Finally I have a question to ask. After what seems to have been a much heated discussion over veganism on TZM's facebook page, i participated by suggesting that when you have systems allowing for multiple possibilities, all made manifest by natural forces and historically known to have occurred before, it is unreasonable to expect a population to choose one possibility to the exclusion of all others based solely on ethical principles and that each person would choose what is most beneficial, if access is available, based on survival pressures, curiosity pressures, avoidance of pain, seeking of pleasure, and external changes at the moment they are presented with the choices. I stated that I agreed with TZM not making Veganism a topical priority based on this. I also stated that the solutions would be in the foundational design of any emerging system as a whole and that the environmental design would allow for healthier options to be more accessible and greater in number and destructive options to be fewer in number.
Essentially the discussion quickly degraded into Vegan vs Non vegan. I think some individual efforts were made to present scientific evidence but i stated that telling an individual they are psychopathic animal and environmental killers "one actual quote" for eating animal based life probably will not sway a person to do anything other than retaliate in kind. How was the reasoning in my general response? I ask because I have recognized you as one who is able to discuss with a cool head.
I have an interest in philosophy and know its workings to some degree but I spend a good bit of time trying to master computer science. What i have endeavored to do is determine all the possibilities available based on all known evidence within my peripheral and make my cases based on that. Often times they argue against my position but ignore the evidence and provide no evidence of their own. Do you come across this alot, and how do you handle it?