Philosophical Vegan Forum

Did you want to schrink it down to just these three sections or some more stuff about speciesism and stuff as I had initially?

Part 3: Burden of proof and other fallacies

Somewhere at the end of your conversation with the vegan that called in you said "The people who claim that I have an ethical burden to not eat meat have a case to make." By purchasing meat you actively contribute to animal agriculture practices. Either this means you deem these practices okay, or you do not care whether or not you support immoral practices. Assuming the first option and considering you have decided to act upon your conviction the burden of proof lies on you. You may take the position that the burden of proof lies upon those advocating a change of behavior, or that tradition and social normalcy is exempt from the burden of proof. However, then you'd need to grant the same to religions and their practices.

Although you agree (at least, you did a couple of years ago) that the methods of obtaining meat, dairy and eggs are unethical you seem to be of the opinion that this does not make the act of consuming animal products inherently unethical. Although this might be true, the reality is that this is how the products are obtained and by consuming the products you support those methods. Having someone do work for you is not inherently unethical, but if we're talking about forced labor without that includes abuse this act can be considered unethical. Whether or not the act is inherently unethical is irrelevant to the actual ethical implications of the act. You talked about practical realities, the only one relevant is that over 99% of animal products are obtained in a manner that includes much suffering and death. You should in any case be a vegan until the time comes the production of animal products is ethical.

You also mentioned that if we give animals the right to not be slaughtered and used for what comes out of their private parts it could be logical that more rights follow. We assume you are talking about rights that an animal has absolutely no use for, like the right to vote or the right to own property. In contrast to the right not to be harmed, animals have no interest in having these rights and having these rights would not improve their well-being. Rights should only be ascribed when there is an interest in having them and the capability of making use of them. It would make absolutely no sense to extend rights like the right to vote to them, and to suggest this is a necessary consequence would be a slippery slope fallacy.

- added Gary Francione quote, is it ok? I think it's pretty wooish. If not, what were you looking for, any possible sources?
- some minor spelling corrections

----

Point 2: The most creatively absurd non sequitur; a shark can eat you?

Matt Dillahunty wrote: and what I am willing to do though is afford the same rights to eat me to the animals that I eat; when a shark decides to attack me because it's hungry and wants some food I'm not going to say it's immoral or unethical of the shark it's the natural way that sharks are. I realize that to most ethical vegans think that is a lame copout, but I'm fine with it actually.

First off, you talk about rights, and this has to be gotten out of the way. Rights are a social convention, not a moral one. The notion of "moral rights" comes from deontology, not consequentialism, and it's the dogmatic opposition to rational ethics that deals only in absolutes and which ignores the highly context sensitive nature of ethics. As an atheist and naturalist, you should take more seriously the arguments of consequentialists like Peter Singer, and less Deontologists like Gary Francione, who is a woo (all deontologists are woos, because deontological authority is inherently an appeal to woo; look back to Kant on that one).

Gary Francione wrote:The subject today is talking what our moral obligation is to animals that we use for food. And I would like to suggest is that if we regard animals as having any moral value at all, that is not being 'things', as having moral value, the issue is not how we exploit them for food but it's recognizing our obligation that we can't morally justify using them for food.

If you want to discuss this at more length, we can, but suffice it to say that a lot of vegans are also confused on that point (partially due to the popularity of non-rational advocates like Francione), and that only goes to show that veganism doesn't always mean atheism or critical thinking in itself. When you hear somebody talking seriously about rights, and it's not either a political discussion or mere turn of phrase, they are probably not representing the rational consequentialist view.

That said, are you seriously representing the idea that it's moral for you to eat other species because you wouldn't judge other species for eating you?Because that's a pretty strong declaration of moral subjectivism, and you might not realize it.

Here's the more general form of what you said:
It's moral for X to do Y to Z if X wouldn't judge Z for doing Y to X.
That's like a rapist saying it's OK to rape other people because he wouldn't judge somebody for raping him.

