Say Anything Blog

LEVIN: We’ve only just begun - are you 40 or 50 pounds overweight now?

This is how conservatives argue.

Well, at least we conservatives don’t promote infanticide or compare eating hamburgers with Nazism.

So, you know, nice mullet.  Moron.

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

QED

“This is how conservatives argue.”

Demonstrably false, Dave.  I don’t argue with you that way.  Baldwin is a shouter, and he got outshouted.  Pure and simple.

BTW, Dave, I very rarely take you seriously, but almost always give a thoughtful reply.  It’s called manners.  I know a great many of the younger bloggers “get off” on being rude and worse, but I’m not much of a faddist.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

Rob writes:

Well, at least we conservatives don’t (...) compare eating hamburgers with Nazism.

First of all, yes you do.

Second, the reason most conservatives don’t make that comparison is obvious: Acting like Nazis (by eating meat) benefits you, and you have no desire to end that benefit. It’s the exact same reason people refused to condemn slavery: you got cheap cotton.

Dave: Once the cheap labor source dried up, automation happened.  Exactly why we don’t need cheap illegal labor.  It impedes progress.
Eating a normal human diet is obviously beneficial, because it’s…normal.  It has nothing to do with Nazism, which was National Socialism.  Hitler was a vegetarian, btw.  One of your people.  You are much more closely related to Hitler(via dietary extremism) than are consumers of a normal human diet.  It does predate Nazism by a couple hundred thousand years, btw.  Your extreme diet…?

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

Eating a normal human diet is obviously beneficial, because it’s…normal

Smoking is normal. Obviously that means it’s beneficial!

Hitler was a vegetarian, btw

Someone who likes cured meats is not a vegetarian.

One of your people

Stalin ate meat. Clearly he’s one of your people.

You are much more closely related to Hitler(via dietary extremism) than are consumers of a normal human diet.

Are you seriously suggesting that Dave is more closely related to Hitler because of his diet, than someone with a normal human diet like Mussolini?

Deary me. I know it’s late there, but dear dear dear…

“Smoking is normal. Obviously that means it’s beneficial!”

Smoking is not normal.  This premise of yours is false.

My dialogue with Dave is ongoing, as is Rob’s.  I don’t take Dave seriously, and so what I said is to be taken in that vein.  Dave is constantly trying to proselytize for his extreme vegan diet, and I like to poke fun at him, because I think what he does is ridiculous.  Take it in that vein.  I have no personal experience of Hitler, and have only read of his vegetarianism.  I really don’t care, and associating National Socialism with Hitler’s vegetarianism is obviously silly.

I know humans have been eating a normal omnivorous diet since they emerged from whatever earlier form we had, and that earlier form was likely omnivorous, as well, and that is my basis for referring to eating meat as a “normal diet”.  Dietary extremism like Dave’s is relatively recent in human history, and is ideologically based, not nutritionally based.  Hindu vegetarianism, btw, is not nearly so extreme, eschewing meat, fish and eggs, but including plenty of dairy products.  It is not B12 deficient, as is the vegan diet.
I’m not “suggesting” that Dave is related to Hitler at all.  He broached the subject by labeling people who eat a normal human diet as “Nazis”.  Are you suggesting that is accurate?

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

Are you saying smoking is abnormal? That seems a little strong.

Normal (adj.) -
Conforming to a standard, usual, typical, expected.

I would suggest that smoking fulfils at least 3 of those criteria. My point stands. Unless you have a different definition of ‘normal’.

Crucially, what is ‘normal’ is not, by definition, beneficial, or morally just. 

Dietary extremism like Dave’s is relatively recent in human history, and is ideologically based, not nutritionally based.

I would say (speaking for Dave) that it is based on moral consistency. To term that an ‘ideology’ is a little far-fetched.

It is not B12 deficient, as is the vegan diet.

Vegans can get B12 from dietary supplements.

He broached the subject by labeling people who eat a normal human diet as “Nazis”. Are you suggesting that is accurate?

No. I think that would be unacceptably loose use of terminology. Having said that, I think (bear in mind my limited reading of this blog) the furthest Dave goes is to make ethical comparisons between the behaviour of Nazis and the behaviour of meat-eaters. That is different from saying meat-eaters are Nazis.

Mark: Point by point:

“Are you saying smoking is abnormal? That seems a little strong.

In the US, smokers are a definite minority.  “Normal” actualy means “the norm”, and smoking is not the norm.  I never said that smoking is abnormal, btw.  You brought up the subject of smoking.

Normal (adj.) -
Conforming to a standard, usual, typical, expected.

I would suggest that smoking fulfils at least 3 of those criteria. My point stands. Unless you have a different definition of ‘normal’.

In this country, smoking is neither standard, usual, typical nor is it expected.  As a matter of fact, I expect people not to smoke.

Crucially, what is ‘normal’ is not, by definition, beneficial, or morally just.

Agreed, but that is irrelevant to my statement, which was that the normal human omnivorous diet is beneficial.  You have presented nothing to refute that argument.  Instead you made a straw man argument about smoking.

Dietary extremism like Dave’s is relatively recent in human history, and is ideologically based, not nutritionally based.

I would say (speaking for Dave) that it is based on moral consistency. To term that an ‘ideology’ is a little far-fetched.

