Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Is meat eating an ideology? Watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BioStudentx)
    a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.

    That's the definition of an ideology. I don't think eating meat fits that definition.
    i•de•ol•o•gy (īˌdē-ŏlˈə-jē, ĭdˌē-)►

    n.
    The body of ideas reflecting the social needs and aspirations of an individual, group, class, or culture.
    n.
    A set of doctrines or beliefs that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system.

    Arguably both of those are definitions are met.
    Animals are seen as intrinsically 'lower' than humans.

    (Original post by slade p)
    Lmao, no it's not an ideology. I love eating meat.
    Those two statements are unrelated. Moreover, you've stated it's not, but you've not argued why you think it's not.

    (Original post by Conceited)
    It's not an ideology because it's not a 'system of ideas and ideals'. If anything we're 'meant' to eat meat by virtue of definition. Take for instance your canines, whose design is to rip flesh or the fact that our bodies are optimized for mid-day hunting, i.e. our relatively hairless bodies with sweat glands. What makes more sense is considering the concept of eating meat as something natural than argue that it's an ideology.

    No, I haven't seen the video considering the fact that the whole premise of the thread simply doesn't make sense.
    How does an ability to do something translate as a prescription to do something? Having canines doesn't mean we should eat meat, it means it's possible for us to eat meat.
    I also have the ability to go around thumping small children, that doesn't mean I ought to do that.

    You clearly haven't watched the video in the OP. That is an integral part of the post. You should do so assuming you have any intention of adding meaningfully to this thread (which is something I now doubt).
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    i•de•ol•o•gy (īˌdē-ŏlˈə-jē, ĭdˌē-)►

    n.
    The body of ideas reflecting the social needs and aspirations of an individual, group, class, or culture.
    n.
    A set of doctrines or beliefs that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system.

    Arguably both of those are definitions are met.
    Animals are seen as intrinsically 'lower' than humans.



    Those two statements are unrelated. Moreover, you've stated it's not, but you've not argued why you think it's not.



    How does an ability to do something translate as a prescription to do something? Having canines doesn't mean we should eat meat, it means it's possible for us to eat meat.
    I also have the ability to go around thumping small children, that doesn't mean I ought to do that.

    You clearly haven't watched the video in the OP. That is an integral part of the post. You should do so assuming you have any intention of adding meaningfully to this thread (which is something I now doubt).
    Using that definition, you could describe many things as an ideology. So I guess it is an ideology? :dontknow:

    But this thread isn't just about discussing this - you definitely have a hidden (or not-so hidden) agenda.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BioStudentx)
    Using that definition, you could describe many things as an ideology. So I guess it is an ideology? :dontknow:

    But this thread isn't just about discussing this - you definitely have a hidden (or not-so hidden) agenda.
    Not really, it fits both definitions as I pointed out.

    And of course I'm interested in the surrounding related areas. I've been interested in animals in philosophy for a long time and have studied it in formal education both indirectly in metaethical theories, and directly in a module dedicated to animals in philosophy. I'm not sure what you're trying to imply.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    Well technically speaking you believing Tesco will be too crowded is a belief system.
    As I pointed out, merely having a belief system is not necessarily equivalent to having an ideology. You have opted out of the "belief system" sense of "ideology" because you did not use it as a mass noun. Hence we're left with the sense which embodies a system of ideals. Stop equivocating here.

    I'm not talking about a passive "I want to eat meat" type of belief but instead, that certain animals are food. And that is normative (you ought to eat animal/animal products e.g. we are encouraged as children to drink our milk so that we become big and strong), and is prevalent. It is only very recently that many people have started to question such thinking
    I don't think it's prevalent societally as a normative tool. People from a very early age are exposed to other diet regimes, and from that age understand that eating meat is not the only path. I think what you are doing is unhelpfully contriving a lexical innovation to suit your own ideological makeup. I think a much better word would be a meme, something spread through mimesis culturally. Not protecting ardently, not imposed as a prescription, but something which is shared because it is conducive to cultural propagation.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    Not really, it fits both definitions as I pointed out.