A thing does not become moral for you to do based on your claimed lack of judgment against others for doing it to you, whether that's another individual, another group, another species, etc. (the line drawn here is truly arbitrary).

It is at best a weak defense against a certain kind of hypocrisy, but it is not a moral justification. And it's a weak defense against hypocrisy, because:

1. It's not the same situation. A shark has neither has a sense of rational moral judgment, nor a choice in the matter. Context is everything in ethics. It would be the same kind of situation if you said you wouldn't judge another person for killing and eating you -- a person with a sense of conscience, and the choice and ability to not kill and eat you without suffering any great loss of well being. If you want to assume some irrational speciesism (arbitrarily requiring the eaten and eater to be across a species barrier for no good reason), then you'd have to make it an extraterrestrial being of some kind.
And yet, I seem to remember you thinking Yahweh's demands for human sacrifices were morally questionable; that's pretty alien. Shouldn't it be OK for a god to demand human sacrifices, as long as that god wouldn't overtly judge humans demanding god sacrifices?

2. Even if you framed it correctly and consistently, it's not true. You do not consider other people reasonable or ethical when they behave by those standards. Shouldn't you be on board with Muslims' rights to kill apostates, because they themselves wouldn't mind being killed for leaving Islam? Or if they wouldn't judge people of other religions killing their own apostates?

It's not "do unto others whatever you want as long as you won't judge them for doing the same thing to you or yours"; it's "Do unto others what you would want done unto you" (e.g if you were in their shoes -- that is, how they want to be done by).

In order to avoid hypocrisy on that point, you can't just not judge the shark, you can't judge ANYBODY who does to others any specific action they claim they wouldn't mind done to them; something that makes judging the evil actions of fundamentalists as the evil they are impossible, because they all consider those actions just and want to be held to the same standards themselves.

Moral subjectivism will get you nowhere fast, and being able to judge people as immoral only when they behave hypocritically is a great way to make your moral system pretty much useless against fundamentalism.

That's a pretty good quote!

Do you think we can find one from Matt to support this:

And yet, I seem to remember you thinking Yahweh's demands for human sacrifices were morally questionable; that's pretty alien. Shouldn't it be OK for a god to demand human sacrifices, as long as that god wouldn't overtly judge humans demanding god sacrifices?

If we can find one that's a good parallel, that will be a pretty strong demonstration that what he's claiming goes against even his own values.


I don't like part three, I think it's a bit weak and redundant.

Burden of proof thing would need to be changed a lot to explain more clearly, and I just don't think it's a very strong argument.

The part about rights is handled in part 2. After debunking the concept of deontology as relevant in part 2, I don't think this is needed.
The part about meat being unethical for him today in these circumstances in part 1 -- so these things are mostly covered.

brimstoneSalad wrote:That's a pretty good quote!

Do you think we can find one from Matt to support this:

And yet, I seem to remember you thinking Yahweh's demands for human sacrifices were morally questionable; that's pretty alien. Shouldn't it be OK for a god to demand human sacrifices, as long as that god wouldn't overtly judge humans demanding god sacrifices?

If we can find one that's a good parallel, that will be a pretty strong demonstration that what he's claiming goes against even his own values.

I cannot find one, but I do not think it is necessary. He will probably agree human sacrifice is normally not okay.

I do think we should make a point to say that it's curious how normally, when getting into a moral argument, he appeals to well-being, saying 'if anything morality is about well-being'. But when it comes to the consumption of animal products, he comes up with all sorts of things: how speciesism is natural, that he would not judge a shark for eating him, that we should not extend our rights to animals and so on. Well-being seems to be completely off the table. It's very strange that when it comes to animals he barely even mentions it.

miniboes wrote:
I do think we should make a point to say that it's curious how normally, when getting into a moral argument, he appeals to well-being, saying 'if anything morality is about well-being'. But when it comes to the consumption of animal products, he comes up with all sorts of things: how speciesism is natural, that he would not judge a shark for eating him, that we should not extend our rights to animals and so on. Well-being seems to be completely off the table. It's very strange that when it comes to animals he barely even mentions it.

