Help Me Argue! - VeggieBoards
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
#1 Old 03-01-2012, 02:18 PM
Beginner
 
Kettle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 21
This is kind of pathetic but... idgaf.

Everytime an arugment comes up about vegetarianism or animal rights I always forget of what I can say or can't word things right and end up not being able to 'win' the debate, so I was wondering if anyone could help me reply to a girl, just this once, and then maybe I'll find it easier in the future?

Anyway, we was talking about Heart Disease and I claimed you're less likely to get it, short after she said "It's not significant compared to the likeliness of other things giving you it." (The first "it" being meat and the second "it" being heart disease").

What would be a good way of replying to this?


I know I'm being a nooby but I just really struggle to reply to people even in simple situations like this one. D:

Nothing suffocates you more than the passing of everyday human events.
Kettle is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#2 Old 03-01-2012, 03:09 PM
Super Moderator
 
Werewolf Girl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: BC, Canada
Posts: 14,060
I would just tell her she's wrong according to the medical community, if you Google it a whole bunch of links come up about meat significantly increasing your risk of heart disease.

http://www.webmd.com/heart-disease/n...rt-attack-risk

"If we could live happy and healthy lives without harming others... why wouldn't we?" - Edgars Mission
Werewolf Girl is offline  
#3 Old 03-01-2012, 04:06 PM
Beginner
 
Josh James xVx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 3,097
If you want my personal advice on the best source of information available to having an intelligent conversation with someone about vegetarianism - the one that's worked the best for me so far in actual debates - I'd recommend the advice contained within this book. *Spoilers* It's mostly about The Socratic Method, a time tested debate methodology that was so dangerous they actually murdered its originator because he was "corrupting the youth of Athens." Now THAT'S a man you want in your corner when trying to affect positive social change.

Tam! RUGH!
Josh James xVx is offline  
#4 Old 03-01-2012, 06:46 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,865
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kettle View Post

What would be a good way of replying to this:

The girl has already conceded it is a greater risk just not a significant one Kettle.

Arguing over what constitutes 'significant' and what doesnt isn't worth while. Far too vague.

Take the concession and move on to stronger points.

You have to pick battles carefully if you want to win wars, kinda thing?

Welcome to the forum btw
Clueless Git is offline  
#5 Old 03-01-2012, 06:52 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,013
I mean this constructively. I suggest you develop enough of an understanding for your own sake and use that knowledge in "arguments" with others. This is the only way you will ever be able to answer ny thoughtful retorts intelligently. Resorting to talking points sounds scripted and makes people wonder if you know what you are talking about or if you even have any real reason for taking the position you argue for.
paperhanger is offline  
#6 Old 03-01-2012, 07:34 PM
I ♥ Vegan Guys ◕‿◕
 
4everaspirit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 3,171
I feel ya, sometimes I have these really good arguments up in my mind, but when I actually have to use them, they just slip away from me. When dealing with animal rights, I tend to not focus on the health issue. People have heard some many mixed messages that they are going to believe their own thing and not something that you tell them that they think is propaganda.

The thing that most people have trouble arguing with is the basic fact that animals feel pain and deserve to be treated well. Explain to people how animals aren't treated well in factory farms. These people know they feel pain, there is less to argue about, so I'm sure they will try and steer you away from the main topic by trying to bring in the sentience of plants. Don't let them do that, briefly say that that has not been 100% confirmed, but what has been confirmed is that animals feel pain and they are the main focus right now. I would try keeping your arguments about the animals when in comes to vegetarianism and animals rights. People can still argue, but it gets pretty obvious that they start arguing for the sake of arguing. You can't argue that animals don't feel pain :P

"Why should man expect his prayer for mercy to be heard by What is above him when he shows no mercy to what is under him?" ~Pierre Troubetzkoy
4everaspirit is offline  
#7 Old 03-01-2012, 07:36 PM
Beginner
 
ElaineV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,965
Remember that "winning" a debate or argument about animal rights is more about saving animals' lives than it is about anything else. So focus on what will be compelling to the person you're speaking to. If she doesn't think preventing or reversing heart disease by eating a plant-based diet is important, then it's not worth discussing. Just change the subject to something animal-related that she cares about and move forward from there. For example, you can talk about antibiotic overuse in farmed animals or you could talk about the environmental effects of factory farming. You could ask if she thinks animals deserve potection from unnecessary suffering.

