-
Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
Donations can be made via here
Debate: Veganism Discussion Cont. - SD and GuySDTalkedTo
- Thread starter Gnug215
- Start date
GuySDTalkedTo
New Member
Okay, I'm going to go ahead and lay out the first point of discussion that I would like to really get off the table and address.
First point (main point of discussion before progression):
The first point that I would like to discuss is the "needless" killing of animals. You seem to not agree with this for some reason which is essentially my main reason for being adamant in trying to lock down this point.
You have already agreed to the following: We do not need to kill animals for survival in this day and age, we do not need to eat animals for nutritious reasons and we do not need to eat animals in order to be healthy.
If we do not need to kill animals for any of these three reasons and we can also avoid doing so based upon the alternative products that we can eat in our society then how is it not "needless" killing? We do not HAVE to kill that animal, there are alternative sources, it's needless to kill the animal when you can choose those options instead.
And in our initial discussion you appealed to the fact that many things are "unnecessary", which is true, but that did not address my initial point about the needless killings of animals specifically. It was my fault for not really noting that red-herring which diverts away from the main point I asked, but please try to stay on point for the question that I am referring to in particular.
Do you acknowledge that the animals being killed is in fact needless when it is avoidable? If so, then I'd like to move onto the second point of discussion and be done with this initial point.
First point (main point of discussion before progression):
The first point that I would like to discuss is the "needless" killing of animals. You seem to not agree with this for some reason which is essentially my main reason for being adamant in trying to lock down this point.
You have already agreed to the following: We do not need to kill animals for survival in this day and age, we do not need to eat animals for nutritious reasons and we do not need to eat animals in order to be healthy.
If we do not need to kill animals for any of these three reasons and we can also avoid doing so based upon the alternative products that we can eat in our society then how is it not "needless" killing? We do not HAVE to kill that animal, there are alternative sources, it's needless to kill the animal when you can choose those options instead.
And in our initial discussion you appealed to the fact that many things are "unnecessary", which is true, but that did not address my initial point about the needless killings of animals specifically. It was my fault for not really noting that red-herring which diverts away from the main point I asked, but please try to stay on point for the question that I am referring to in particular.
Do you acknowledge that the animals being killed is in fact needless when it is avoidable? If so, then I'd like to move onto the second point of discussion and be done with this initial point.
Firstly, I would like to take the time to thank Gnug for setting up this thread, I did hassle the mod a bit 
Secondly, welcome to LoR - I dragged you over here from discord to have a proper written discussion, just to lay it on the table I would have preferred an oral discussion but we have established that you are unable to do this so written is pretty much the only option, and this is by far the best place to do it.
Thirdly, for anyone reading - this is a continuation of a chat based conversation from discord.
Now that's all out of the way, I just want to briefly reiterate a point we both agreed on (I believe) before this thread was set up. I believe we would both prefer not to have to wade through extremely long posts, so I will do my best to keep mine to something of a reasonable length. I know you're not familiar with formatting posts here, so I offer you the following link, courtesy of prolescum for your reference How to use BB code on this forum
Sure. Although whether you can "get them off the table" will depend on a few things. Let's see.
You haven't brought quite enough of the context from our previous chats. I stated that it is not "needless" - we will surely get to necessity throughout the discussion, that's why I'm not conceding the point right out of the gate. There are many examples (which I am more than happy to bring the evidence for) where killing is not "needless" - so if it's not needless, I obviously wouldn't be willing to refer to it as such.
Well, not quite. It depends on the circumstances. Obviously if it were an actual survival situation the need to kill animals would almost certainly arise, assuming you're not keen on the idea of starving to death. Having spent a fair bit of time on the subject by now, it appears that that most vegans seem to be of the same view. Can I include you in this? I hope I can, and that you're not the "I think I'd have the mental fortitude to just die" types. Yes, I've head one vegan say exactly that!
So I'm going to assume you're referring to people living in developed countries where we have shops on every corner etc. Now it's going to come down to what you mean by "need" - sounds strange to ask "what do you mean by need" because it should be obvious. However, vegans seem to have a habit of switching definitions as it suits them so I'll be keeping an eye open for that.
Using a very, very, rigid, autistic, absolute definition of need (which I contend is useless and unworkable) my answer is no. We do not "need" to eat animals in order to survive under this definition of need. That's what I actually agreed to previously. However, if you're going to use this definition of "need" you may find your self in hot water sooner than you think because I'll be expecting you to hold the same standard of "need" to everything else you/I/we do as people as well. You know where it goes, I'll start ripping off gigantic lists of things you have/do that directly kill animals. Like eating wheat, lettuce, cabbage, kale and so on and ask you whether you "need" to eat e.g lettuce in order to survive. So it's entirely up to you, I'm not telling you how you can argue, you can do as you please, but I would strongly suggest you don't use this ultra rigid, absolute definition of "need" - that's why it's no big deal for me to concede you this point if this is how you're defining "need". The discussion will be over before it even gets underway and nobody benefits from it.
If instead, by "need" you just mean is it reasonable or something along those lines - this is a much better definition and will allow the discussion to progress.
So, to answer you under this definition - yes, it is perfectly reasonable to deliberately kill animals and consume their warmed up lifeless corpses. I know how much vegans like to use shock value terminology (as if that's going to put me off) so I'll just join in for the fun of it.
Pretty much already answered above. It really does depend on the definition you want to use. One is useful, the other isn't.
I can't possibly be any more on-point than I'm already being. It addresses your initial point because you're asserting (and assuming) that it's needless and then running with it. You can do that, but you can't drag me along with you when you go. I can give you numerous examples of justifiable, cold blooded animal massacre and from there justify the corpse munching. You do things which are unnecessary which involve the direct killing of animals, so which definition are we going with? Ultra autistic absolute "need" or the more realistic, workable one which basically amounts to "is it reasonable to do X" or something along those lines. Once you choose - I'll hold you to it. Again, the "will you drop dead if you don't eat meat" version is pointless because I'll just argue a thousand examples of things you do which you wouldn't drop dead without either.
No.
A thousand things about your daily life are avoidable, and a lot of those things will directly kill animals along the way. So are we talking about what's reasonable to do as part of life or are we talking about "will you die if you stop doing X?"
In a nutshell - your main question (so far) contains a premise which I disagree with.
Just a quick side point - as I mentioned it's obviously up to you how you want to structure your own arguments, but trying to back me into a corner to set up dominoes is likely to yield little fruit. The systematic one by one approach is perfectly valid but if you're going for that this might stagnate quite quickly (which I hope it doesn't as you've been willing to come here for the discussion)
I think this post is long enough for now.
