Eating Meat is Barbaric

[henry quirk]

63E9DAD5-AE0A-4356-B5DF-913C5405FE32.jpeg

[Age]

But, this is just False and Incorrect, as well.

Unless you would like to prove otherwise.

That 'unless' here is part of an illogical sense of causation on your part. It would be False or True regardless of what I would like to do.

So, do you 'now' admit that it is just False and Incorrect?

But, is eating meat barbaric, to you, or not?

Barbarians have tended to eat meat.

Not that you will ever clarify, 'What even is a "barbarian", to you, exactly?

But then so have civilized people.

And, what are so-called "civilized people", to you, exactly?

And, how, exactly, do you differentiate between "barbarians", 'people', and "civilized people"?

I think it is not a good adjective for meat eating, especially in the context of the horrific practices of civilized livestock treatment, for example.

Okay.

Or, do you try to 'justify' eating meat, based on the fact that you will keep killing animals and children, anyway?

How do you justify eating meat?

When doing so is needed'. Otherwise, it is unjustifiable, obviously. Or, maybe it is not 'so obvious' to some of you people, in the days when this is being written.

I've read your post where you explained your position, but it simply assertion your position. I saw no justification.

Okay. Did you also notice that absolutely no one has sought out any justification at all, yet? Except, of course, you just here in this post.

Which, by the way, was how I have 'justified' 'eating meat', previously. So, one could wonder why you missed this also.

You'll never justify it.

But, I already have, in the post/s where you say and claim that you saw no justification at all.

You don't trust people.

Why do you say and claim this here?

Age-style absolute claims: I'll keep using them with you.

Okay, if this is what you, really, want to do.

But, considering you have no absolutes, you doing so seems rather contradictory and hypocritical.

Also, do not forget I claim absolute things when I already have the actual, irrefutable, proof, for them.

[Iwannaplato]

But, this is just False and Incorrect, as well.

Unless you would like to prove otherwise.

That 'unless' here is part of an illogical sense of causation on your part. It would be False or True regardless of what I would like to do.

So, do you 'now' admit that it is just False and Incorrect?

No, I read what you wrote and pointed out the incorrect logic in the sentence I quoted, which was part of what I read.

But, is eating meat barbaric, to you, or not?

Barbarians have tended to eat meat.

Not that you will ever clarify, 'What even is a "barbarian", to you, exactly?

But then so have civilized people.

And, what are so-called "civilized people", to you, exactly?

And, how, exactly, do you differentiate between "barbarians", 'people', and "civilized people"?

It depends on the context. Here I was responding to your question, and I took the opportunity to weigh in on how the word you used was one I considered not useful in this context.

What did you mean by 'barbaric' and what are the barbaric people to you? Not that you will every clarify.

Or, do you try to 'justify' eating meat, based on the fact that you will keep killing animals and children, anyway?

How do you justify eating meat?

When doing so is needed'. Otherwise, it is unjustifiable, obviously. Or, maybe it is not 'so obvious' to some of you people, in the days when this is being written.

I asked you a how question, you answered with a when answer. And you did not justify eating your eating meat. Which is par for the course with you.

You'll never justify it.

But, I already have, in the post/s where you say and claim that you saw no justification at all.

You certainly expressed your opinion and made assertions, but you did not justify it. Many people confuse that with justification. You seem to be one of those people.

[Iwannaplato]

Nice articles!

I used to have a whole list and there was one really good organization. I'll see if I can find it again. In any case here are some others on the subject.

https://vitalplan.com/blogs/blog/plant- ... ight-think
- this one has footnotes with links to research

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... okFfkpitHO

An article below on some of the reasons it is hard to acknowledge plant intelligence, behavior and possible consciousness...
https://ethnobiomed.biomedcentral.com/a ... 22-00539-3

https://academic.oup.com/aob/article/125/1/11/5575979

https://www.bps.org.uk/research-digest/ ... -cognition

https://www.um.es/mintlab/

[bahman]

Nice articles!