In regards to heart disease: vegans and vegetarians tend to have lower incidences of heart disease. There are likely a couple factors involved in that: lower intake of saturated fat including cholesterol, increased intake of fruits and vegetables, overall healthier lifestyle, etc. So she's right that there are some reasons besides not eating animal flesh for why we have less heart disease. But the fact remains that we do have lower incidences of heart disease. Moreover, docters have be able to reverse heart disease in many patients by having them change to a veg diet. Sure, you could probably gain the benefits and protect your health without going all the way veg so long as you limit your intake of flesh and increase your intake of plants. But you can't protect your heart by eating the amount of animal flesh that average Americans eat everyday; it's just not going to work.
Some resources for the heart disease discussion:
http://www.heartattackproof.com/
http://www.drmcdougall.com/
http://pcrm.org/health/health-topics...-heart-disease
http://pcrm.org/health/health-topics...s-research-and
ElaineV is offline  
#8 Old 03-01-2012, 07:45 PM
Beginner
 
SkepticalVegan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 750
I agree with paperhanger here.
Also while meat may contribute to heart disease, its not really an argument for vegetrianism, just for limited meat consumption which aint bad but there is really no airtight health-based argument for either veganism or even just vegetarianism.
I would recommend becoming familiar with logical fallacies and cognitive biases. Humbug! The skeptics’ field guide to spotting fallacies in thinking is a good resource for starters.

also try Practical Guide To Critical Thinking
& How Not To Argue

No gods, No masters, No woo, No whey! Ⓥ
Read my blog and be skeptical not susceptible
http://skepticalvegan.wordpress.com/
SkepticalVegan is offline  
#9 Old 03-02-2012, 03:24 AM
Beginner
 
Kettle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by Werewolf Girl View Post

I would just tell her she's wrong according to the medical community, if you Google it a whole bunch of links come up about meat significantly increasing your risk of heart disease.

http://www.webmd.com/heart-disease/n...rt-attack-risk

Thanks for the link.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh James xVx View Post

If you want my personal advice on the best source of information available to having an intelligent conversation with someone about vegetarianism - the one that's worked the best for me so far in actual debates - I'd recommend the advice contained within this book. *Spoilers* It's mostly about The Socratic Method, a time tested debate methodology that was so dangerous they actually murdered its originator because he was "corrupting the youth of Athens." Now THAT'S a man you want in your corner when trying to affect positive social change.

Woah. O_O I'll look into it, but I don't think I'll be spending £10 on a book just yet. I still have a lot to learn and if I don't over-come this social anxiety I get when trying to 'advise' it won't matter which books I've read or not.

Thanks for sharing, dude.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clueless Git View Post

The girl has already conceded it is a greater risk just not a significant one Kettle.

Arguing over what constitutes 'significant' and what doesnt isn't worth while. Far too vague.

Take the concession and move on to stronger points.

You have to pick battles carefully if you want to win wars, kinda thing?

Welcome to the forum btw

Thanks for the welcoming.

And thanks. I usually don't talk about the health risks anyway, because the people 'round here don't care too much for their health.

Nothing suffocates you more than the passing of everyday human events.
Kettle is offline  
#10 Old 03-02-2012, 03:33 AM
Beginner
 
Kettle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by paperhanger View Post

I mean this constructively. I suggest you develop enough of an understanding for your own sake and use that knowledge in "arguments" with others. This is the only way you will ever be able to answer ny thoughtful retorts intelligently. Resorting to talking points sounds scripted and makes people wonder if you know what you are talking about or if you even have any real reason for taking the position you argue for.

True. I've been spending a lot of time looking stuffs up and I do know a few good points, it's just the confrontation that I struggle with. When it comes down to it I think I just need to get used to the questions and responses because they're pretty repetative from their side.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 4everaspirit View Post

I feel ya, sometimes I have these really good arguments up in my mind, but when I actually have to use them, they just slip away from me. When dealing with animal rights, I tend to not focus on the health issue. People have heard some many mixed messages that they are going to believe their own thing and not something that you tell them that they think is propaganda.

