willwebb

"Female" and "male" are sexes, sure. But labels like "man" and "woman" refer to gender identity. So a trans woman is a woman, a trans man is a man, in the same way a black woman is a woman and a black man is a man. It only becomes confusing if you intentionally choose not to differentiate between sex and gender.

Is genitalia the only thing that separates men from women? There are many other things that contribute to expressing womanhood, this is the distinction between biological sex and gender expression.

They do refer to gender identity though, regardless of whether you disagree with the concept. I agree age is implied within the terms "man" and "woman", but a biological male can still grow up to be a trans woman and a biological female can still grow up to be a trans man.

And that is a strawman fallacy - responding to something I haven't argued. I did not say anything about what most people think. But the reason people may need coaching on it is because trans people are the minority. The majority of people are cisgendered, so cannot sympathise with transgendered individuals. Society progresses to accommodate individuals in minorities, I am sure you can think of examples yourself, and this cannot be achieved without discussion - even if some people don't agree. As for your claim that gender (assuming that is what you were referring to) being a social construct is believed by "few, if any" I would suggest you read some of the literature, and consider listening to the many many people, trans or not, who can testify against this, including myself. You might not believe it personally, but it is a bit short-sighted to say "few, if any" believe it, otherwise we would not be having this discussion right now.

Edit: I assume you were responding to my last comment rather than my first - sorry still figuring Parlia out!

What an odd way to word your point.

Do you realise this could support both the pro-trans stance, and the anti-trans stance? Or was that on purpose?

Considering I am leaning towards the stance of idealism, I would have to say that which occurs outside of our own experience does not exist at all!

"Global greenhouse gas emissions from animal-based foods are twice that of plant-based foods" (https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-021-00358-x)

You really cannot be serious about climate change if you eat meat. Especially as we do not even need meat to survive.

That's not what is being implied at all.

The Dawoodi Bohra tribe, in India, have been practicing female genital mutilation for centuries. Is it racist to oppose this abusive practice, just because it is part of their culture?

Judging others for abusive acts is not racist, judging others solely for their race is racist. The problem here is not with being Spanish, the problem is abusing animals.

The same logic applies, whether you know the tribe or not.

Culture does not justify abuse.

It feels like you are doing gymnastics to move the blame away from God. If God is good, all powerful and all knowing, then he COULD have created us free from sin.

If the reason things are bad is because of us, then the reason things are bad are because of God, if he is all powerful.

The idea that God gave us free will contradicts itself if you believe God is all-knowing. We have free will, but he already knows everything we are going to choose? God created us knowing every sin we will make, and in every way we will suffer. His intention is irrelevant - he knows he is going to make us suffer and chooses not to do anything about it.

To fall back on humans having free will is to either rid God of being good, or all powerful, or all knowing. If you remove one of these, the free will argument works better but a good Christian will not want to admit this.

Yes, God is supposedly big and powerful yet chooses to ignore suffering despite also being described as compassionate.

I am not sure your point here? Are you saying he is bigger and more complex than a human as a way of saying we will never understand his reasoning? Because that is just as bad as saying "God works in mysterious ways" to run away from any counterargument.

If you meant something else, then please elaborate.

The fact you refuse to respond says a lot.

You could always point out where I am wrong, or have said anything false. We are all here to learn and discuss opinions, no?

how so? I asked if this what you were saying, and if not, then to please elaborate on your point?

You are not coming across very honest. Please respond to the comment, or stop replying.

And what was the relevance of that? I am trying to get you to elaborate on whatever point you are trying to make.

I “went off on one” because I wanted to understand your point and have a discussion.

Human "ingenuity" is the reason we are in this disaster.

We slaughter 70 billion animals a year for snacks we do not even need.

We start wars over religions that we do not even know to be true.

The sickest most vile acts ever committed have ALL been caused by humans.

Anything kind humans have done, they have only done for their own benefit.

Sorry for the negativity, but I think anybody who thinks humanity is inherently kind is viewing it from rose tinted glasses. I am not saying it is necessarily our fault, but humans are horrible.

Children are not dogs! and shock training dogs is abuse in itself!

If you need to resort to striking your child to somehow make them realise running in front of a car is a bad idea, well I'm sorry but that is a failure of parenting.

Hitting your child makes them fear you. It makes them grow up to think that it is acceptable to get your way by physical force.

the sex work is not the immoral part in your argument, the abuse is

No matter how extreme you make the example, good and bad (or evil) will always be subjective.

Furthermore, as a hard determinist I do not believe you have any free choice in the matter. People can not be inherently evil - people just follow the path dictated to them by the unravelling of prior events.

