Welcome to Remag's Realm!

Wednesday, August 31, 2011

10 Overused Bad Vegetarian and Vegan Arguments

OK, take note all you vegs out there. I am going to be listing some of the arguments that are sometimes used that are not good ones to use. Now you can disagree with me and feel free to leave a comment, but think of it this way.  I am providing you with view of the other side, how many people who eat meat will see these arguments, and likely at times poke holes in your arguments and ridicule them when they need it. Think of it as a way to improve your own arguments. You know, possessive criticism from a obese meat addicted immoral psychopath. Now lets get started.

Animals Are My Friends
I'm going to be using the typical format for logic/ethics when dealing with these. OK so lets put this into that format:

Animals are my friends.
Because animals are my friends you shouldn't eat them.
Therefore you shouldn't eat them.

This can be condensed to:
A.
B.
C.

What this means is that the argument is not valid because the pretenses do not flow into the conclusion. Another problem lies in the first pretense, "Animals are my friends." This is false. While an individual may believe that they are friends with all animals it simply doesn't work if they don't know all the animals they claim to be friends with. This would be like a stalker saying that their interest was in love with them because the stalker loved the stalkee.

You could also make it:
If animals are my friends then it is wrong to eat them.
Animals are my friends.
Therefore, it is wrong to eat them.

This is a valid argument because if the premises are true then the conclusion works with them, but is not factual (as the premise about all animals being your friends isn't true) and could be changed to say this:
If plants are my friends then it is wrong to eat them.
Plants are my friends.
Therefore, it is wrong to eat them.

Feel free to change plants with anything you want, it's still false and it still isn't sound.

Humans Are Not Meant To Eat Meat.

I get this one a lot...I mean A LOT! Personally, this is defeated by the simple fact that what vegs want to stop is gratuitous amounts of meat consumption. If humans couldn't eat meat they couldn't eat gratuitous amounts of meat. This one actually follows the format of the first one. Several facts (if facts are used) are presented to the person regarding the differences between humans and carnivores. I hope that most can see the first problem. Humans are not carnivores any more then they are herbivores. So comparing humans with carnivores doesn't make sense. You should compare humans with what we are, omnivores, or with what you claim we are, which are herbivores. If one compares humans with a dog and a cow the human will be most similar to the dog in intestine length, pH, functions of various organs, and the usefulness of the stomach.

Speaking of the stomach this is where a lot of this comes from. The argument is that humans have weaker stomach acid then carnivores. This is true, a dog does have strong stomach acid then a human, but the dog is able to eat decaying meat where humans do not and have used fire to cook our foods. Even then, the stomach acid in humans ranges from 1.5 - 2.5 on average. The stomach of a herbivore like a cow is about 7. This is because the bacteria in a cows stomach needs to have a neutral environment. The bacteria are in each of the 4 cow stomachs and the bacteria eat the grass which and then the cows digest the bacteria. Also most of digestion occurs in the stomach. The amount of digestion that occurs in the human stomach is about 10% with 90% of it going on in the small intestines.

(The argument that humans can't eat raw or decaying meat can easily be defeated by watching almost any episode of Bizarre Foods with David Zimmerman)

Now perhaps this is where this comes from as the intestine is about neutral. But the major problem is that herbivores use fermentation vat systems and carnivores and omnivores do not. Humans have one stomach, a high pH, and like dogs can even function without a stomach (gastric bypass anyone?). Going off of pH, the reason behind the high pH is in part for digestion and also to activate pepsin to make it pepsinogen which is used to break down and digest protein. Protein and fat are also something that humans need to eat. You can get this from plants, but you can also get this from the various walking protein and fat collectives known as animals.

The other part of this seems to be out teeth. The parts that are carnivore/omnivore are ignored and out molars are used. The problem is that the molars of herbivores are flat where the molars of humans (and dogs) are slanted. So yes, we do have features that sometimes match up with what vegs say, but omnivore fits us better than herbivore.

Lastly, when fed an unnatural diet of corn (yes I eat meat and still can be against cruel factory farming) cows stomachs become acidic which is part of the reason why they are near death when they are killed. The good bacteria in their stomachs die and is replaces by other bacteria, such as harmful strains of E. coli. If humans were herbivores, we would have fermentation vat, multi-chambered stomachs with a near neutral pH, as it is, we don't. We are omnivores, this vegetarian doctor knows what I mean.

