Philosophical Vegan Forum

caLRo wrote:Pretty much agree, as long as you don't totally discredit eating meat in moderation.

In that case you (we) don't agree since we discredit eating meat in moderation.

caLRo wrote:at some point in their early lives, they will likely wonder why there are still so many others that eat meat.

Why would eating meat at a young age make that any better? If you try meat when you are young you may not develop the ick factor about animal products that vegans often develop.

caLRo wrote:Like with your nutritional arguments above, eating meat may have some benefits, but there's a better alternative: textbook education about why vegan foods are better than meat. But if the best isn't available, you go for the second best, and many people around world do just that.

You lost me there. Is the best option vegan foods? Is the second best option meat? Are they living near the North Pole or why isn't vegan foods available? Why is meat the second best option? I can think of many dietary options that are worse than veganism and better than meat eating.

caLRo wrote:I'm confident that when vegan alternatives become more widely accessible and available around the world, more people will embrace veganism, but the world just isn't ready yet. Meat, despite the increased health risks, is still second best.

Why do you write that the world is not ready while there has been a steady increase in the vegan population over the last few decades?

caLRo wrote:How can we ever bridge societies and tackle global issues together when our first world kids become oblivious about other cultures and their people's non-vegan diets?

Think of it more as a grassroots movement than a global issue. First focus on yourself, then on your nearest, and last on people you have never met.

caLRo wrote:Reduce the risks, cut down meat consumption, but do not abandon it entirely.

Why not? Abstinence is a hell of a lot better than moderation.

caLRo wrote:You may never know when you may end up in a situation where you have to go for second best.

What are you going on about? Are you worried about vegans finding themselves at a place where there is no vegan food available? Where would (could) that be? If you look around the world, the opposite is a lot more likely. A likely future scenario is that meat will become increasingly expensive and only a few percent of the world population will be able to afford it.

caLRo wrote:When you do have to go for second best, you better have learned about how to respect other people's cultures and diets, or at least know how to respectfully decline and make a simple but understandable case for your own diet.

Why should I learn to respect another person's culture or diet if that culture or diet is one that causes suffering? Should I also learn to respect cultures that keep slaves?

caLRo wrote:The question is whether the risks they took are worth it. In the case of 1 meat 1 smoke, I'd say it's worth the experience, maybe even worth the pleasure if I can make an appeal to hedonistic arguments.

What in your opinion is a good outcome when someone tries meat or smoking the first time? Is it good if they like it or good if they dislike it?

caLRo wrote: Pretty much agree, as long as you don't totally discredit eating meat in moderation.

Moderation is false wisdom, when it comes to harmful practices.

It's related to this fallacy: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/middle-ground

caLRo wrote:But there's a thing called moderation. Smoke for an afternoon, cleanse your longues for a year. 50 smoking sessions in one's lifetime should be ok. All depends on how and what you smoke, of course.

I haven't seen that kind of ignorance outside of developing countries. No, that's not at all true.

Smoking anything in any amount is bad for you. It's even bad to stand near a fire. It's even bad to light candles, and especially bad to light incense.
Partial combustion itself produces huge amounts of carcinogenic compounds which are absorbed through the lungs, or the throat.

Check out Sam Harris' blog on the fireplace delusion:

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the- ... e-delusion

Some things are good in moderation, but bad in excess. Other things are just plain bad habits, don't do any good, and we shouldn't do them or encourage our children to do them.
It's irrational to do these kinds of bad things just for the sake of experience; there are plenty of great non-harmful experiences out there.

Let me know when you have exhausted ALL possible non-harmful new experiences available on Earth, and then we can revisit the topic and maybe I'll have some more ideas on it.

caLRo wrote: As I said in a previous post, I don't exactly know what the appropriate ages are. But at some point in their early lives, they will likely wonder why there are still so many others that eat meat.

I understand that, and education is very important. But education doesn't have to involve doing that thing.

Instead, to humanize the people who do it and help them understand, I'd take the kids to meet people who eat meat, even meet a butcher, a farmer, etc. and talk to them.

If I want to teach my kids about the dangers of meth, I'll take them to meet and talk with meth heads, not give them a hit of the stuff.

caLRo wrote: How can we ever bridge societies and tackle global issues together when our first world kids become oblivious about other cultures and their people's non-vegan diets?

Again, education. Not encouraging them to participate in those bad habits, even in 'moderation'.

caLRo wrote: You may never know when you may end up in a situation where you have to go for second best.

Then tell them to eat meat if they're starving on a desert island. Tell them they can eat their human friends too, if they're in that situation.

People don't need to practice cannibalism in order to manage it in extreme situations.
Or do you think we should eat a moderate amount of human meat, too, just in case some day we need to be cannibals?

Again, just education -- good education -- is fine.

caLRo wrote: In the case of 1 meat 1 smoke, I'd say it's worth the experience, maybe even worth the pleasure if I can make an appeal to hedonistic arguments.

Like I said, it doesn't necessarily stop at 'one', particularly if they find it pleasurable. That's a problem. Why expose them to this and take the unnecessary risk, and condone the practice?

caLRo wrote: See above about appropriate ages and dealing with risks. That whole range of drugs may be better suited for a separate discussion.

This is as good a place as any to discuss them, I think. But if you want to start another topic I guess that's fine too.