I used to have a whole list and there was one really good organization. I'll see if I can find it again. In any case here are some others on the subject.

https://vitalplan.com/blogs/blog/plant- ... ight-think
- this one has footnotes with links to research

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... okFfkpitHO

An article below on some of the reasons it is hard to acknowledge plant intelligence, behavior and possible consciousness...
https://ethnobiomed.biomedcentral.com/a ... 22-00539-3

https://academic.oup.com/aob/article/125/1/11/5575979

https://www.bps.org.uk/research-digest/ ... -cognition

https://www.um.es/mintlab/

Thanks for the post. I will go through them all.

[Age]

But, this is just False and Incorrect, as well.

Unless you would like to prove otherwise.

That 'unless' here is part of an illogical sense of causation on your part. It would be False or True regardless of what I would like to do.

So, do you 'now' admit that it is just False and Incorrect?

No, I read what you wrote and pointed out the incorrect logic in the sentence I quoted, which was part of what I read.

But that is not what I was talking about.

I was referring to the other stuff.

And, what I wrote and pointed out was not so-called 'incorrect logic' anyway.

But, is eating meat barbaric, to you, or not?

Barbarians have tended to eat meat.

Not that you will ever clarify, 'What even is a "barbarian", to you, exactly?

But then so have civilized people.

And, what are so-called "civilized people", to you, exactly?

And, how, exactly, do you differentiate between "barbarians", 'people', and "civilized people"?

It depends on the context. Here I was responding to your question, and I took the opportunity to weigh in on how the word you used was one I considered not useful in this context.

So, once again, absolutely no clarification at all, to the questions posed, is provided by this one.

What did you mean by 'barbaric' and what are the barbaric people to you? Not that you will every clarify.

Or, do you try to 'justify' eating meat, based on the fact that you will keep killing animals and children, anyway?

How do you justify eating meat?

When doing so is needed'. Otherwise, it is unjustifiable, obviously. Or, maybe it is not 'so obvious' to some of you people, in the days when this is being written.

I asked you a how question, you answered with a when answer.

'How' I justify any thing is the exact same way every one justifies any thing. So, how I justify things is in the 'exact same way' you do.

Do you even know how you justify things?

And you did not justify eating your eating meat. Which is par for the course with you.

Well this is obviously absolutely False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect. As can be clearly seen and proved irrefutably True above here, in the very words that I have said and written there.

But, you do have a very bad habit of missing a lot of what I say, write, and mean here.

You'll never justify it.

But, I already have, in the post/s where you say and claim that you saw no justification at all.

You certainly expressed your opinion and made assertions, but you did not justify it. Many people confuse that with justification. You seem to be one of those people.

LOL But I did justify it. Because there is not a one of you who could, logically, sensibly, and rationally, disagree with it.

And, as absolutely no one has disagreed with it, nor even tried to counter nor refute it, here, then this could well be because I have justified it.

Now, just out of curiosity, 'What even is involved in 'justifying' some thing?'

Let the readers see if you will, at least, clarify this, or not.

[Alexiev]

So, what do so-called "barbarians" actually do then, instead?

They hunt. Some of them raise animals for food. But since "civilization" is a "complex way of life that develops when people form urban settlements, industrialization, snd complex political systems", it is only the civilized (not the barbarians) who practiced industrialized meat production.

This was so obvious from the get go that I feel silly responding.

[Age]

So, what do so-called "barbarians" actually do then, instead?

They hunt. Some of them raise animals for food. But since "civilization" is a "complex way of life that develops when people form urban settlements, industrialization, snd complex political systems", it is only the civilized (not the barbarians) who practiced industrialized meat production.

This was so obvious from the get go that I feel silly responding.

What is even more obvious, well to some of 'us' anyway, from 'the way' you just responded here, is why people, like you, are, still, questioning and wondering what is actually morally Right, and Wrong, in Life.

Even after millions of years of human evolution the adult population in the days when this was being written, still, had not yet evolved enough to actually 'know', with certainty, what is actually the Right, and Wrong, things to do in Life. And, laughingly, they 'believed' that they were the so-called 'civilized' and 'modern' ones.