Sorry, I edited my post above while you were replying.

That might be a better thing for part 3; focus on that, with regards to burden of proof, and the argument will be much stronger.

I think we could update this part to be more inclusive:

You aren't eating roadkill, you're not freegan (widely considered morally equivalent to veganism), you aren't eating lab grown meat, and we have not developed farming and slaughtering practices that are ethical.

to:

You aren't eating roadkill, you aren't just eating invasive species to protect the environment, you're not just eating brainless animals like oysters, you're not freegan (widely considered morally equivalent to veganism), you aren't eating lab grown meat, and we have not developed farming and slaughtering practices that are ethical to the animals or even environmentally sustainable.

brimstoneSalad wrote:

You aren't eating roadkill, you aren't just eating invasive species to protect the environment, you're not just eating brainless animals like oysters, you're not freegan (widely considered morally equivalent to veganism), you aren't eating lab grown meat, and we have not developed farming and slaughtering practices that are ethical to the animals or even environmentally sustainable.

I like it, it's more powerful. I'll write a bit for the third point.

I mostly made minor changes (except for at the end). I also made some comments, which are underlined. The changes can be seen by using a diff utility together with the original (I tried to paste it here, but doesn't make much sense).

–––––––––––––––––

Dear Matt,

You have expressed in the past your relative indifference to the issue of the treatment of non-human animals, and we understand this apathy. For you humans come first, and that's very understandable. If you don't care about something, we can't make you care. We neither expect you to 'go vegan', nor intend this letter to have that effect.

This letter is not about animals, nor is it about veganism; this is about your bad arguments made in defense of your eating meat. Bad arguments that are hypocritical in light of your claims to respecting science and intellectual honesty -- which is something you should certainly care about. In this letter we hope to hope to help you in recognizing the flaws in your reasoning.

We would encourage you to, at least, take a look at Dawkins' words on this subject in the future. Although he is not a vegan or even a vegetarian, he recognizes that speciesism is wrong and he has no moral justification for eating meat.

Richard Dawkins in conversation with Peter Singer wrote:I think that you [Peter Singer] have a very, very strong point when you say that anybody who eats meat has a very, very strong obligation to think seriously about it—and I don't find any very good defense. I find myself in exactly the same position as 200 years ago […] talking about slavery, where somebody like Thomas Jefferson—a man of very sound ethical principles—kept slaves. It's just what one did; it was kind of the societal norm. […] The historical president of slavery I think is actually rather a good one, because there was a time where it was simply the norm. Everybody did it, and some did it with gusto and relish—other people like Jefferson did it reluctantly. I would have probably done it reluctantly. I would have just gone along with what society does, but I think it […] was hard to defend then, yet everybody did it—and that's the sort of position I find myself in now. And I think what I really like to see is people like you having a far greater effect upon what I would call consciousness-raising, and try to swing it around so that it becomes the societal norm not to eat meat.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYYNY2oKVWU&t=29m31s

This letter is primarily in response to your arguments on a not terribly recent episode of The Atheist Experience, #583 from December 2008 (here's a link for reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mClv6S3BK60). We fully recognize that this may, by now, be a straw Matt, and your positions may have evolved, but due to your reluctance to comment on or discuss the issue it's hard to find an updated record of your view on this, so we're going by what we have.

If your position has indeed evolved, it would be great to hear what your current views are. We realize veganism is not directly related to atheism, but it should be the result of an honest evaluation of the facts. Since your view on morality is based on well-being, further justification for not caring about the well-being of animals would in our opinion be appropriate.


Point 1: Overtly rejecting scientific consensus based on personal ignorance of science.

Caller: "It is unhealthy. I mean if you look on the American heart association's website they have numerous instances where they list that diets that contain meat are more unhealthy than plant based diets"
Matt: "I simply don't believe it remotely and it's eh. I can answer with one word: evolution: we evolved as an omnivorous species."