To anyone reading, time is an issue for both Guy and my self so posts will not be piling up thick and fast. As such we have agreed between our selves that we will reply as and when we get time, and this can easily mean days or in excess of a week between posts. As I understand it, this is ok with LoR.
Secondly, welcome to LoR - I dragged you over here from discord to have a proper written discussion, just to lay it on the table I would have preferred an oral discussion but we have established that you are unable to do this so written is pretty much the only option, and this is by far the best place to do it.
Thirdly, for anyone reading - this is a continuation of a chat based conversation from discord.
Now that's all out of the way, I just want to briefly reiterate a point we both agreed on (I believe) before this thread was set up. I believe we would both prefer not to have to wade through extremely long posts, so I will do my best to keep mine to something of a reasonable length. I know you're not familiar with formatting posts here, so I offer you the following link, courtesy of prolescum for your reference How to use BB code on this forum
Sure. Although whether you can "get them off the table" will depend on a few things. Let's see.
You haven't brought quite enough of the context from our previous chats. I stated that it is not "needless" - we will surely get to necessity throughout the discussion, that's why I'm not conceding the point right out of the gate. There are many examples (which I am more than happy to bring the evidence for) where killing is not "needless" - so if it's not needless, I obviously wouldn't be willing to refer to it as such.
Well, not quite. It depends on the circumstances. Obviously if it were an actual survival situation the need to kill animals would almost certainly arise, assuming you're not keen on the idea of starving to death. Having spent a fair bit of time on the subject by now, it appears that that most vegans seem to be of the same view. Can I include you in this? I hope I can, and that you're not the "I think I'd have the mental fortitude to just die" types. Yes, I've head one vegan say exactly that!
So I'm going to assume you're referring to people living in developed countries where we have shops on every corner etc. Now it's going to come down to what you mean by "need" - sounds strange to ask "what do you mean by need" because it should be obvious. However, vegans seem to have a habit of switching definitions as it suits them so I'll be keeping an eye open for that.
Using a very, very, rigid, autistic, absolute definition of need (which I contend is useless and unworkable) my answer is no. We do not "need" to eat animals in order to survive under this definition of need. That's what I actually agreed to previously. However, if you're going to use this definition of "need" you may find your self in hot water sooner than you think because I'll be expecting you to hold the same standard of "need" to everything else you/I/we do as people as well. You know where it goes, I'll start ripping off gigantic lists of things you have/do that directly kill animals. Like eating wheat, lettuce, cabbage, kale and so on and ask you whether you "need" to eat e.g lettuce in order to survive. So it's entirely up to you, I'm not telling you how you can argue, you can do as you please, but I would strongly suggest you don't use this ultra rigid, absolute definition of "need" - that's why it's no big deal for me to concede you this point if this is how you're defining "need". The discussion will be over before it even gets underway and nobody benefits from it.
If instead, by "need" you just mean is it reasonable or something along those lines - this is a much better definition and will allow the discussion to progress.
So, to answer you under this definition - yes, it is perfectly reasonable to deliberately kill animals and consume their warmed up lifeless corpses. I know how much vegans like to use shock value terminology (as if that's going to put me off) so I'll just join in for the fun of it.
Pretty much already answered above. It really does depend on the definition you want to use. One is useful, the other isn't.
I can't possibly be any more on-point than I'm already being. It addresses your initial point because you're asserting (and assuming) that it's needless and then running with it. You can do that, but you can't drag me along with you when you go. I can give you numerous examples of justifiable, cold blooded animal massacre and from there justify the corpse munching. You do things which are unnecessary which involve the direct killing of animals, so which definition are we going with? Ultra autistic absolute "need" or the more realistic, workable one which basically amounts to "is it reasonable to do X" or something along those lines. Once you choose - I'll hold you to it. Again, the "will you drop dead if you don't eat meat" version is pointless because I'll just argue a thousand examples of things you do which you wouldn't drop dead without either.
No.
A thousand things about your daily life are avoidable, and a lot of those things will directly kill animals along the way. So are we talking about what's reasonable to do as part of life or are we talking about "will you die if you stop doing X?"
In a nutshell - your main question (so far) contains a premise which I disagree with.
Just a quick side point - as I mentioned it's obviously up to you how you want to structure your own arguments, but trying to back me into a corner to set up dominoes is likely to yield little fruit. The systematic one by one approach is perfectly valid but if you're going for that this might stagnate quite quickly (which I hope it doesn't as you've been willing to come here for the discussion)
I think this post is long enough for now.
To anyone reading, time is an issue for both Guy and my self so posts will not be piling up thick and fast. As such we have agreed between our selves that we will reply as and when we get time, and this can easily mean days or in excess of a week between posts. As I understand it, this is ok with LoR.
GuySDTalkedTo
New Member
"Well, not quite. It depends on the circumstances. Obviously if it were an actual survival situation the need to kill animals would almost certainly arise, assuming you're not keen on the idea of starving to death. Having spent a fair bit of time on the subject by now, it appears that that most vegans seem to be of the same view. Can I include you in this? I hope I can, and that you're not the "I think I'd have the mental fortitude to just die" types. Yes, I've head one vegan say exactly that!
So I'm going to assume you're referring to people living in developed countries where we have shops on every corner etc. Now it's going to come down to what you mean by "need" - sounds strange to ask "what do you mean by need" because it should be obvious. However, vegans seem to have a habit of switching definitions as it suits them so I'll be keeping an eye open for that. "
Of course, under those extreme survival cases then yes, I do not object to killing/eating an animal for survival. I do, however, object to killing/eating an animal when you do not have to kill the animal in the first place and can instead just eat plants.
"Using a very, very, rigid, autistic, absolute definition of need (which I contend is useless and unworkable) my answer is no. We do not "need" to eat animals in order to survive under this definition of need. That's what I actually agreed to previously. However, if you're going to use this definition of "need" you may find your self in hot water sooner than you think because I'll be expecting you to hold the same standard of "need" to everything else you/I/we do as people as well. You know where it goes, I'll start ripping off gigantic lists of things you have/do that directly kill animals. Like eating wheat, lettuce, cabbage, kale and so on and ask you whether you "need" to eat e.g lettuce in order to survive. So it's entirely up to you, I'm not telling you how you can argue, you can do as you please, but I would strongly suggest you don't use this ultra rigid, absolute definition of "need" - that's why it's no big deal for me to concede you this point if this is how you're defining "need". The discussion will be over before it even gets underway and nobody benefits from it.