Your idea of “moral consistency”.  You have not proved that it is applicable to anyone but yourself.  No facts.

It is not B12 deficient, as is the vegan diet.

Vegans can get B12 from dietary supplements.

Supplements don’t exist in nature.  Probably why it isn’t a normal diet.  Can’t follow it without the support of the supplement industry.

He broached the subject by labeling people who eat a normal human diet as “Nazis”. Are you suggesting that is accurate?

No. I think that would be unacceptably loose use of terminology. Having said that, I think (bear in mind my limited reading of this blog) the furthest Dave goes is to make ethical comparisons between the behaviour of Nazis and the behaviour of meat-eaters. That is different from saying meat-eaters are Nazis.”

Dave’s quote: “Second, the reason most conservatives don’t make that comparison is obvious: Acting like Nazis (by eating meat)...” So, eating a normal human omnivorous diet is, in Dave’s words, acting like Nazis.  Do you agree with that?  Dave’s forte’ is making flawed equivalences and faulty analogies.  Bear that in mind.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

Oh Monday on Hannity is going to be too funny!  You can say what you will, he has confronted Baldwin with his stupid statements, but Baldwin never has a good, solid, fact-based response.  And as for name calling, one commenter pointed out name calling by Levin, but seemed to overlook the name calling by Baldwin.

I never said that smoking is abnormal

Interesting. Didn’t you say that -

Smoking is not normal?

That is to say, deviating from the normal - abnormal?

As smoking is a contentious example of normality, what about drinking alcohol? I would vouch that is certainly normal, but hardly beneficial.

Furthermore, you have accepted my point, namely that “what is ‘normal’ is not, by definition, beneficial” -

Agreed, but that is irrelevant to my statement, which was that the normal human omnivorous diet is beneficial. You have presented nothing to refute that argument. Instead you made a straw man argument about smoking.

Forgive me, but I didn’t set out to refute that argument. I only intended to refute your claim that something which is normal is by definition beneficial, which you have now accepted is wrong.

Your idea of “moral consistency”. You have not proved that it is applicable to anyone but yourself. No facts.

All I suggested was that moral consistency was the putative basis for Dave’s veganism. I wasn’t making any claims about its veracity, nor was I intending to.

Supplements don’t exist in nature

Neither do cakes, beer, cookies, bread… ad infinitum. I take it you refuse to consume those as part of your normal, natural diet?

robert108
Dave’s forte’ is making flawed equivalences and faulty analogies. Bear that in mind.

Hey Robert-great point- manytimes, when these folks get challenged on flawed logic, they backpedal and resort to saying something like- it’s satire or it’s a parody- is it possible that dave and mark are just kidding around? How else can one explain this aberrant paradigm?

Toche’
Score:
Robert 10
Dave and Mark 0
P.S.
Q.E.D. is an abbreviation of the Latin phrase “quod erat demonstrandum” (literally, “which was to be demonstrated”). mathematicians used it to show that the result required for the proof to be completed had been obtained. 
At least the kid did a little homework
AW

Mark - 10000000 points
AW - 0 points

YAY! I win!

I find the “Smoking is normal” (or isn’t normal) analogies are quite humorous considering tobacco (I don’t think you were referencing other substances) wasn’t available outside the Americas until the 17th century.  Smoking tobacco first became a fad than an addiction with little real benefit.  What’s normal about that?

Mark

To breathe in oxygen is normal and beneficial
To breathe it in at an excessively fast rate is called hyper-ventilation-which causes dizziness-that’s abnormal-but it’s still breathing in oxygen
By your logic then-which fails to qualify anomalies-
Breathing in oxygen could be characterized as abnormal

Normal and abnormal- especially when being applied to and defined by cultural mores and life style choices-is quite subjective and arguing about it is like trying to figure out how many angels can fit on the head of a pin.

GAME

SET

Match

AW -
I find it rather amusing that in a post criticizing my logic, you present an absolute whopper.

Namely -
To breathe in oxygen is normal and beneficial

should read, by the very terms of the argument you are presenting,

To breathe in oxygen in a regular fashion is normal and beneficial

The very absence of this qualifier allows you to manufacture a contradiction out of thin air.

Normal and abnormal- especially when being applied to and defined by cultural mores and life style choices-is quite subjective and arguing about it is like trying to figure out how many angels can fit on the head of a pin.

I can agree with that entirely.

My sole dispute here was with this claim -

Eating a normal human diet is obviously beneficial, because it’s…normal

Robert said that a human diet is beneficial because it is normal. That simply does not follow. Something is ‘normal’ on the basis of statistics, not its benefits.

He has accepted this.

AW, marky is one of those trolls who enjoy spinning around in pointless circles while claiming the moral high ground on account of his astounding pretzel logic. davey is much the same.

2H9 -
I have posted here for a long time. I am reasonable, civil and polite. Therefore I am forced to assume that the only grounds for my being a ‘troll’ are that I might disagree with you.

That is a truly sad state of affairs.

Mark, here is a short troll test.  What are your answers?
1. Do you associate Bush with Hitler?
2. Do you believe the the USA is the cause of all the distress in the world?
3. Do you think that the Palestines are an ancient peopls deprived of their land and nation by the Israelis?
4. Do you think that Gore or Kerry would have been better presidents than Bush?
5. Do you believe that we are at war against Islamic fundamentalists who promote terrorism?

