While I neither share the OP's views nor his dietary practices, one can argue for it not being fallacious if one can demonstrate that to eschew meat is consistent with some moral imperative of ours. Of course getting people to agree about the method (let alone the particulars) of determining our moral imperatives is an impossible task...

But can't you see a deontological argument for vegetarianism? Can't you see a utilitarian argument for it? The attempt can be made without inherent fallacy. Not that that has been accomplished in this thread, but it IS possible.

"

Truth is a process achieved through human consciousness, and it has no relevance outside that domain. We, from our individual spots in the universe, observe reality. How many realities are there?


ONE


How many descriptions of reality are there?


ZILLIONS


Does your description correspond to reality? If it does, it is "true" and if it doesn't then it is inaccurate. A truth, therefore describes reality.


Now, are there universal truths and personal truths? Nope. Because there is only one reality, there are only true (accurate) statements about it and inaccurate statements about it (which isn't to say a true statement can only be said one way). Are there aspects of reality that are universally the same? Some say there are but it is hard to know because no one can go every possible place that exists to check.

The original poster has a proposition?

It's pretty obvious that if someone obviously doesn't read an entire thread that person cannot appear intellectually superior. Really, cut it out with that. I'm not trying to appear intellectually superior; if anything, I made my point unclear, which isn't a mark of intellectual strength at all. Judge my arguments on their own merit and leave the name-calling to the lay person.

The whole premise of this thread makes it fallacious. It's a red herring whether a view is "higher level view," whatever that is supposed to mean. A view is not valid because (many) people praise it or because praiseworthy people follow it. And the view certainly is not any more or less true on these bases.

Validity and truth do share this common ground. Truth and validity are of no concern, as far as I can see, to this thread, but rather social demarcation and popularity are the concern here.

Yep. Forget the proper or improper aspects of his post, and basically he asks if not eating meat is in some way a "higher" road to take.

The discussion has meandered, but there have been interesting points made. That's why this thread is unusually long, with lots of people following it (if we can believe the numbers). So your quick write off doesn't do the effort put into all the thinking here justice.



Well, I still think you should cut out your superior act. Why didn't you read the entire thread? A true scholar (or scholar aspirant) would, or at least skim it to see what's been said. It seems like you think you can just glance at one aspect and then leap to conclusions. A capable intellect doesn't equal wisdom and effective reflection.

basically he asks if not eating meat is in some way a "higher" road to take.

Dear Les,

What do you mean by all of this?
Thanks

=
MJA

still think the point of this thread is to rally quotes and friends. It doesn't change the fact, however, that the OP presumes it is a higher level view. Since he's failed to provide an argument for it in the first post, I think it perfectly fair to point out the leading question.

While I neither share the OP's views nor his dietary practices, one can argue for it not being fallacious if one can demonstrate that to eschew meat is consistent with some moral imperative of ours. Of course getting people to agree about the method (let alone the particulars) of determining our moral imperatives is an impossible task...

But can't you see a deontological argument for vegetarianism? Can't you see a utilitarian argument for it? The attempt can be made without inherent fallacy. Not that that has been accomplished in this thread, but it IS possible.

Ahhhh, well you might be right there. But so what? The thread has taken far more interesting turns since his OP, so it seems a bit obtuse to ignore the best parts to address a self-serving or naive view (which you don't respect much anyway). My point is, read up, follow the discussion, give us comments in line with what has been ferreted out.

Sorry to differ Aedes, but a simple truth beyond arguement has been made on this thread many times, It looks simply like this: =
One cannot argue against the moral good right or truth of equality, and that's the proof!
I rest my case.:bigsmile:

=
MJA

So, embrace chaos? Forum moderators are fine with threads in clearly described sections to turn into repositories and trash bins?

LOL! I wonder what you are like . . . are you an alien? Come on, fess up. :cool:

Look, all that exists is reality. If humans were not here to interpret, all that exists would still exist.

We humans, as consciousness, look at what exists and give it names, give it interpretations, develop philosophies about it, and so on.

But no matter what we say, what exists remains as it is. Reality is what it is. So there is ONE reality, there is ONE situation of existence.

But there are billions of human consciousnesses trying to interpret and describe and define that which exists; and each human has many, many interpretations of reality . . .zillions!

So there is ONE reality or ONE situation of existence . . .

. . . and then in the realm of consciousness, there are vast numbers of interpretations, descriptions, theories, etc. about that ONE reality.

On what grounds do you justify your claim that non-human animals are equal to humans?

So, embrace chaos? Forum moderators are fine with threads in clearly described sections to turn into repositories and trash bins?

Do what you please.