Everything there is to know about human biology and nutrition is not yet known, hence there is uncertainty about what exactly is healthy in terms of diet. It is known that some people need different diets than others based on their genetics and/or environment.
How can I argue Veganism is the best way to feed ourselves when we don't know what we don't know about nutrition? Some people claim they can only eat meat or they'll experience serious negative consequences. Some people claim to experience negative digestive dysfunction when they eat plants.
Should we ignore those people, call them liars, kooks or otherwise minimize their points of view in our pursuit of Veganism? What are the arguments against those people's perspectives?
Right. How about this one? Elder diabetics with extensive sarcopenia need the highest quality protein available to prevent continued muscle-wasting and can't eat many carbs to get the protein. Meat is the perfect diet for them. Should they also become Vegans?
1 You can define natural in this way, but if you do so, then this sanctions any action including torturing infants for fun or the holocaust.
2 Well, most people of sense and decency think that this is wrong.
3 I have no idea what you think you're talking about.
4 We can in the descriptive sense, but we cannot in the normative sense of being justified.
5 ?
6 Plants aren't conscious.
I question quite a lot of things that seemed obvious to me (E.g. belief in an irreducible self, physicalism about consciousness, various political views), There's a difference between being skeptical and turning into an amoral nut-job who rejects the most obvious truths in the world.
1. Rejected because it leads to things you don't like?
2. Rejected because it leads to things you don't like?
3. Rejected because it leads to things you don't like?
4. Normativity is fake
5. "It’s wrong to cause thousands of animals to be tortured in the worst way imaginable on factory farms over the course of your life for taste pleasure." This is the sort of "obvious" thing you need to learn to question.
6. So?
If the world is amoral then it's not really a nut-job thing to do to realize that. The"truths" only seem so obvious because they're your opinion that you're really attached to and scared to question, to the point that you think anyone who can is mentally defective. You're too scared of being perceived as you perceive me to be able to think critically about the subject.
6. You asked, he answered, you can’t expect him to provide all the proof for utilitarianism and hedonism right here right now but anyways feel free to check out his other work on this
These are the main ones I hear from friends/family
1. Health: They say they're not sure it's healthy to be on a plant-based diet. When I bring up the studies on cancer, diabetes, and CVD, they say "but that doesn't mean there aren't nutrients you're missing on a vegan diet, nutrition science isn't in an advanced stage, we don't know what you might be missing."
2. Humane meat: They insist they do lots of research to make sure they're eating humanely raised animals, not factory farmed animals.
3. It's good for the animals: They claim these animals wouldn't exist without the need for meat. As long as it's humanely raised meat, it's beneficial for both humans and animals, as a short good life is better than no life at all. It's similar to what's discussed here by Jeff McMahan: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tZ--bCOUro
I also have a very crazy friend who claims most meat is from clones, and therefore we can do whatever we want to them. I don't understand the argument and probably doesn't deserve a response.
1 This just seems like a warped evaluation of the evidence. Let's grant that there are some nutrients that you're missing--which is probably false if you supplement B12 and vitamin D. The various studies show that in spite of that vegans still have better health.
Everything there is to know about human biology and nutrition is not yet known, hence there is uncertainty about what exactly is healthy in terms of diet. It is known that some people need different diets than others based on their genetics and/or environment.
How can I argue Veganism is the best way to feed ourselves when we don't know what we don't know about nutrition? Some people claim they can only eat meat or they'll experience serious negative consequences. Some people claim to experience negative digestive dysfunction when they eat plants.
Should we ignore those people, call them liars, kooks or otherwise minimize their points of view in our pursuit of Veganism? What are the arguments against those people's perspectives?
I think those people are mostly wrong. There is solid evidence that veganism is good for health. For instance https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4191896/
So there may be some exclusionary cases where certain individuals are not wrong?
Yeah/
Then this is false: "Non-vegans have no good arguments on their side." There is at least one good reason that certain individuals would not be Vegan.
I meant people who disagree with the notion that it's typically wrong to eat meat.
Right. How about this one? Elder diabetics with extensive sarcopenia need the highest quality protein available to prevent continued muscle-wasting and can't eat many carbs to get the protein. Meat is the perfect diet for them. Should they also become Vegans?
1. Factory farms are natural because humans are part of nature.
2. So it justifies strong aliens eating us, get over it baby
3. Just a really complicated argument from consequences and you not wanting people to eat you
4. We can do whatever we want
5. You could think that but you also could not lol
6. Why don't you care about killing plants? Because they don't set off your overactive empathy processes.
Learn to question what you think is obvious
1 You can define natural in this way, but if you do so, then this sanctions any action including torturing infants for fun or the holocaust.
2 Well, most people of sense and decency think that this is wrong.
3 I have no idea what you think you're talking about.
4 We can in the descriptive sense, but we cannot in the normative sense of being justified.
5 ?
6 Plants aren't conscious.
I question quite a lot of things that seemed obvious to me (E.g. belief in an irreducible self, physicalism about consciousness, various political views), There's a difference between being skeptical and turning into an amoral nut-job who rejects the most obvious truths in the world.
1. Rejected because it leads to things you don't like?
2. Rejected because it leads to things you don't like?
3. Rejected because it leads to things you don't like?
4. Normativity is fake
5. "It’s wrong to cause thousands of animals to be tortured in the worst way imaginable on factory farms over the course of your life for taste pleasure." This is the sort of "obvious" thing you need to learn to question.
6. So?
If the world is amoral then it's not really a nut-job thing to do to realize that. The"truths" only seem so obvious because they're your opinion that you're really attached to and scared to question, to the point that you think anyone who can is mentally defective. You're too scared of being perceived as you perceive me to be able to think critically about the subject.
2 + 2 = 4 is too obvious, we need to learn to question things like this
2 + 2 = 4 isn't normative
and?
Normative facts are different than axiomatic facts
1-3. No because of counter-intuitive things
4. Proof?
5. Provide an argument
6. You asked, he answered, you can’t expect him to provide all the proof for utilitarianism and hedonism right here right now but anyways feel free to check out his other work on this
How do you tell the difference between your personal preferences and your intuitions about morality?
Also, he doesn't actually have any work. It's all just attempts to reify his subjective stances because they seem so Obvious.
I argue that veganism is bad for animals, at least in the United States: https://www.losingmyreligions.net/ (the veganism chapter)
And yeah: oysters (another point in Losing)
Why don't you give the argument rather than linking to your book.
These are the main ones I hear from friends/family
1. Health: They say they're not sure it's healthy to be on a plant-based diet. When I bring up the studies on cancer, diabetes, and CVD, they say "but that doesn't mean there aren't nutrients you're missing on a vegan diet, nutrition science isn't in an advanced stage, we don't know what you might be missing."
2. Humane meat: They insist they do lots of research to make sure they're eating humanely raised animals, not factory farmed animals.
3. It's good for the animals: They claim these animals wouldn't exist without the need for meat. As long as it's humanely raised meat, it's beneficial for both humans and animals, as a short good life is better than no life at all. It's similar to what's discussed here by Jeff McMahan: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tZ--bCOUro
I also have a very crazy friend who claims most meat is from clones, and therefore we can do whatever we want to them. I don't understand the argument and probably doesn't deserve a response.
1 This just seems like a warped evaluation of the evidence. Let's grant that there are some nutrients that you're missing--which is probably false if you supplement B12 and vitamin D. The various studies show that in spite of that vegans still have better health.
2 I'm skeptical, and I think that you shouldn't eat humane meat for reasons explained here. https://philpapers.org/rec/JOHCAN
3 See above.