The thing that most people have trouble arguing with is the basic fact that animals feel pain and deserve to be treated well. Explain to people how animals aren't treated well in factory farms. These people know they feel pain, there is less to argue about, so I'm sure they will try and steer you away from the main topic by trying to bring in the sentience of plants. Don't let them do that, briefly say that that has not been 100% confirmed, but what has been confirmed is that animals feel pain and they are the main focus right now. I would try keeping your arguments about the animals when in comes to vegetarianism and animals rights. People can still argue, but it gets pretty obvious that they start arguing for the sake of arguing. You can't argue that animals don't feel pain :P

Thanks for the brilliant tips!

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElaineV View Post

Remember that "winning" a debate or argument about animal rights is more about saving animals' lives than it is about anything else. So focus on what will be compelling to the person you're speaking to. If she doesn't think preventing or reversing heart disease by eating a plant-based diet is important, then it's not worth discussing. Just change the subject to something animal-related that she cares about and move forward from there. For example, you can talk about antibiotic overuse in farmed animals or you could talk about the environmental effects of factory farming. You could ask if she thinks animals deserve potection from unnecessary suffering.

In regards to heart disease: vegans and vegetarians tend to have lower incidences of heart disease. There are likely a couple factors involved in that: lower intake of saturated fat including cholesterol, increased intake of fruits and vegetables, overall healthier lifestyle, etc. So she's right that there are some reasons besides not eating animal flesh for why we have less heart disease. But the fact remains that we do have lower incidences of heart disease. Moreover, docters have be able to reverse heart disease in many patients by having them change to a veg diet. Sure, you could probably gain the benefits and protect your health without going all the way veg so long as you limit your intake of flesh and increase your intake of plants. But you can't protect your heart by eating the amount of animal flesh that average Americans eat everyday; it's just not going to work.
Some resources for the heart disease discussion:
http://www.heartattackproof.com/
http://www.drmcdougall.com/
http://pcrm.org/health/health-topics...-heart-disease
http://pcrm.org/health/health-topics...s-research-and

Thanks for all the help and sources.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SkepticalVegan View Post

I agree with paperhanger here.
Also while meat may contribute to heart disease, its not really an argument for vegetrianism, just for limited meat consumption which aint bad but there is really no airtight health-based argument for either veganism or even just vegetarianism.
I would recommend becoming familiar with logical fallacies and cognitive biases. Humbug! The skeptics field guide to spotting fallacies in thinking is a good resource for starters.