If instead, by "need" you just mean is it reasonable or something along those lines - this is a much better definition and will allow the discussion to progress.
So, to answer you under this definition - yes, it is perfectly reasonable to deliberately kill animals and consume their warmed up lifeless corpses. I know how much vegans like to use shock value terminology (as if that's going to put me off) so I'll just join in for the fun of it. "
I jut mean it in the sense of "not required", simple.
So, it's perfectly reasonable to deliberately kill animals when it is not required? Especially after you acknowledge that we do not require their flesh survival, nutritious purposes and health reasons? Even when we can just eat plants alternatives that are required for a good balanced diet/survival instead?
"I can't possibly be any more on-point than I'm already being. It addresses your initial point because you're asserting (and assuming) that it's needless and then running with it. You can do that, but you can't drag me along with you when you go. I can give you numerous examples of justifiable, cold blooded animal massacre and from there justify the corpse munching. You do things which are unnecessary which involve the direct killing of animals, so which definition are we going with? Ultra autistic absolute "need" or the more realistic, workable one which basically amounts to "is it reasonable to do X" or something along those lines. Once you choose - I'll hold you to it. Again, the "will you drop dead if you don't eat meat" version is pointless because I'll just argue a thousand examples of things you do which you wouldn't drop dead without either."
I'm asserting it and asking you the question to that specific point, when I mention "irrelevant red-herrings" I'm talking about you diverting away from THAT particular point of question that I had asked and onto a separate side point that is irrelevant to the initial one.
So, again, I'm not going to let you divert away, even if I DID then we can bring up some analogies/examples of absurdities going by your logic and take it that step further, but refrain from that for now.
"No.
A thousand things about your daily life are avoidable, and a lot of those things will directly kill animals along the way. So are we talking about what's reasonable to do as part of life or are we talking about "will you die if you stop doing X?""
I'm talking about "is it needless to kill an animal when it is not required to do so and is avoidable?".
You say it's "not" needless to kill these animals when we do not have to kill them and can instead choose to pick an alternative option. Deliberately breeding them into existence, raising them for slaughter and proceeding to kill them when it is not required to do so in the first place is not needless?
We bring intent and victims into the equation, when you compare other things in life that are needless I can't help but sense a false equivalence in their comparison to deliberate killing of sentient organisms when it is not required to do so.
P.S. - I'm keeping my responses VERY short and onto the important aspects of your responses, I'll probably edit it better or something tomorrow.
So I'm going to assume you're referring to people living in developed countries where we have shops on every corner etc. Now it's going to come down to what you mean by "need" - sounds strange to ask "what do you mean by need" because it should be obvious. However, vegans seem to have a habit of switching definitions as it suits them so I'll be keeping an eye open for that. "
Of course, under those extreme survival cases then yes, I do not object to killing/eating an animal for survival. I do, however, object to killing/eating an animal when you do not have to kill the animal in the first place and can instead just eat plants.
"Using a very, very, rigid, autistic, absolute definition of need (which I contend is useless and unworkable) my answer is no. We do not "need" to eat animals in order to survive under this definition of need. That's what I actually agreed to previously. However, if you're going to use this definition of "need" you may find your self in hot water sooner than you think because I'll be expecting you to hold the same standard of "need" to everything else you/I/we do as people as well. You know where it goes, I'll start ripping off gigantic lists of things you have/do that directly kill animals. Like eating wheat, lettuce, cabbage, kale and so on and ask you whether you "need" to eat e.g lettuce in order to survive. So it's entirely up to you, I'm not telling you how you can argue, you can do as you please, but I would strongly suggest you don't use this ultra rigid, absolute definition of "need" - that's why it's no big deal for me to concede you this point if this is how you're defining "need". The discussion will be over before it even gets underway and nobody benefits from it.
If instead, by "need" you just mean is it reasonable or something along those lines - this is a much better definition and will allow the discussion to progress.
So, to answer you under this definition - yes, it is perfectly reasonable to deliberately kill animals and consume their warmed up lifeless corpses. I know how much vegans like to use shock value terminology (as if that's going to put me off) so I'll just join in for the fun of it. "
I jut mean it in the sense of "not required", simple.
So, it's perfectly reasonable to deliberately kill animals when it is not required? Especially after you acknowledge that we do not require their flesh survival, nutritious purposes and health reasons? Even when we can just eat plants alternatives that are required for a good balanced diet/survival instead?
"I can't possibly be any more on-point than I'm already being. It addresses your initial point because you're asserting (and assuming) that it's needless and then running with it. You can do that, but you can't drag me along with you when you go. I can give you numerous examples of justifiable, cold blooded animal massacre and from there justify the corpse munching. You do things which are unnecessary which involve the direct killing of animals, so which definition are we going with? Ultra autistic absolute "need" or the more realistic, workable one which basically amounts to "is it reasonable to do X" or something along those lines. Once you choose - I'll hold you to it. Again, the "will you drop dead if you don't eat meat" version is pointless because I'll just argue a thousand examples of things you do which you wouldn't drop dead without either."
I'm asserting it and asking you the question to that specific point, when I mention "irrelevant red-herrings" I'm talking about you diverting away from THAT particular point of question that I had asked and onto a separate side point that is irrelevant to the initial one.
So, again, I'm not going to let you divert away, even if I DID then we can bring up some analogies/examples of absurdities going by your logic and take it that step further, but refrain from that for now.
"No.
A thousand things about your daily life are avoidable, and a lot of those things will directly kill animals along the way. So are we talking about what's reasonable to do as part of life or are we talking about "will you die if you stop doing X?""
I'm talking about "is it needless to kill an animal when it is not required to do so and is avoidable?".
You say it's "not" needless to kill these animals when we do not have to kill them and can instead choose to pick an alternative option. Deliberately breeding them into existence, raising them for slaughter and proceeding to kill them when it is not required to do so in the first place is not needless?
We bring intent and victims into the equation, when you compare other things in life that are needless I can't help but sense a false equivalence in their comparison to deliberate killing of sentient organisms when it is not required to do so.
P.S. - I'm keeping my responses VERY short and onto the important aspects of your responses, I'll probably edit it better or something tomorrow.
GuySDTalkedTo
New Member
Don't know how to use this forum all that well, so I'll just type it separately.