Change "spiritual" to "psychological" and I would agree. Everyone has their own interpretation of the word "spiritual", and if you were to refer it to a "spirit", well there is no evidence of such a thing. But yeah rituals have been demonstrated to have numerous psychological benefits, even in those that do not believe in the power of them.

I don't think these examples are referring to consciousness in a very meaningful way, although I appreciate you understand the debate around what consciousness even is.

I can turn off my smoke alarm, and it will not respond to stimulus (smoke). This does not mean the smoke alarm is conscious once I turn the power back on.

More ethical does not equal ethical

regardless of whether you like pineapple on pizza or not, pineapple literally goes on pizza, it's just a fact.

And imo it SHOULD go on pizza too :P.

1. People are not arguing that all bad things should be legalised because alcohol is bad and legal. The argument is more "if alcohol is so devastating yet legal, it makes no sense for less devastating drugs to be illegal". You are right in saying people can relax and socialise on alcohol, but people literally relax and socialise on other drugs as well.

2. I agree, except I believe harder drugs can also have medicinal benefit. Look into psychedelics like psilocybin, DMT etc. They could potentially revolutionise the way we treat mental health problems. Even other drugs like MDMA have shown great promise in treating things like PTSD.

3. This point could be used to argue against the legalisation of alcohol, as well as harder drugs (I'm assuming you agree with alcohol being legal, ignore me if not). Your point about rehab services in interesting, if we were to legalise drugs then education and prevention would become key. There would be more control and acceptance, making drug use more safe from overdoses and stigma. Whether or not it would actually increase use and strain of rehab services is up to debate, but I personally believe that the reason drugs ruin so many lives is largely due to them being illegal.

A well-adjusted person can still hallucinate, look into bereavement hallucinations and sleep paralysis. They seem to be an understandable trick if the mind following intense grief.

And of course there are other beings in the universe, like animals. Doesn't mean ghosts are real though

I think we have to be careful when reaching conclusions based on "we don't know". It reminds me of the reasoning some religious people use - "I don't know how the universe came into existence, so it must be proof for God". We DO know the power of the brain, and how hallucinations, misperceptions and delusions are so common, so until there is any real evidence, I don't see a good reason to believe in ghosts.

Furthermore, addressing your last paragraph, just because something seems boring or superficial does not make it untrue, just like something being inspiring and fun does not make it true.

I agree there are times when one has an experience that cannot easily be explained (e.g. mystical experiences) but not being able to explain why someone is seeing a ghost is not proof that ghosts exists.

The idea of an afterlife, spirits etc are all rooted in belief, and interpretation of one's own experience, We cannot believe these interpretations at face value, otherwise we have to believe the experiences of those hallucinating on drugs, experiencing delusions from conditions like dementia, sleep disorders etc. This would obviously lead to many ridiculous conclusions.

I think the point that no two people have seen the same ghost certainly leads towards the idea that they are simply a trick if the brain

I agree anyone with African descent should not be discriminated for having dreadlocks, but I don't see it as a reason to consider people of other races to have dreadlocks immoral. As a hairstyle, people from Africa do not have a monopoly on this highly varied matted hairstyle. The only reason I could understand it to be cultural appropriation is actually calling them "dreadlocks" which I believe is a word originating from the Rastafari movement. As a hairstyle, it is a hairstyle.

I understand your point about the context, and yes African Americans should all be protected from discrimination from their hair and whatever else. I don't see how allowing black people to have dreads until they get fair treatment then leads into other people having dreads suddenly becoming moral for having that hairstyle. We should be consistent across the board, no racism, have your hair how you like it. I know it isn't that simple though.

People are immoral for discriminating others on an arbitrary basis, not for having certain hairstyles.

If you consider the "cruel" conditions to be killing and exploiting them (resulting in the end of the meat and dairy industry) then you are right, vegans would have less to fight for.

But if getting rid of the "cruel" conditions means still being able to exploit animals and kill them for meat and dairy, then vegans would still be fighting the exact same battle.

And even aside from factory farms, veganism addresses many more causes of animal exploitation, from carelessly buying pets, to not wearing animal skin or fur, etc etc. Factory farming is just the one cause of exploitation that most people agree is cruel, but there are many more.

All the cultures you mentioned are very old and ate meat for survival, with the exception of modern day Hindus, who, yeah, treat animals pretty badly (regardless of what there religion says about it). I think your exampls of things they "are or aren't" vegan aren't great - honey and wool certainly aren't vegan if you read the definition, flu vaccine is not necessarily a possible choice for people, same with the 5 pound note. Supermarket soap can be vegan or non vegan, depends if it contains animal products. Admittedly the cat thing is subject to debate. Never heard of the boiling water one!

If you actually believed in equality across species, you would be vegan. Your argument would hold weight if we NEEDED to eat meat, but we don't. This is fact.