Matt, it doesn't matter what you believe, it matters what the actual evidence shows; you should know this better that almost anybody. You are neither an expert on nutrition, nor even evolution, and you do much better when you admit, in humility, your lack of scientific background. It's not an appeal to authority to trust expert consensus on scientific matters. Expert opinions are important, because novices do not have the training, experience, or time to understand all of the data. If you choose to ignore the scientific consensus, then you're going to have to come up with some very strong evidence from peer-reviewed research and literature. Is this not what you ask creationists to do whenever they choose to reject the scientific consensus on the age of the earth, evolution or something the like?

Speaking of creationists, let's look at the case of evolution versus creationism. There are droves of theists who think they understand evolution, and physics, well enough to offer the one word checkmate of "2LOT" (Second Law of Thermodynamics). As if nobody had ever thought about it before them. As it turns out, that mistaken perception of a contradiction between the two is based on a profound ignorance of BOTH subjects. Your claims here are no less ignorant, and we'll explain why at the end of this section, but the most pressing matter is that you attempted to make them at all, considering your own criticism of creationists for pulling the same kind of intellectually dishonest nonsense. This is a very unfortunate hypocrisy.

Both cases of attempting to debunk one science (nutrition) you personally dislike by appealing ignorantly to some other science (evolutionary biology) with only passing familiarity, pointing out a perceived contradiction (which doesn't actually exist -- and if it did, you would have to admit the other option is that evolution is false; are you really ready to make that assertion?), to discount the expert opinion of every major body of scientists on the subject in the world along with irrefutable evidence which you conveniently ignore in favor of your own preconceptions.

Maybe it's better to leave out the following paragraph? It's a pretty though statement, but not very useful information wise.
There is no difference here. Except, there is a good explanation for creationists showing this behavior; they're either too mesmerized by the dogma they grew up with or idiots. You actually know that science is complex and very often counter-intuitive to the layman. The statistical models that are used to demonstrate correlations and causation in study data and control for variables might melt your brain. You should know better than to dismiss scientific consensus on a matter so trivially.


To come back to the actual point in question. It's not just the American Heart Association that agrees the consumption of meat is a major factor in the development of heart disease. For the others, here's a short list with citations and links:

World Health Organization
the American Dietetic Association
the American Institute for Cancer Research
the World Heart Federation
the British National Health Service

NIH wrote:
It has been established beyond a reasonable doubt that lowering definitely elevated blood cholesterol levels (specifically, blood levels of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol) will reduce the risk of heart attacks caused by coronary heart disease.

This has been the consensus for 30 years, and continues to be today. It's non-controversial among experts. The only people challenging this are conspiracy theorists, like "The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics", which is a group primarily composed of various lobbyists for the meat industry. They're essentially the dietary version of climate change "skeptics".
They offer no alternative to the lipid hypothesis, and their "contributions" are regularly debunked by actual experts.

They are, however, very popular among the meat eating public who want to be reassured that there's nothing wrong with their saturated fat rich diets (just as creationists welcome any reassurance that evolution goes against science, no matter how dishonest). This is an instance where you have to recognize your biases, and realize that when you're hearing something you really want to hear, however true it may ring for you, that doesn't make it so. Follow the actual evidence, and you'll arrive at the correct conclusion (which is likely the scientific consensus- because that's what the scientists do).

We shouldn't even have to address your argument about "evolution", because the science should speak for itself. When there is an apparent conflict between two proven facts, that usually only indicates some degree of ignorance in the person observing that conflict, and not an actual contradiction -- this should have been your assumption, and rather than make these claims you should have tried to figure out why these two sciences seem to contradict each other. To anthropomorphize evolution in effort to explain, "Evolution" doesn't care if you have a heart attack at 40, because by that time it's done with you. Here's how Dawkins explains it:

Richard Dawkins wrote:Obviously lethal genes will tend to be removed from the gene pool. But equally obviously a late-acting lethal will be more stable in the gene pool than an early-acting lethal. A gene that is lethal in an older body may still be successful in the gene pool, provided its lethal effect does not show itself until after the body has had time to do at least some reproducing. For instance, a gene that made old bodies develop cancer could be passed on to numerous offspring because the individuals would reproduce before they got cancer. On the other hand, a gene that made young adult bodies develop cancer would not be passed on to very many offspring, and a gene that made young children develop fatal cancer would not be passed on to any offspring at all.

