Philosophical Vegan Forum

What are the counter arguments for this article? theanarchistlibrary dot org/library/peter-gelderloos-veganism-why-not

Hello TJRightHere! Welcome to the forum. I would highly encourage you to introduce yourself by starting a discussion thread in the "New Member? Introduce Yourself!" section of the forum. I'll take a look at the article you posted, but not now because I need to go to sleep. Anyways I hope you enjoy having discussions on this forum.

Hi TJ, welcome!
I hope you post an intro.

I got half-way into the second paragraph. It's a little too painful to read.

Can you summarize some points you find hard to refute?

This is a fine example of how far some people will go to try and justify eating their cheeseburgers. Let's play some logical fallacies bingo:

- Appeal to status... veganism shouldn't be trusted, because it is apparently a concept rich bastards champion, and we all know that rich people are the source of all evil and can never be right about anything. I don't see how he could possibly have any point with this "ruling class" crap since meat-based diets ARE for the privileged.

- Appeal to nature. This is ALL OVER his article. Seems like every 3rd line is about how beautiful and natural killing is, and how disconneceted humans have become from nature. Unfortunately for the rest of us, he doesn't think either computers or internet connections are unnatural.

- False equivalence (plants = animals). Seriously, how disconnected from reality are the people who keep doing this? He even starts by saying what a shame it is that the plant argument is often made by idiots, but then he goes ahead and makes the exact same argument anyway ;_____;

There are probably many more, but I couldn't make it to the end. The logic in this article is so backwards and stupid it's painful. This person has perfected the art of sounding smart, while still making completely moronic arguments.

LONG POST

[1] As such, this critique of veganism is not at all directed against particular diets or lifestyles that could be described as vegan. It is rather directed at the very intersectionality that people choose to identify as an important common ground—based on the argument that there actually is no common ground there—and at the motives and beliefs behind that identification.

I find it strange when people use arguments of this sort, to argue that veganism is not a thing. No matter how much you want to blur the lines there is still, undeniably, a movement founded on the minimization and eradication of the use of animals and animal products. The fact that people hold different reasons for abiding by a vegan diet/lifestyle is fixed by simply referring to the as a ethical-vegan or health-vegan.

capitalists must find a way to feed a larger population on less, and in the wealthy metropolis, veganism provides the perfect solution.

"It's the government, man, I'm telling you" Such woosie conspiracy theory logic is detrimental to your overall outcome. ironically he started this by conflating the wider vegan community with "hipsters, and NGOs". When the section was titled "The New Thing" I expected them to be attacking it, as it so often is, as a fad. It also shows his lack of knowledge as to the origin of veganism, I believe the split happened when a vegetarian reporter wanted to publish an article in a veterinarian magazine critiquing eggs and dairy. The report was rejected leading to the reporter founding a new magazine witch he named by doping the middle letters of "vegetarian" leaving "vegan". Concluding that veganism was founded on animal rights and not capitalism. Of course it does not matter as this does not impact on which diet is healthier, better for the environment, or more ethical.

This guy's claims are almost as impressive as they are stupid, and surprisingly well written. lets see what else his got.

I don’t know why these people hate other animals so much that they would wish rights on them

yes we hate them so much we're not going to kill the and eat there flesh.

Anarchism: the belief that there should be no government, does not stop one from developing there own personal ethical theory. This objection holds no merit against ethical veganism.

If the moral prohibition against killing is not coming directly from pacifism or Christianity, it can only base itself on an analogy with the fundamental anarchist prohibition against domination

Or maybe it can come from one of the countless moral philosophers like Benthem and Kant. Oh, but I forgot there disqualified a priori.

It can also be the foundation of a relationship.

I think it’s a disgusting disconnection from the natural world and our animal selves.

but this only increases a separation between humans and other animal species

appeal to nature, really, you seem to be better than that.

The right to life is meaningless without a political authority to enforce it and to engage in the project of engineering the very meaning of life.

Can you not recognise that rights work on many levels you fail to address the bottom and most basic level, the individual. In the way that you act you act towards others defines the rights you afford them. consider this paradox In hard anarchism - The shop owner must have the right to refuse service to an individual, if he does not the costumer is dominant to the shop keeper and the opposite is true of the shop keeper. But if the shopkeeper is not afforded that right than the unwanted costumer is dominant to the shopkeeper. If this is not so than your objection is to government and not to dominance.

The consensus view on why it’s okay to eat plants and not animals is because plants do not have central nervous systems (although neither do several members of the animal kingdom) and therefore can feel no pain.

On the other hand, if a complex central nervous system is the sole basis, in human beings, for the capacity to feel pain, there are a great many animals with such simple nervous systems that it would be hard to believe they could feel anything more than attraction or repulsion to different stimuli.

Finally your dealing with a legitimate argument rather than preaching to the converted, took your time. As for the rather condensing conjecturer regarding non sentient members of the animal kingdom vegans tend to place them on the same level as plants. It is common that an empiricist to argue that we have no evidence of consciousness outside of the brain, leading us to a conclusion we can hold up there with solipsism, that consciousness and therefore, feelings and interest's, do not exist without a brain.

First of all, it is not falsifiable [...] there are also a number of indications, on the level of organic electrical activity for example, that plants interact with their environment in a way that could encompass feeling.

its not falsifiable and I have data against it.

these interactions in no way encompass feelings, and these "reactions" are far more basic that that of back-boned (where peter singer draws the line) animals (with brains).

[plants] inarguably display rejection or attraction to different stimuli, depending on the consequence of those stimuli for their wellbeing

and this can happen unconsciously we know this because it does happen unconsciously in humans, such as pulling your hand off a hot plate.

Exactly why a living being should be valued based on what comes down to its supposed similarity to human beings is something that vegans should have to explain.

strawman.

I could go on but its 3 am, I have homework, and I'm sleepy. also its a kinda long blog.