Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 03-14-2002, 03:45 PM

If Jon had read my posts, he would have noticed that for the sake of argument I will retract the gut comment because the source materials are on another continent.

As to his: "-Primative tribes are cannibalistic", mine wasn't a universal statement, as it suddenly becomes here. Some primitive tribes were cannibalistic, such as numerous groups in Papua-Niugini. But Jon will want their names and telephone numbers anyway. Maori's were ritualistically cannibalistic at least at the time of the visit of Captain James Cook (though "primitive" is not a useful word in this case, for maori society was complex and in many ways quite "Modern").

Is Jon really proposing that there have been no societies which condoned cannibalism? Or his he just quibbling about the use of the present tense? If the latter, just put it into the past to save any further quibbling. If the former, perhaps he could consult a few anthropological studies on either of the two examples I mentioned above.

Maoris could never have been seen to have suffered from eating human meat. All Maoris I have met (incidentally no longer cannibalistic to my knowledge) have been extremely healthy and showing no signs of problems from a long heritage of forebearers having eaten human flesh.

Mageth · 03-14-2002, 03:52 PM

Maoris I have met (incidentally no longer cannibalistic to my knowledge) have been extremely healthy...

And, my guess would be, not vegetarian?

spin · 03-14-2002, 04:07 PM

Mageth for some reason, perhaps because he's not up with the subthread responds to my

---------------------------
Maoris I have met (incidentally no longer cannibalistic to my knowledge) have been extremely healthy...
---------------------------

by saying
---------------------------
And, my guess would be, not vegetarian?
---------------------------

The subthread was dealing with someone's claims about cannibalism, ie that cannibalism had some sort of degenerative effect on the society practising it. This doesn't seem to be the case.

OK?

Mageth · 03-14-2002, 04:27 PM

No, I'm "up with" the subthread discussion. To me it was a bit ironic that you'd refer to someone as "extremely healthy" when my best guess is that the Maoris in question regularly partake of meat (of course, I don't know this for a fact; you may hang out with only vegan Maoris, for all I know).

I agree with you in a way, actually, about cannibalism. Cannibalism is not necessarily detrimental to a society, if practiced in moderation. But like infanticide, if they practice it within their own group (rather than only eating members of other groups) it would seem a bit of a survival disadvantage (from the group standpoint) if they have neighboring groups that don't practice cannibalism. Unless, perhaps, they only cannibalize those past the age of childbearing (but even that may reduce numbers that might otherwise still be of value to the group).

But any species that practices extensive cannibalism may be at a competitive disadvantage to competing species that don't. This seems obvious. Taken to the extreme, it's clear that a species could not be solely cannibalistic.

Someone earlier mentioned that there also might be some physiological disadvantages to cannibalism. I don't really know enough about it to speak to this, but that sounds like it may have some truth to it.

Detached9 · 03-14-2002, 04:43 PM

There are quite a few vegetarians who post here, but they don't behave like punkerslut or spin.

I must have misunderstood what you meant. My apologies.

spin · 03-14-2002, 04:54 PM

Mageth:
---------------
No, I'm "up with" the subthread discussion. To me it was a bit ironic that you'd refer to someone as "extremely healthy" when my best guess is that the Maoris in question regularly partake of meat (of course, I don't know this for a fact; you may hang out with only vegan Maoris, for all I know).
---------------

I don't know what their diets were. It is still irrelevant to what was being talked about.

Mageth:
---------------
I agree with you in a way, actually, about cannibalism. Cannibalism is not necessarily detrimental to a society, if practiced in moderation.
---------------

To my knowledge it was never practised within a society. The victims always belonged outside it, ie from other groups, tribes, origins.

Mageth:
---------------
Someone earlier mentioned that there also might be some physiological disadvantages to cannibalism.
---------------

This was in fact what I was responding to, when you made your comment.

[ March 14, 2002: Message edited by: spin ]</p>

tronvillain · 03-14-2002, 05:00 PM

spin:

Quote:

Why are you posting here where you are supposed to be talking about morals and obviously not doing so? You are saying that your position is essentially no different from his (and I agree), which indicates to me, that, while you have conscious involvement in your decisions, you make no moral analysis of them.

As I have repeatedly pointed out, we apparently have entirely different conceptions of "morality." As far as I can tell, my argument is a moral analysis of my decision. What makes my decision "right" and Dahmer's decision "wrong" are the result of comparable analyses by other people.