Should have added this question
6. Do you believe in 9/11 conspiracies?

1) Don’t be ridiculous.

2) Certainly not. Dogmatism and stupidity is.

3) If you are implying that I think Israel should be replaced by a Palestinian state, you are some way off the mark.

4) There is the slightest chance that Gore might have been better, depending on his response to 9/11; certainly not Kerry. I think Lieberman would be a better president than Bush. 

5) Yes.

6) All bullshit.

Mark, I was just trying to allaying the rumor that you were a nutcase moonbat.  I personally While not necessary agreeing with you on everything, I personally have not had a serious problem with your posting.  That is in contrast with rbb who really lives in an another universe, Dave who thinks that humans are mere animals and others who are so delusionary they should seek medical help.

marky, we have had this conversation before. You have, in the past, admitted you enjoy circlular arguments that go nowhere because they are “fun”. The above thread being a perfect example. You have a good day under your bridge. OK?

You have, in the past, admitted you enjoy circlular arguments that go nowhere because they are “fun”.

I have done no such thing. I have enjoyed off-topic digressions, particularly with Seth. But those are not ‘circular’, nor did they ‘go nowhere’, despite your attempt to characterise them as such.

The above thread being a perfect example

There was nothing ‘circular’ about the above discussion. It was an honest debate about whether things that are ‘normal’ are always beneficial. To suggest my posts are purely malicious, or whimsical, or that I’m stirring up logical confusion, is utterly ridiculous.

Stalin ate meat. Clearly he’s one of your people.

Bill Clinton eats meat.  Is he one of “ours,” too?

Sophism generally refers to a particularly confusing, illogical and/or insincere argument used by someone to make a point (for example, the “Chewbacca defense”).
Sophistry refers to the practice of using such arguments, and is used as a derogative for rhetoric that is designed to appeal to the listener on grounds other than the strict logical cogency of the statements being made.

Mark is rather skilled at this and I’m betting that he could argue- from opposing sides of a single point of contention -each with equal enthusiasm and self-righteousness ;believing himself to be unquestionably and morally superior from each diametrically opposite point of view.

You’ve got to admit, Mark’s spurious sophistic responses are rather quick-wittedly clever.
Wading through the content of his posts is like finally resolving yourself to cleaning out a cluttered garage that you’ve been procrastinating about –and being forced to organize things properly.

Simply stating, over and over again, that my logic is flawed is all very well and good, but at some point it really would be quite nice if you were to give me an example.

should read, by the very terms of the argument you are presenting, To breathe in oxygen (in a regular fashion) is normal and beneficial

Mark, to make my statement even less of a whopper (as you’ve already helped me with by so astutely adding the words “in a regular fasion” maybe-along that same line of reasoning-we should also add:

-with your nostrils not your ears
-into your lungs not your stomach
-while your heart is pumping
-if their air’s not polluted
-while you’re awake or asleep
And
-without being strangled by Hezbollah

Dave:

It’s the exact same reason people refused to condemn slavery: you got cheap cotton.

I think you need to check your facts there.  Slavery didn’t make cotton cheaper (slaves were more expensive than paid labor.)

Mark

You’re quite clever- your twists and spins are very nuanced-each time incrementally changing your previous position ever so slightly so that the difference is barely noticable. You do this by manipulating semantics then fooling yourself into believing you have triumphed in logic; you haven’t. All you’ve done is toyed with the various “meanings” of words and applied those assorted meanings in different contextual frameworks. Your B.S. is so convoluted that it’s not worth sifting back through to try to make sense of it. It’s like trying to find a needle in a haystack.
If you don’t make a logical point and stick with it, nobody can ever pin you down on anything now can they? This is a very common tactic used by con men and fearful people in general who, at all costs, seek to escape accountability.

Mark: Actually, it was Dave who said that we normal meat-eaters benefited thereby.  I never made the generalized argument you seem to be stuck on.  I never made the generalization that everything normal is beneficial.  You stated that, attributed it to me, then refuted your own creation.  Same with the smoking flap.  You brought up smoking, tried to rope me into a meaningless discussion of the normality/abnormality of smoking, and then tried to say that you refuted an argument I never made.  You seem to lack original thought, and furthermore, are prone to overgeneralization and projection.  Try addressing the point in future.  You may entertain yourself with your flights of fancy, but certainly not me.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

I don’t know about the rest of you, but I had a big Sunday morning breakfast of steak, eggs and sausage.

Absolutely delicious, and I thought about Davey boy with every bite.

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

Personally, I have no problem with people who refuse to eat meat.  I can understand the decision.  We all have our personal tastes.

My only problem with Davey is when he calls me a Nazi because I like hamburgers.  Clearly, Dave is off his rocker.

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

Consciousness

Robert

Very well articulated- precision and pin-point accuracy.
I wonder if the only reason I can clearly understand you but not mark is because we’re both fascists and mark is so morally superior to us that his words only SEEM esoterically abstract and incomprehensible.
I might have to go talk to my pastor about this-you see, I’m very troubled by it.

