We are capable if we stop being selfish and go vegan

Is there Life on Maaaaaaarrrrrrrr-a-Lago..... ((song)[https://youtu.be/AZKcl4-tcuo?si=0JktuCh_EH-T0T5w])

I misread the question.

By everyone, I mean nonhumans (nonhuman animals).

By playing beatbox music and making everyone stay away from me while I grew corn and ate it slowly in front of them while they watched me cautiously from a distance.

I saw something speculating that Americans still age faster than other countries due to all the hormones they consume in animal products.

I like that.

You're right technically... but i should have said "fictional story" and "plays multiple characters"

And I'll paste my other example here:

Another example might involve arguing that the disposal of hazardous waste is necessary because it's a byproduct of a particular manufacturing process, while ignoring the question of whether that manufacturing process itself is essential or necessary. This fallacy occurs when one justifies an undesirable or harmful element as a necessary component of a larger practice or system without questioning the necessity of the entire system or practice.

Thanks, that's almost what I mean, but I might modify your examples slightly. They're good examples to work from lol (I'm pretty bad at coming up with scenarios that fit what I'm talking about). Sorry if this sounds kind of crazy:

Jess wants to draw a picture of a bird. For this, since Jess is completely broke and homeless, she would need to rob an art store to get art supplies. (Let's say for sake of example that there is genuinely no other way for her to obtain art supplies to draw the picture). Jess justifies this act of robbing the store in order to draw her bird picture because there's no other way she can make the picture otherwise. She makes the claim that robbing the art store is necessary in absolute terms, while overlooking or ignoring the fact that drawing the picture of the bird isn't necessary in the first place (even though she might desire to draw it, she doesn't need to, and therefore doesn't need to rob the art store, either).

Or...

When Alan plays tennis, his knee hurts. Alan has a strange condition that his knee only hurts after he plays tennis. When his knee hurts, he has to put ice on it, which requires an expensive refrigerator with an ice machine since that's the only way he can possibly get a good supply of ice in his situation (hypothetically). Alan then decides to buy the expensive refrigerator with stolen money from his grandma, and claims that it's an absolute requirement for him to, without considering the fact that he doesn't actually need to play tennis, though he might want to.

In both cases, someone is claiming that something (an action, state, etc) is necessary overall, because it's part of a larger goal/endeavour; without addressing the reality that it would only be necessary as a component of that larger goal that it would be in service of, if that larger goal was necessary, which in fact it isn't (and therefore neither are any components that would be required to achieve it).

I hope this makes sense :)

It's an example which demonstrates the concept since in both cases, the overall process/system is unnecessary. Neither dairy farming nor killing animals for meat is necessary. It's not shifting the argument to say that the killing isn't necessary in the first place, that simply is the main point that the fallacy ignores.

With regard to dairy farming, it's not more profitable to raise, house a male calf who won't produce milk in their life, and feed them until adulthood (still only a few years old when they can live until 20-25) and kill them for beef. In most cases male calves get killed for veal, though they can simply be killed immediately and discarded, while some are raised until 1.5-2 years and killed for beef. Most female calves usually become dairy cows and then ultimately beef cows as well at 4-6 years old.

On a mass scale of dairy production, the killing of cattle for veal and beef is absolutely necessary. And yet, these components are part of an overall unnecessary system that is dairy production. Of course it's cruel in a variety of other ways too, but the primary use of the fallacy is assuming that we need to eat/utilise veal and beef due to them being necessary for dairy production, when dairy itself is unnecessary.

I love how everyone jumped on the example I used to defend these cruel practices instead of understanding how they were an example of the fallacy I was describing. And are trying to claim they're not an example of the fallacy when they clearly are. Shows the world we live in...

Right, like smoking in front of a baby (and exposing them to second-hand smoke). I guess that's a good example. But that's more to do with the way you're going about doing the drugs, rather than the drug use itself as an inherent component, I suppose.

I appreciate your thoughts! And "nerd sniped" is a great term 😂 I agree, I think there may not be a specific name for this fallacy (though it could be described as somewhat of a false requirement or false necessity fallacy), nor is it widely recognised in logic literature (as is often the case; some might call it a "made-up fallacy" but indeed a verifiable one), but it probably falls under the more general fallacies of "false dilemma/false dichotomy", as well as "fallacy of composition":

"Fallacy of composition occurs when someone assumes that what's true for part of something must also be true for the whole or that if one thing is a necessary component of another thing, both must be necessary, even if it's not the case. In essence, it assumes that the properties of the parts apply to the whole."