When you bring into question these other "needless" things I hope you're sure to bring in to question the infringement sentient life in a negative way, or at least consider the magnitude of things.
When you bring into question these other "needless" things I hope you're sure to bring in to question the infringement sentient life in a negative way, or at least consider the magnitude of things.
Perfectly fair. I just wanted to check if you fall in line with what appears to be the popular vegan view on this. You do, so no issues. From this it's reasonable to infer that you don't object to the actual consumption of meat, which as far as I can gather is also the prevailing view within the vegan community.
"just eat plants" is a bit of an over simplification. It gives the impression that we can just wander around peacefully picking the odd flower here and there and be just fine. Which is obviously not the case. Even some of the more vocal activist vegans acknowledge the difficulties with a vegan diet. I don't want to talk nutrition, I just want to make the point that there's a lot more to it than "just eating plants."
That's not to imply that a vegan diet is impossible, clearly it is possible because, well, there are vegans and they don't appear to be dropping dead ll over the place.
What you really mean here is plant derived, not just plants themselves. Cereal crops, kale, cabbages, lettuce etc etc (huge list but there's no need, you get the point) are plants.
I'm aware that this is an issue non-vegans raise frequently, we do so because it's entirely accurate and relevant - liquidising rabbits in the pursuit of cereal crops for human consumption. This is absolutely fine with vegans because they declare cereal crops "necessary" - they aren't. So just to give a basic example, cute fluffy bunny is sitting around in a field of wheat. Along comes the combine to harvest said wheat so you can eat and enjoy things like bread. Rabbit is liquidised by the combine header, rabbit life extinguished in the pursuit of food.
Same cute fluffy bunny sitting in the same field of wheat, I come along and blow his brains out with my rifle, take him home, tear his skin from his flesh, chop his head off, wrench his guts out, warm him up a bit and then gorge on his corpse. Rabbit life extinguished in the pursuit of food.
In either case, the rabbit is being killed, directly, by a human, one is driving the combine, the other has a rifle (I do both of these things) and in both cases it is in the pursuit of food. There is no meaningful distinction between the two activities when they both result in the same outcome (rabbit is killed). Declaring one "ok" and the other not "ok" is arbitrary because both are being done for the same purpose - food. Obviously I understand that you aren't eating the liquidised rabbits from the crop harvesting, but not partaking in the corpse munching doesn't get you around the issue that they are being killed as a direct result of it. If it's ok for you to kill them for wheat, it's ok for me to kill them for meat.
From what I've been able to gather, reading various resources, watching an inordinate amount of debates, following along with comments, talking to vegans etc it appears they have a very cavalier attitude towards the death toll when it comes to something they want to eat. It's usually just shrugged off because they don't want to think about it or acknowledge it. When arguing for the vegan ideology it's inconvenient to talk about liquidising cute fluffy bunnies to produce foodstuffs such as bread. Food doesn't get much more basic than bread, but vegans don't seem to care how much rabbit juice goes into making it.
I, obviously, don't have an issue with liquidising rabbits because I too want to eat bread and other such cereal crop derived foods. But neither do I have a problem with blasting them in the head so I and others can eat them - I'm not going to say it's fine and dandy if it's a direct result of producing food X, but wrong and immoral if it's a direct result of producing food Y.
Wheat is not required. Simple.
Except it's not quite so simple. Food is required, yes? Surely there's no argument to be had here. You eat food. I eat food. Rabbit is killed so you can have plant based foodstuffs. Rabbit is killed so I can have rabbit based foodstuffs. End result? - dead rabbit. Killed by a human, directly, in the pursuit of food. So we aren't talking completely accidental killing here like with driving to work and unintentionally running down Mr Bunny.
Remember, liquidising rabbits - albeit not the goal of crop harvesting is still a direct consequence of it, you don't get a free pass because of intent when the end result for the rabbit is it being killed for food production in both cases.
You are not the arbiter of what is "required" - if I'm hungry, I must eat (outside of things like obesity cases etc etc) so when I kill a rabbit and eat it, I am satisfying my hunger. That makes it a requirement. I can eat some bread or something instead perhaps, but we've already established that rabbits have been killed during that production process too. I don't want to get into the nutrition side of it (I believe we agreed we wouldn't go down that road before this thread started but do correct me if I'm wrong? In either case I don't want to discuss nutrition because it's not a field I consider my self sufficiently competent in)
I can only assume you don't know what a red herring is at this point. If you're basing it on "need" - which you claim you are (with the insistence on putting the word "needless" in there when asking your main question) then pointing out that you/we do a whole load of things that aren't "needed" which you are OK with can't possibly be a red herring even under a loose definition.
A red herring is an irrelevant diversion. My pointing out the fact that you engage in things which are not really needed, when you're arguing about "need" is neither irrelevant nor a diversion. This is a red herring -
Person A - "Gosh I sure do think heroin addiction is bad"
Person B - "Yes but nuclear war is worse"
THAT is a red herring - person B is raising an issue which is important in and of itself but it has precisely nothing to do with the point person A is making.
You don't need to let me divert away because I'm not making any attempt to. What are the examples of absurdities according to "my" logic? We can refrain if you like, I'm allowing you to take the lead with your questioning, I'm not really asking many questions so far - you can just ask and I'll answer/explain if you want?
No. I say that it isn't strictly needless. See my previous thoughts above in this post. I can give you plenty of examples, without going to extremes like a plane crash or a desert island. Your insistence that it's "needless" doesn't make it so.
As for deliberately breeding them into existence, raising them for slaughter and proceeding to kill them - whilst I won't accuse you of committing the same fallacy you've accused me of - this is a different aspect of the subject. You're referring to factory farming. I don't mind going there with you if you want to air it out in the open but I wouldn't think there'd be much point as I'm fairly confident you and I won't even have a disagreement when it comes to factory farming. Genuinely, I don't think we would/
Your senses may not be an accurate reflection of reality. And I'm not trying to be rude here. During our casual chatting on discord you gave the strong impression that you know roughly nothing about agriculture. I even asked you if you had any idea the amount of resources that go into producing wheat. To the best of my recollection you didn't answer, there were also a few other indicators. Have you ever operated a combine or ploughed a field? I have.
Sentient "organisms" ? What exactly are we talking about here? By "organisms" can I assume you're talking about any mobile life form that has some basic awareness of its surroundings or at least responsive to stimuli like slugs and snails? Grass hoppers? If you really do mean those things then the death toll for the production of what ALONE is incalculable. I'll wait for you clarify that one before I go any further with it.
