Comments on: The Soop3r-Doop3r Pow3rz of Int3llig3nts Diet

By: Keith Thomas

Keith Thomas — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 19:41:15 +0000

Thanks, Diana, She actually does a good job of describing the use of “straw man” arguments. They are dishonest and contemptible tools but all too frequent today, esp in the blogosphere (where they are often used in conjunction with ad hominem arguments). Straw man arguments reflect poorly on the thinking and reasoning of those who deploy them. They also tie up the person to whom they are directed unless they recognize them for what they are. Young people like her can get away with a lot in terms of living outside the palaeo way, but the damage accumulates over time. Check out her videos in 2029.

By: Bret M

Bret M — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 14:49:02 +0000

Dog save me if I ever WANT to “get in her mind.” Though there’s enough space in there for a storage warehouse….

By: Don Matesz

Don Matesz — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 03:15:45 +0000

Richard,

I agree, I would prefer it read as you say.

By: » The Soop3r-Doop3r Pow3rz of Int3llig3nts Diet | Free The Animal

» The Soop3r-Doop3r Pow3rz of Int3llig3nts Diet | Free The Animal — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 02:25:21 +0000

[...] Read the original: The Soop3r-Doop3r Pow3rz of Int3llig3nts Diet | Free The Animal [...]

By: Richard Nikoley

Richard Nikoley — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 22:49:54 +0000

Don:

I have a complaint. You weren’t nearly consistent enough in your use of _necessary_ quotations.

That’s “vegan ‘reasoning,’” et al.

By: Don Matesz

Don Matesz — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 22:47:09 +0000

Hi Diana,

I never got exposed to that doctrine of double effect during my philosophy education. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

Look at the title on this video: “Faulty Anti-vegan Reasoning.” With vegan reasoning like that, who needs antivegan reasoning?

By: Richard Nikoley

Richard Nikoley — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 20:21:51 +0000

Isn’t it cool to have a PhD philosopher hanging around?

That’s interesting, Diana. I’d never heard of this one.

It reminds me of the “to make an omelet…” slogan.

By: Diana Hsieh

Diana Hsieh — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 20:05:34 +0000

Heh. She doesn’t know it, but she’s actually appealing to the Catholic “doctrine of double effect.”

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/double-effect/

“The doctrine (or principle) of double effect is often invoked to explain the permissibility of an action that causes a serious harm, such as the death of a human being, as a side effect of promoting some good end. It is claimed that sometimes it is permissible to cause such a harm as a side effect (or “double effect”) of bringing about a good result even though it would not be permissible to cause such a harm as a means to bringing about the same good end. This reasoning is summarized with the claim that sometimes it is permissible to bring about as a merely foreseen side effect a harmful event that it would be impermissible to bring about intentionally. ”

How does that apply here? According to ditzy-vegan-girl, it’s morally okay to do something wrong (like killing animals) as an unintended side effect of pursuing a good end (like eating veggies) but not okay to do that wrong thing (killing animals) as a direct means to your ends (like eating meat).

Of course, that doesn’t help her case. The doctrine of double effect is a handy tool of rationalization for people with ethics so disconnected from reality that they simply must violate them to live. It’s not a real ethical principle.