Nobody mentioned protein subsitutes - you can get the real thing quite easily. You should see the size of some vegan bodybuilders these days.

If you believed in equality across species, you would not support the industry that kill 70 BILLION land animals a YEAR for the sake of a tasty meal that you likely won't remember.

Imagine the issue from a vegan's perspective. People say they love animals, yet funds an industry that exploits their reproductive systems, seperates young from mothers, and killing them in the worst ways we could imagine.

Words like "free range" and "humane slaughter" takes the guilt off the consumer but let's be honest - they don't mean much. Free range male chicks are still ground up alive or drowned, and the females still end up in the same slaughterhouse as the non-free range chickens.

And no, you cannot humanely kill something that does not want to die, even if it "instant" and "painless". We would not call this humane if we did it to a human animal, so why the double standard?

You can care about animals and not be vegan, but you are almost definitely a hypocrite. Or perhaps just ignorant about the meat and dairy industry.

If you think it is wrong for people to kill dogs for fun, but you think its okay to kill billions of farm animals a year for taste pleasure, you are a hypocrite.

How can you care about animals, while funding an industry that kills 70 billion of them a year?

Let's be honest, you don't eat meat because you need to. You like how it tastes, and you are set in your ways. You think it's sad when a puppy is abandoned, or an octopus is eaten alive on YouTube, yet you are willing to fund an industry that forcibly impregnates cows, removes them from their crying young, steals their milk to sell, then sends the mother to slaughter when she is "spent". What?!

The truth is veganism is an option for nearly everyone in the West (new Oxford study has shown it is a third cheaper in these countries). We have the option not to fund the needless killing of animals, so why do it?

Obviously people do not want to admit they are hypocrites, which explains the results, but be honest with yourself and think rationally. Is it really consistent to care about something, and also demand it to be exploited, perhaps even tortured and killed, for your pleasure?

Very good point, I did not mean to make it seem personal to whoever reading, I hoped it would get people to think about their own reasoning but you are right, it is better to criticise the idea, not the person holding it, thanks!

That's fair, I didn't mean to count native American tribes as necessarily being old. I am not saying Hindus treat animals badly because they are not vegan, I am saying it because of many first hand events I have witnessed, but I admit this is only anecdotal. And no, I am not implying modern Hindus are not really Hindu, I am just saying that some of them are cruel to cows, for example, despite their religion telling them not to be.

You make good points about where the line is drawn whether something is vegan or not

although 3.1 - if being a Scotsman meant that you necessarily had to wear a kilt, then person B would not be a Scotsman. Obviously that is not what it means to be a Scotsman in real life, just saying I think it is a bit of a false equivalency

4.1. Obviously unintentional killing occurs everyday and cannot be avoided, and I would say hygiene is a necessity to a certain extent, but your point still stands that someone could say a "real" vegan would only shower to an absolute minimal extent to reduce these accidental deaths

Thank you for your great response, I am actually reconsidering my position and trying to think this through

How does being able to philosophise make us seperate from animals? We are just animals that can philosophise.

Other animals have evolved to specialise in their own things - yet we still call them animals despite having these unique trais.

Yes we thrive, yes we create purposes, we are very complex creatures, but still animal creatures nonetheless.

I wonder how many who voted for are vegan?

The 70 billion animals we needlessly kill each year for meat certainly don't have the means to defend themselves, so surely you are against that also?

Good thing lab meat is on the way then!

How does sustainability affect how ethical killing something that doesn't want to die is?

For the few populations that cannot be vegan, I think there is an argument. But for the vast majority of us, we do not need meat or fish so killing animals for food is not far off needless animal abuse in my opinion

Reffering to nature is a fallacy. Not everything that occurs in nature is 'good' or 'ethical'.

We can get everything we need on a vegan diet (including pregnant women, children and the elderly) according to the various top dietetic societies, you can look up their statements

In many parts of the world, it is meat that is the privilege. Most vegan food is the cheapest in the supermarket (ignoring the meat alternatives).

Some people are unable to access all the nutrients they need on a vegan diet. So I think whether veganism, or meat, being a privilege really depends on where you live and what you have access to.

Being conscientious about animal welfare and the future of the planet certainly is cool in my opinion!

vegan foods aren't more expensive, unless you are basing that solely on meat alternatives, which really are not necessary.

A recent study from Oxford has shown that in Western countries like UK and USA, a vegan diet is about a third cheaper than current diets. It certainly isn't a privilege in countries like these - think how cheap staple foods like beans, pulses, legumes, pasta and many vegetables are.

https://www.veganfoodandliving.com/news/oxford-university-research-vegan-diets-cheaper/