I'm also keeping mine as short as I can whilst making sure I've made the points I want to make. No worries.
Have a look at the link I posted in my first reply to you - it'll help a lot with understanding how the forum works. If you need any help formatting posts you are more than welcome to PM me and I'll help you out. Even hit me on discord if you're stuck in this regard.
I apologise but I have no idea what you're asking me here.
Side point - Guy, please take your time to respond. There is NO rush. Nobody here (including my self) is going to think you've somehow "lost" the debate if you take a few days to reply - that isn't how it works. That's why I had posting restricted to just you and I - nobody else (other than mods) can chip in here - but even they don't usually wade in unless something is radically wrong with what's happening. Again, if you're struggling to use the forum I will happily help you.
GuySDTalkedTo
New Member
""just eat plants" is a bit of an over simplification. It gives the impression that we can just wander around peacefully picking the odd flower here and there and be just fine. Which is obviously not the case. Even some of the more vocal activist vegans acknowledge the difficulties with a vegan diet. I don't want to talk nutrition, I just want to make the point that there's a lot more to it than "just eating plants."
That's not to imply that a vegan diet is impossible, clearly it is possible because, well, there are vegans and they don't appear to be dropping dead ll over the place."
When I say "just eat plants" I'm simply generally referring to the plant-based alternative foods available.
"What you really mean here is plant derived, not just plants themselves. Cereal crops, kale, cabbages, lettuce etc etc (huge list but there's no need, you get the point) are plants.
I'm aware that this is an issue non-vegans raise frequently, we do so because it's entirely accurate and relevant - liquidising rabbits in the pursuit of cereal crops for human consumption. This is absolutely fine with vegans because they declare cereal crops "necessary" - they aren't. So just to give a basic example, cute fluffy bunny is sitting around in a field of wheat. Along comes the combine to harvest said wheat so you can eat and enjoy things like bread. Rabbit is liquidised by the combine header, rabbit life extinguished in the pursuit of food."
"Same cute fluffy bunny sitting in the same field of wheat, I come along and blow his brains out with my rifle, take him home, tear his skin from his flesh, chop his head off, wrench his guts out, warm him up a bit and then gorge on his corpse. Rabbit life extinguished in the pursuit of food.
In either case, the rabbit is being killed, directly, by a human, one is driving the combine, the other has a rifle (I do both of these things) and in both cases it is in the pursuit of food. There is no meaningful distinction between the two activities when they both result in the same outcome (rabbit is killed). Declaring one "ok" and the other not "ok" is arbitrary because both are being done for the same purpose - food. Obviously I understand that you aren't eating the liquidised rabbits from the crop harvesting, but not partaking in the corpse munching doesn't get you around the issue that they are being killed as a direct result of it. If it's ok for you to kill them for wheat, it's ok for me to kill them for meat.
From what I've been able to gather, reading various resources, watching an inordinate amount of debates, following along with comments, talking to vegans etc it appears they have a very cavalier attitude towards the death toll when it comes to something they want to eat. It's usually just shrugged off because they don't want to think about it or acknowledge it. When arguing for the vegan ideology it's inconvenient to talk about liquidising cute fluffy bunnies to produce foodstuffs such as bread. Food doesn't get much more basic than bread, but vegans don't seem to care how much rabbit juice goes into making it.
I, obviously, don't have an issue with liquidising rabbits because I too want to eat bread and other such cereal crop derived foods. But neither do I have a problem with blasting them in the head so I and others can eat them - I'm not going to say it's fine and dandy if it's a direct result of producing food X, but wrong and immoral if it's a direct result of producing food Y."
Now you're moving onto the SECOND point of discussion that I wanted to delve into. That's all good and whatnot, but on this first point I'd like for you to stay.
I'll address this large comment of yours later on because there's a good chunk of context, intent and elements that you're leaving out which demonstrate the difference between the two. Not sure if it's deliberate.
Also, you do realize that with veganism it isn't an all "100% ethical-free zone"/"100% no killing at all" type of case, right? It's about reducing as much unnecessary death/exploitation/suffering as possible, reasonably so. Please quote this to tell me you're at least on board with this gist, gotta get this straight for our second point if we even delve in there.
"Wheat is not required. Simple.
Except it's not quite so simple. Food is required, yes? Surely there's no argument to be had here. You eat food. I eat food. Rabbit is killed so you can have plant based foodstuffs. Rabbit is killed so I can have rabbit based foodstuffs. End result? - dead rabbit. Killed by a human, directly, in the pursuit of food. So we aren't talking completely accidental killing here like with driving to work and unintentionally running down Mr Bunny.
Remember, liquidising rabbits - albeit not the goal of crop harvesting is still a direct consequence of it, you don't get a free pass because of intent when the end result for the rabbit is it being killed for food production in both cases. "
Do you concede to point of meat, yes or no? You're jumping to another point of wheat (point two of discussion) as if it negates the one about meat. Yes or no? If it is not required to kill for these animal products then the killing of itself is indeed needless. Please answer this question before pointing to wheat, which will be the next point to address.
"You are not the arbiter of what is "required" - if I'm hungry, I must eat (outside of things like obesity cases etc etc) so when I kill a rabbit and eat it, I am satisfying my hunger. That makes it a requirement. I can eat some bread or something instead perhaps, but we've already established that rabbits have been killed during that production process too. I don't want to get into the nutrition side of it (I believe we agreed we wouldn't go down that road before this thread started but do correct me if I'm wrong? In either case I don't want to discuss nutrition because it's not a field I consider my self sufficiently competent in)"
That's completely irrelevant when you just acknowledge that you don't need to eat animal products for; survival, nutritious reasons and health.
Sure, in the context of extreme "survival" and whatnot then yes, we've been over this. But we're talking about the context of your position in society today.
"If I'm hungry, I must eat" - Get the plant-based alternatives, you can fulfill those requirements. I'll address this "wheat"/"animals still die" point in the next argument.
"I can only assume you don't know what a red herring is at this point. If you're basing it on "need" - which you claim you are (with the insistence on putting the word "needless" in there when asking your main question) then pointing out that you/we do a whole load of things that aren't "needed" which you are OK with can't possibly be a red herring even under a loose definition.