Oh, absolutely. I have no problem with other people doing recreational drugs. I see it as entirely their choice as it only really affects them personally. I don't think it's immoral or "sinful" (whatever that really means) or whatever.

And I think most people do respect that. I do appreciate these responses that make it clear that we should respect if someone either does or doesn't want to consume recreational drugs.

But I really was just looking for a term to explain abstinence of recreational drugs to people who I know won't judge or care, but without the baggage or misunderstandings that may come with saying "sober" (possible assumption: former/recovering alcoholic/addict), "teetotal" (possible misunderstanding: doesn't use alcohol, might still be fine with other recreational drugs), or "straight edge" (possible misunderstanding: not only doesn't consume drugs, but also is into the punk music scene).

After gathering data, the best term I could come up with is quite a simple one: "drug-free". To be clear, we could say "recreational drug-free", though that's rather wordy and the meaning of "recreational drugs" is often understood by just saying "drugs" anyway.

I know you didn't ask but I just thought I'd say this anyway lol.

To be technical about it, you can have tacos without sour cream, too. So I think both are unnecessary (either independently, or for each other) in this case 😂

Ok I have another example.

Another example might involve arguing that the disposal of hazardous waste is necessary because it's a byproduct of a particular manufacturing process, while ignoring the question of whether that manufacturing process itself is essential or necessary. This fallacy occurs when one justifies an undesirable or harmful element as a necessary component of a larger practice or system without questioning the necessity of the entire system or practice.

How is it not a false dichotomy? It erroneously forces us to choose between 2 options, when in actual fact there is a third option.

And, I'm really not. I was asked for an example/elaboration of how the fallacy might be used, and that was my best example. However it can likely apply to other situations too. If you recall, I initially just asked for what the fallacy might be called, without specifying any examples until I was asked for one.

One I can think of is false dilemma/false dichotomy (a false premise that erroneously limits what options are available, and forces us to choose between 2 options (either cause unnecessary harm and waste the full usefulness of the harm, or cause unnecessary harm and maximise its usefulness) when there is a third option to not cause the unnecessary harm in the first place.

However that's more general and I was looking for something more specific that refers to assuming something is necessary because it's an unavoidable component of another thing which itself is unnecessary.

I can provide an example, but you might hate me for it. I swear this is just to explain what I mean by this fallacy because I can't think of another example right now.

Justifying killing/using an animal for its skin/hide (e.g. leather or fur), because you're already killing the animal for its flesh, when in actual fact the killing of the animal doesn't need to take place at all (hypothetically).

Or justifying the killing of calves for veal as a necessary component of dairy production, when in fact dairy production isn't necessary, either.

I hope that makes sense

Or, maybe both pronouncers (the "jiff" gang and the "giff" crowd) will team up against me for saying that. At least we'll have harmony for most people if that's the case, and I'll be a sacrifice to keep the peace.

It's pronounced GIF (sounding out each letter), like in that 'If Google Was A Guy' CollegeHumor video. Just so that it doesn't annoy or antagonise anyone for a meaningless purpose. Everyone wins.

Interesting, other responses here say it's the other way round, with morality being more societally-derived and ethics being either more personally interpreted, or more practical/logical in spite of culturally conventional moral ideas.

Part of why I asked this question is because I seem to see morality and ethics defined to mean the opposite of each other in different places, and this kind of proves that to be the case lol

I completely agree. Would you, in theory, be in support of giving rights to all sentient beings where possible, ensuring the best possible treatment and experiences of all individuals that have a conscious/subjective experience of life?

I would ideally like to see humanity extend moral/ethical consideration beyond humans to all animals, hypothetical alien animals, sentient AI, or any other sentients that emerged in future. I believe sentientism is the core underlying philosophy behind this idea of ethics.

Thanks for your reply. :)

Wouldn't ethics then define right and wrong in terms of its impact on the well-being of sentient beings, rather than just human well-being?