This one also calls and labels the 'family', for example, who just go out fishing for the day "barbarians", while calling and labeling the 'ones' who keep and slaughter animals, in compounded areas, and in an 'industrialized meat productive way, for self monetary gain, the "civilized ones".

Talk about having things Truly backwards here.

Some might also think I might have felt somewhat silly and foolish also having to point out these obvious Facts to you people here.

[Alexiev]

So, what do so-called "barbarians" actually do then, instead?

They hunt. Some of them raise animals for food. But since "civilization" is a "complex way of life that develops when people form urban settlements, industrialization, snd complex political systems", it is only the civilized (not the barbarians) who practiced industrialized meat production.

This was so obvious from the get go that I feel silly responding.

What is even more obvious, well to some of 'us' anyway, from 'the way' you just responded here, is why people, like you, are, still, questioning and wondering what is actually morally Right, and Wrong, in Life.

Even after millions of years of human evolution the adult population in the days when this was being written, still, had not yet evolved enough to actually 'know', with certainty, what is actually the Right, and Wrong, things to do in Life. And, laughingly, they 'believed' that they were the so-called 'civilized' and 'modern' ones.

This one also calls and labels the 'family', for example, who just go out fishing for the day "barbarians", while calling and labeling the 'ones' who keep and slaughter animals, in compounded areas, and in an 'industrialized meat productive way, for self monetary gain, the "civilized ones".

Talk about having things Truly backwards here.

Some might also think I might have felt somewhat silly and foolish also having to point out these obvious Facts to you people here.

Perhaps some people use "civilized" and "barbarian" correctly, instead of using them as meaningless, general terms of respect or disparagement.

The "some people" does not include you, of course.

[Iwannaplato]

And, what I wrote and pointed out was not so-called 'incorrect logic' anyway.

Oh, of course it was. The Truth or Falsehood of something is not dependent on whether I 'would like to prove otherwise.'

Well this is obviously absolutely False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect. As can be clearly seen and proved irrefutably True above here, in the very words that I have said and written there.

I asked a how question, you responded with a when answer. It could not possibly have justifed it.

You'll never justify it.

LOL But I did justify it. Because there is not a one of you who could, logically, sensibly, and rationally, disagree with it.

If you say so.

And, as absolutely no one has disagreed with it, nor even tried to counter nor refute it, here, then this could well be because I have justified it.

Again, poor logic. First of all, most people here simply ignore you in general. Second, you are just making an ego-syntonic interpretation. Jusitifications and mere assertions of opinion both can be ignored.

[Age]

They hunt. Some of them raise animals for food. But since "civilization" is a "complex way of life that develops when people form urban settlements, industrialization, snd complex political systems", it is only the civilized (not the barbarians) who practiced industrialized meat production.

This was so obvious from the get go that I feel silly responding.

What is even more obvious, well to some of 'us' anyway, from 'the way' you just responded here, is why people, like you, are, still, questioning and wondering what is actually morally Right, and Wrong, in Life.

Even after millions of years of human evolution the adult population in the days when this was being written, still, had not yet evolved enough to actually 'know', with certainty, what is actually the Right, and Wrong, things to do in Life. And, laughingly, they 'believed' that they were the so-called 'civilized' and 'modern' ones.

This one also calls and labels the 'family', for example, who just go out fishing for the day "barbarians", while calling and labeling the 'ones' who keep and slaughter animals, in compounded areas, and in an 'industrialized meat productive way, for self monetary gain, the "civilized ones".

Talk about having things Truly backwards here.

Some might also think I might have felt somewhat silly and foolish also having to point out these obvious Facts to you people here.

Perhaps some people use "civilized" and "barbarian" correctly, instead of using them as meaningless, general terms of respect or disparagement.

The "some people" does not include you, of course.

If this is what you want to believe, and say, is true, then okay.

[Age]

And, what I wrote and pointed out was not so-called 'incorrect logic' anyway.

Oh, of course it was. The Truth or Falsehood of something is not dependent on whether I 'would like to prove otherwise.'

Very True.

Well this is obviously absolutely False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect. As can be clearly seen and proved irrefutably True above here, in the very words that I have said and written there.