A red herring is an irrelevant diversion. My pointing out the fact that you engage in things which are not really needed, when you're arguing about "need" is neither irrelevant nor a diversion. This is a red herring -
Person A - "Gosh I sure do think heroin addiction is bad"
Person B - "Yes but nuclear war is worse"
No, I do know what a red-herring is. I specifically ask you a question in direct contingent to the meat point (needless point) and you divert away subtlely and point to wheat and other needless things without addressing and staying fully on point to what I was arguing in that particular argument. We can address the other thing you brought up next.
"You don't need to let me divert away because I'm not making any attempt to. What are the examples of absurdities according to "my" logic? We can refrain if you like, I'm allowing you to take the lead with your questioning, I'm not really asking many questions so far - you can just ask and I'll answer/explain if you want? "
I'll address it after point one.
"No. I say that it isn't strictly needless. See my previous thoughts above in this post. I can give you plenty of examples, without going to extremes like a plane crash or a desert island. Your insistence that it's "needless" doesn't make it so.
As for deliberately breeding them into existence, raising them for slaughter and proceeding to kill them - whilst I won't accuse you of committing the same fallacy you've accused me of - this is a different aspect of the subject. You're referring to factory farming. I don't mind going there with you if you want to air it out in the open but I wouldn't think there'd be much point as I'm fairly confident you and I won't even have a disagreement when it comes to factory farming. Genuinely, I don't think we would/"
No, we're talking about the context of what you're in NOW. Of course it wouldn't be needless throughout all contexts because there's still the extreme survival point, which you brought up, and in that instance it would not be needless, no.
I'm talking about the instance now, not in some hypothetical scenario where you're on a deserted island and whatnot. In today's society.
"Your senses may not be an accurate reflection of reality. And I'm not trying to be rude here. During our casual chatting on discord you gave the strong impression that you know roughly nothing about agriculture. I even asked you if you had any idea the amount of resources that go into producing wheat. To the best of my recollection you didn't answer, there were also a few other indicators. Have you ever operated a combine or ploughed a field? I have.
Sentient "organisms" ? What exactly are we talking about here? By "organisms" can I assume you're talking about any mobile life form that has some basic awareness of its surroundings or at least responsive to stimuli like slugs and snails? Grass hoppers? If you really do mean those things then the death toll for the production of what ALONE is incalculable. I'll wait for you clarify that one before I go any further with it. "
Of course, that's why I brought up the major differences between the contexts because I wasn't sure if you understood or deliberately left them out which pointed to the false equivalence. I would love to get into explaining these, because I'm noticing that you leave them out still.
"I apologise but I have no idea what you're asking me here."
If you wanna point to the many other "needless" things in life I hope you're talking about the infringement of sentient beings in a negative way and whatnot, like the way we were discussing.
So, once more, I shall ask this question:
The animals killed in the animal agricultural industry are slaughtered for food when it is not required to kill them for said products as we have alternative products to choose from. You have acknowledged the three things before. Do you acknowledge that the animals are being killed in the animal agricultural industry needlessly when it is not required? Yes or no?
The whole "wheat tho" argument will be addressed if you want to appeal to it in the next argument because there's a lot of grounds to cover there. But, for this question in particular do you acknowledge this killing to be needless as it is not required?
^ And also, I'm talking about today's society, I explained the who "island tho" argument prior to be a bit more clear.
That's not to imply that a vegan diet is impossible, clearly it is possible because, well, there are vegans and they don't appear to be dropping dead ll over the place."
When I say "just eat plants" I'm simply generally referring to the plant-based alternative foods available.
"What you really mean here is plant derived, not just plants themselves. Cereal crops, kale, cabbages, lettuce etc etc (huge list but there's no need, you get the point) are plants.
I'm aware that this is an issue non-vegans raise frequently, we do so because it's entirely accurate and relevant - liquidising rabbits in the pursuit of cereal crops for human consumption. This is absolutely fine with vegans because they declare cereal crops "necessary" - they aren't. So just to give a basic example, cute fluffy bunny is sitting around in a field of wheat. Along comes the combine to harvest said wheat so you can eat and enjoy things like bread. Rabbit is liquidised by the combine header, rabbit life extinguished in the pursuit of food."
"Same cute fluffy bunny sitting in the same field of wheat, I come along and blow his brains out with my rifle, take him home, tear his skin from his flesh, chop his head off, wrench his guts out, warm him up a bit and then gorge on his corpse. Rabbit life extinguished in the pursuit of food.
In either case, the rabbit is being killed, directly, by a human, one is driving the combine, the other has a rifle (I do both of these things) and in both cases it is in the pursuit of food. There is no meaningful distinction between the two activities when they both result in the same outcome (rabbit is killed). Declaring one "ok" and the other not "ok" is arbitrary because both are being done for the same purpose - food. Obviously I understand that you aren't eating the liquidised rabbits from the crop harvesting, but not partaking in the corpse munching doesn't get you around the issue that they are being killed as a direct result of it. If it's ok for you to kill them for wheat, it's ok for me to kill them for meat.
From what I've been able to gather, reading various resources, watching an inordinate amount of debates, following along with comments, talking to vegans etc it appears they have a very cavalier attitude towards the death toll when it comes to something they want to eat. It's usually just shrugged off because they don't want to think about it or acknowledge it. When arguing for the vegan ideology it's inconvenient to talk about liquidising cute fluffy bunnies to produce foodstuffs such as bread. Food doesn't get much more basic than bread, but vegans don't seem to care how much rabbit juice goes into making it.
I, obviously, don't have an issue with liquidising rabbits because I too want to eat bread and other such cereal crop derived foods. But neither do I have a problem with blasting them in the head so I and others can eat them - I'm not going to say it's fine and dandy if it's a direct result of producing food X, but wrong and immoral if it's a direct result of producing food Y."
Now you're moving onto the SECOND point of discussion that I wanted to delve into. That's all good and whatnot, but on this first point I'd like for you to stay.
I'll address this large comment of yours later on because there's a good chunk of context, intent and elements that you're leaving out which demonstrate the difference between the two. Not sure if it's deliberate.
Also, you do realize that with veganism it isn't an all "100% ethical-free zone"/"100% no killing at all" type of case, right? It's about reducing as much unnecessary death/exploitation/suffering as possible, reasonably so. Please quote this to tell me you're at least on board with this gist, gotta get this straight for our second point if we even delve in there.
"Wheat is not required. Simple.
Except it's not quite so simple. Food is required, yes? Surely there's no argument to be had here. You eat food. I eat food. Rabbit is killed so you can have plant based foodstuffs. Rabbit is killed so I can have rabbit based foodstuffs. End result? - dead rabbit. Killed by a human, directly, in the pursuit of food. So we aren't talking completely accidental killing here like with driving to work and unintentionally running down Mr Bunny.
