Bill Snedden

Actually, administrators are kind of like ueber-moderators (in that they have the ability to "moderate" any forum).

In addition, as this forum is now down to one moderator, I am "helping out" until a permanent second moderator is appointed.

So...all your forums are belong to us! MWAHAHAHAHAHA! (imagine deep, Vincent Price-style, manaical laughter)

Regards,

Bill Snedden

spin

Brighid:
---------------------------
The human animal is an omnivore. Optimal health is achieved by eating a balance of items, including meat.
---------------------------

I wouldn't believe all that you read in books. Human evolution is clear that humans were not originally "omnivores". Human anatomy says that humans didn't develop for eating meat -- their intestines are far too long. The person who says that humans are omnivores are being as opportunitic as the humans that started eating meat. While the latter were forced to do so for lack of suitable herbivorous foods, the latter is merely maintaining an old myth for the sake of the stomach.

One can argue that what one gets out of meat is concentrated: it was concentrated by the cow eating so much grass. There are other foods that supply proteins. One doesn't have to kill animals for protein.

Bill Snedden

<a href="http://www.manbeef.com/" target="_blank">Mmmmmmmmm...</a>

(sorry, couldn't resist!)

Bill

Aethernaut

LOL

-SK

bonduca

Because one does not wish to be hunted by one's own species. Predators may fight, even kill each other, but usually over matters of dominance or territory. They do not usually eat one another afterwards.

Margaret Visser wrote a fascinating book called "The Rituals of Dinner" which mentions how many of our customary table manners evolved from displays of non-aggression, and reassurances that we did not consider each other to be suitable for eating.

At any rate, anyone who wishes me to even consider vegetarianism should leave off the comparisons to Nazi experimentation. Whether one approves of eating meat or not, there is still a vast difference between killing for consumption to maintain bodily function, and torturing members of one's own species. If there is anyone here who does not see the difference, I am not interested in debating it. I am totally supportive of my vegetarian friends, but this kind of rhetoric turns me off.

Pomp

spin,

…there is nothing "moral" about your "contract theory".

Translation: “Contract theory is not compatible with spin’s idiosyncratic conception of morality.” That’s fine. It doesn’t have to be. I was banking that you would disagree with it when I brought it up, as I wanted to mention a theory that you did not accept so I could make the following point: the reason most people do not accept your position that killing non-human animals for meat is unacceptable is that most people do not share your conception of morality. We’re starting from a different axiom set from yours, so it’s understandable that our conclusions will be different.

Sally Smith has complained that militant vegetarians/vegans are unfairly compared to fundamentalist Christians. In your case, I think that the comparison is more than fair. Much like a fundamentalist Christian, you assert that your particular axiom set represents objective truth and attempt, through strident emotional appeal and various logical fallacies, to compel the rest of us to accept it. As I have said, you may as well use Biblical support for your arguments, because none of us accept that either. If you truly want to convince us to change our actions, you need to understand our viewpoints and show us how eating meat somehow contradicts our own conceptions of morality. Proclaiming yourself correct is not going to do it.

It {contract theory} is equally as applicable to a school of piranha.

No, it isn’t. As far as I know, piranha are not capable of negotiating or agreeing to honor a compromise reached through negotiation.

I don't think you can assume I'm capable of having a rational discussion when you are not prepared to rationally analyse the problem presented to you.

Hello, Pot? I have a message from Kettle. He says you’re black.

This just means that you weren't original with the stuff. It doesn't mean that it is viable.

Out the window goes the concept of modern democratic government, largely based on the <a href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/contractarianism/" target="_blank">contractarian</a> views of Hobbes, Locke, etc. Apparently, it is not viable.

Using your notion of "contract theory" you can happily invent a criterion which excludes the victims you eat from being able to participate from your discussion. In fact, Dahlmer did the same thing using different criteria.

This was in response to my question about how I’m “obfuscating” anything. Note that you did not address my question.

I did not “invent” the criteria by which my “victims” are unable to participate in discussions, nature did. When it is demonstrated to me that cows are able to discuss moral issues with me, I will begin to grant them rights. Are you really suggesting that we might have a meaningful discussion with a cow, the result of which would be that it would agree to grant us rights in exchange for our granting it rights?

Nitpick: the man’s name is spelled “Dahmer.”

If you want to think about the logic of your "contract theory" you'll find that it's purpose was to defend rights, ie of oppressed people, not to reject rights through incapacity of others to defend them.

Incorrect. Contract theory is not a means by which pre-existing rights are to be defended, it is a means of rationally determining what sorts of rights ought to be granted. The very notion of pre-existing rights is incompatible with contract theory, a theory of the origin of rights.

Plato's heaven is where the real ideas exist. It is a reification of those intangibles people tend to want to accept for one reason or another.

I know what Plato’s heaven is. I have no idea why you brought it up, however.

Whether it has been "covered" elsewhere or not, you are simply arbitrarily excluding the rights of other creatures for your taste buds' sake.

