Freethought & Rationalism Archive

scigirl · 03-12-2002, 10:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bonduca:
<strong>If I see anyone holding a book titled "How to Serve Man," I'm gonna run really fast!</strong>

Mwa ha ha, the Twilight Zone!

Hey, I have not read this whole thread..

(I read the word PETA, which bothered me greatly as an animal researcher. I'm sorry, but PETA is NOT the "People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals", they are the "People for the absolute abolition for use of all animals that are cute and fuzzy, even though they reap the benefits of animal research every freaking time they go to the doctor" But PAAFUAATACAFETTRTBOAREFTTGTTD is obviously way too long of an acronym. . . )

But I do want to add this comment:

I live in a state where cows outnumber people. And I feel that the cows, the way they are today, do not suffer until the very end, and even then, they don't suffer all that much. Cows are dumb. They get to graze in the prettiest areas of the world (aka montana), and they are content, as far as I can tell. As long as the slaughter is as quick and painless as it can be, there is nothing wrong with growing cows for eating.

Now if someone could prove to me that cows are aware of their future, than perhaps my carnivore status would change. But you would have to present pretty damn good data. . .

Now the cat I used to own is another matter. The manner in which she used to abuse mice was just plain MEAN - if my lab treated mice the way my cat did, we would lose our licence to study mice!!! Serafine the kitty would bat them around,and keep them barely alive for hours!

scigirl

tronvillain · 03-12-2002, 11:40 PM

echidna:

Quote:

Whether it’s necessary or not, ideally the suffering is not preferred. If one cares at all, is there not an anomaly ? If I place any value on their suffering, then I am also weighing that up against my value of eating them.

Well, it's not at all clear that animals would actually be better off if they weren't being used for food. That aside, I myself weight the empathy I feel for their suffering against the enjoyment I derive from eating them.

Quote:

Medically and scientifically it does seem that we are able to survive maybe not on no meat at all, but at least on less meat than our present diets. So essentially much of our value of eating meat is an aesthetic one. So to me, we are generally comparing our personal aesthetic taste preference, to our preference to reduce suffering.

I have never claimed otherwise.

Quote:

I still see a moral discrepancy.

Well, I don't. I'm afraid you'll have to explain in detail.

Pandora · 03-13-2002, 12:11 AM

“I've known several reptile keepers who were capable of keeping their pet alive and healthy on fruits and vegetables alone. I suggest trying strawberries and other sweet fruits -- they may be indifferent to the food source at first, but it's worth a try.”

LOL
There is only one way to feed a python a strawberry – first feed it to a mouse.

You cannot make a carnivorous reptile into a vegetarian and you should not feed animals to vegetarian lizards. Doing either will result in serious health problems and an early death.

“Some snakes are vegetarians.
No snake is a vegetarian, nor do any snakes eat vegetation. All snakes are carnivores, with diets, depending on species, ranging from arthropods, other invertebrates, fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, or mammals. Some snakes are cannabalistic and will eat other snakes, including members of their own species.”
Kaplan, Melissa. 1996. Reptile Myths

spin · 03-13-2002, 03:01 AM

Mad Kally:
----------------------------------------
How about research to give hope to millions who suffer from serious conditions such as cystic fibrosis, Alzheimer's disease, stroke, spinal cord damage and third world infections like malaria?
----------------------------------------

I guess you're also in favour of the experiments performed by those Nazi scientists, the results of which were used in later medicine.

We are finding new ways of experimenting, not on non-consenting ... um, victims.

spin · 03-13-2002, 03:31 AM

Pompous Bastard, there is nothing "moral" about your "contract theory". It is equally as applicable to a school of piranha. 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.

spin:
--------------------------
”Contract theory"! This is cute...
--------------------------

PB:
--------------------------
Yes, cute enough to be taken seriously by a number of philosophers. Contract theory has a long history; I didn’t invent it this morning
--------------------------

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

spin:
--------------------------
Justification through obfuscation. Old trick, still doesn't work.
--------------------------

PB:
--------------------------
I’m not sure what you think I’m trying to obfuscate.
--------------------------

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.

