- Joined
- Jun 11, 2014
- Reaction score
- 212
ha! me too Veggitorials- he's great. and i personally always have to restrain myself to not F-off my entire videos!I love Brian... he can't help but pepper the conversation with F-bombs! Another great video Emily.
good point...Here's (with apologies if i got my evolutionary tree *** about face) my tuppence worth ...
If a bi-valve why not an arthropod?
If an arthropod why not a crustacean?
If a crustacean why not a fish?
If a fish why not a reptile?
If a reptile why not anything cold blooded?
If anything cold blooded why not the simplest of the warm blooded?
If, say, a mouse why not a rat ... rabbit ... chicken ... sheep ... pig ... cow ...?
And so on and so forth untill "having the neighbours for dinner" means exactly how it sounds.
Sole point being that once the animal/plant kingdom dividing line is crossed then the 'slippery slope' begins.
This is a bit vague, to avoid a logical fallacy you'd have to state that all animals can suffer.....but such a claim isn't supported by the evidence.If we reply that we shouldn't eat them because they are animals, and animals can suffer, and eating them will cause suffering, then that is a stronger argument, because many will agree that causing suffering is indefensible when it's not necessary.
Vegan + bivalve can be just as dogmatic as the original....it all depends on its relationship with the evidence and reason. Dogmas are based on tenets, for example "don't use animal based products", where as science and philosophy is based on theory.And those who insist on the old definition are "religious", "dogmatic" etc. because they can't back up their argument with scientific evidence.
And those who insist on the old definition are "religious", "dogmatic" etc. because they can't back up their argument with scientific evidence.
The "all" is implicit. And I never said the claim was supported by evidence. Neither did I say the opposite, for that matter. The intention of my post was to explain the controversy in plain language.This is a bit vague, to avoid a logical fallacy you'd have to state that all animals can suffer.....but such a claim isn't supported by the evidence.
Sure, I just like the logical structure to be explicit. In any case, I don't think that controversy has much to do with bivalves in particular but rather bivalves are being used as a rhetorical device for a more general issue.The "all" is implicit. And I never said the claim was supported by evidence. Neither did I say the opposite, for that matter. The intention of my post was to explain the controversy in plain language.
Science isn't "100% sure" of anything and there is nothing, scientifically speaking, that precludes sentience in other kingdoms.Scientificaly the only way to be 100% sure you are eating no sentient animals is a 100% animal exclusive diet.