Don't Eat Meat Because You Don't Want To Be Eaten

This is basically a take on the golden rule. The golden rule in Logic/Ethics speak would be:
An action is moral if and only if the person would want it done to themselves.

Sounds good right? Wrong. First think of a flasher. The flasher flashes people the flasher finds attractive. The flasher would want the person to flash them back, so if the golden rule was true, flashing would be moral. Also, the act of incest would be moral (although people can't seem to find a reason why this is immoral besides they don't like it, very much like the argument that it is wrong to eat meat). Then you have people into vore. Vore is a fetish where the person is turned on from thinking about things being eaten or themselves being eaten. So lets say you have a voristic cannibal who wants to be eaten for their lover (and yes, this has happened); this person would be moral in EATING PEOPLE. See how this is a problem?

Now on the flip side you have things like soldier in wars, white lies, and animals. What does this mean? Well, for most people it is moral, or at least morally permissible, for soldiers to kill other soldiers in a war. But if the golden rule was true, then this act would be immoral. Also, we have the act of white lying. These are lies that are used to make people feel better and to not hurt their feelings. You could argue that white lying and lying are two different things but they really aren't, it's just something being used in a negative and passive way. Then we have animals. I think its safe to say that no animal wants to be eaten. However they will eat other animals.

So if the golden rule is true they would be immoral. Now you may say they can't help it because its their nature. Well, carnivores do have to eat meat (unless vegs find a way around it so they can have pets that eat meat and not feel bad), but they don't always have to eat the amount they do. Omnivore animals can eat plants, but will hunt with plenty of plant food available. If you excuse them from this by saying they can't help it, it would mean that human morality applies to animals, which would cause all sorts of problems. You can say they don't have morals, but neither do sociopaths, and they are held accountable for murder right?

And really, if human morality doesn't apply to animals because they are not moral agents, then why apply morality to them at all? I will again hold that they shouldn't be placed in as much suffering as we put them in, but this stems from the fact they can feel pain, not that our morality reaches them per se.

This is part of the next argument.

Aniamls Feel Pain So Don't Eat Them.

Time for the logic map again.

If an organism feels pain it is immoral to eat them.
Aniamls feel pain.
Therefore, it is immoral to eat animals.

OK, we have a valid argument because if the premises are true then the conclusion is true. However it is not factual. While animals feeling pain is true, it being immoral to eat an organism that feels pain as not established. What pain says would be to not needlessly harm them while we raise and slaughter them (needless meaning beating and a slow death, not needless as in some vegs thinking we don't need meat to survive). There is a huge jump between this organism feels pain and this organism can't be eaten by you. Perhaps you want to change this about though:

If an organism feels pain, then it is immoral to harm them.
Aniamls feel pain.
It is immoral to harm them.

Harm is a bit better then saying eat, but this says animals and applies to all animals. So would it be wrong to say that if a bear is attacking you its immroal to fight back? Changing again:

If an organism feels pain it is immoral to harm them unless your life is in danger.
Aniamls feel pain.
Your life is not in danger
It is thus immoral to harm them.

The problem here are insects and other small animals. Mice, roaches, ticks, fleas, ear mites (in dogs) bed bugs, rats, and the like do not pose a threat to you unless in large numbers. Now true some carry disease, but so do all other plants and animals, in fact cats infect about half the humans that own them with parasites that come from their feces which causes a mild alcoholic effect in humans (lowers inhibitions) but your life isn't in danger from this parasite and I think most vegs would be against killing a cat in the same way you would a mosquito. So while annoying, animals like these wouldn't be able to be killed. That goes for the parasites too. You can live with a tape worm so if shouldn't be killed right? If you start to make acceptations then the argument falls apart and becomes more arbitrary based on what you like.

So let us again change it.

If an animal feels pain it is immoral to cause them pain.
It is immoral to needlessly cause animals pain with a benefit to yourself beyond personal gratification involving violence, sex, or taste.
Therefore, it is immoral to eat animals if it is only for personal gratification.

Well the problem with this argument, which harps to the "you eat meat only because it tastes good" is that the reason for action doesn't always make the action right or wrong. Say that you want to become famous and loved so you go around doing acts of bravery. This is selfish because you want fame, but it serves a just cause. The same for eating meat. While some people do it because it tastes good the fact remains that meat is a great source of nutrients if eating in the right amount. Also, the fact that humans like to eat meat is more a reason to eat meat then to not eat meat. Liking something usually is because it is good for an organism to eat, this isn't always the case though. Antifreeze tastes sweet to animals and they like to drink it. But when it comes to meat the most problems occur with eating too much, not getting enough exercise, and that some people find it to be immoral. But if you eat it in the right amounts, stay healthy, and don't fine it to be immoral then their isn't a reason for you not to eat it per the argument given.