AW: That must be it.  Or, we know the truth and Mark doesn’t.  Pick ‘em.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

AW: About the “fascist” thing.  To a Marxist, a fascist is anyone who questions his ideology.  It’s used to manipulate emotionally, not as a substantive argument.  Marxism doesn’t stand up to substantive argument, since it is based on erroneous premises and wrong assumptions about human nature.  I’m not saying that Mark is a Marxist; he doesn’t speak enough of his own words to make any such determination.  He is a sniper.  He tries to dismantle the arguments of others by using semantics(as you have pointed out), and by inappropriate generalizations, which change the nature of the original argument.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

True!
He brought the initial point so far away from its origin that it was impossible to keep track of it. Sniper’s a good characterization of the tactic!
AW

Marine Recon

AW: What are the two ways of getting intel?

Recon and Interrogation

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

I can’t stand Alec Baldwin, haven’t liked him since his days on Knott’s Landing TV show. Sean Hannity is my least favorite Fox talking head, not my least favorite overall, but pretty close. He’s an idiot who hurts his arguments more than helps. I love Mark Levin, mostly because he pulls no punches. I’ve heard him compared to Savage, but Savage just seems downright mean, Mark knows what he’s talking about.

As to normal, 25% of the U.S. population smoke, are they all abnormal? If that is true, then are the 25% who are part of the Deaniac looney left nutroots abnormal too? I would say yes. Take a look at some of the signs being carried at the rallys and tell me those people are normal. Bet most of them don’t smoke and don’t eat meat and require their children to play on padded playgrounds. Is it normal to hate a single man so much for no other reason than he won an election you tried to steal and because of that hate, support terrorism and terrorists, sadistic killers and dictators over our own great nation and our brave men and women who serve in our military?

Sara: The smoking, normal or abnormal? was a distraction from an entirely different subject.  The norm is what the majority does.  It’s not rocket science.  You’re right, of course.  Most of the fringe leftie haters have other totalitarian belief systems as well as their totalitarian political beliefs.  Goes with the territory.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

docdave writes:

...Dave who thinks that humans are mere animals

Humans are animals. Take a Biology 101 class. Imagine all the things you’ll learn!

Humans are animals, but not mere animals.  We’re better than animals.  We’re humans.  Animals are just dumb animals.

And tasty too.  At least in some instances.  I’ve had antelope and it’s gross.

Wouldn’t recommend squid either.

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

Mark writes:

Vegans can get B12 from dietary supplements.

Or from 2 bowls of cereal and a bottle of Powerade. Vitamin B12 is very easy to get on a vegan diet; quite frankly, I have no idea how that bit of misinformation got started. You don’t need supplements at all; you don’t even need to watch it very carefully.

We’re better than animals.

No, we are animals—you can’t be “better than” the group you belong to. It’s like saying “males are better than humans”—completely meaningless.

Furthermore, quite a few human animals are “worse than” non-human animals—compare a chimpanzee with a Down’s syndrome child. But that doesn’t mean we can eat retards.

rob108

I never made the generalization that everything normal is beneficial.

Okay. What did you mean by this:

Eating a normal human diet is obviously beneficial, because it’s…normal.

Furthermore, quite a few human animals are “worse than” non-human animals—compare a chimpanzee with a Down’s syndrome child. But that doesn’t mean we can eat retards.

Of course it doesn’t mean we can eat “retards,” dummy.  “Retards” are human.

Though I find it interesting that you’d have no problem with parents offing a newborn Downs syndrome baby because that baby might pose a hardship in their lives.  Because eating a hamburger is equivalent to being a nazi, but killing your mentally handicapped infant is something to be comended.

Davey’s rationalizing of his out-in-orbit veganism views to jive with his pro-infanticide views begins in 5…4…3…2…

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

Davey’s rationalizing of his out-in-orbit veganism views to jive with his pro-infanticide views begins in 5…4…3…2…

Pain is bad.

No, we are animals—you can’t be “better than” the group you belong to. It’s like saying “males are better than humans”—completely meaningless.

Humans are categorically different than the animals due to our intelligence, save a few examples.

We are the deciders, and we say so.

Pain is bad.

Because “retards” can’t feel pain, right mullet boy?

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

Because “retards” can’t feel pain, right mullet boy?

No, of course they can! Don’t be silly. If infants could not feel pain, what would be the point of euthanizing them?

Actually the biggest gap in Dave’s logic is his assumption that pain & suffering is necessarily a bad thing, and that avoidance of these is necessarily a good thing.

That couldn’t be farther from the truth:

It is through pain that we learn to avoid things that will harm us.  It is through suffering that we come to grips with the mistakes that we have made in our past.  In fact, it is now a generally accepted premise in psychology that pain, discomfort and yes, even suffering, are necessary components of human growth, and that people who are sheltered from these do not develop as well as though who experience mild trauma in their growing up.

It is through being tested by pain, discomfort and even periods of suffering that we determine who we really are.    There are several famous variants on this theme, but here’s one: “The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.”

And to this sophistry:

you can’t be “better than” the group you belong to.

Tell that to Lance Armstrong.  Every group has a “first of the litter” and a “last of the litter”.

Carrick writes:

It is through pain that we learn to avoid things that will harm us. It is through suffering that we come to grips with the mistakes that we have made in our past. (...)It is through being tested by pain, discomfort and even periods of suffering that we determine who we really are.

Apply a single one of these examples to a veal calf.

You are quite silly.