also try Practical Guide To Critical Thinking
& How Not To Argue

Thank you for your tips and advice, and also them links



~~~


Sorry for the short replies to your comments, everyone. I did read everything you all said, this is just an example of me not being able to word out a reply :P

Thanks for your advice guys.

Nothing suffocates you more than the passing of everyday human events.
Kettle is offline  
#11 Old 03-02-2012, 03:35 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,865
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kettle View Post

Thanks for the welcoming.

And thanks. I usually don't talk about the health risks anyway, because the people 'round here don't care too much for their health.

Mars bars deep fried in batter ..

That kinda thing?
Clueless Git is offline  
#12 Old 03-02-2012, 03:38 AM
Beginner
 
Kettle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clueless Git View Post

Mars bars deep fried in batter ..

That kinda thing?

Exactly that kinda thing...

Big Mac meals twice a week, kebab every Wednesday... yeah.

Nothing suffocates you more than the passing of everyday human events.
Kettle is offline  
#13 Old 03-02-2012, 06:10 AM
Beginner
 
Tangle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kettle View Post

Exactly that kinda thing...

Big Mac meals twice a week, kebab every Wednesday... yeah.

If you chucked the meat out, Kebab wouldn't be that bad. At some places you get a vegetarian alternative to Kebab, something called falafel which I'm sure most of you have tasted. Delicious!

The media is the message
Tangle is offline  
#14 Old 03-09-2012, 02:57 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 82
Arguing with a non-vegetarian is a total waste of time. No matter how much you argue, you will not be able to convince them so easily. The only way to convince them is to show them how cruel the meat industry is.
Actually, there is no such thing as a non-vegetarian argument. Non-vegetarians and anti-vegetarians will find all kinds of cheap, stupid and pathetic excuses to defend their habit of meat-eating. Even if you counter their excuses with facts, don't forget that they are masters of sophistry.
So, don't let them provoke you. If someone pesters you for being a vegetarian, simply say, "I don't eat meat because it is against my ethics. End of discussion."
Robinson is offline  
#15 Old 03-09-2012, 11:40 AM
Beginner
 
a Balloon a Balloon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 601
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robinson View Post

Arguing with a non-vegetarian is a total waste of time. No matter how much you argue, you will not be able to convince them so easily. The only way to convince them is to show them how cruel the meat industry is.
Actually, there is no such thing as a non-vegetarian argument. Non-vegetarians and anti-vegetarians will find all kinds of cheap, stupid and pathetic excuses to defend their habit of meat-eating. Even if you counter their excuses with facts, don't forget that they are masters of sophistry.
So, don't let them provoke you. If someone pesters you for being a vegetarian, simply say, "I don't eat meat because it is against my ethics. End of discussion."

I actually agree with this.
Arguing and justifying seems the right thing to do..... but they will often end up just saying something dumb and disgusting, then break into a huge grin as if they are a really funny person.
The argument goes nowhere usually, and will just annoy you. Best as Robinson says, to just tell them that it is against your ethics and keep the conversation short.
a Balloon a Balloon is offline  
#16 Old 03-10-2012, 04:54 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 82
If you put 5000 atheists and 5000 theists in a room and let them argue, argue and argue and if you expect 0 theists and 10000 atheists to come out of the room, or 0 atheists and 10000 theists to come out of the room, you will have to wait forever. That is why arguments are meaningless. They lead you nowhere. They only create more and more enemies. So, don't argue with people. That's all.
Robinson is offline  
#17 Old 03-19-2012, 06:53 AM
Beginner
 
PR_Deltoid's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by a Balloon a Balloon View Post

I actually agree with this.
Arguing and justifying seems the right thing to do..... but they will often end up just saying something dumb and disgusting, then break into a huge grin as if they are a really funny person.
The argument goes nowhere usually, and will just annoy you. Best as Robinson says, to just tell them that it is against your ethics and keep the conversation short.

Yes, but ridicule is really just another defense mechanic in action and a stepping stone to truth (All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. Schopenhauer) So I can't agree with Robinson on this; it may be a painful and sometimes hopeless task, arguing with carnists and the like, but every pound of flesh not consumed is a gain. Why accept otherman's complicity, ignorance and blindness?
PR_Deltoid is offline  
#18 Old 03-19-2012, 11:57 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by PR_Deltoid View Post

Yes, but ridicule is really just another defense mechanic in action and a stepping stone to truth (All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. Schopenhauer) So I can't agree with Robinson on this; it may be a painful and sometimes hopeless task, arguing with carnists and the like, but every pound of flesh not consumed is a gain. Why accept otherman's complicity, ignorance and blindness?

Are you saying that you seriously expect me to waste my valuable time quarreling with meat-eating fools whose brains can't comprehend our ethics?
When they say foolish things, the wisest thing to do is to keep our mouth shut. It's no use arguing with idiots. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