I asked a how question, you responded with a when answer. It could not possibly have justifed it.

You'll never justify it.

LOL And this is another prime example of just how Truly closed some of these people really were, back in these very 'olden days' when this was being written.

LOL But I did justify it. Because there is not a one of you who could, logically, sensibly, and rationally, disagree with it.

If you say so.

Well obviously you have not disagreed with it. And, this is because if you did, then you could not explain validly and soundly 'why'.

And, as absolutely no one has disagreed with it, nor even tried to counter nor refute it, here, then this could well be because I have justified it.

Again, poor logic.

Not really.

Remember this is a 'philosophy forum'. And, if what is being said and claimed is not even attempted to be countered, nor refuted, then this well could be because 'it' is justified and irrefutable.

First of all, most people here simply ignore you in general. Second, you are just making an ego-syntonic interpretation. Jusitifications and mere assertions of opinion both can be ignored.

Very True. But, also what is and has been 'justified' cannot also, obviously, be countered nor refuted.

And, as this forum shows, extensively, when some thing is claimed, which another disagrees with, then they will or will try to, counter, and/or refute 'it'.

None of you have even 'tried to' here, including you. And, this is because what I said and claimed cannot be countered, nor refuted.

Although you may well not yet have even realized this, nor have even considered this.

Obviously, just saying things like 'poor logic', and not backing up and supporting this with things that cannot be refuted, is, really, not saying any thing at all.

Look, you can, pretend, to ignore any thing. But, if what is being said and written here cannot be refuted, then 'it' just cannot be refuted. And, until what I said and wrote here is countered, or refuted, then 'it' remains unopposed, obviously.

[Iwannaplato]

Very True. But, also what is and has been 'justified' cannot also, obviously, be countered nor refuted.

Justification is not binary. If something is justified it does not mean that it is necessarily true. There are good and bad justifications, degrees of justification, and even strongly justified positions have turned out to be false.

And, as this forum shows, extensively, when some thing is claimed, which another disagrees with, then they will or will try to, counter, and/or refute 'it'.

If people have a sense that they are dealing with someone who communicates at least minimally well.

None of you have even 'tried to' here, including you. And, this is because what I said and claimed cannot be countered, nor refuted.

Again, poor logic or an implicit claim to mind reading. There are many things that VA and Iambiguous say that I don't bother trying to counter. Sometimes yes, precisely as I am here with your statement. Other times no. Why? for many reason, but one main reason, is that none of the three of you reason well. In your case, I have experienced many times that you put me (and others) thought what I consider problematic processes and we never get to the topic. Including your once making me jump through hoops to word my question 'properly' the way you would word it, only to be told, you weren't going to answer that question yet - in general.

Now, you may think your process of justification and clarification is reasonable and correct, but I do not. And above you are claiming that the reason I am not doing something is because your position is irrefutable. No, you are wrong about that and the reasoning in that sentence is poor and should you be basing this on your belief you can mind read, you are incorrect.

The refutability of your statement is not dependent on the behavior of people who are not necessarily even your target audience and whom you have told that.

Once you speculated, but framed it in language that should I have using it you would have said I believed it absolutely, that I don't trust people, because of the way I behaved in relation to you. No, poor conclusion. I don't trust you. And on good grounds.

Although you may well not yet have even realized this, nor have even considered this.

Obviously, just saying things like 'poor logic', and not backing up and supporting this with things that cannot be refuted, is, really, not saying any thing at all.

You do realize how many times you have said something I or someone else said was False and Wrong without backing it up. Nice to know you realize that was not saying anything at all.

I know. YOu would have if someone asked. Well, first off that means your wording above was poor, but more importantly, not in my experience. Your justifications contain the same kinds of logical fallacy as the statements I have been pointing out in the last few posts. Further, you actually don't really get around to doing things, as mentioned above.

You have said that my suggestions about ways to improve your communication are not helpful. Fine.
But you won't be taken seriously with the way you communicate now.
Just as people couldn't even figure out what you were on about at all, when you capitalized in that his noise to signal ratio way.