PETA=People Eating Tasty Animals.  Veal is very tasty, and greatly relieves my suffering from hunger.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

Rob wrote (original punctuation):

Because “retards” can’t feel pain, right mullet boy?

You just have to love the “scare quotes” around the word “retard.”

So sorry for neglecting to use whatever PC-buzzword you’d have preferred, Rob. (What, is it “mentally handicapped” now? I didn’t get your copy of the PC handbook.)

rob108, then Mark:

He broached the subject by labeling people who eat a normal human diet as “Nazis”. Are you suggesting that is accurate?

No. I think that would be unacceptably loose use of terminology.

The human animals who eat meat are acting just as unethically as the Nazis who killed Jews. Obviously, they are not literally National Socialists in Germany under the rule of Hitler—Hitler’s dead, of course, along with the thousands of other reasons such a literal comparison is absurd. That’s not what I mean by it. But in terms of their prospective moralities, there is no serious difference between human omnivores and Nazis—their actions are equal.

And once again davey shows his inbred stupidity and begin whining and crying in 5,,4,,3,,2,,,,

Dave said:

That’s not what I mean by it. But in terms of their prospective moralities, there is no serious difference between human omnivores and Nazis—their actions are equal.

Wow.

You do realize that it is the natural order of things that animals eat other animals, I hope.  Is a lion morally the same as a Nazi when it eats an antelope?  Please say no.

If it is your argument that humans omnivores are more culpable for eating meat than other animals, then that would belie your argument that “[n]o, we are animals—you can’t be ‘better than’ the group you belong to”, as you would be ascribing some attribute to human animals that you don’t ascribe to other animals, which would necessarily place them in a different group.

You just have to love the “scare quotes” around the word “retard.”

So sorry for neglecting to use whatever PC-buzzword you’d have preferred, Rob. (What, is it “mentally handicapped” now? I didn’t get your copy of the PC handbook.)

I was using quotes because I was quoting a word you used.  I wanted to note that it was your word, not mine.

Because I don’t think that demeaning the mentally handicapped is all that cool.

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

But Rob! davey loves to demean people who can not defend themselves. It is why he wants to be a teacher, all those defenseless children he can molest.

Is a lion morally the same as a Nazi when it eats an antelope?

No, the lion is not as rational as a human—it can’t understand how its actions are wrong. Humans can.

If it is your argument that humans omnivores are more culpable for eating meat than other animals

It is.

then that would belie your argument that “[n]o, we are animals—you can’t be ‘better than’ the group you belong to”, as you would be ascribing some attribute to human animals that you don’t ascribe to other animals, which would necessarily place them in a different group.

Human animals are, on average, much smarter than other animals—in the same way that whales are much larger than other animals. What’s your point?

2hotel9 writes:

It is why he wants to be a teacher, all those defenseless children he can molest.

This is far worse than anything Diane ever said or did on this blog.

Whine,whine,cry,cry. Now tell us how you are morally superior because you advocate infanticide. We never get tired of that lameassed shit.

Angus:

If it is your argument that humans omnivores are more culpable for eating meat than other animals, then that would belie your argument that “[n]o, we are animals—you can’t be ‘better than’ the group you belong to”, as you would be ascribing some attribute to human animals that you don’t ascribe to other animals, which would necessarily place them in a different group.

Angus: excellent job pointing out flawed logic!
Dave’s statements are packed with it. No amount of persuasive (time-tested) reasoning will change his faulty perception of the world. Kids like Dave have been brainwashed and indoctrinated since pre-k and through college, by shyster (government school)employees and proselytizing proagandists masquerading as university professors.
Because they are so overwhelmed by “FEELINGS”,they don’t seem to have the ability to “concede” even the (possible) viability of a minor premise.

I would also like to point out that if Rob had any sense of fairness 2hotel9 would be banned from this blog.

Bezu Fache:

Kids like Dave have been brainwashed and indoctrinated since pre-k and through college, by shyster (government school)employees and proselytizing proagandists masquerading as university professors.

This explains why a whopping 0.2% of the population is vegan.

And why 100% of vegans are leftards.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

Dave
You seem like a nice kid but as usual, you either missed the point completely or understood the point and are purposely avoiding it. Your tendancy to skirt the basic premise of a comment or to ignore rationale of it, is exactly what I was trying to underscore in my post. I was (very obviously) not refering to your “veganism” as the subject (of my remarks) but rather your intrinsic inability to recognize and/or utilize proper logic.
You’re like a man who lost his wallet in a dark basement but is looking for it out on the sidewalk because there’s more light out there.
AW

r108

And why 100% of vegans are leftards.

Back up that statement.

bezu fache:

I was (very obviously) not refering to your “veganism” as the subject (of my remarks) but rather your intrinsic inability to recognize and/or utilize proper logic.

You have provided no examples of my “intrinsic inability to recognize and/or utilize proper logic.” You agreed with Angus’s, even though he was using a flawed definition of animal “equality” to try to “catch” me in a contradiction. Yes, humans are the most intelligent species of animal; No, this does not mean we are justified in ignoring the ethical considerations of other species. We’re all members of the animal kingdom (as I said before), and (almost) all of us can experience pain—the crucial characteristic.

And where did Carrick go after making that ludicrous post?

I would also like to point out that if Rob had any sense of fairness 2hotel9 would be banned from this blog.
Can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen.