So, whether you like it or not, I won't waste any time arguing with them. Like I said before, if you put 5000 atheists and 5000 theists in a room and let them argue, argue and argue and if you expect 0 theists and 10000 atheists to come out of the room, or 0 atheists and 10000 theists to come out of the room, you will have to wait forever. That is why arguments are meaningless.
Do remember that keeping your mouth shut means that you are not paying attention to the gibberish the meat-eaters are talking about. It does not mean that you have accepted the ignorance of meat-eaters.
Robinson is offline  
#19 Old 04-04-2012, 09:41 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 19
Hi,
the argument being: talking about Heart Disease and I claimed you're less likely to get it.

"It's not significant compared to the likeliness of other things giving you it."

As an argument for the premise of not eating meat or persuading someone to not eat meat; it is hardly persuasive, however, it may be possible to steer the argument towards the ultimate higher goal.

The fact speak for themselves that it can cause heart disease, of which she did not deny. She diminished your goal by belittling your astute point. I would respond by saying that if you spend your life not worrying about health issues at all, then why don't you just eat cake everyday as getting fat doesn't matter as you may get run over tomorrow and cake is very yummy isn't it? or if you don't want to get fat then just eat all the yummy salted things like chips, crisps and roasted nuts all the time.. you may not get fat but you would increase the risk of a stroke and high blood pressure.. who cares you might get robbed and stabbed tomorrow.... or what about drinking wine everyday.. that is fun insn't it.. it may cause liver cirrhosis and shorten your life.. but hey, the sky may fall on my head tomorrow..lol ..etc. And when she says you are getting stupid or silly, i would add it is as silly as belittling the scientific fact that meat can increase the chance of heart disease.

The point being that to simply ignore the dangers in the goal of living a long and healthy life; then by accepting the value of your life and by eating less meat or giving up all together should not be belittled. If no one plans for a future, or wants to live long for the well being of your children or family; then why not just get out of your head everyday? why study or do anything worthwhile for your future.. as the dangers of everything else happening is so much more likely.


If you care about 'a little thing' such as your heart then surely it matters that you look after it, no matter that the chances of dying in a car crash may be higher ( especially with your driving..lol , joking to make the argument less hard hitting causing offence). To ignore common sense is silly.

I would use compassion for animals as a stronger argument to persuade people no to eat meat, rather than heart disease myself, but they are all a bonus in the fight for humanity and teaching respect for our fellow animals.

I hope this aids you.

cheers,
labratmat
labratmat is offline  
#20 Old 05-10-2012, 08:52 AM
Beginner
 
smiling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 501
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robinson View Post

If you put 5000 atheists and 5000 theists in a room and let them argue, argue and argue and if you expect 0 theists and 10000 atheists to come out of the room, or 0 atheists and 10000 theists to come out of the room, you will have to wait forever. That is why arguments are meaningless. They lead you nowhere. They only create more and more enemies. So, don't argue with people. That's all.

This is actually my perspective as well. The likelihood of making a difference in an argument is pretty much nothing. I think that if people are actually interested and you can educate them, that is worth doing, but in arguments, no one is out to change their own perspective. They are out to defend it and "win." I refuse to defend my lifestyle to people who are ignorant, defensive, and have no interest in changing their ways. I do not want to hear the same stupid arguments about protein, God giving us animals, and cruelty to plants. People who want to argue are a waste of my time and energy.
smiling is offline  
#21 Old 05-10-2012, 08:57 AM
Beginner
 
smiling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 501
Quote:
Originally Posted by labratmat View Post

I would use compassion for animals as a stronger argument to persuade people no to eat meat, rather than heart disease myself, but they are all a bonus in the fight for humanity and teaching respect for our fellow animals.

cheers,
labratmat

I too think that if you feel that arguing is worth while, this is the better argument. We wouldn't think of doing any of the things we do to cows, pigs, etc.. to our companion animals. Even as a child, I knew that. I lived in the country and people raised farm animals as pets (many of them would be rescues of animals people didn't want--my MI does this with horses.) I remember pushing meat to the side when my mom would make soup or casseroles b/c I associated it with my neighbor's pet animals.
smiling is offline  
#22 Old 06-25-2012, 02:03 AM
Beginner
 
newton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 27

I suggest you start from a premise that humans and nonhumans are equal - so that you either eat both species or neither. If someone disagrees with the opening premies ie they consider humans superior, then there is no use arguing as they won't understand. Just be happy because you can respect yourself and treatment of others. You might want to visit here for some more ideas.


www.thinkhumanimal.com

newton is offline  
#23 Old 06-28-2012, 05:31 AM
Beginner
 
Bonn1997's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 906

I examine the person's intent. If they're talking to me because they genuinely want information, I'll gladly have a discussion. But if I sense hostility or defensiveness, I won't waste my time arguing with them.

Bonn1997 is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off