(May 7, 2012 at 2:36 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Meh, sure, I'll go back and edit the text wall, it won't change the quotes or the context. Just won't be as easy on the eyes. I did mention they were snipped (and why), it would be hard to be "disingenuous" after that point.

Note: bolded for emphasis.

I guess I'll break down how cherry picking and quote mining works since you don't seem to get it. Here's a quote of mine you posted originally to back up the assertion that I was attempting to convince people that eating meat is immoral:

Quote:Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris agree that there's no ethical justification for eating flesh.

It really looks like you were right, doesn't it? That's a definite argument from authority, plus it's quite obviously pushing my "meat is evil" agenda!

Now here's what I actually posted in context:

Quote:Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris agree that there's no ethical justification for eating flesh. But they still eat it. You just don't hear them spouting nonsensical garbage and idiotic arguments about why it's okay. If you don't accept terrible arguments from a theist, why the hell are you throwing terrible arguments at veg*ans?

Whoa, that appears to be a bit different. Instead of being icon-driven propaganda, it now looks like I'm saying not to use terrible arguments!

That's one example of why I called what you did disingenuous. Because it was. It's bullshit when the theists do it to "prove" Darwin was a Christian. It's also bullshit when you do it to misrepresent my position.

Quote:Good arguments for what?

ANYTHING. Seriously, if you are ever arguing for a position, use good arguments. There is never an excuse for having shitty arguments.

Edited to add your edit:

Quote:We aren't making any moral value judgements, not taking any stances on positive or negative ethical values correct? I don't see the need for any arguments. I eat meat. That's good enough right?

This is what I'm saying. You are not presenting shitty arguments here. If you aren't spewing idiocy, I have no issue with what you're saying.

And now who's jumping the gun? What did I say, jackass, that Jess was right, or that you may have had something to do with how she was responding?

Why, pray tell, does an argument for eating meat need to be offered?

(not once did I criticize you for arguing from authority, not once did I claim you were speaking from icon driven propaganda, but I will absolutely say that you are pushing a morality of meat conversation)

(May 7, 2012 at 2:54 pm)Rhythm Wrote: And now who's jumping the gun? What did I say, jackass, that Jess was right, or that you may have had something to do with how she was responding?

Ahhh, thanks for the insult. I've been waiting for the "intelligent" communication to begin.

Quote:Why, pray tell, does an argument for eating meat need to be offered?

I have explicitly stated that no argument needs to be offered. What the fuck have you been reading?

Quote:(not once did I criticize you for arguing from authority, not once did I claim you were speaking from icon driven propaganda

That's awesome, because not once did I claim you did! See, we really can all get along!

Quote:, but I will absolutely say that you are pushing a morality of meat conversation)

And I'll happily disagree with your flawed perception of reality.

Good deal, we've reached agreement, my diet and your diet are on par. I like you.

(aren't you going to repost that snippet I pulled "out of context" that entirely contradicts what you just said though? You know, the one about arguing that I have no moral obligation and an explanation of why this is so?)

(May 7, 2012 at 3:04 pm)Rhythm Wrote: I like you.

Words are cheap. Bathroom handies are forever. Atheist meetup?

Quote:(aren't you going to repost that snippet I pulled "out of context" that entirely contradicts what you just said though? You know, the one about arguing that I have no moral obligation and an explanation of why this is so?)

If you state that you have no moral obligation, I would love to see a reasonable explanation of why. If you don't say you have no moral obligation, we're all good. Regardless, asking for an explanation does not necessarily imply that one does not exist. It could be that I'm ignorant of the subject, that I'd love to hear more arguments on that topic, or any number of different things. If you could clearly explain how my question contradicts my later statements, that would be just lovely.

(May 7, 2012 at 2:51 pm)Jinkies Wrote: Now here's what I actually posted in context:

Quote:Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris agree that there's no ethical justification for eating flesh. But they still eat it. You just don't hear them spouting nonsensical garbage and idiotic arguments about why it's okay. If you don't accept terrible arguments from a theist, why the hell are you throwing terrible arguments at veg*ans?

Whoa, that appears to be a bit different. Instead of being icon-driven propaganda, it now looks like I'm saying not to use terrible arguments!

That's one example of why I called what you did disingenuous. Because it was. It's bullshit when the theists do it to "prove" Darwin was a Christian. It's also bullshit when you do it to misrepresent my position.

Bolding is mine...I'm sure I've quote mined you somehow.

-
Moving forward

Nope, no moral obligation, no argument and no explanation (because none is required, and it isn't an issue of morality, and we aren't pushing a "morality of meat" discussion are we). I eat, some of the things I eat once drew breath. That's as far as it goes. It isn't that I don't care, because what would there be to care (or not care) about?

(that handie can be arranged, but I'm not cheap.)

(May 7, 2012 at 3:16 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Bolding is mine...I'm sure I've quote mined you somehow.

I was clearly not saying you said those things. I was explaining how those statements were likely to be interpreted by people reading them. I don't understand how you could be confused by that. It's incredibly simple.

I get that you dislike your personal interpretation of "my position" so much that you're infecting my words with your own biases. That's not helpful for furthering the conversation. Insults and smilies jerkin' it so right do make you seem the more intelligent of us, though, so maybe I'm in the wrong here.

Quote:Nope, no moral obligation, no argument and no explanation (because none is required, and it isn't an issue of morality).

Could you explain how it isn't an issue of morality? I've covered why it so obviously is an issue of morality before (all it takes is people claiming that it is). What is it that you feel makes something an issue of morality?

I could say that rape isn't an issue of morality, but you'd most likely disagree (and think me stupid for saying it). Why is rape an issue of morality? Because some people say it is. That's seriously all it takes.

Note that I'm not offering any judgments here or arguing for one side or the other. I'm only questioning why you don't consider this to be in the realm of morality at all.

Quote:I eat, some of the things I eat once drew breath. That's as far as it goes. It isn't that I don't care, because what would there be to care (or not care) about?

Note: bolded for emphasis.

If you're looking for the arguments different vegans have for veganism, you'll find a variety of them in plenty of places online. Just hit up Mr. Googs with a phrase like "why should I go vegan?" and he'll help you out. If you're not concerned with learning what "the enemy" thinks, I'm not sure what the point of what you wrote is.

It isn't an issue of morality because I was mistaken remember, you aren't pushing such a conversation. My perception of reality is flawed. "It isn't because I say so" is just as good as "it is because some people say it is", isn't it? Just why do I have to explain any of this, I don't need an argument.

Vegans aren't any enemy to me. They're my best customers..lol.

(May 7, 2012 at 3:36 pm)Rhythm Wrote: It isn't an issue of morality because I was mistaken remember, you aren't pushing such a conversation.

You are conflating two entirely different things here. I am not pushing an agenda regarding eating meat being immoral, as has been claimed. That does not mean that the topic of eating meat is not concerned with morality, though. You have still failed to explain on any level why eating meat is not a moral issue.

Why would I have to? Looks like my perception of reality wasn't so flawed.