Only study I can easily find on the web shows that in a statistical sample of 60 respondents, 9 said they were vegetarians.  Of the 9, there were 5 democrats, 4 independents and 1 republican.  However all but one said they were liberal and that one didn’t respond to that question.

All the vegetarians I know are liberals and I know more than a few cause one of my sisters is a veg.

Can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen.

He accused me of being a child molestor. If this is acceptable behavior on this blog (as it must be, as he’s faced no disciplinary action), we should see some dramatic changes soon.

Matthew Scully is a well-known conservative vegetarian and animal welfare activist.

He accused me of being a child molestor.

And you accuse people who enjoy hamburgers of being Nazis.

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

Rob: I am not a child molestor. The posters here are hamburger-eaters. I’ve compared their actions to Nazis, but I have not lied about what they’ve done.

Did 2H9 say you did anything?  He said you want to be a teacher so you can molest children.  I don’t know if that’s why you want to be a teacher or not, nor do I know if 2H9 meant “molest” in a sexual sense.

I’m not defending 2H9’s insults as I find them aggravating and boring, but if you want to call people Nazis you had better be prepared for some return fire.

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

Another saw for you Davey - Those that throw stones shouldn’t live in glass houses. 

On veggie liberals, I give you a survey, you give me one person, apparently your idol.  Hardly an equal comparison.

Dave:

Apply a single one of these examples to a veal calf.

I don’t eat veal.  If the only way one could be a carnivore would be by eating veal, you might have had a point.

You are quite silly.

Classy argument.

Your argument on the consumption of meat depends upon suffering being an evil that must be avoided.  This is the Achilles heel of your argument.  If suffering in itself is not always to be avoided, but is sometimes a necessary part of growth, then your entire argument is a wash out.

Put another way, if the mere act of creating suffering in another is not necessarily always an evil act in and of itself, then you can’t judge whether an act is moral or immoral based solely upon whether it inflicts suffering.  Rather, you must include the overarching effects of the action.  Of course, I’m speaking in generalities here, at the level at which a code of ethics is created.

If as a drill instructor, I inflict suffering on my new recruits during their training, but increase their probability of survival in combat (by either improved training or by weeding up unfit recruits), I have thereby performed a moral act.

Similarly, as a teacher, if I try to shelter my students from any suffering, say, inflicted by homework, I have committed an immoral act.

So when you say it’s OK to euthanize a small child, because that child has a birth defect, simply on the basis that it reduces suffering on the part of the parent, you are in fact, entirely, as in “couldn’t be more”, wrong.  Simply eliminating or creating suffering is no indicator of whether the act is moral or immoral. The suffering of the parents who have to tend to a Down’s Syndrome baby will likely make them stronger and better people.  Avoiding the suffering, will likely not only rob them of this growth opportunity, it will also inflict them with long-term guilt, possibly making them bitter and angry people as they grow older.

And where did Carrick go after making that ludicrous post?

Classy.  This coming from the person who wrote:

you can’t be “better than” the group you belong to.

Likely this is the most laughably stupid thing I’ve seen anybody write in a month.

The funny thing is you act the ass, as you did with my comments, then you get your feelings hurt that anybody would be offensive towards you.  All you do is throw out emotionally laden arguments mostly devoid of any real depth of thought, then get all pissy when anybody points out the flaws in them.

Ok, so maybe 2H9 shouldn’t have called you a “child molester” (actually he suggested your goal was to become one).

Perhaps “molester” (HOLY FUCK, SCARE QUOTES!) is the wrong choice of word.  I thing “abuser” would be a better choice, because legally anyone who advocates infanticide is advocating the abuse of a child.  It’s as simple as that.

Now I’m out of here. I’m going to be pretty busy the rest of this week, so don’t get all huffy if I don’t respond to anything you write for a while.

davey, I don’t believe you are sexually molesting anything! From what you have said here and elsewhere I believe you fully capable and eager to mentally molest anyone you get the chance to. Your repeated advocations, and glorifications, of infanticide stand as testament to that. Your pretensions to moral superiority would be laughable, except you say you are going to be a teacher. Get it now, moron?!? Your situational ethics are the last thing a teacher should be embracing. Clarity! Both moral and philosophical, are what you need to find. And if at the end of that search you find yourself standing in the same place, you should choose a different career.

Oh, yea, and I am cooking some nice, thick, burn&bloody new york strips on the grill RIGHT NOW!!!!! With steamed broccoli,cauliflower, and brussel sprouts drenched in butter and cheese. MMMMMMMMMMMM!!!!!!!!!!

Dave: “r108

  And why 100% of vegans are leftards.

Back up that statement.”

You back it up for me every time you comment on this blog.  I was just joking with you, Dave, as I never take anything you write seriously.  I could just as easily have said: “And why vegans are 100% retards.”  Either way, it’s a hoot.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

Dave: Can you prove to me that eating animals for food increases total suffering?  You constantly state it, and you obviously believe it, but what proof do you have?  Without animal food(the normal and proper natural food of humans) there would be incredible suffering.  Prove it to me.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

Are you really that thick-headed Dave?
Come on man; and you say you want to be a teacher?

What parent in their right mind would entrust the education of their children to a rascally, rogue like you?

You wrote:

You have provided no examples of my “intrinsic inability to recognize and/or utilize proper logic.”

