Philosophical Vegan Forum

bobo0100 wrote:This is a sad, sad defence of an omnivorous diet. I will however take it at my liberty to reveal the flaws in your arguments.

(aprox. 1:22)
Intelligent life was not defined as intelligence is not an important ethical identifier. it must be understood that "TVA's" ethical decision making is based on utilitarianism (Not to be confused with cost benefit analysis as dollar values are not ethical identifiers). Utilitarianism holds that an action is good the happiness created by an action outweighs the suffering. Separate denominations have adjusted the formula based on different criticisms such as preference, rule, two level, and negative utilitarianism. Those who hole to the utilitarian theory or right are in no way obligated to hold the classical view. But how is this relevant to finding important moral identifiers. By the classical view an identifier is important if it shows that suffering or happiness is likely or possible. It is easy to see that by this criteria; sentience is an important identifier, whereas intelligence is not. We will not say that "animals are intelligent enough not to be eaten" as we do not respect intelligence as an important moral identifier. Backing up your statement with a band wagon fallacy (argumentum ad populum) does not help your stance.

(aprox. 1:50)
Science (biology) is descriptive, not prescriptive like ethics. There is a difference between humans tend to hunt animals for consumption and humans ought to hunt animals for consumption. In the study of ethics this is known as the "is ought" problem. you have also come across the naturalistic fallacy. It is false to argue that "X is practised by animals" or "X occurs in nature" means that "we ought do X". there are a number of things we can sub into "X" to demonstrate the truth of this including; murder and rape. This is not to equate eating animals with murder or rape but to demonstrate how this type of reasoning is false.

(aprox. 3:09)
convincing the masses is not the primary purpose of "TVA's" videos but rather to defend veganism as the ethical high ground. Introducing transitional diets is a thing commonly done to help people become vegan. Transitional diets include; pescetarian, vegaterans, and vegan (Friday/before 6:00) type diets. Your words on the need to embrace small changes is not a topic on which vegans disagree.

(aprox. 4:57)
I am not studied in the expert consensus in regards to a vegan diet. "TVA" has however provided clear and respectable references whenever he makes a claim of this sort. if its names your looking for I would suggest the comment section of any number of videos in which he makes this claim.

(aprox. 5:15)
"TVA" was not equating the wrongness of eating animals with the wrongness of rape or molestation. He was using analogy's to show how the reasoning was false.

(aprox. 8:15)
"TVA" is making a statement on mortality and if a population acts in accordance to ethically correct behaviour is irrelevant to his stance.

Nether the less I will share this video on http://theveganatheist.com/forum in order to encourage a response from "TVA" and other members of the forum.
P.S. Try to light cleanly light your room, (lights of the same light temperature) and decrease the background noise, try to get a directional mic, or a lapel mic.