Quote:

You have stated your logic for eating meat, ie you like the taste (and that outweighs your feelings for animals -- naturally, you have no feelings for animals [well, you may have been trained to like pets]). There is nothing irrational about you making a choice not to eat animals. You have merely argued that you like the taste. That does not in any way preclude rationality in your possible stopping.

Apparently you do not understand what it means to be rational. If someone prefers pumpkin pie to apple pie, then when presented with a choice between the two in which all other things are equal, it would be irrational for them to choose apple pie. Whether or not you realize it, your position amounts to saying "Choose apple pie despite not liking it!" or "Like applie pie more than pumpkin pie!"

Quote:

As you have no argumentation whatsoever, I guess I'll leave you to it.

Well, you choose to ignore my argument. I can't say that it bothers me, since fortunately your opinion has absoltely no impact on me in the real world.

Pomp · 03-14-2002, 05:30 PM

Hi echidna,

Bill (and PB if you�re still there), given we�ve also had threads using Contract Theory to justify infanticide, and last year another which seemed to say it was OK to kill intellectually disabled and comatosed people, I really don�t see how Contract Theory can be terribly reliable in this application either.

Yes, I'm still here. I have two responses for you:

1) For the purposes of this thread, it is not my intent to justify contract theory. I only brought it up because either spin or punkersluta, I no longer remember which, insinuated that a moral justification of killing non-human animals for food would be impossible without also justifying Dahmer's behavior. I demonstrated that contract theory, a well known and semi-widely-accepted moral theory, certainly does perform this supposedly impossible feat. My intent in doing so was to demonstrate to the militant vegetarians in attendance that their arguments are unpersuasive to those of us who do not accept the same moral theories that they do. In response to this, spin has alternately claimed that contract theory, of which he self-admittedly knows little, is not a moral theory at all or that I am somehow misrepresenting the theory or, rather, misrepsenting the "spirit" of the theory.

2) I am quite willing to discuss the pros and cons of contract theory with anyone who wishes to do so, but not in this thread. Although I do find its exclusion of several classes of being to be troublesome, and although I am not a strict contractarian, it is the closest thing to a working model of the origin and function of ethics that I have yet seen.

I hope that makes sense.

spin · 03-14-2002, 05:37 PM

tronvillain:
------------------------------
As I have repeatedly pointed out, we apparently have entirely different conceptions of "morality." As far as I can tell, my argument is a moral analysis of my decision. What makes my decision "right" and Dahmer's decision "wrong" are the result of comparable analyses by other people.
------------------------------

What makes Osama Bin Laden's decisions "right" is the result of comparable analyses by other people (within the society he moves).

Morality is not a matter of numbers.

tronvillain:
------------------------------
Apparently you do not understand what it means to be rational. If someone prefers pumpkin pie to apple pie, then when presented with a choice between the two in which all other things are equal, it would be irrational for them to choose apple pie.
------------------------------

The analogy is not apt. You have removed all the other factors involved, which I have argued are relevant to the rationality of the situation. Hence the following is simply irrelevant:

------------------------------
Whether or not you realize it, your position amounts to saying "Choose apple pie despite not liking it!" or "Like applie pie more than pumpkin pie!"
------------------------------

spin:
------------------------------
As you have no argumentation whatsoever, I guess I'll leave you to it.
------------------------------

tronvillain:
------------------------------
Well, you choose to ignore my argument.
------------------------------

I have noted what you said. I don't find it an argument.

tronvillain:
------------------------------
I can't say that it bothers me, since fortunately your opinion has absoltely no impact on me in the real world.
------------------------------

The shields were already up before you entered the thread, Mr Spock.

I conclude that you like a number of others posting here are in some way bothered by being challenged regarding your wanton eating of dead animals (dead because of your wantonness). This is a step towards sensitization.

spin · 03-14-2002, 05:40 PM

Here are some of the early gems for those who missed out:

-----------------------
Anyway, fuck your plea for vegitarianism. I see no reason to care more about animals than I already do.
-----------------------
Why don't you just copy and paste from your last Vegetarian thread? Oh, maybe you are..
-----------------------
So if we were to develop a breeding animal without a brain (or removed the brain) you would have no problem if we raised it and I ate it, correct?
-----------------------
I'll treat the cow nicely before I butcher it.
-----------------------
My cat's favorite food is ham. My favorite animal (aside from the boyfreind) is my cat. This could be solved so easily by someone inventing tofu pigs.
-----------------------
Hey, fuck you too you little bitch.
-----------------------
I notice nobody has voiced their support for giving Bovines the right to vote.
-----------------------
If cows are getting equal rights then I say tofu as well.
-----------------------
Personally, I find that the grain-fed freerange humans with an organic diet are the tastiest.
-----------------------
Hey, what if those cannibalistic aliens ARE cows? Then we'd be competing with them for the same food source!
-----------------------
If you want to impose your vegetarianism on me then get the HELL OUT OF MY FACE!
-----------------------
if you want to preach your unsupportable opinions to anyone else, my vote is, piss up a rope.
-----------------------
The only thing this thread has done is make me want a steak and a beer
-----------------------
(A string of attemptedly provocative meat I'm going to eat throwaways.)
-----------------------

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-14-2002, 03:45 PM	#361
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	If Jon had read my posts, he would have noticed that for the sake of argument I will retract the gut comment because the source materials are on another continent. As to his: "-Primative tribes are cannibalistic", mine wasn't a universal statement, as it suddenly becomes here. Some primitive tribes were cannibalistic, such as numerous groups in Papua-Niugini. But Jon will want their names and telephone numbers anyway. Maori's were ritualistically cannibalistic at least at the time of the visit of Captain James Cook (though "primitive" is not a useful word in this case, for maori society was complex and in many ways quite "Modern"). Is Jon really proposing that there have been no societies which condoned cannibalism? Or his he just quibbling about the use of the present tense? If the latter, just put it into the past to save any further quibbling. If the former, perhaps he could consult a few anthropological studies on either of the two examples I mentioned above. Maoris could never have been seen to have suffered from eating human meat. All Maoris I have met (incidentally no longer cannibalistic to my knowledge) have been extremely healthy and showing no signs of problems from a long heritage of forebearers having eaten human flesh.

03-14-2002, 03:52 PM	#362
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Maoris I have met (incidentally no longer cannibalistic to my knowledge) have been extremely healthy... And, my guess would be, not vegetarian?

03-14-2002, 04:07 PM	#363
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	Mageth for some reason, perhaps because he's not up with the subthread responds to my --------------------------- Maoris I have met (incidentally no longer cannibalistic to my knowledge) have been extremely healthy... --------------------------- by saying --------------------------- And, my guess would be, not vegetarian? --------------------------- The subthread was dealing with someone's claims about cannibalism, ie that cannibalism had some sort of degenerative effect on the society practising it. This doesn't seem to be the case. OK?

03-14-2002, 04:27 PM	#364
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	No, I'm "up with" the subthread discussion. To me it was a bit ironic that you'd refer to someone as "extremely healthy" when my best guess is that the Maoris in question regularly partake of meat (of course, I don't know this for a fact; you may hang out with only vegan Maoris, for all I know). I agree with you in a way, actually, about cannibalism. Cannibalism is not necessarily detrimental to a society, if practiced in moderation. But like infanticide, if they practice it within their own group (rather than only eating members of other groups) it would seem a bit of a survival disadvantage (from the group standpoint) if they have neighboring groups that don't practice cannibalism. Unless, perhaps, they only cannibalize those past the age of childbearing (but even that may reduce numbers that might otherwise still be of value to the group). But any species that practices extensive cannibalism may be at a competitive disadvantage to competing species that don't. This seems obvious. Taken to the extreme, it's clear that a species could not be solely cannibalistic. Someone earlier mentioned that there also might be some physiological disadvantages to cannibalism. I don't really know enough about it to speak to this, but that sounds like it may have some truth to it.

03-14-2002, 04:43 PM	#365
Detached9 Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Posts: 341	There are quite a few vegetarians who post here, but they don't behave like punkerslut or spin. I must have misunderstood what you meant. My apologies.

03-14-2002, 04:54 PM	#366
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	Mageth: --------------- No, I'm "up with" the subthread discussion. To me it was a bit ironic that you'd refer to someone as "extremely healthy" when my best guess is that the Maoris in question regularly partake of meat (of course, I don't know this for a fact; you may hang out with only vegan Maoris, for all I know). --------------- I don't know what their diets were. It is still irrelevant to what was being talked about. Mageth: --------------- I agree with you in a way, actually, about cannibalism. Cannibalism is not necessarily detrimental to a society, if practiced in moderation. --------------- To my knowledge it was never practised within a society. The victims always belonged outside it, ie from other groups, tribes, origins. Mageth: --------------- Someone earlier mentioned that there also might be some physiological disadvantages to cannibalism. --------------- This was in fact what I was responding to, when you made your comment. [ March 14, 2002: Message edited by: spin ]</p>