Ok Dave
I’ll give you examples:

You wrote:

we [humans] are animals—you can’t be ‘better than’ the group you belong to”

Angus answered:

“If Humans omnivores (animals) are more culpable (do you understand “more culpable?”) for eating meat than other animals, then that would contradict your argument because you would be ascribing some attribute to human animals that you don’t ascribe to other animals, which would necessarily place them in a different [category] within that group.”

Hence the ability to be “better or worse” than others in that” group”

You wrote:

No, the lion is not as rational as a human—it can’t understand how its actions are wrong. Humans can.

So human “animals” are again “better” than other “animals” (in their group) because we have the unique ability to use our intellect [reason and logic] for good or bad; and your lion doesn’t have this ability. Again-humans are better “animals” than the rest in their group.

At this point you’ll play with semantics (meaning of words) and say that “better” doesn’t mean “different” or “worse” so my rebuttal must be wrong. This is pure sophistic bullshit. Your premise, (humans can’t be better) would also necessarily include “worse” because worse is “better’s” inseparable polar opposite.

You can’t understand the flaws in your logic because you just don’t understand logic itself.
Here, as elsewhere,  the fault in your reasoning is the presence of multiple contradictory premises within the same proposition which makes it impossible to draw a logical conclusion.

All trucks are automobiles; cars are automobiles-therefore all trucks must be cars.

Grow up you dastardly, lily-livered wind-bag . (LOL)

I gotta believe that Dave is just B.S, ing us; no one—I mean no one- can be this stupid!—-can they?????

(HOLY FUCK, SCARE QUOTES!)

That’s gotta be the funniest thing I’ve read in a month.

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

Dave: “No, the lion is not as rational as a human—it can’t understand how its actions are wrong.”

By what standard are the lion’s actions wrong?  Love to hear your thinking on this one.  I have heard some pretty convoluted BS in my time, so bring it.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

Like the anti-war protesters who are only excersising their first amendment right to free speech, I’m protesting “veganism” and I’m calling for a “DAVE” boycott. Don’t block him but don’t anyone resopond to anything he writes; this’ll drive his maniacal ego over the top.

Dave lied babies died…Dave lied babies died ...Dave lied babies died

Where’s my anti-vegan protest sign?

We Are All Vegetables Now. What color schem should we use?

Dave seems to be absent.  Maybe, in the tradition of Al Gore, he has gone out for a burger.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

More examples!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Dave wrote:

“No, the lion is not as rational as a human—it can’t understand how its actions are wrong.”

Robert108 wrote:

 

By what standard are the lion’s actions wrong? Love to hear your thinking on this one. I have heard some pretty convoluted BS in my time, so bring it.

Checkmate- you pretentious little peacock

AW:

All trucks are automobiles; cars are automobiles-therefore all trucks must be cars.

Thus, it is impossible for trucks to be “better than” automobiles, since trucks are automobiles. Trucks may be better than some automobiles, but it is logically impossible for them to be better than just automobiles. You can’t be better than the group to which you belong—you can only be better than other members of that group. Human animals are better than snails, but they are not better than “animals,” because humans are animals. This is elementary logic.

Dave: All trucks are better at carrying cargo than cars are; that is why they are trucks and not cars.  That is elementary logic. What you wrote had nothing to do with logic at all, as usual.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

Your argument on the consumption of meat depends upon suffering being an evil that must be avoided.

No, unnecessary suffering is an evil that must be avoided.

Put another way, if the mere act of creating suffering in another is not necessarily always an evil act in and of itself, then you can’t judge whether an act is moral or immoral based solely upon whether it inflicts suffering. Rather, you must include the overarching effects of the action.

Of course; I’ve always held this. You choose the option that involves the least amount of total, aggregate suffering. It’s okay to eat an animal if you’re stuck on a deserted island (as it prevents your suffering)—it’s not okay to eat an animal in your apartment (as you can prevent your suffering without increasing that animal’s).

If as a drill instructor, I inflict suffering on my new recruits during their training, but increase their probability of survival in combat (by either improved training or by weeding up unfit recruits), I have thereby performed a moral act.

This is a spectacular statement—for you have applied the exact same standards I use in determining the morality of an action (reduction of suffering). The minor suffering you inflict on your recruits is made moral by the reduced chance of future suffering in combat. The end result of your action is an aggregate reduction of suffering; thus, it is moral.

The suffering of the parents who have to tend to a Down’s Syndrome baby will likely make them stronger and better people. Avoiding the suffering, will likely not only rob them of this growth opportunity, it will also inflict them with long-term guilt, possibly making them bitter and angry people as they grow older.

I believe the adults themselves are most qualified to make these decisions in individual cases.

Again-humans are better “animals” than the rest in their group.

Yes. They are not better than the group itself—they have not magically superseded their position in the Animal Kingdom. Again, Rob’s original statement was:

“Humans are better than animals.”

Unless you’ve been reading Nietzsche (or do not believe that human animals are, in fact, animals), this is a meaningless and completely absurd statement, akin to “trucks are better than automobiles” or “football is better than sports.”

Without animal food(the normal and proper natural food of humans) there would be incredible suffering.

No. It’s possible to have a healthy diet that does not include any animal products. Millions of people around the world have done so, including me.