Look, you can, pretend, to ignore any thing. But, if what is being said and written here cannot be refuted, then 'it' just cannot be refuted. And, until what I said and wrote here is countered, or refuted, then 'it' remains unopposed, obviously.

There you go, that was not illogical. Notice your conclusion is, however circularly arrived at, correct. If not one opposes it with a counterargument is hasn't been opposed by a counter argument.

That is a much more logical claim, given the premises. It's as if you knew, but couldn't manage to admit it. But there you go, a reasonable sentence.

[Age]

Very True. But, also what is and has been 'justified' cannot also, obviously, be countered nor refuted.

Justification is not binary. If something is justified it does not mean that it is necessarily true. There are good and bad justifications, degrees of justification, and even strongly justified positions have turned out to be false.

With a definition or a perspective of the 'justification' word like this here is, then there is no wonder why there was so much confusion among human beings, back in those days when this was being written.

And, as this forum shows, extensively, when some thing is claimed, which another disagrees with, then they will or will try to, counter, and/or refute 'it'.

If people have a sense that they are dealing with someone who communicates at least minimally well.

LOL what I said and wrote is 'self-justified'. Which will be proved True by no one being able to disprove not refute it.

And, if absolutely any one would like to try to, then please go ahead.

None of you have even 'tried to' here, including you. And, this is because what I said and claimed cannot be countered, nor refuted.

Again, poor logic or an implicit claim to mind reading. There are many things that VA and Iambiguous say that I don't bother trying to counter.

Who cares?

Sometimes yes, precisely as I am here with your statement. Other times no. Why? for many reason, but one main reason, is that none of the three of you reason well.

Well you have not be able to reason at all against what I said and wrote here.

In your case, I have experienced many times that you put me (and others) thought what I consider problematic processes and we never get to the topic.

Once again this one makes 'excuses' for not doing things here.

Including your once making me jump through hoops to word my question 'properly' the way you would word it, only to be told, you weren't going to answer that question yet - in general.

This is absolutely False, Inaccurate, and Incorrect.

And, the actual words that I, actually, did use there proves so

Now, you may think your process of justification and clarification is reasonable and correct, but I do not.

But this is all you say. you provide absolutely no 'justification' nor 'reason' for you having and holding the belief that you do here.

Which, again, is a very common habit of yours.

And above you are claiming that the reason I am not doing something is because your position is irrefutable. No, you are wrong about that and the reasoning in that sentence is poor and should you be basing this on your belief you can mind read, you are incorrect.

LOL It is as simple and as easy as this "iwannaplato". What I said and wrote is 'justified', because it is 'irrefutable'. As you are further proving absolutely True by your inability to refute it, disprove it, and/or reason against it.

All you are doing is just babbling on here with 'excuses', and 'distractions'.

If you can refute it, disprove it, and/or reason against it, then just go on and do that. Otherwise you will just have to accept it and agree with it. Then, you can move on.

The refutability of your statement is not dependent on the behavior of people who are not necessarily even your target audience and whom you have told that.

Once you speculated, but framed it in language that should I have using it you would have said I believed it absolutely, that I don't trust people, because of the way I behaved in relation to you. No, poor conclusion. I don't trust you. And on good grounds.

What does this have to do with, exactly?

Can you refute what I said is irrefutable?

If yes, then just do it.

Although you may well not yet have even realized this, nor have even considered this.

Obviously, just saying things like 'poor logic', and not backing up and supporting this with things that cannot be refuted, is, really, not saying any thing at all.

You do realize how many times you have said something I or someone else said was False and Wrong without backing it up.

And, have you forgotten the, exact, reason why I said I do that?

I purposely do it to see how much of it needs to be done in order to 'draw out' 'curiosity' from within you human beings.

Nice to know you realize that was not saying anything at all.

I know. YOu would have if someone asked.

If you 'knew' this already, then, surely, you 'now know' what to do, that is if you really do want me to back up and support what I say and claim here.

But, considering how much lack of interest you and others show here, then there is no real surprise I do what you just claimed I do here.

Well, first off that means your wording above was poor, but more importantly, not in my experience. Your justifications contain the same kinds of logical fallacy as the statements I have been pointing out in the last few posts.

