Quote from: Stijn on December 29, 2014, 07:37:34 PM

Quote from: TECSHARE on December 29, 2014, 06:09:08 PM

Quote from: Stijn on December 29, 2014, 12:07:53 PM

Quote from: TECSHARE on December 29, 2014, 06:09:08 PM

Quote from: Stijn on December 29, 2014, 07:37:34 PM

The only difficulty in our societies is the group pressure from non-vegans. That is the main reason why vegans experience difficulties.

Really? I can't remember a single incident of meat eaters giving a vegetarian flack for choosing to not eat meat. I can however remember endless incidents of vegans trying to push their lifestyle onto meat eaters, and then act as if they were minding their own business when they are told to fuck off and mind their own affairs as they wag their finger at omnivores as if they occupy some kind of moral high ground. Veganism is more of a cult than a dietary choice.

do you know how group pressure works? I was refering to groupthink or conformity bias (http://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/video/conformity-bias), as was demonstrated in the experiments of social psychologist Solomon Asch and others

well, ethical vegans are at the moral high ground. Meat eaters are really pushing their lifestyle way too far on others, when they even kill and eat others just for taste. Not harming someone, not subjecting someone in slavery, not raping someone, not killing and eating someone are not mere lifestyle choices. And yes, the rapist responds that I should not push my anti-rape lifestyle on him. But it is he who pushes his pro rape lifestyle on his female victims.

First of all, I could give a shit less what your diet consists of, until you try to force me to share your beliefs (and diet) too. No one is attempting to stop you from being vegan. To be clear, let me get this right.... You are saying eating meat is equivalent to rape and slavery?

Quote from: Stijn on December 29, 2014, 07:37:34 PM

Quote from: TECSHARE on December 29, 2014, 06:09:08 PM

I thought I was going to find at least one logical argument against eating meat in here like for example how much grain and water has to be used for every pound of meat you eat,

and what is wrong with the given argument that you should not use someone else against his will as merely a means, that your body belongs to you and no-one else, and that counts equally for everyone, without any arbitrary exceptions? What about the argument that lifetime well-being is what matters and that livestock farming decreases someone's lifetime well-being? What would you prefer: not being able anymore to eat someone else, or being killed and eaten by someone else? You prefer the former, so that indicates the importance of the interests at stake.
You do agree that we are not allowed to choose our victims arbitrarily, that someone else's muscle tissue belongs to that individual and that we cannot claim his or her muscle tissue, and that we should no do something that someone else seriously dislikes.

By "someone", "individual", and "victims", you mean an animal correct? By "arbitrary exceptions" you mean the difference between humans and animals correct?

Quote from: Stijn on December 29, 2014, 07:37:34 PM

Quote from: TECSHARE on December 29, 2014, 06:09:08 PM

Your diet is not a question of morality,

it is, because a meat based diet harms others, and morality is about not harming others.

Again, by "others" do you mean animals?

Quote from: Stijn on December 29, 2014, 07:37:34 PM

Quote from: TECSHARE on December 29, 2014, 06:09:08 PM

and just because you eat plants and twigs doesn't make you any better than anyone else.

but the act of eating plants is better than the act of eating someone's muscle tissue. You do agree with that, I hope.

No. There are a lot of reasons eating meat in moderation is more nutritional than most vegetable matter.

Quote from: Stijn on December 29, 2014, 07:37:34 PM

Quote from: TECSHARE on December 29, 2014, 06:09:08 PM

Hitler was an environmentalist and a vegan too.

he was not even a vegetarian. And I have a different notion of environmentalism.
But suppose he was a vegan: do you have any idea how irrelevant that would be? It's like the rapist who responds to the anti-rape activist by saying that Hitler did not rape anyone.
Why do you give such highly irrelevant (and even incorrect, as Hitler was not vegan) statements?

This is under dispute. Your notion of environmentalism is irrelevant. The reason Hitler being a vegan is relevant is because it demonstrates that some of the most twisted antihuman reasoning and actions can be delivered under a platform of moral authority. As far as your fascination with rape, your gynocentric neo-feminist brainwashing is showing.

Quote from: Stijn on December 29, 2014, 07:37:34 PM

Quote from: TECSHARE on December 29, 2014, 06:09:08 PM

IMO this type of ideology is often just anti-humanism disguised as some new agey spiritualist bullshit.

like the rapists who says that all this anti-rape talk is anti-androcentrism (anti-male)
It is not new agey spiritual bullshit, because you agree with my starting points. You agree that discrimination is wrong, that mentally disabled humans have an intrinsic right not to be used against their will as merely a means for food,...
Here is another argulentation scheme for veganism
http://stijnbruers.wordpress.com/2013/08/17/argumentation-scheme-veganism-2/
If you disagree with the moral conclusion that we should eat vegan, then you should be able to point at an assumption in the argument that you reject.

If you are going to use big words like "androcentrism", please learn their definitions first.
andro = male
centrism = centrally oriented

Therefore androcentrism means a male focused world view. The word you invented anti-androcentrism would therefore mean "against a male oriented central viewpoint", and I am not sure why a rapist would be arguing against a male centric viewpoint, but thats ok. This is just one of those double negative word games that disingenuous people such as yourself like to play so that no matter how one replies the response will be guaranteed to be nonsense. What is your obsession with rape by the way?

As far as your other comments, are you saying disabled humans are equivalent to animals? Who is eating disabled people?

I don't disagree with your personal choice to be vegan. I disagree with your application of moral value to your dietary choices, and your resulting grandstanding as if you hold a moral high ground because of it in a pathetic attempt to shame meat eaters into adopting your worldview while simultaneously claiming meat eaters are pressuring you to not be vegan.

Quote from: Stijn on December 29, 2014, 07:37:34 PM

Quote from: TECSHARE on December 29, 2014, 06:09:08 PM

Now take your malnourished ass back out the door you came in from and find some more cult members so you can reassure each other of your moral superiority.

that sounds like an ad hominem. You lose credibility if you give fallacies in a discussion.

Take it however you like, I find it to be a most likely accurate observation. I also am willing to bet you live somewhere in western Europe, like The Netherlands, or perhaps Sweden where this brand of brainwashing is all too common.