03-14-2002, 05:30 PM	#368
Pomp Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Indianapolis area Posts: 3,468	Hi echidna, Bill (and PB if you�re still there), given we�ve also had threads using Contract Theory to justify infanticide, and last year another which seemed to say it was OK to kill intellectually disabled and comatosed people, I really don�t see how Contract Theory can be terribly reliable in this application either. Yes, I'm still here. I have two responses for you: 1) For the purposes of this thread, it is not my intent to justify contract theory. I only brought it up because either spin or punkersluta, I no longer remember which, insinuated that a moral justification of killing non-human animals for food would be impossible without also justifying Dahmer's behavior. I demonstrated that contract theory, a well known and semi-widely-accepted moral theory, certainly does perform this supposedly impossible feat. My intent in doing so was to demonstrate to the militant vegetarians in attendance that their arguments are unpersuasive to those of us who do not accept the same moral theories that they do. In response to this, spin has alternately claimed that contract theory, of which he self-admittedly knows little, is not a moral theory at all or that I am somehow misrepresenting the theory or, rather, misrepsenting the "spirit" of the theory. 2) I am quite willing to discuss the pros and cons of contract theory with anyone who wishes to do so, but not in this thread. Although I do find its exclusion of several classes of being to be troublesome, and although I am not a strict contractarian, it is the closest thing to a working model of the origin and function of ethics that I have yet seen. I hope that makes sense.

03-14-2002, 05:37 PM	#369
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	tronvillain: ------------------------------ As I have repeatedly pointed out, we apparently have entirely different conceptions of "morality." As far as I can tell, my argument is a moral analysis of my decision. What makes my decision "right" and Dahmer's decision "wrong" are the result of comparable analyses by other people. ------------------------------ What makes Osama Bin Laden's decisions "right" is the result of comparable analyses by other people (within the society he moves). Morality is not a matter of numbers. tronvillain: ------------------------------ Apparently you do not understand what it means to be rational. If someone prefers pumpkin pie to apple pie, then when presented with a choice between the two in which all other things are equal, it would be irrational for them to choose apple pie. ------------------------------ The analogy is not apt. You have removed all the other factors involved, which I have argued are relevant to the rationality of the situation. Hence the following is simply irrelevant: ------------------------------ Whether or not you realize it, your position amounts to saying "Choose apple pie despite not liking it!" or "Like applie pie more than pumpkin pie!" ------------------------------ spin: ------------------------------ As you have no argumentation whatsoever, I guess I'll leave you to it. ------------------------------ tronvillain: ------------------------------ Well, you choose to ignore my argument. ------------------------------ I have noted what you said. I don't find it an argument. tronvillain: ------------------------------ I can't say that it bothers me, since fortunately your opinion has absoltely no impact on me in the real world. ------------------------------ The shields were already up before you entered the thread, Mr Spock. I conclude that you like a number of others posting here are in some way bothered by being challenged regarding your wanton eating of dead animals (dead because of your wantonness). This is a step towards sensitization.

03-14-2002, 05:40 PM	#370
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	Here are some of the early gems for those who missed out: ----------------------- Anyway, fuck your plea for vegitarianism. I see no reason to care more about animals than I already do. ----------------------- Why don't you just copy and paste from your last Vegetarian thread? Oh, maybe you are.. ----------------------- So if we were to develop a breeding animal without a brain (or removed the brain) you would have no problem if we raised it and I ate it, correct? ----------------------- I'll treat the cow nicely before I butcher it. ----------------------- My cat's favorite food is ham. My favorite animal (aside from the boyfreind) is my cat. This could be solved so easily by someone inventing tofu pigs. ----------------------- Hey, fuck you too you little bitch. ----------------------- I notice nobody has voiced their support for giving Bovines the right to vote. ----------------------- If cows are getting equal rights then I say tofu as well. ----------------------- Personally, I find that the grain-fed freerange humans with an organic diet are the tastiest. ----------------------- Hey, what if those cannibalistic aliens ARE cows? Then we'd be competing with them for the same food source! ----------------------- If you want to impose your vegetarianism on me then get the HELL OUT OF MY FACE! ----------------------- if you want to preach your unsupportable opinions to anyone else, my vote is, piss up a rope. ----------------------- The only thing this thread has done is make me want a steak and a beer ----------------------- (A string of attemptedly provocative meat I'm going to eat throwaways.) -----------------------

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.