    And of course I'm interested in the surrounding related areas. I've been interested in animals in philosophy for a long time and have studied it in formal education both indirectly in metaethical theories, and directly in a module dedicated to animals in philosophy. I'm not sure what you're trying to imply.
    I'm implying you're trying to promote people becoming a vegan. Especially considering you linked a 19 minute video, of which very little of it is relevant to the title. Not very subtle.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by callum_law)
    As I pointed out, merely having a belief system is not necessarily equivalent to having an ideology. You have opted out of the "belief system" sense of "ideology" because you did not use it as a mass noun. Hence we're left with the sense which embodies a system of ideals. Stop equivocating here.
    I quite clearly agreed with you that it's not the same as your Tesco example.

    "Well technically speaking you believing Tesco will be too crowded is a belief system. However, it's not the same as that's more a question of metaphysica and existentialism, as well as inductive reasoning."

    And it is used as a mass noun for our society. I'm not sure why you're claiming I've not done this, I feel like I've been very clear.


    I don't think it's prevalent societally as a normative tool. People from a very early age are exposed to other diet regimes, and from that age understand that eating meat is not the only path.
    Are they? I've not seen any evidence of this beyond vegans existing. I certainly wasn't aware of many other diet regimes from the norm, and the ones I was aware of were very distanced.
    I think what you are doing is unhelpfully contriving a lexical innovation to suit your own ideological makeup. I think a much better word would be a meme, something spread through mimesis culturally. Not protecting ardently, not imposed as a prescription, but something which is shared because it is conducive to cultural propagation.
    We're constantly being told we need animals in our diet when we don't. It's only very recently that that advice has been lessened. Even so, the food pyramid of things to eat has animal products on it. Vegan meals in hospitals and schools, whilst one is legally entitled to them, are still not being provided. When they are provided it's often touch and go as to whether the meal has been thought through nutritionally, or taste wise.

    I think your characterising of this argument as 'unhelpfully contriving a lexical innovation' is not only inaccurate, but wilfully ignorant of these issues.

    even at school a vegan acquaintance of mine was covering a lesson, and had to tell children "cow's give us milk". Cow's don't give us milk, we take milk from them.

    https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net...f1&oe=576FBC5C

    There is definitely a normative message there about cow's status. They exist to serve humans.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Peer Support Volunteers
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    From what I've read (sorry to generalise!)… it looks like what could have been a fair and open debate about this topic was stunted due to forceful pushing of the video/original content instead of taking into account that others might have a different viewpoint (i.e. someone gives their opinion and you then inform them that "they're wrong*" and they should watch the video). That's not cool. To me, it looks like you made your mind up RE the answer to the question. That's fine, but everyone should have a voice in a debate — regardless of personal viewpoints!

    In regards to the question… no, absolutely not. It's a life choice, you can eat meat or you can choose to not eat meat. Either way, that's cool with me.

    (also, I am answering the general question i.e. the thread title, I don't wish to engage in arguing over the validity of my choice to answer 'no'!)

    * or words to that effect
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by iEthan)
    From what I've read (sorry to generalise!)… it looks like what could have been a fair and open debate about this topic was stunted due to forceful pushing of the video/original content instead of taking into account that others might have a different viewpoint (i.e. someone gives their opinion and you then inform them that "they're wrong*" and they should watch the video). That's not cool. To me, it looks like you made your mind up RE the answer to the question. That's fine, but everyone should have a voice in a debate — regardless of personal viewpoints!

    In regards to the question… no, absolutely not. It's a life choice, you can eat meat or you can choose to not eat meat. Either way, that's cool with me.

    (also, I am answering the general question i.e. the thread title, I don't wish to engage in arguing over the validity of my choice to answer 'no'!)

    * or words to that effect
    People have been reffered to the original content as they have ignored arguments there that contradict the ones they have subscribed to.