Source: Dawkins (1989), The Selfish Gene. Pp. 46.

If meat causes cancer, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, Alzheimer's or erectile dysfunction before reproduction, surely we would either evolve to stop the development of these diseases so early or not to eat meat. As we have evolved to be able to eat meat, either meat never caused these diseases before the age of reproduction or we evolved to delay the effects, however this does not matter. The facts of the matter is that a) these diseases occur after the age of reproduction, therefore have no effect on evolution and b) these diseases are caused by meat consumption.

A diet of animal products will see you through reproduction, and that's all it had to promise to our ancestors; and that's clearly all it does for us. If you plan on living longer than that, you might want to actually look at the evidence in a modern context. Meat is also healthier than starving to death, and it's healthier than malnutrition and for people hundreds of years ago or in the third world the situation is different. But you are not in the third world, and you live in a time in which one can be perfectly healthy on a vegan diet. You should realize that health and ethical matters are highly situational. If the environment requires it, humans even eat each other, and it's both healthy and ethically permissible compared to starving where self-preservation is at issue.

I think the next two paragraph aren't necessary. The point has been made clearly already, and it's not a point he has denied as far as I remember (?).
If you throw the realities of your actual environment out the window, and substitute it with an unlikely environment, then anything can be healthy or morally permissible given the situation. Smoking is also healthy, relatively speaking, if you happen to be in an environment where the air is saturated with tiny lung-eating insects that are killed by nicotine. You can make up some far-fetched situation you aren't in and will never be in where an ethical excuse would exist, or where any given action would be healthy or somehow useful for survival.

That is irrelevant to your situation here and now. It only means that nothing is bad or wrong in itself regardless of circumstance, however it is the circumstance that means everything in ethics. In this universe, on this planet, in a first world country, for your situation, meat is unhealthy compared to the superior alternative healthier food sources that you have access to. To use evolution as an ethical justification is simply an appeal to nature fallacy, whether something is natural or not is irrelevant to whether or not it promotes well-being. Some of those very healthy foods are partially or wholly synthetic. There is nothing wrong with that intrinsically, it is only wrong if it turns out that is detrimental to our health. For the examples mentioned, the exact opposite is true.

You would do well to go on a mostly vegan diet, for your own health, just as anybody could be advised to stop smoking or drinking in excess. We don't really want to see you follow Christopher Hitchens (peace and blessings of Darwin be upon him) in digging yourself and early grave. A diet high in fiber and low in saturated fat (plant-based) can reduce the prevalence of cancer admirably, and the same diet can help with diabetes, an illness we are sad to hear you suffer from. For more information, you could check the numerous studies published by Harvard University orthis article.

That said, is it immoral to cause yourself harm? Maybe not, but there is an important ethical bottom line, and that is where the evaporation of your 'health' excuse is very relevant:

From a utilitarian perspective, it may be permissible to cause some harm to others if that harm results in a greater good. Such as, possibly, harming animals to benefit humans (medical testing is a great example). This seems ultimately to be the argument you're appealing to, with a health-benefit approach. Even vegans generally accept legitimate health reasons for using animal products (medications, etc.) that are accepted by science as necessary and useful to promoting or preserving health (although views on medical testing vary, that's another issue). This is a reasonable argument, provided there is a real benefit. There are issues of which is greater- the harm or the benefit- but these are admittedly hard to weigh. That makes it more of a moral grey area when there is both harm and benefit involved. But when, as happens to be the case with meat (in our privileged first world context where we do have other superior options) we're dealing with a lose-lose scenario, both harmful to animals and our own health, this is no longer a grey area, and it is no longer rational to advocate the practice. If you manage to find some victimless way to harm yourself, there's some argument to be made that you're not doing anything wrong by it. But meat production today, in your reality, is not victimless.