PB:
--------------------------
You implied that one could not justify a non-vegetarian diet without also justifying Dahmer’s behavior. I demonstrated how this could be done, simply by using a moral theory that differs from yours, one that I happen to accept. None of us are bound to accept your particular conception of morality and, in fact, few of us do. Your argument is based on premises that many of us do not believe to be valid. You may as well tell us that we cannot justify eating shellfish because the Bible forbids it.
--------------------------

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.

spin:
--------------------------
Let's get into Plato's heaven...
--------------------------

PB:
--------------------------
I don’t know what that means.
--------------------------

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.

spin:
--------------------------
So, you'll take Swift's advice and eat children who are in no position to negotiate such things.

...people in comas, the insane...
--------------------------

PB:
--------------------------
This has been covered in other threads. I’m not going to explain the finer points of contract theory to you. The important point here is that you recognize that there are widely accepted moral theories under which it is quite possible to justify killing cows for meat without justifying Dahmer’s behavior.
--------------------------

Whether it has been "covered" elsewhere or not, you are simply arbitrarily excluding the rights of other creatures for your taste buds' sake. You explain this away by rejecting the possibility the rights of animals because they are incapable of defending them. You defend your childrens' rights. Why are you being hypocritical here?

spin:
--------------------------
Dalmer of course simply rejected your logic, thus nullifying your argument.
--------------------------

PB:
--------------------------
Actually, no, Dahmer did not reject my logic. If Dahmer can be said to have behaved rationally at all, his actions are best described as an attempt to "cheat" on the contract, not an attempt to pretend that the contract doesn't exist. As I have argued elsewhere Dahmer would find his aberrant interests best served by agreeing to the social contract and then breaking it in secrecy, which is essentially what he did.
--------------------------

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

spin:
--------------------------
Did you ask the animals if they wanted to die? Did you attempt to negotiate with them?
--------------------------

PB:
--------------------------
No, because as I have noted, to the best of my, your, or anyone’s knowledge, the animals commonly raised by humans for food are unable to negotiate or even to communicate with us in any meaningful way.
--------------------------

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

spin:
--------------------------
They mightn't have the same mental facilities as you or Dalmer, but they'll tell you in no uncertain terms, given the opportunity, that they don't want to die.
--------------------------

PB:
--------------------------
Good, you provide them with the opportunity and the means to communicate, get them to express their preferences, get them to agree to respect my preferences, and we’ve got a deal.
--------------------------

people in comas, insane, children...

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

spin:
--------------------------
You weren't able to demonstrate anything.
--------------------------

PB:
--------------------------
I think I did a passable job of demonstrating that there are moral theories under which your argument doesn’t hold water.
--------------------------

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

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.

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

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Were I (who to my cost already am
One of those strange prodigious creatures man)
A spirit free, to choose for my own share,
What case of flesh, and blood, I'd pleas'd to wear,
I'd be a dog, a monkey, or a bear,
Or any thing but that vain animal,
Who is so proud of being rational.

-- John Wilmot (from "A Satyr against Mankind")

brighid · 03-13-2002, 04:42 AM

Spin - you Nazi comparison is a fallacy - particularly this one: Ad hominem

This is a fallacy because the truth of an assertion doesn't depend on the virtues of the person asserting it. A less blatant argumentum ad hominem is to reject a proposition based on the fact that it was also asserted by some other easily criticized person. For example:

"Therefore we should close down the church? Hitler and Stalin would have agreed with you."

If you would like to present a valid argument for vegetarianism, please leave out the fallacies as it nullifies the validity of your argument.

Brighid

x-member · 03-13-2002, 05:40 AM

Quote:

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

You see! Cows are capable of participating in a discussion! Why not give them the right to vote!

As for my eating of meat, I would point out that as a Raptorian Reptoid, my people have always consumed meat. We are decendants of the Raptors which once romed the earth. After we achieved self awareness, we found that humans were delicious. Thanks to the assistance of the Third Reich, we've left our home in the caves of the arctic and begun looking at ways to farm humans.