    Something being a choice does not mean there is not an ideology there as well. The two are not mutually exclusive. Therefore your argument that it's not an ideology on the basis that you choose to eat meat is invalid.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Peer Support Volunteers
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    People have been reffered to the original content as they have ignored arguments there that contradict the ones they have subscribed to.

    Something being a choice does not mean there is not an ideology there as well. The two are not mutually exclusive. Therefore your argument that it's not an ideology on the basis that you choose to eat meat is invalid.
    Thus, proving my point.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    OP creates a thread asking a question.
    OP made up his mind a long time ago.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BioStudentx)
    I'm implying you're trying to promote people becoming a vegan. Especially considering you linked a 19 minute video, of which very little of it is relevant to the title. Not very subtle.
    Most of the video is linked to the question. And the topic is intrinsically linked to veganism. I'm not sure why you think that's somehow a 'hidden agenda'. But I'm not talking about the pros and con's of veganism here (pretty sure in my first post I talk about that very openly). Hence my comments have been about whether it's an ideology, and whether it always is.

    Are you done with the random and careless accusations? Or would you like to throw some more out there?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by iEthan)
    Thus, proving my point.
    Proving your point that your argument is invalid? I'm a little confused. Your conclusion is not necessarily followed by the premises of your argument. It is invalid.

    (Original post by BioStudentx)
    OP creates a thread asking a question.
    OP made up his mind a long time ago.
    I feel that M.Joy's argument is lacking, so I'm hoping someone will have the intelligence I lack to point out where. So far no-one has pointed out where it's lacking.

    So yes, I feel meat eating in our society is done on an ideological basis, but that doesn't mean the topic is fully answered. You've yet to come up with a balanced rebuttal, and instead are relying on ad hominem attacks. If engaging with the topic is too hard for you it's best to stop posting. If it isn't then post on topic.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    Proving your point that your argument is invalid? I'm a little confused. Your conclusion is not necessarily followed by the premises of your argument. It is invalid.



    I feel that M.Joy's argument is lacking, so I'm hoping someone will have the intelligence I lack to point out where. So far no-one has pointed out where it's lacking.

    So yes, I feel meat eating in our society is done on an ideological basis, but that doesn't mean the topic is fully answered. You've yet to come up with a balanced rebuttal, and instead are relying on ad hominem attacks. If engaging with the topic is too hard for you it's best to stop posting. If it isn't then post on topic.
    Anyways I'll leave you to it and stop posting as the topic at hand doesn't interest me
    • TSR Support Team
    • Peer Support Volunteers
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    Proving your point that your argument is invalid? I'm a little confused. Your conclusion is not necessarily followed by the premises of your argument. It is invalid.
    How exhausting… I never made the point that my "argument" was invalid. If I felt that about my "argument", it wouldn't be my argument. My point is that you seem unable to accept the fact that others might have a conflicting viewpoint. This is (unfortunately) a matter of opinionated debate. There will always be someone who doesn't agree with you and equally someone who does. You are needlessly defensive and bombastic when someone has said conflicting opinion and instead of remaining polite and discussing their view and why they hold it; your response is to immediately tell them that they are wrong citing a video which displays another opinion as gospel truth on the matter. I never questioned the validity of your opinion, because that would be rude and of poor etiquette.

    Think of it like this:
    (Original post by Person 1)
    I think that the sky is blue! What about you guys?
    (Original post by Person 2)
    Well, I think that it isn't. Why do you think it's blue?
    (Original post by Person 1)
    That's interesting![…] (etc. etc. you get my point)
    The video is an opinion, a healthy debate — exploration into a topic which is designed to create a talking point in which people can discuss it. It is not by any means black and white fact. The way you retort to critique/opposition of such a broad topic is not very fair and quite rude. If opening a debate, you should be prepared to welcome those who do not agree with you. That's my point. Your retort proved my point. Can we stop the silliness now, please? I don't like arguing over something so silly! Have a good night.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by iEthan)
    How exhausting… I never made the point that my "argument" was invalid. If I felt that about my "argument", it wouldn't be my argument. My point is that you seem unable to accept the fact that others might have a conflicting viewpoint. This is (unfortunately) a matter of opinionated debate. There will always be someone who doesn't agree with you and equally someone who does. You are needlessly defensive and bombastic when someone has said conflicting opinion and instead of remaining polite and discussing their view and why they hold it; your response is to immediately tell them that they are wrong citing a video which displays another opinion as gospel truth on the matter. I never questioned the validity of your opinion, because that would be rude and of poor etiquette.