I don’t see how basing my decision to grant rights to a creature on whether or not that creature is capable of a) asking that it be granted rights and b) granting me rights in return is arbitrary at all.

You explain this away by rejecting the possibility the rights of animals because they are incapable of defending them.

Please either quote me stating that I refuse to grant rights to any being that cannot “defend” it’s rights or else retract this misrepresentation of my position. I refuse to grant rights to any creature that is not capable of granting rights to me. It's ability to defend it's rights is irrelevant and, under contract theory, borderline incoherent as it doesn't have any rights that are not granted to it by the contract.

You defend your childrens' rights. Why are you being hypocritical here?

I’m not being hypocritical. If you want to have a discussion about the finer points of contract theory, start a new thread. I’m not going to educate on it you here when my only point is that not all moral theories consider it unethical to kill non-human animals.

Nonetheless, he {Dahmer} has broken your contract in the same way that you do, nullifying your argument.

Please demonstrate to me the manner in which I have broken the social contract. Further, please demonstrate how an individual’s breaking of the contract somehow nullifies the validity of the contract itself.

I tell you what, go at an animal with an identifiable weapon, and the animal will communicate with you.

I suppose that, in a sense, that could be considered communication, although it’s a bit of a stretch, as it implies that any possible action should be viewed as a “communication” of the causes of that action. When a cow eats, it is really “communicating” to me that it is hungry, or am I interpreting its non-communicative action? For simplicity’s sake, we can suppose that a cow is able to communicate simple concepts such as fear. Now, when the cow is able to make an agreement to respect my desires in exchange for my respecting its desires, the cow is more than welcome to participate in the contract.

people in comas, insane, children...

…misunderstanding of contract theory, repeated emotive appeal, etc.

Get real, PB. Defend rights, not deny them.

I am quite real. Very few conceptions of morality hold that non-human animals have any rights. Unless I accept one of those rare moral theories, which I do not, I am not denying anything.

There is nothing moral about inappropriate application of theories ("contract theory"!) that don't fit the problem.

I’m not sure why you seem to think that contract theory is so ridiculous. I’m also more than a little confused by your apparent opinion that contract theory doesn’t “fit the problem.” Are you suggesting that we ought to select a different moral theory for each moral question, based on which one “fits” the best? What standard are we to use to determine best fit? Your personal opinion?

You are happily willing to ignore the non-participating members of the society in your contract theory in order to ignore the rights of animals.

I’m not sure if you’re talking about non-humans when you say “non-participating members of society” or if you’re referring to your repeated mantra of “people in comas, insane, children.” If the former, you are going to need to demonstrate that cows, for example, should be considered “members of society.” If the latter, you are going to need to understand the basics of contract theory and then we are going to have to get into a rather technical discussion about the details. I’ve already done this with other posters in this forum, and I’m not particularly eager to go through it again for your benefit. For now, suffice it to say that I am not “ignoring” anyone. Search the forum for "contract theory." I seem to remember a good thread about the ethics of infanticide under contract theory it not too long ago.

This seems to be anything but passable. You have only demonstrated your willingness to descend to arbitrary though favourable criteria for the sake of your stomach.

Again, in what sense are my criteria “arbitrary?”
You don't need to eat meat, unlike certain animals. You have the choice not to, but you don't stop eating meat. Instead you'd prefer to have animals killed solely for your "sense of taste" -- for lack of other terms.

No, I do not need to eat meat, and don’t particularly like the taste of it (in fact, I stopped eating red meat years ago because it disagrees with me) but I value the freedom from having to plan a detailed vegetarian diet that would supply all the nutrients I do need more than I devalue the taste of meat and the minor empathic discomfort I get at the thought of animals being slaughtered.

I could understand if you were a Christian who lives on the bullshit that God has provided animals for your service and incapable of rational thought.

More lovely ad hom.

But you claim to be rational, yet act in an arbitrary manner.

Hold on, I have a call on the other line. Oh, it’s Mr. Kettle again. He still thinks you’re black.

Edited because MS Word screws up my URL tags.

[ March 13, 2002: Message edited by: Pompous Bastard ]

[ March 13, 2002: Message edited by: Pompous Bastard ]

[ March 13, 2002: Message edited by: Pompous Bastard ]</p>

spin

Mageth:
------------------------
So, would you refer to someone as a "militant idiot" to their face?
------------------------

I usually call things as I see them.

It's very hard to communicate with someone who simply spews sarcasm and shows no sign of analytical thought. Persistence in such is what I would call a militant idiot. It's not a phrase I need to use often.

Pomp

Mageth said:

Oh no - does that mean when I buy drugs, I may be supporting PETA?

Hahahahaha!

Aethernaut

That is a pretty ridiculous ad.

-SK

x-member

I think you've done a great job of describing what it is like talking you.

Not only are you fanatical about this topic, but you stray so far from logic and into the realm of fallacious arguments, that I question your abillity to think rationally on this issue.

[ March 13, 2002: Message edited by: Jon Up North ]</p>