, more ethical options exist. My goal is to reduce the harm I cause to as low as possible for me.
Meat eater: Plants are sentient.
Meat eater: Well, I heard it somewhere once. They would do these things to plants and record these high frequency screams. They feel pain see.
Me: That doesn't prove they feel pain. They have also debunked that study throughly. They did show that they can sense vibrations of being eaten. But this is still not very well understood and doesn't prove that they have subjective experiences. This proves that vibrations may trigger a release of chemicals, but like throwing a rock may shatter a window. That doesn't prove the window in sentient.
Meat eater: Yes it does. The plant is living, therefore if it does that it is sentient.
Me: You are right, the plant is living. But you haven't demonstrated how that means it is sentient. You just asserted it.
Meat eater: Ok, well lets say that we did find out they are sentient.
Me: While I reject the assertion that we will, I will entertain your question for the sake of argument. Keep in mind that I do not accept the argument. If what you are saying turned out to be the case, I would still eat plants. My objective is to cause the least amount of harm possible. The animals you eat consume plants, like 13 lbs per 1 lb of meat. So over all eating meat still causes more harm.
Meat eater: Well to each their own
Me: The whole point of this is to point out that your actions are not the same level of good as mine. You have done nothing to suggest that my assertion is wrong, and I have debunked your claims and presented you with my own and you failed to refute them.
Meat eater: You need a bacon cheese burger.
Me: And you need a lesson in ethics, morality, and logic.
amandla
2087
ellievsbear
vaporwave
germansingergirl