Remember, liquidising rabbits - albeit not the goal of crop harvesting is still a direct consequence of it, you don't get a free pass because of intent when the end result for the rabbit is it being killed for food production in both cases. "
Do you concede to point of meat, yes or no? You're jumping to another point of wheat (point two of discussion) as if it negates the one about meat. Yes or no? If it is not required to kill for these animal products then the killing of itself is indeed needless. Please answer this question before pointing to wheat, which will be the next point to address.
"You are not the arbiter of what is "required" - if I'm hungry, I must eat (outside of things like obesity cases etc etc) so when I kill a rabbit and eat it, I am satisfying my hunger. That makes it a requirement. I can eat some bread or something instead perhaps, but we've already established that rabbits have been killed during that production process too. I don't want to get into the nutrition side of it (I believe we agreed we wouldn't go down that road before this thread started but do correct me if I'm wrong? In either case I don't want to discuss nutrition because it's not a field I consider my self sufficiently competent in)"
That's completely irrelevant when you just acknowledge that you don't need to eat animal products for; survival, nutritious reasons and health.
Sure, in the context of extreme "survival" and whatnot then yes, we've been over this. But we're talking about the context of your position in society today.
"If I'm hungry, I must eat" - Get the plant-based alternatives, you can fulfill those requirements. I'll address this "wheat"/"animals still die" point in the next argument.
"I can only assume you don't know what a red herring is at this point. If you're basing it on "need" - which you claim you are (with the insistence on putting the word "needless" in there when asking your main question) then pointing out that you/we do a whole load of things that aren't "needed" which you are OK with can't possibly be a red herring even under a loose definition.
A red herring is an irrelevant diversion. My pointing out the fact that you engage in things which are not really needed, when you're arguing about "need" is neither irrelevant nor a diversion. This is a red herring -
Person A - "Gosh I sure do think heroin addiction is bad"
Person B - "Yes but nuclear war is worse"
No, I do know what a red-herring is. I specifically ask you a question in direct contingent to the meat point (needless point) and you divert away subtlely and point to wheat and other needless things without addressing and staying fully on point to what I was arguing in that particular argument. We can address the other thing you brought up next.
"You don't need to let me divert away because I'm not making any attempt to. What are the examples of absurdities according to "my" logic? We can refrain if you like, I'm allowing you to take the lead with your questioning, I'm not really asking many questions so far - you can just ask and I'll answer/explain if you want? "
I'll address it after point one.
"No. I say that it isn't strictly needless. See my previous thoughts above in this post. I can give you plenty of examples, without going to extremes like a plane crash or a desert island. Your insistence that it's "needless" doesn't make it so.
As for deliberately breeding them into existence, raising them for slaughter and proceeding to kill them - whilst I won't accuse you of committing the same fallacy you've accused me of - this is a different aspect of the subject. You're referring to factory farming. I don't mind going there with you if you want to air it out in the open but I wouldn't think there'd be much point as I'm fairly confident you and I won't even have a disagreement when it comes to factory farming. Genuinely, I don't think we would/"
No, we're talking about the context of what you're in NOW. Of course it wouldn't be needless throughout all contexts because there's still the extreme survival point, which you brought up, and in that instance it would not be needless, no.
I'm talking about the instance now, not in some hypothetical scenario where you're on a deserted island and whatnot. In today's society.
"Your senses may not be an accurate reflection of reality. And I'm not trying to be rude here. During our casual chatting on discord you gave the strong impression that you know roughly nothing about agriculture. I even asked you if you had any idea the amount of resources that go into producing wheat. To the best of my recollection you didn't answer, there were also a few other indicators. Have you ever operated a combine or ploughed a field? I have.
Sentient "organisms" ? What exactly are we talking about here? By "organisms" can I assume you're talking about any mobile life form that has some basic awareness of its surroundings or at least responsive to stimuli like slugs and snails? Grass hoppers? If you really do mean those things then the death toll for the production of what ALONE is incalculable. I'll wait for you clarify that one before I go any further with it. "
Of course, that's why I brought up the major differences between the contexts because I wasn't sure if you understood or deliberately left them out which pointed to the false equivalence. I would love to get into explaining these, because I'm noticing that you leave them out still.
"I apologise but I have no idea what you're asking me here."
If you wanna point to the many other "needless" things in life I hope you're talking about the infringement of sentient beings in a negative way and whatnot, like the way we were discussing.
So, once more, I shall ask this question:
The animals killed in the animal agricultural industry are slaughtered for food when it is not required to kill them for said products as we have alternative products to choose from. You have acknowledged the three things before. Do you acknowledge that the animals are being killed in the animal agricultural industry needlessly when it is not required? Yes or no?
The whole "wheat tho" argument will be addressed if you want to appeal to it in the next argument because there's a lot of grounds to cover there. But, for this question in particular do you acknowledge this killing to be needless as it is not required?
^ And also, I'm talking about today's society, I explained the who "island tho" argument prior to be a bit more clear.
GuySDTalkedTo
New Member
Once this point is hashed out then we can move onto the crop harvest argument which is the second point.
GuySDTalkedTo
New Member
I should also let you know, I may have to post-pone soon just in case because I'm prioritizing my free hours to catch up with exam work and illustrations. If so, I'll give the call to post-pone.
Ok, so, plant derived foods then yes?
Not reeeeeally, I'm just elaborating and giving my reasoning. We can move on any time you like if you want to start focusing on another point?
Oh :/ Alright, let's keep going round in circles.
Now, hang on just a second. I appreciate you saying you're going to reply to my larger comment later, and that's fine - however - I've replied to (I believe) every single sentence you've posted so far, yet I'm leaving out context? Seriously? I'm the one ADDING context here, certainly not leaving it out.
Consider it quoted. And yes, I do realise that's compatible with the definition you're working with. Which you might actually want to provide at some point.
Best stop funding the liquidising of rabbits then eh? Whilst I obviously realise you can't stop the liquidising all by your self, that would be absurd and unrealistic, you can definitiely stop funding it - quite reasonably so.
NB - I am aware of the definition of veganism Guy is using, but he is yet to post it here, it's not really my place to post it for him.
This is slightly malformed but I believe I know what you're asking so...
I'm not going to count how many times, but certainly not for the first time - NO
Meat IS, whether you approve or not - food.