Again a paragraph I'm not really sure whether it's relevant
You aren't eating roadkill, you're not freegan (widely considered morally equivalent to veganism), you aren't eating lab grown meat, and we have not developed farming and slaughtering practices that are ethical. The fact of possible or hypothetical exceptions doesn't excuse the reality. Until one or more of those things changes, your action of eating meat is personally indefensible. Not for people in the third world or hundreds of years ago, but you, today. Not people in the 31st century eating meat grown in a glass jar, but you, today. Not the fictional characters in the Hitchhiker's guide eating that pig that was genetically engineered to want to be eaten, but you, today.

We're not saying don't eat meat, we can't tell you what to do. We're just saying it's wrong. Wrong for everybody, throughout the universe and all space and time? No. Wrong for you, today, in your privileged first world country, in an age of scientific enlightenment where we have the know-how to produce better, healthier food and the methodology to prove it. You're engaging in an irrational lose-lose behavior that is not even a remotely moral grey area. But worse yet, you're being intellectually dishonest when you defend it.


Point 2: The most creatively absurd non sequitur; a shark can eat you?

Matt Dillahunty wrote:and what I am willing to do though is afford the same rights to eat me to the animals that I eat; when a shark decides to attack me because it's hungry and wants some food I'm not going to say it's immoral or unethical of the shark it's the natural way that sharks are. I realize that to most ethical vegans think that is a lame copout, but I'm fine with it actually.

First off, you talk about rights, and this has to be gotten out of the way. Rights are a social convention, not a moral one. The notion of "moral rights" comes from deontology, not consequentialism, and it's the dogmatic opposition to rational ethics that deals only in absolutes and which ignores the highly context sensitive nature of ethics. As an atheist and methodological naturalist, you should take more seriously the arguments of consequentialists like Peter Singer, and less Deontologists like Gary Francione, who is a woo (all deontologists are woos, because deontological authority is inherently an appeal to woo; look back to Kant on that one).

Gary Francione wrote:The subject today is talking what our moral obligation is to animals that we use for food. And I would like to suggest is that if we regard animals as having any moral value at all, that is not being 'things', as having moral value, the issue is not how we exploit them for food but it's recognizing our obligation that we can't morally justify using them for food.

Can you include the source?

If you want to discuss this at more length, we can, but suffice it to say that a lot of vegans are also confused on that point (partially due to the popularity of non-rational advocates like Francione), and that only goes to show that veganism doesn't always mean atheism or critical thinking in itself. When you hear somebody talking seriously about rights, and it's not either a political discussion or mere turn of phrase, they are probably not representing the rational consequentialist view.

That said, are you seriously representing the idea that it's moral for you to eat other species because you wouldn't judge other species for eating you? Because that's a pretty strong declaration of moral subjectivism, and you might not realize it.

Here's the more general form of what you said:
It's moral for X to do Y to Z if X wouldn't judge Z for doing Y to X.
That's like a rapist saying it's OK to rape other people because he wouldn't judge somebody for raping him. A thing does not become moral for you to do based on your claimed lack of judgment against others for doing it to you, whether that's another individual, another group, another species, etc. (the line drawn here is truly arbitrary).

It is at best a weak defense against a certain kind of hypocrisy, but it is not a moral justification. And it's a weak defense against hypocrisy, because:

1. It's not the same situation. A shark has neither has a sense of rational moral judgment, nor a choice in the matter. Context is everything in ethics. It would be the same kind of situation if you said you wouldn't judge another person for killing and eating you -- a person with a sense of conscience, and the choice and ability to not kill and eat you without suffering any great loss of well being. If you want to assume some irrational speciesism (arbitrarily requiring the eaten and eater to be across a species barrier for no good reason), then you'd have to make it an extraterrestrial being of some kind.
And yet, I seem to remember you thinking Yahweh's demands for human sacrifices were morally questionable; that's pretty alien. Shouldn't it be OK for a god to demand human sacrifices, as long as that god wouldn't overtly judge humans demanding god sacrifices?

