Apex predator argument.

     Some of the most stubborn people argue that humans are intelligent, thus are the apex predator, therefore humans are superior to non-human animals, which means that humans can do whatever they want to these inferior beings.

    I can argue the point to exhaustion, but neither me nor the other side wants to give any ground. This is the 2nd time now I've encountered this circumstance. As long as the person believes humans are superior to non-human animals there is no way for the conversation to progress.

      They also toss around survival of the fittest a lot. To be fair I used to think exactly the same way and made the same arguments. I wasn't the easiest person to convince and I argued back a lot with vegetarians and vegans in the past. What changed my mind was lots of scientific proof that we didn't need to eat animal products to survive.

      Yet, these people seem different, they seem to not care about science. In fact, they tend to be anti-science. I don't understand these people, thus its hard for me to get anywhere with them.

You need to be a member of The Frugivore Diet to add comments!

Join The Frugivore Diet

Email me when people reply –

Replies

  • Well, I am happy we are getting there. So if you are loud, obnoxious and disrespectful, no matter how right you are, it's a "No". If you are attentive and respectful, that's OK, but if you establish a heart connection, that's the real deal.

    •      "Well, I am happy we are getting there. So if you are loud, obnoxious and disrespectful, no matter how right you are, it's a "No". If you are attentive and respectful, that's OK, but if you establish a heart connection, that's the real deal." RossD

           Personally, I completely disagree. This tactic may work on others. Yet, as soon as somebody tries to talk directly to me and not my arguments my shields go to maximum. At this point I'm on alert. Too often have I been fooled or almost fooled by positive vibes, body language, or aura.

           This comes off like a con artist trick to me and I am repulsed like two protons repelling each other. If you ever play a game called mafia also known as werewolf talking to somebody's heart is a potent way to trick them and win the game.

            I'm much more likely to convinced by the obnoxious and disrespectful argument than someone who aims for my heart.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mafia_%28party_game%29

      Mafia (party game)
      Mafia, also known as Werewolf, is a social deduction game, created by Dimitry Davidoff in 1986. The game models a conflict between two groups: an inf…
      • You can completely get warring groups of people (tribes, nations) to become friends, when someone mastering empathy sufficiently is mediating between them.

      • Receiving empathy is similar to talking to a really really good friend that really knows you, someone you trust deeply, and speaks your language. The best friend. You know the kind of friendship that doesn't need talking, almost. Because 'we know'. Because we totally get each others. We know where we have each others. We can just be ourselves, entirely.
        That is similar to the feeling of receiving empathy.

      • No, you don't disagree. BUT we are using way different definitions to the ideas 'establishing heart connection' and empathy.

        When I imagine 'establishing a heart connection' or empathy, it is a messy thing. It is not about positive vibes or aura or huffy fluffy shite like that, ugh, juck! I am getting the creeps just thinking about it.

        So no no, if I were to talk to you to establish a heart connection, if I were to use empathy, I would never begin with talking directly to you as a person. I would begin at the very top, the things you already provide plenty of, your arguments.

        Empathy to me, is like ninja. Properly executed empathy is something no one has any defences against, it is the kind of conversations everyone is longing for and trying to have all the time, but don't know how to. So if your shields go up, and not down, it is not empathy and it is not establishing heart connection, obviously, right?

        But, what would happen, instead of staying at the level of arguments, I would slowly land the plane. I would slowly bring out the deeper truths that you are trying to convey through your arguments. Because your arguments are only packages, that contain things closer to you, that you want recognized and heard. But I would be forced to reflect to you in a language that is close enough to your language, that you feel it is friendly and understandable, I would be forced to try to think similar enough to you, in order to put myself into your place, and imagine what you are trying to say.

        To you it would feel like finally someone is listening, finally someone is getting it, 'wow, this is easy', and then you wouldn't be able to stop talking.
        That is what happens all the time when people get real empathy, they can't stop talking and they don't know why. After they are done, they are like 'what hit me right now?', baffled by spilling their guts. Suddenly they didn't need to portion out their truths, they could just empty it all out on the floor, haha, because someone actually paid attention. Because for the first time, someone actually listened and understood what they have always tried to convey. Without having their own agenda, and you needing to fight to get your say. Suddenly there was no competition, it was just a flow. On your premisses, the way that feels safe and cool for you.

        The person speaking empathic is like the werewolf and the heart, and the sceptic, and the wizard, all in one. It learns all languages, it it is the opposite of naive. Eyes wiide open. It is all about tuning into the person they are speaking to, so that they feel heard and seen. So that they relax inside.

        The heart connection is at the end of this empathic process.

        First we gotta go through layers of different densities and stuff and rubble and arguments and you name it. It is like being lost in a forest. One step at a time. Starting at the top, the things that are available for the other person. As you said, your arguments are the most available for you. So I'd start there, and really try to get what you are saying with them. And then I would ask you if I guessed right, in a casual and frank manner. And you would be like 'yeah, yeah, exactly, because ...... blablablabla' hehe. Or your would be 'No, not like that, I mean..... blablabla'. In both cases you said 'yes' to me. Because you gave me more information.