Personally, I find that the grain-fed freerange humans with an organic diet are the tastiest.

Jonaxizatov The Reptoid Up North

scombrid · 03-13-2002, 06:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by scigirl:
<strong>

Now if someone could prove to me that cows are aware of their future, than perhaps my carnivore status would change. But you would have to present pretty damn good data. . .

scigirl</strong>

Cows are aware of their future. Haven't you seen the Chick-filet bilboards? Those cows would have to know their future to go to the trouble of sponsoring Chick-filet in order to get people to eat chickens instead. Of course that makes the cows immoral since they are advocating the consumption of another sentient animal to save themselves. Damn inconsiderate cows, always thinking of themselves.

<after writing that I realize that Chick-filet is probably regional and unknown some people here>

spin · 03-13-2002, 06:49 AM

Brighid:
----------------------------
Spin - you Nazi comparison is a fallacy - particularly this one: Ad hominem
----------------------------

By labelling the comparison of Nazi doctors whose efforts were used by later researchers as an ad hominem, you conveniently sidestep the argument. You are simply wrong and are not prepared to deal with the logic.

We do not accept the activities of those doctors, yet our scientists have used the results and this is analogous to me of those people who torture animals for the benefit of humankind.

Please don't label before you show perception of the argument.

spin · 03-13-2002, 06:52 AM

Jonnikins who seems only capable of attempts at sarcasm in this discussion at the moment puts himself in the position of not having any argument and is therefore wasting everyone's time including his own.

Empty sarcasm just reflects badly on the user.

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

03-13-2002, 12:11 AM	#113
Pandora Regular Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: UK Posts: 367	“I've known several reptile keepers who were capable of keeping their pet alive and healthy on fruits and vegetables alone. I suggest trying strawberries and other sweet fruits -- they may be indifferent to the food source at first, but it's worth a try.” LOL There is only one way to feed a python a strawberry – first feed it to a mouse. You cannot make a carnivorous reptile into a vegetarian and you should not feed animals to vegetarian lizards. Doing either will result in serious health problems and an early death. “Some snakes are vegetarians. No snake is a vegetarian, nor do any snakes eat vegetation. All snakes are carnivores, with diets, depending on species, ranging from arthropods, other invertebrates, fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, or mammals. Some snakes are cannabalistic and will eat other snakes, including members of their own species.” Kaplan, Melissa. 1996. Reptile Myths

03-13-2002, 03:01 AM	#114
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	Mad Kally: ---------------------------------------- How about research to give hope to millions who suffer from serious conditions such as cystic fibrosis, Alzheimer's disease, stroke, spinal cord damage and third world infections like malaria? ---------------------------------------- I guess you're also in favour of the experiments performed by those Nazi scientists, the results of which were used in later medicine. We are finding new ways of experimenting, not on non-consenting ... um, victims.