2. Even if you framed it correctly and consistently, it's not true. You do not consider other people reasonable or ethical when they behave by those standards. Shouldn't you be on board with Muslims' rights to kill apostates, because they themselves wouldn't mind being killed for leaving Islam? Or if they wouldn't judge people of other religions killing their own apostates?

In order to avoid hypocrisy on that point, you can't just not judge the shark, you can't judge ANYBODY who does to others any specific action they claim they wouldn't mind done to them; something that makes judging the evil actions of fundamentalists as the evil they are impossible I don't understand this sentence..., because they all consider those actions just and want to be held to the same standards themselves.

Moral subjectivism will get you nowhere fast, and being able to judge people as immoral only when they behave hypocritically is a great way to make your moral system pretty much useless against fundamentalism.


Part 3: Burden of proof and other fallacies

Somewhere at the end of your conversation with the vegan that called in, you said the following:

Matt Dillahunty wrote:The people who claim that I have an ethical burden to not eat meat have a case to make.

I'm now actually doubtful about this burden of proof thing. Can somebody explain to me why contribution to the animal agriculture practices is relevant at all to the burder of proof? Isn't the only valid usage of "burden of proof" in a context of making factual claims? It is a logical fallacy after all.
By purchasing meat you actively contribute to animal agriculture practices. Either this means you deem these practices okay, or you do not care whether or not you support immoral practices. Assuming the first option and considering you have decided to act upon your conviction the burden of proof lies on you. You may take the position that the burden of proof lies upon those advocating a change of behavior, or that tradition and social normalcy is exempt from the burden of proof. However, then you'd need to grant the same to religions and their practices.

Maybe find the actual quote of him saying what we here state he did? (also for the next paragraph)
You seem to agree that the certain methods of obtaining meat, dairy and eggs are unethical. You also hold the opinion that this does not make the act of consuming animal products inherently unethical. Although this is factually true, the practical reality is that the way in which almost all animal products are obtained is in fact unethical -- that is, suffering is involved for completely negligible reasons. Having someone to do labor for you is also not inherently unethical, but if we're talking about forced labor without getting paid that includes different kind of abuses, you might conclude that it's an act to be considered unethical. Whether or not the act of working for somebody is inherently unethical is not only irrelevant to the acts in the real world and all those ethical implications, but since morality is all about context from a consequentialist viewpoint, inheritence does not make any sense at all. You talked about practical realities in the show, but the only one that is relevant here is that over 99 percent of animal products are obtained in a manner that includes lots of suffering and death. If you want to be consistent with your own views, you should at least not consume those animal products which are obtained unethically, which in practice basically means: going vegan.

You also mentioned that if we were to give animals the right to not be slaughtered and used for what comes out of their private parts, it's logical that more rights will follow. As pointed out earlier; rights are irrelevant when discussing morality. Even if it were relevant, you'd still be wrong. You are most likely talking about rights that an non-human animal would have absolutely no use for, for example: the right to vote or the right to own property. In contrast to the right not to be harmed, animals have no interest in having these rights and having these rights would not improve their well-being in any way. Rights only make sense, and therefore should only be considered when there is an actual interest in having them and the capability of making use of them. It would make absolutely no sense to extend rights like the right to vote to non-human animals, and to suggest that it is a necessary consequence would be a slippery slope fallacy.

Is there a reason not to mention Tracie Harris who was also on the show at that moment? She made arguments that I thought were pretty bad too, even though she usually makes great points from what I've seen.

Anon0045 wrote:Is there a reason not to mention Tracie Harris who was also on the show at that moment? She made arguments that I thought were pretty bad too, even though she usually makes great points from what I've seen.

Pretty much because this is a latter to Matt, not Tracie.