And I suppose the difference with morality might be that certain actions that don't necessarily negatively impact other sentient beings, such as recreational drug use, might still be considered immoral by some due to cultural norms rather than practical considerations about the rightness or wrongness of them?

So then the raw vegan influencer that starved herself to death, how isn't that proof that vegan diets are unhealthy? She was only having juice smoothies and not drinking any water.

Thanks, and this is proof that vegan diets are unhealthy, right?

Add 'woke' to that list tbh. I have no idea how that word went from meaning a good thing to meaning a bad thing. If you watch the first 'Shazam!' movie, the word is used in a positive light when a character tells someone to get woke. Now at the time of the second Shazam! movie the word means something different with a negative connotation.

Lol that's hilarious, thanks for this. Very funny skits that capture a particular kind of Redditor (maybe the average as the name implies?). I don't feel like this really accurately represents my situation though, since this guy is just douchey and pretentious/arrogant about everything, and nitpicks and corrects people over every small and trivial detail.

At least from my point of view, I'm not the one that starts arguments or argues over things unless it's particularly important, and even then I try to let it go unless I'm being actively confronted by it.

It probably makes a difference to know that only one person has ever said these things to me. I've just looked into the phenomenon happening with other people as well (on Reddit 😆), and often it is just a single person in their life who does it. So it seems like either this one person is unreasonable, or the problem manifests only with them somehow.

I guess working from the position that I have reason to believe I'm in the right (not in the sense of "trying" to be right all the time, but about being genuinely stuck in a position where no matter what I do, I'll be accused of these things anyway), it stumps me and makes me feel that even the most rational reply I could give would be met with "I have an answer for everything"... if they don't like the fact that I'm answering them, what answer could possibly suffice? I don't see what I'm supposed to do there.

That's fair, I didn't watch the documentary yet, but from what I've seen, the real person (Maximilian Schmidt) is nothing like the character Moritz Zimmerman in the show based on him. It quickly becomes clear that the story is its own thing and takes a lot of creative license

This seems very niche for L/memes !

Thanks so much for that, I really appreciate it!

I hope this is alright to ask, but do you agree with why they removed the post? Or would there be a way to appeal a removal in a case like this, when the reason given for removal doesn't seem to reflect the content? It doesn't seem accurate to me at all.

The reason given was this, from moderator candyman337 who commented:

"Locking this thread because this question seems to be inviting people to express ideologies of eugenics and that's a big nono."

This mod's comment received 4 downvotes.

I suppose they removed it completely after that, and I was able to find a reason listed as "super toxic comments" (the comments don't seem toxic to me at all, but I suppose that's subjective).

But with regard to the eugenics reason... uhhh what? I read the comments and there is no discussion of eugenics, and my question posed in the post also didn't relate to or encourage discussion of eugenics at all.

I found one comment that mentioned eugenics and that's it, and it seemed to be deemed by others to be as unrelated to the topic as I found it, since this comment received 3 downvotes and was left with a score of -2:

"this is eugenicist propaganda."

The comment this 'eugenicist propaganda' comment was in response to:

"Just because you are made uncomfortable by a comparison does not invalidate it, nor should it be shunned unless it is factually incorrect. In many places the disabled and mentally ill are treated like animals or worse. Unfortunately alot of the world does not fall under our idea of "humane" and that should be recognized and utilized as a data point."

I fail to understand how that comment had anything to do with eugenics, and then shortly after the mod locked the thread saying that my question was encouraging discussions of eugenics, based on that one person's seemingly irrelevant comment.

This doesn't seem fair to me, and it makes me wonder if just one single person commenting "this is eugenicist propaganda" in response to something that has nothing to do with that, will cause the whole post to be locked or removed, regardless of the topic?

Something tells me this mod was just looking for any reason to take down the post due to personal gripes with it, but I'm not claiming I know that. The reason really doesn't make sense at all.

Sorry for the long comment and thanks again for the help!

"If it's acceptable..." was the title. Thanks 🙂

Agreed. Another thing I would change is that I wasn't alerted that the post had been removed, only saw that it was missing from my profile. And I only found the reason for the deletion once I used the backlog feature, which isn't a feature that's made immediately known to users (I only found it after researching).

So, the plants found a way to hijack the bees' journey by putting some extra pollen on them to take to other flowers, since they're already there taking pollen anyway? That's awesome.