Pretty much all political reasoning is emotional, but for some reason, only the “other side” gets emotional.
Wanting equality is an emotional reason. Wanting absolute freedom is emotional. Freedom of speech, aristocracy, fascism, anarchism, progressive income tax are all, if you keep asking “why?” emotional choices.
If, at any point, someone says something is good or bad, well, that’s emotional, simply because these are purely human categories that are not rational.
I don’t give a flying fuck about CO2. I care that you are murdering an animal and ending its life for no reason. Animals have rights including the right to live without your torturing them and mudering them. Everything else is out of scope for veganism. It is an ethical position advocating for the rights of animals, not a utilitarian calculation.
Please don’t call animals it, they are someone not something, changing the language around the oppression has a widespread knock on effect to changing people’s negative opinions towards non human animals
I’ll try but please also be considerate of other users and the fact English isn’t everyone’s native language. English isn’t my first or only language. I will try my best but I will make this mistake often because this is difficult and I am not contributing to animal suffering because my native tongue doesn’t make this distinction at all.
My native language that I only spoke until I was about 8 years old doesn’t make any distinction between gender or distinguish between living and non living objects. Everyone and everything is it and its lol.
You can feel free to police language on Wikipedia or bring awareness to this, and I said I would keep this in mind and try but I don’t really want anyone policing users who may not speak English natively or have learning disabilities.
What do to mean when you say “emotional argument”? I understand it as something like “an argument which rests on an appeal to an emotional experience” or similar.
For example a mathematical proof is not an emotional argument, as a being without any emotions would be able to verify it as true.
However “people don’t want to die, so you shouldn’t kill them” is an emotional argument as it fundamentally rests on the counterfactual “a person assumed to have qualia observing a universe in which they had been killed might experience negative valence”. Which only makes sense if the notion of another being you assume to have qualia being sad in a way which is impossible in reality upsets you.
Philosophy is based on logic, not straight emotions
Yeah, sorry, but that’s straight untrue.
As I wrote before, every time you’re doing a value judgement, you’re arguing based on emotions.
Saying shredding two animals causes more suffering than shredding no animals is a rational, provable statement. But whether suffering is bad or not, is a value judgement and thus not rational.
If you say, “I don’t like suffering” to someone with a “no pain, no gain” shirt, your argument is weaker.
And both of these statements are value judgement, you’re doing a category error here.
And what exactly is a logical reasoning?
Pretty much all political reasoning is emotional, but for some reason, only the “other side” gets emotional.
Wanting equality is an emotional reason. Wanting absolute freedom is emotional. Freedom of speech, aristocracy, fascism, anarchism, progressive income tax are all, if you keep asking “why?” emotional choices.
If, at any point, someone says something is good or bad, well, that’s emotional, simply because these are purely human categories that are not rational.
Vegans: Violently killing animals for no reason, ruining the environment, destroying cultures with animals is both logically and empathetically wrong
Libs: BOTH SIDESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
Removed by mod
I don’t give a flying fuck about CO2. I care that you are murdering an animal and ending its life for no reason. Animals have rights including the right to live without your torturing them and mudering them. Everything else is out of scope for veganism. It is an ethical position advocating for the rights of animals, not a utilitarian calculation.
Please don’t call animals it, they are someone not something, changing the language around the oppression has a widespread knock on effect to changing people’s negative opinions towards non human animals
I’ll try but please also be considerate of other users and the fact English isn’t everyone’s native language. English isn’t my first or only language. I will try my best but I will make this mistake often because this is difficult and I am not contributing to animal suffering because my native tongue doesn’t make this distinction at all.
ok i will try to be considerate
Thank you, I appreciate that and I agree with you
You can use the pronouns he/him, she/her and they/them for the animals.
My native language that I only spoke until I was about 8 years old doesn’t make any distinction between gender or distinguish between living and non living objects. Everyone and everything is it and its lol.
You can feel free to police language on Wikipedia or bring awareness to this, and I said I would keep this in mind and try but I don’t really want anyone policing users who may not speak English natively or have learning disabilities.
That’s fair enough, That’s a cool way of speaking. As I always love hearing about how languages are unique.
On another point Spanish and french have gendered words that are to keep track of lol.
It is funny because I speak bad spanish and I really struggle with it, then of course there are exceptions like el mapa and la mano
Please do this without resorting to an emotional motivation such as “People enjoy being alive and not suffering” or whatever.
Removed by mod
What do to mean when you say “emotional argument”? I understand it as something like “an argument which rests on an appeal to an emotional experience” or similar.
For example a mathematical proof is not an emotional argument, as a being without any emotions would be able to verify it as true.
However “people don’t want to die, so you shouldn’t kill them” is an emotional argument as it fundamentally rests on the counterfactual “a person assumed to have qualia observing a universe in which they had been killed might experience negative valence”. Which only makes sense if the notion of another being you assume to have qualia being sad in a way which is impossible in reality upsets you.
Of course that’s emotional.
Reducing suffering is based on the idea that I don’t like suffering, therefore I don’t want others to suffer. That’s emotional.
Removed by mod
Yeah, sorry, but that’s straight untrue.
As I wrote before, every time you’re doing a value judgement, you’re arguing based on emotions.
Saying shredding two animals causes more suffering than shredding no animals is a rational, provable statement. But whether suffering is bad or not, is a value judgement and thus not rational.
And both of these statements are value judgement, you’re doing a category error here.
This is nonsense. you should study philosophy and stop reading “rationalist” blogs.