It is this kind of utter refusal to actually be specific about things here why the only one you are fooling and deceiving here is "yourself", alone.

you must live a very fearful and scary existence where you are just to scared and to afraid to just 'commit'.

you are so weak and so scared here that not just you will not be specific in your accusations 'about me' you are also too afraid to just clarify what 'it' is, exactly, that you allude to.

And, even at

Now, 'my justifications' here do not have any logical fallacies in them.

And, your inability to just show any, supposed and alleged, 'logical fallacy', let alone your inability to prove that they do have 'logical fallacies', is further proof that they do not have any.

Further to this, your continued use of 'alluding', like, for Example', your continual saying, 'it was in a previous post or posts', is just further proof of you absolute use of 'allusion' to 'try to' fool and delude the readers here.

Further, you actually don't really get around to doing things, as mentioned above.

And, as just mentioned, what you just said and claimed here is an absolute great example of 'projection', itself.

You have said that my suggestions about ways to improve your communication are not helpful. Fine.
But you won't be taken seriously with the way you communicate now.

Obviously, if this is what you believe is true, then this must be 'the way' things 'must be', for you.

And, how sure are you, really, of your fortune telling here?

Just as people couldn't even figure out what you were on about at all, when you capitalized in that his noise to signal ratio way.

And, as I have been continually informing these human beings, back then, if absolutely any one wants to figure out what another is doing, then just simply ask them, for clarification.

This could not get anymore simpler. But, human beings, sometimes, just could not fathom, comprehend, and understand the Truly most simplest of things, in Life.

And, this was partly because they believed that some things were complex, when they absolutely were not, and also of having a very bad habit of just complicating what was essentially and fundamentally not complicated at all.

It was like that had become so accustomed to make things hard for "themselves" that they just kept on doing it, even when there was absolutely no need to at all.

Look, you can, pretend, to ignore any thing. But, if what is being said and written here cannot be refuted, then 'it' just cannot be refuted. And, until what I said and wrote here is countered, or refuted, then 'it' remains unopposed, obviously.

There you go, that was not illogical.

LOL How, exactly, is just pointing out that if some thing has not yet been refuted, nor yet unopposed, then that thing has just not yet been refuted, nor unopposed.

What I said and wrote here has not yet been refuted. And, once again, until it has been it will remain in not yet refuted.

Notice your conclusion is, however circularly arrived at, correct. If not one opposes it with a counterargument is hasn't been opposed by a counter argument.

Why do you believe it was 'an argument'?

I was just stating an irrefutable Fact. And, that was it.

It is like you 'have to' try to criticize every thing I say and write here.

Now, again, if you believe I have said and written here that is False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect, then just copy and paste 'that part', verbatim, and then just explain 'why' you believe it is so. Then, WAIT for a response or responses, and then, just have a Truly open and honest discussion.

How much simpler and easier could things get in a philosophy forum?

That is a much more logical claim, given the premises. It's as if you knew, but couldn't manage to admit it. But there you go, a reasonable sentence.

Once again, you 'allude to' 'things', while never actually expressing what the 'things' are, exactly.

Now, what do you believe, this time, that I, supposedly and allegedly, could not manage to admit, exactly?

[Iwannaplato]

What a surprise, Age thinks his assertions self-justify. A confusion held by some at the time this is being written.
One can see Age as a batch of human-brain created algorithms to get people to create text, which Age responds to in any way that will get people to create more text.
Common Age Tactics:
endless clarification question
requests for justification met with clarification questions
attempts to shame people into doing what he wants - often beginning with 'This one'
Assertions that the other person's argument/statement is False and Wrong, without justification - this adds steps to the process, and is repeated ad infinitum
quite poor mind-reading attempts, always ego-syntonic - to trigger more text disagreeing or defending or explaining that that was not the
motive-------->which is more text, but also can now be challenged to get justification.

Do I think Age is aware of what he is doing here? No, I don't. Perhaps he is, but I think he is unaware. There are some not very powerful AIs designed similarly. Of course, they tend to be more supportive and do not express so many negative judgments of human beings.