It becomes something good for you that you enjoy, even more so if you eat organ meats besides skeletal muscle.

Fat People Can't Argue Health

This is one I get a lot. The argument goes that you shouldn't take health advice from someone who is fat. The problem with this is that this is based on a physical appearance not in knowledge. This argument could go like this:

If a person doesn't practice what they preach they are a hippocrite.
Hippocrites are wrong.
This person doesn't practice what they preach.
They are wrong.

Valid argument, not factual. A person who tells you that smoking is bad for you who smokes isn't wrong because they smoke. Me telling you my opinions and the facts that I know doesn't make me wrong. You can call be a hippocrite. But the truth is the truth regardless of how you say it. Now rather what I say is the truth is up for the reader to decide and prove me wrong if they think I am.

Another problem with the "you're fat so you don't know about health" as a reason to not be an omnivore are fat vegans and vegetarians. The HappyCabbie, who I personally like although I don't always agree with, is overweight but is a vegan. If being fat made what you say invalid, him speaking about the health benefits of being a vegan would also be false. Finally, I could simply say that if you are skinny and/or pale then you have no right to talk about how good a vegan/vegetarian diet is. So I call these arguments invalid.

Feces!

This is an easy one. The argument is that chicken has feces (or as "30 Reasons to Become a Vegetarian" put it, "a little poop.") The problem with this is that it isn't a large amount if it exists. The second is that the meat is cooked at high temperatures microbes can't survive at. The third is that fecal matter is in the air we breath. If chicken and other meats having shit on them means you shouldn't eat them, then you shouldn't eat plants...or breath. See the problem now? I hope so. Though at least you can't kill yourself by holding your breath.

At Least I'm Not As Bad As "Them!"

This argument tends to be towards vegetarians who are not vegan but think of veganism as a good thing to be. It goes that veganism is the better then omnivores and vegetarians. Vegetarians who agree with this say that although they are not as good a vegans they are still better then omnivores and still have a valid argument. The biggest problem with this is the fact that I don't eat humans. So I'm not as bad as cannibals, thus making omnivorism valid to the vegetarians who think this. The other problem is that the same thing vegans say about vegetarians and omnivores can be said by fruitarians. This makes vegans say what the vegetarians say. Then you have breatharians. The people who think you don't have to eat...ANYTHING! To these sick and dying people all others are as mad as murderers. This makes all your efforts pointless if you insist the group before you is bad, you have validity, and the one who eats less is better then what you do.

You're Anorexic and You're Eating Too Much!

This goes on the priviest argument. A vegetarian will say that an omnivore eats too much and is unhealthy but that a vegan eats too little. Vegans in turn say the same thing about vegetarians. They eat too much they are the best and fruitarians eat too little. Most of these can agree that beatharians eat too little and that cannibal humans eating only meat eat too much. This is a domino effect. It has no validity because it can be said about the anyone, just replace two words and you have a counter argument. And to people using this who are vegs, please know that omnivores tend to use this too, though they tend to leave out cannibals and you think it's invalid. You're right that it is, but wrong to use it.

Earthlings!

Two things. First, saying that animals shouldn't be eaten because they are Earthligns like huamsn doesn't work when plants are also Earthlings. Second, the problems demonstrated in this bizarre comedy  are the cause of factory farming and over production (either of plants, animals, or fishing). This is an argument to stop the bad practices, not the entire actions. A car polluting is a good reason to get or make an environmental friendly car, not to give up all modes of non human powered transportation.

Really though, if there is a problem with an industry, buy from the industry in the industry that has good practices. If you want the car industry to change for the better, buy from environmental friendly companies that sell environmental friendly vehicles, don't buy a bike because you help the bike industry and stop becoming a consumer. Now, who cares what you think about cars? You will only be riding bikes.

All In One

Veganism/vegetarianism is not the answer to all out problems anymore then eating meat is the cause. Being a veg won't help the hungry if as many vegs say 99% of farms are factory farms feeding animals corn. Perhaps you should support the 1% instead of tapping out?
______________________________________________________________________________

I think that that should be enough for now. I may think of be confronted with others, but these are the biggest problems I see. Feel free to inform me how I am wrong in my logic and I will follow in kind.




