This isn't true. See this link:
There are still many myths and misunderstandings surrounding a plant-based diet. We’ve dispelled the most popular vegan myths here.
www.forksoverknives.com
It says,
"It’s easier to eat plant-based on a limited budget than it is to eat a meat-centered diet. Staples like grains, potatoes, bananas, and beans are some of the cheapest (and healthiest) things you can buy in the supermarket."
You and the writers of that link are ignoring the science here (there aren't any citations in that link btw). There are certain nutrients your body needs to survive. One of these, Vitamin B12 (aka Cobalamin), is not found in plants. To get it without animal products, you need B12 supplements.
B12 deficiency is serious, potentially causing brain damage and anemia.
Another issue is with amino acids. They're used to construct proteins in your body. There are 20, and of those 9 cannot be manufactured by us and therefore must come from somewhere else (essential amino acids).
Plants are often missing one of more amino acids. Wheat and rice are missing lysine, Maize is missing lysine and tryptophan, etc. So, you must vary your diet to make sure you're getting
all amino acids necessary. Some plants may be inaccessible or prohibitively expensive for poorer nations, which was my point.
So, my point still stands. People in developing countries may not be able to afford such a lifestyle without being unhealthy to do it.
I was pointing out that some humans find medically-assisted euthanasia (of humans) to be ethical, and it is legal in a few U.S. states. I personally don't think euthanizing any being (human or non-human) to be ethical.
No exceptions, noted.
Saying "morality is relative" is just an excuse to keep eat meat (an inherently immoral practice). You probably wouldn't eat dog meat, so what makes it OK to eat pig meat or cow meat?
First of all, I said subjective not relative. There's a difference.
No, it isn't an "excuse". Morality always depends on who you ask. Saying something is "inherently immoral" implies there's some central source for morality. If there was, we wouldn't be having this debate now would we? We would all have the same sense of right and wrong, but we don't.
It isn't any different, to me anyway. If it was offered to me, I'd try dog meat. Other cultures eat them, and it be interesting to experience those other cultures' food.
This is basically just personally attacking my positions and nothing else. And it pisses me off that people are actually liking this bullshit. I would argue that none of my arguments are fallacies as you claim.
There is a major link between dairy and veal, and no, it is not an "association fallacy" as you claim -- calves are ripped away from their mothers and sent to slaughter, while the mother cows are forced into a life of misery as "dairy cows".
Arguing that a person is selfish for putting their own interests as a higher priority than animal's interests is not "ad homimem" because it has to do with abstract interests, not the person himself/herself. Also, why are you not attacking the person who said "I sleep better [when I eat meat]" -- that person's comment is only concerned with their own personal comfort, not about philosophical issues.
What I said about the "avid biologist" is not a "straw man" fallacy because it is responding directly to a comment made by shrimpsoda (shrimpsoda made the claim that hunters are also "avid biologists") -- "straw man" arguments have to do with something that is not relevant to the discussion. If anything, you should have accused shrimpsoda of a "straw man" fallacy for bringing up the fact that hunters are also avid biologists.
You said that one of my arguments was an "argument from fallacy" -- I don't follow that. Claiming that someone else's argument is a fallacy is not a fallacy in and of itself (as you claim).
As if that's not what you're doing. No, I'm not attacking you personally. If it seemed like that, I apologize. I was pointing out, somewhat jokingly, how you were using a logical fallacy to prove a point when your points weren't entirely clear of them.
Saying something is negative because it's associated with something negative is an association fallacy. Saying a person is selfish is ad hominem because you're attacking their character instead of addressing their point. In hindsight, I will admit the straw man one wasn't correct. An "Argument from Fallacy" is arguing that because the argument contains a fallacy, the conclusion must be false.
The arguments made by the pro-meat-eaters in this thread are full of fallacies, yet you don't challenge them because you agree with them (i.e. a bias).
Oh sure, there's bad arguments on both sides of the debate. I didn't deny that.
I'm not trying to separate humans from animal species -- and yes, humans are part of nature, and humans are animals. However, humans have an obligation to do no harm to animals, based on moral principles that humans understand (but non-humans do not).
I would argue that you are trying to separate humans from animals. Right there in the second sentence.
This is bullshit. Animals will not be "wiped out by vegans" if people stop eating meat -- animals will continue to live, but for other purposes (such as being companion animals). You totally ignore the torturous conditions that billions of animals have to endure every day in factory farms -- they are treated as objects, not as beings.
Sure, they wouldn't go extinct. However, if we were to stop eating meat all at once (which, to clear, would never happen), I think most animals being raised for meat would be slaughtered. Think about it: There are something like 23 billion chickens in the world. That's roughly 3 chickens per person on the planet. But that's every person in the world, counting children and people in cities that can't take care of chickens. I fucking love chickens, but we couldn't possibly save all of them, sad as that is.
Now, chickens aren't the only animal being farmed. Imagine someone having to adopt a cow... in an apartment. Roughly 1 in 8 people in the world would have to keep a cow if we all stopped eating meat that fast.
Now, to be fair, these numbers don't take into account the percentage of these animal populations being held in factory farms. But it would at least give you an idea of the scale.
Imo, the only way would be to gradually scale back consumption. Assuming you could even get everyone on the planet on bored with the concept.
Response to whole thread: I am appalled by all the pro-meat-eating, anti-vegan comments in the thread -- meat-eating is unethical and should not be tolerated. If people really loved animals, they would not eat any meat. So this thread if full of people who apparently do not truly love animals.
You can be appalled if you want and think what want of it. I myself remain unconvinced that loving animals and eating meat are mutually exclusive.
www.cbsnews.com
www.cnn.com
www.nbcnews.com