        Yup, emapthy is about getting the other person to say 'yes' to us, by giving them the space to say what is true for them. And by 'yes', I don't mean literally, but I mean that they open more up about what ever they carry. Your arguments are on your heart, it is the top layer. But if I 'win' at that layer, you would go one layer down. And if I 'win' there too, you go further down. Meaning, if I 'win' in your eyes. If you accept me and accept my response, like it is familiar.
        And then, after passing through all the different layers, we have to arrive at the heart. The need level.

        And that is when we have a heart connection. Then there would be complete silence for a moment, because finally everything that we tried to say, has been said. It is just this utter contentment. Maybe for the first time in our lives.
        Of course, I would be needing to be genuine about the way I talk to you. I would be needing to be genuine when I reflect to you what you say, otherwise you would close the shop too. So there are many things that must be in place for real empathy to happen. And it is a messy process. Because we are messy.

    • Yes, I completely agree with that statement! Nice RossD :D

  • What you are saying, Svein, is that any form of loud and aggressive activism, even if it is for a good and just cause, is counterproductive and useless. It is just a manifestation of the activists' egos and fears, in other words, look at me, I am so right, and educated, and intelligent, and you guys, you are so stupid, and you all have to listen to me and do what I say. Activism is about control, the good cause is just window dressing.

    • @RossD

      Hi :) Well, this about resistance-based activism is certainly related to what I shared. I would love to see a world where no people resist anything. But caution dear reader, what I just said can be very misinterpreted.

      But yes, that sense of competition-based interaction is very inefficient. Cooperation-based interaction, where we all move as one, is much more efficient. But it requires non-judgmentalness and empathy.

      Although, I would say that this activism you speak of has its function. One good thing it does it that it lets other people know what other people are thinking and wanting, so that people can gather together about the same thing. Instead of all sitting by themselves, thinking they are the only ones with these kinds of ideas and wants.

      But beyond that, it is quite inefficient. But that is the staple of our society today, it is all quite inefficient and counterproductive in what ever it does.

      And I agree that loud and aggressive activism, the loud and aggressive part of it, is all about ego. The cause is just an excuse to let out their anger and pain, Anger and pain that they have been carrying since childhood because mom and dad was not loving and understanding enough. So that loudness and aggressiveness has nothing to do with the cause. And so it will not serve the cause. These people, what they really need, together with the corporations and governments on the other side of the cause, they all need therapy and healing. Haha. But for real. We are all one, and we can only move as one. But we are fragmented now, both within ourselves and without. And so, we need to seal those fractures, so that we can move as one.

    •       I can't speak for Svein, but I don't think that is what Svein is stating. From reading the relevant posts, I hypothesis that Svein is talking about the non-activist or omnivore going into self defense mode and how to coax the person out of self defense mode.

            My opinion is that even triggering self defense mode or fight or flight mode in the audience is a victory for the activist. The reason being is that people remember how you made them feel. If you trigger self defense mode you have triggered an emotional response and the audience will remember that for a long time.

            People often cannot change their minds from black to white or visa versa on the spot. The best I've found is to defeat all their arguments and tire them out. At the least they will remember you for a bit, at best they will change their minds after a bit. On average they will lose the emotional baggage, keep the same opinion, but better revise their argument.

            I have a gardening analogy to compare arguing with people and changing their minds. Often, you cannot directly access the roots of a plant. There is too many defense, leaves, thorns, branches in the way. You must cut back the layers of a plant's defense mechanisms until finally you can reach the roots.

             Similarly when arguing with people you must first destroy all the weak arguments, then the mediocre arguments, the strong arguments, and finally the best arguments. Only after defeating the best arguments do you have a chance of changing that person's mind. Even if you failed, you thoroughly won the debate and demoralized the person.

            I've been on the wrong side of arguments, and have backed bad positions. Several rounds of debate are needed. Often my first arguments are so terrible that I'm convinced I lost not because my position was bad, but because my arguments were so weak. Defeating a weak argument is like ripping a single leaf off a huge tree.

              In summary, you must defeat all your opponents' arguments over and over from weakest to strongest and everything in between. Only then will your winded opponents consider changing their minds.

      • By the way @RawVeganGamer, I actually do something similar to what you do.
        What I do is that I rely on using 'common sense' (that is not so common :P)  that is so sensible that it is irrefutable, when I want to teach people something. I always strive to make so much sense, that it is disarming to them. And not just disarming, it makes so much sense, that it looks better than their previous opinions and beliefs, to them, in the moment they hear it. I use common sense in a way that makes more sense out of the things they already believe and know, that puts it all in a perspective that opens up to higher understanding.

        I don't rely on scientific evidence and things like that. Instead I go for everyday common sense.

        That is what I do instead of the empathy thing, when I am not invested enough in the other person. Because the empathy thing is a heavy hitter, it is the big gun, it uses a lot of power. It takes a lot to use it.


        So I find it fun to just arrange everything we already know and accept, into a structure that is so sensible, that makes what i want to teach the most sensible thing in the world.

        So I guess that is my version of what you talk about :)

This reply was deleted.