Meat DOES, whether you approve or not - sustain hunger
Meat DOES, whether you approve or not - provide nutrients/fuel for the body
I HAVE, whether you acknowledge it or not - offered to provide examples of justifiable killing, outside of extremes like survival and desert islands - you are yet to take me up on this offer
Are there things other than meat that we can eat? Yes, obviously. I didn't realise that needed pointing out. In fact it already has been pointed out.
No - I'm not "jumping to another point" - it's PART OF the SAME point.
You have raised, so far, as your main point the question of necessity in the form of "needlessly killing animals" - you have repeated this over and over. I then asked you to define "need" - you went with the more workable definition, so we aren't talking about life or death (outside of sheer survival etc) so the definition is now something along the lines of "is it reasonable" to kill animals and eat them. I have answered that YES, it IS. So if NEED is the criteria (still working with the definition agreed upon) do you NEED to fund the liquidising of rabbits so you can have bread? I am baffled as to how you think this is "another" point - it's exactly the same point. You wish to argue that killing for meat is wrong, based on need, so I'm asking you if killing for wheat is ok, based on need. How is this "another point" ?
Still no. For the umpteenth time. I have explained why it is not "needless"
The question has been answered, I have offered to provide you with examples, real world not "far out there" examples. Would you like to discuss one of the many I have to offer?
You don't NEED to eat wheat, cabbage, lettuce, kale, other cereal crops to survive, you don't need them for nutritional reasons or health - stop mincing rabbits alive in your selfish pursuit of bread. How many times? You can eat other things that don't liquidise rabbits in the process.
You are doing EXACTLY what I predicted - you want to use a very strict definition of "need" when it comes to the question of killing for meat, but a wishy-washy, far less strict definition when it comes to things you eat/do/indulge in which also kills animals as a direct result. At this point I don't really know if it's intentional on your part or if you just don't get it, or if you just want to resist the point because it's detrimental to the argument you want to offer. What I do know is I'm not going to repeat this point again unless we actually get to what you say is your second point, even though I contend it's part of the first. Do you want to move on to that so we can actually get to it? Although I think it's already been covered sufficiently I'm fine with zeroing in on it more closely.
Cool
Which I have, several times by now, offered to provide examples of direct killing IN MY POSITION IN SOCIETY TODAY so not desert islands, not aliens, not plane crashes, not teleportation to another dimension, not some weird and wonderful hypothetical that has no bearing on reality - where I can easily justify blowing the heads off sentient beings and from there consume their carcasses. Do you want to talk about this or not? I'd like to, but it's your call.
Ok, good. Stop accusing me of committing one then. Thank you.
Yes, and you've just included the word "needless" right in that very sentence. I haven't diverted away, the wheat point is DIRECTLY FUCKING RELEVANT to the "NEED" point - IT IS ON POINT. It relates directly TO your point about NEED/NEEDLESS. I realise it's poor form to swear in a written debate but this is repetitive. If you can't grasp why ME talking about NEED is ON POINT when you're WHOLE ARGUMENT SO FAR is about NEED then I don't know what else to say to you on this point. It ISN'T a red herring.
PLEASE drop this because you're making your self look rather silly.
Why would I even attempt to divert away from it? There is NO ASPECT of the case I want to make that would require me to argue in a dishonest fashion by deploying any herrings. Red or otherwise.
Tremendous.
When it comes to debating, whatever the topic may be, I enjoy nothing more than arguing based on reality. We have agreed that we don't need to discuss survival etc. At the risk of repeating my self once again, I can give you plenty of examples where it is necessary in life, first world life, right now. Not a million years ago. Right now.
Good, so am I.
I understand the point of hypothetical scenarios, but I think they're of limited use. They can be fun to discuss, but ultimately if they're too far departed from anything resembling reality I find them little more than thought experiments. Albeit entertaining on occasion. So I'm glad you don't want to start getting into weird territory.
Again, I don't see where, or how I've done this. Feel free to point it out if you consider it important but given that I've been (mostly) the one giving context rather than leaving it out I have no idea why you'd feel this way. Like I say, if it's important, point it out (quotes would be helpful) but I doubt you can make this case stand. What I can say is I'm not deliberately leaving anything out, I read my posts, usually a couple of times before I submit them and at present I feel like I've addressed everything you've said. I've also elaborated, offered context, clarified (things like the definition of "need) etc so I honestly don't know what you're referring to here.
I do, because your argument thus far is based on need. I still don't fully understand this part. Are you asking me if I realise we infringe upon sentient beings in areas other than food production? Obviously I realise that. So? I mean where are you going with that? I'm fine with building houses and factories etc which obviously displaces animal habitat. Wherever you're typing your responses from has done the same thing. I don't get this? But I can't be sure that's what you meant because your comment is once again malformed. Please clarify and if what I've taken from it in this paragraph is not what you meant then please ignore it. We don't need to discuss things we don't mean, we just need to be clear about things we do mean.
Guessing I've already answered but let's see....
I'm going to let the readers be the judge as to whether I've answered this or not. If anyone is unsure I'm willing to take the time to actually COUNT how many times I've answered this question.
The answer is NO, in case you missed it. Your question still contains the premise which I don't agree with. I don't "just" disagree with it. I can show you it's faulty. Your subtle reframing of the question here hasn't gone unnoticed, but I don't consider it a big enough deal to go major on because it won't take anything away from the case I want to make.
That's good, because it's certainly something I'd like to focus more closely on. You're right, there is a LOT of ground to cover there. Ground I without any doubt whatsoever know more about than you do.
Honestly...... how many times? I mean seriously? I understand it might just be the way you draft posts, maybe you're just shooting from the hip or whatever but once is usually enough to ask a question especially when you've been given a direct, unambiguous answer.
Awesome, because so am I.
I don't mind if you want to deploy this tactic, but I'm familiar with the "tho" list vegans seem to think is massively clever. All it is is an attempt to give the impression to the listener/reader that the argument offered is so laughably absurd it doesn't warrant serious consideration. I acknowledge that some of the items on the "tho" list are fairly crap arguments, but others aren't. Dismissing something as absurd by adding "tho" on the end just to avoid addressing it won't really get you very far with someone who's bothered to take the time to consider these things beyond a fleeting glance.
You pick, I honestly don't mind either way. But if we move on, you can't then come back to the first point as some sort of fallback "need tho" (see how annoying that is?!) safety blanket. You either want to hash it out or you want to move on. I'm totally fine with either.
I completely understand - don't let debating take priority over exams man.