03-13-2002, 03:31 AM	#115
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	Pompous Bastard, there is nothing "moral" about your "contract theory". It is equally as applicable to a school of piranha. 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. spin: -------------------------- ”Contract theory"! This is cute... -------------------------- PB: -------------------------- Yes, cute enough to be taken seriously by a number of philosophers. Contract theory has a long history; I didn’t invent it this morning -------------------------- This just means that you weren't original with the stuff. It doesn't mean that it is viable. spin: -------------------------- Justification through obfuscation. Old trick, still doesn't work. -------------------------- PB: -------------------------- I’m not sure what you think I’m trying to obfuscate. -------------------------- 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. PB: -------------------------- You implied that one could not justify a non-vegetarian diet without also justifying Dahmer’s behavior. I demonstrated how this could be done, simply by using a moral theory that differs from yours, one that I happen to accept. None of us are bound to accept your particular conception of morality and, in fact, few of us do. Your argument is based on premises that many of us do not believe to be valid. You may as well tell us that we cannot justify eating shellfish because the Bible forbids it. -------------------------- 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. spin: -------------------------- Let's get into Plato's heaven... -------------------------- PB: -------------------------- I don’t know what that means. -------------------------- 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. spin: -------------------------- So, you'll take Swift's advice and eat children who are in no position to negotiate such things. ...people in comas, the insane... -------------------------- PB: -------------------------- This has been covered in other threads. I’m not going to explain the finer points of contract theory to you. The important point here is that you recognize that there are widely accepted moral theories under which it is quite possible to justify killing cows for meat without justifying Dahmer’s behavior. -------------------------- Whether it has been "covered" elsewhere or not, you are simply arbitrarily excluding the rights of other creatures for your taste buds' sake. You explain this away by rejecting the possibility the rights of animals because they are incapable of defending them. You defend your childrens' rights. Why are you being hypocritical here? spin: -------------------------- Dalmer of course simply rejected your logic, thus nullifying your argument. -------------------------- PB: -------------------------- Actually, no, Dahmer did not reject my logic. If Dahmer can be said to have behaved rationally at all, his actions are best described as an attempt to "cheat" on the contract, not an attempt to pretend that the contract doesn't exist. As I have argued elsewhere Dahmer would find his aberrant interests best served by agreeing to the social contract and then breaking it in secrecy, which is essentially what he did. -------------------------- Nonetheless, he has broken your contract in the same way that you do, nullifying your argument. spin: -------------------------- Did you ask the animals if they wanted to die? Did you attempt to negotiate with them? -------------------------- PB: -------------------------- No, because as I have noted, to the best of my, your, or anyone’s knowledge, the animals commonly raised by humans for food are unable to negotiate or even to communicate with us in any meaningful way. -------------------------- I tell you what, go at an animal with an identifiable weapon, and the animal will communicate with you. spin: -------------------------- They mightn't have the same mental facilities as you or Dalmer, but they'll tell you in no uncertain terms, given the opportunity, that they don't want to die. -------------------------- PB: -------------------------- Good, you provide them with the opportunity and the means to communicate, get them to express their preferences, get them to agree to respect my preferences, and we’ve got a deal. -------------------------- people in comas, insane, children... Get real, PB. Defend rights, not deny them. spin: -------------------------- You weren't able to demonstrate anything. -------------------------- PB: -------------------------- I think I did a passable job of demonstrating that there are moral theories under which your argument doesn’t hold water. -------------------------- There is nothing moral about inappropriate application of theories ("contract theory"!) that don't fit the problem. 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. 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. 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. 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. But you claim to be rational, yet act in an arbitrary manner. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Were I (who to my cost already am One of those strange prodigious creatures man) A spirit free, to choose for my own share, What case of flesh, and blood, I'd pleas'd to wear, I'd be a dog, a monkey, or a bear, Or any thing but that vain animal, Who is so proud of being rational. -- John Wilmot (from "A Satyr against Mankind")

03-13-2002, 04:42 AM	#116
brighid Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: somewhere in the known Universe Posts: 6,993	Spin - you Nazi comparison is a fallacy - particularly this one: Ad hominem This is a fallacy because the truth of an assertion doesn't depend on the virtues of the person asserting it. A less blatant argumentum ad hominem is to reject a proposition based on the fact that it was also asserted by some other easily criticized person. For example: "Therefore we should close down the church? Hitler and Stalin would have agreed with you." If you would like to present a valid argument for vegetarianism, please leave out the fallacies as it nullifies the validity of your argument. Brighid

03-13-2002, 06:49 AM	#119
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	Brighid: ---------------------------- Spin - you Nazi comparison is a fallacy - particularly this one: Ad hominem ---------------------------- By labelling the comparison of Nazi doctors whose efforts were used by later researchers as an ad hominem, you conveniently sidestep the argument. You are simply wrong and are not prepared to deal with the logic. We do not accept the activities of those doctors, yet our scientists have used the results and this is analogous to me of those people who torture animals for the benefit of humankind. Please don't label before you show perception of the argument.

03-13-2002, 06:52 AM	#120
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	Jonnikins who seems only capable of attempts at sarcasm in this discussion at the moment puts himself in the position of not having any argument and is therefore wasting everyone's time including his own. Empty sarcasm just reflects badly on the user.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.