To simplify, say we have only two dietary options: we can eat non-human animal products, or we can not. Since we will not experience any more or less suffering either way, and since the first option (omnivorism) involves the infliction of pain and the second one—veganism—does not, if we choose omnivorism we are increasing the amount of suffering in the world.

What flaws do you see, r108?

Dave: You are a dietary extremist.  Not only that, but you are arrogant enough to think your way is best, even though the vast majority of the world doesn’t agree with you.  You probably thinks that makes you special, and superior to the rest of us.  I doubt that there are “millions” of vegans around the world.  Vegans are more extreme than vegetarians.  You are certainly entitled to your own personal beliefs; just don’t try to push them on those who aren’t interested in your extremism.  If you want to feel really superior, become a breatharian.  Your suffering argument is your own.  You believe it, but almost no one else does.
Again, trucks are better than cars at carrying cargo.  You still don’t have that “logic” thing down.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

The numbers 1, 5, 10, 20, 50 and 100 belong the group of numbers which appear on US currency.  Guess what, Dave?

I’d rather have the Franklin, but that’s just me.

Just because you belong to a group (e.g., all living things), doesn’t mean you can’t also belong to a more exclusive & generally superior group (e.g., the primates).  If you want to equate yourself to a sea-slug, go right ahead.

And if it requires an animal to suffer for me to eat it, isn’t that a necessary suffering?  If I suffer while climbing Mt. Everest, is it really necessary for me to climb the mountain, and if not, am I not subjecting myself to unnecessary suffering?

My basic point was that your “suffering is bad” thesis (repeated above) is simply erroneous.

I asked what flaws you saw in my argument, and you did not list any. I assume that’s because there were none but, rather than admitting it, you chose to call me names.

I doubt that there are “millions” of vegans around the world.

According to Wikipedia, about “0.2% of American adults are vegan.” My quick math tells me this means there are about 4,000,000 vegans in America alone—and I’m sure you’re aware that vegan diets are much more common in other countries, particularly those with high Buddhist populations.

And if it requires an animal to suffer for me to eat it, isn’t that a necessary suffering?

Yes, if your options were limited to: Eat the animal, or Die.

They’re not. Its suffering is not necessary.

My basic point was that your “suffering is bad” thesis (repeated above) is simply erroneous.

You sure haven’t explained it very well. Your variation of the “pinprick argument” is not what I believe—we must look at aggregate suffering when making decisions. You, in fact, applied that exact same line of thinking in your drill instructor example.

When I donate blood, I experience pain. So why do I do it? It’s not because I’m a sadist. It’s becuase it will most likely decrease the overall amount of pain in the world.

There are very, very few situations in which this line of thinking works vis-a-vis omnivorism (the “deserted island” scenario is one of them). The non-human animal receives no future benefit from its suffering, nor does the human animal who kills or consumes it.

Dave: Just for starters, the population of the US is about 300 million. 0.2% of that (.002) is 600,000, not 4 million, so I guess your math skills are on a par with your logic skills.  Buddhists are vegetarians, btw, not vegans.  They, as well as the Hindus, eat dairy products, like milk, butter and yogurt, so don’t try to include them in your extremism.  I don’t know if Wiki’s number is accurate, but even if it is, my estimate is accurate, not yours.
As far as the flaws in your argument, let me ‘splain it to you again; it is one big flaw.  The choices are not as you said, but are: eat meat and be healthy, avoid eating meat and suffer hunger and malnutrition(if you don’t have ready access to supplements), or have Dave’s extreme diet imposed on you.  The second two involve a lot more suffering, and human suffering, at that, than does the first one.  Get it?

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

Dave: I’m still waiting for your proof that the normal human diet results in more aggregate suffering than would exist if we couldn’t consume our normal animal food.  You say that, but you can’t back it up.  Check out the breatharian thing, btw.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

I’m still waiting for your proof that the normal human diet results in more aggregate suffering than would exist if we couldn’t consume our normal animal food.

Here you go r108:

“To simplify, say we have only two dietary options: we can eat non-human animal products, or we can not. Since we will not experience any more or less suffering either way, and since the first option (omnivorism) involves the infliction of pain and the second one—veganism—does not, if we choose omnivorism we are increasing the amount of suffering in the world.”

BTW: Are you in a contest with someone to see who can use the word “normal” the most? This is like Conrad’s “magnanimous” in The Secret Agent.

Dave: Point by point:

“To simplify, say we have only two dietary options:I have already mentioned three. we can eat non-human animal products, or we can not. You lump in vegan extremeism with vegetarianism, which I have already mentioned.Since we will not experience any more or less suffering either wayThat’s the whole argument, isn’t it?  You are trying to prove something about suffering by using the premise that the suffering is equal.  That is circular reasoning, a definite no-no in the field of logic, and since the first option (omnivorism) involves the infliction of pain and the second one—veganism—does notOf course it does, as I have already pointed out several times.  In most parts of the world, like the entire continent of Africa, not eating animal products would produce starvation and malnutrition, which increases suffering greatly., if we choose omnivorismIt is the natural choice of human beings; only people with access to supermarkets and supplements are even able to survive on a vegan diet. we are increasing the amount of suffering in the world.”

I can truly say that reading your comments on this subject has increased my suffering. 
BTW, you didn’t even get close to proving your point.  You simply used circular logic to end up where you started.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!