    Think of it like this:




    The video is an opinion, a healthy debate — exploration into a topic which is designed to create a talking point in which people can discuss it. It is not by any means black and white fact. The way you retort to critique/opposition of such a broad topic is not very fair and quite rude. If opening a debate, you should be prepared to welcome those who do not agree with you. That's my point. Your retort proved my point. Can we stop the silliness now, please? I don't like arguing over something so silly! Have a good night.
    The fact that you reduce it down to 'silly' is pretty odd. But anyway, I'm not being rude or bombastic, I feel like you're projecting a tone onto my posts that does not exist.

    Your argument is invalid. That isn't down to opinion, as I stated the conclusion is not ensured by the premise(s) which is the definition of an invalid argument.

    Your made a point, and I explained why the point was wrong. Now that I've done that you've resorted to ad hominem attacks (and at the same time called me rude, which is ironic).
    • TSR Support Team
    • Peer Support Volunteers
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    The fact that you reduce it down to 'silly' is pretty odd. But anyway, I'm not being rude or bombastic, I feel like you're projecting a tone onto my posts that does not exist.

    Your argument is invalid. That isn't down to opinion, as I stated the conclusion is not ensured by the premise(s) which is the definition of an invalid argument.

    Your made a point, and I explained why the point was wrong. Now that I've done that you've resorted to ad hominem attacks (and at the same time called me rude, which is ironic).
    Oh sweet heaven above, I give up. Good night.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    No.. I don't consider it to be one.
    When people are feeding their face with chicken, or other meats, the last thing they think about is where it came from, how it lived, how it died, or anything like that. The brain is too focused on how good the meat will taste.

    Meat just taste good, lol.

    I didn't bother to watch the video but the only real ideology is it taste delicious. At least that is what I'm assume most meat eaters and myself included think to themselves. People eat meat for the flavor and nutrients.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Macy1998)
    No.. I don't consider it to be one.
    When people are feeding their face with chicken, or other meats, the last thing they think about is where it came from, how it lived, how it died, or anything like that. The brain is too focused on how good the meat will taste.

    Meat just taste good, lol.

    I didn't bother to watch the video but the only real ideology is it taste delicious. At least that is what I'm assume most meat eaters and myself included think to themselves. People eat meat for the flavor and nutrients.
    To clarify, you didn't watch the video, and therefore you're not putting up a counter argument as to why it may be considered an ideology?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    To clarify, you didn't watch the video, and therefore you're not putting up a counter argument as to why it may be considered an ideology?
    You do realise how stupid you are looking. You cannot base your argument on "I've seen the video. It's right, I'm going to paraphrase" or "You haven't seen it so you cannot have an opinion ergo your opinion is wrong"

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sw651)
    You do realise how stupid you are looking. You cannot base your argument on "I've seen the video. It's right, I'm going to paraphrase" or "You haven't seen it so you cannot have an opinion ergo your opinion is wrong"

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    That's not what I'm doing. I'm saying if you don't bother watching the video and then make arguments that are dealt with in the video, you're going to be refereed to it.

    You can have an opinion, but if you're not going to supplement it with listening to people who have done research on this (be it this video or another article/video on the matter) then you're going to be talking out of your bottom. A concept an argument have been presented. Shockingly to talk about those things one needs to have a grasp of what those things are and how they're presented.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Break up or unrequited love?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.