Sunday, August 28, 2011

CVA 1

Christian Argument: Atheists want to ridicule our religion and believe the lie that God doesn't exist, which is the work of Satan, and not think for themselves.

Atheist Argument: Christians want to ridicule us for not believing their fairytales and then try to guilt trip us into believing we'll go to an imaginary bad place, they need to think for themselves.

Am I the only one who sees these two arguments as the same thing ?

Saturday, August 27, 2011

Sunday, August 21, 2011

Opinions Are Like Opinions, Your Opinion Is Always Better Then The Other Guy's Opinion, But An Opinion Is Still An Opinion.

When people finally realize that the reasons they can have their opinions is the same reasons why other people can have their opinions they will then learn why I place what they say in such low regard, but place their right to say in such high esteem. Perhaps then this world would be a better place. Its not about agreeing, if the other persons knows everything or nothing, or thinking the other person is intelligent, it's about knowing we all have the right to be wrong as we tell ourselves that we are right.

-Chris Remag-

Friday, August 12, 2011

Wow

This person is saying that humans should exercise complete control over animals to stop them from being immoral.

Humans can't force our morality onto nature. Also, no force in the universe, be it God, Nature, or Evolution seems to think that animals eating animals is a bad thing. It's just humans, in our infant stupid, that think we should change nature.


To all vegans/vegetarians/fruitarian/etc. you might not agree with me when I say that its OK for humans to eat meat, but what do you think about this person who says that human morality should be implied to animals?

Image is from a comment on one of our YouTube videos, you can view the comments for yourself if you want.

Monday, August 8, 2011

Ex-Vegan

Met an ex-vegan who became an omnivore (well he ate fish first so I guess at the moment he's a pescatarian) at 3AM today from reading this article: http://www.vanguardonline.f9.co.uk/00509.htm

I haven't read it yet but I thought I'd spread the word about it. You don't have to change your diet (if you can be healthy on it) you just need to think about your reasoning.

I've met vegetarians, pescatarians, and vegans who are all supportive of people's decisions. I don't know why other people can't do the same.

Thursday, August 4, 2011

Narcissistic Hater




My entire response (I responded in part on our channel):

I gathered that on my own. If you are not talented then you have no basis to judge us by besides your own opinions and comparing us to other people. Both of which is personal to you. Don’t act big and bad when you can’t spell and have never put any work into any type of video. 

“Those that do, do, those that can’t become critics.”

You are an ass hat, what with your demand we stop making videos because you don’t like them. Your channel is to be a hater. You had nothing and you achieve nothing. You are a waste of space on this site because of your think your opinions matter so much. This something we call delusions of grandeur. 

You also admit to false flagging. Once again, instead of being an bell, how about you not watch people you hate? 

And why do you put in a period where you don’t need one? It makes you sound like an idiot. But thanks for leaving the proof as to how much of an idiot you are, and for that, we thank you. It’ll provide entertainment to us and our fans. 

And? People hate us. Oh no, guess we’ll quit. More people hate the people and things you love then they do us. It’s a matter of perspective. We do this for ourselves and our fans, the haters can get over themselves.

We enjoyably ignore your “order” because you have absolutely no authority. 

And if you are the faggot identifier, why haven’t you identified yourself as one? Too deep in the closet?

________________________________________________________________________

I just don't get people like this. They think they are some important person whose opinions matter the most. Well, I guess I can as most people are like this. But if you hate something that's not going away (like Justine Beiber and Hannah Montana) it's best to leave it alone and forget it exists. False flagging isn't going to stop us, neither is complaining.

I've said this once and I'll say it again. Our older videos get a lot of hits, but they tend to be crappy because we were new. However, if people see it and hate it, we don't loose anything. We have better content now. Subscribers who see these videos know this. Non-subscribers who see it and hate it won't subscribe, but we haven't lost what we didn't have to begin with. The rest of the people don't care enough. However, their is a chance we will get subscriptions out of these videos, and we already get paid because of them. They lead to better videos, but if people don't care to look oh well.

Besides, they might comeback and see our better videos. But even then you can't please everyone, so we ignore the haters.

1 fan is worth all our haters. We make videos for ourselves and for our fans. We don't care what other people think of us. You can call us fat emo faggot goat fuckers, and I'll laugh it off. To me, haters are pathetic. I laugh at the few death threats and "I hope you die" comments we've gotten, so what ever you say, I won't care. 99% of it is just mindless insults and cursing, the rest is from someone we don't care to give the time a day to.