spin

Jeff:
-----------------
"I don't normally eat people," Jeffrey Dahmer says. "Just once or twice a year, on special occasions. Is that so bad?"
-----------------

Would you care to say something that you can relate to the discussion, rather than quizzical comments of this nature?

Danya

I understood his comment. It relates to yours:

Edited to add that your post indicates Jeff made the comment which was not the case.

[ March 17, 2002: Message edited by: Danya ]</p>

bonduca

I agree with Danya. Please abide by your own standards for conduct, spin.

Bill Snedden

I'm going to drop the references to contract theory as you appear to be either unwilling or incapable of understanding and responding to the real issue vs. your imagined issue. Besides which, it was never really MY argument to begin with; I just thoroughly dislike intellectual dishonesty.

Having wings or a particular skin color is certainly a matter of objective fact. In these cases, the question is not one of objectivity but rather of applicability. Does it make sense to differentiate based on wings vs. no wings? In some situations perhaps it does (can it fly vs. not fly?). In moral situations, I would agree that it does not. However, this is absolutely not analogous to the differentiation I have made.

My differention is based on comprehension of morality and ethics. It is therefore directly applicable to moral and ethical situations. It is also objectively true that animals (human or non-human) either possess this capability or they do not.

Oh, so eating plants is immoral under your ethic as well? How have you managed to live?

I feel sure that you didn't mean this as it came across.

Now I begin to wonder if you are even reading what I write. This may indeed be a futile attempt. One last time:

I HAVE NOT AND AM NOT USING CONTRACT THEORY TO JUSTIFY MEAT-EATING

Was that clear enough? My differentiation has nothing whatsoever to do with being able to enter into contracts. It has to do with having the neurological capacity to reason abstractly and develop & comprehend ethical systems.

I've snipped a rather large portion of your post following this as you were simply confusing my argument with contract theory.

Your objection is self-contradictory. Any distinction made on intrinsic nature cannot, by definition, be arbitrary.

LOL. No, I'm not.

Okay, the quote to which I was responding did not include the "sentient" distinction. Fair enough. Now, please explain how your differentiation of sentient vs. non-sentient is any less "arbitrary" (by your usage) than mine of morally cognizant vs. non-morally cognizant.

Perhaps. However, one of your main objections against those with whom you disagree is that their differentiations are "arbitrary" and thus reduce to "I like meat, so I'm going to keep on eating it." If your own differentiation is no less "arbitrary", I see no reason why the same reduction would not be equally applicable to you.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

[ March 17, 2002: Message edited by: Bill Snedden ]</p>

JL

Humans unable to enter into a contract are safe because of the brutalizing effect such treatment would have upon society. Does the consumption of animals brutalize us, leave us less able to feel or express compassion towards our fellow human?

frostymama

I am comfortable with my place in the food chain. I wonder how many Vegans were forced to get up early and take care of livestock when they were growing up. I would imagine that the answer would be "not many". At the time my family ate no meat and I had to suffer the abuse at the hands of these dumb creatures only to enjoy a soggy plate of Textured Vegetable Protien for my trouble. I eat animals soley because I hate them (being tastey is just an extra perk)

Chickens are quite possibly the dumbest and most disgusting livestock, but what do you expect from a critter who's brain is smaller than a booger. They have a bad habit of drowning in their water dishes when they are small, they smother each other if they get frightened. They will also chase a little kid down and peck the hell out of them just because they want to. I think that might be what is wrong with my Dad.... repeated chicken peckings. Which means chickens may be responsible for my childhood indoctrination into fundamentalist Christianity. I consider eating them an act of kindness.

Cows are bad too. They aren't quite as dumb, but they have the bad habit of crapping where ever you are trying to walk. The bulls are mean too. I've had to run from one in high heeled shoes though a muddy crap laden field in the dark on more than one occasion. Another thing... ever been to a diary? They are disgusting. After standing up to your knees in cow crap at 4 am you might start cursing cows too.

I don't have much experience with pigs, but I try to avoid eating pork. I did have a pig bite me when I was sleeping once, but I think it was just trying to lick the Cheeto dust off of my face and got a little excited.

I don't eat sheep either. They are about as dumb as the chickens (I wonder why Christ was compared to a lamb), but at least they are better tempered.

Saanen goats are by far the worst animals on the planet. There is a reason that the Xians think they are symbolic of evil. Unlike chickens and cows, goats are very smart. They can escape from any enclosure and will repeatedly gore you and butt you if you try to catch them. They also bite hard. Their favorite pastime is catching you bent over and biting you on the butt (drawing blood) and then raring back and butting you so hard that you land face first in a pile of goat dookie. On the plus side sometimes it was my little sister getting the face full of dookie.

I will savor every bite, thank you very much. Pass the steak sauce.

Alonzo Fyfe

Sorry, red herring.

My argument deals with my acts -- specifically, the act of preventing carnivores from eating meat.

The argument, again, is quite simple. It follows the following form:

Premise 1: If A, then B
Premise 2: Not B
Conclusion: Therefore, not A

(Logical form: Modus Tollens)

As applied to this debate:

Premise 1: If it is wrong to eat meat, then we are under an obligation to prevent carnivores from eating meat.

Premise 2: It is absurd to hold that we are under an obligation to prevent carnivores from eating meat.

Conclusion: Therefore, it is absord to hold that it is wrong to eat meat.


If you seed a defense of premise 1, then...

Consider any immoral act (e.g., murder of another human). Consider also a case in which an individual, because of mental defect or deficiency, is compelled to commit a murder. This fact does not imply that the individual shall remain free to commit such a murder at her whim. We are still under an obligation to stop her, even if she kills as a result of mental defect or deficiency.

The fact that the "she" in this example is a natural animal does not alter the overall conclusion. Thus, for all all of the natural carnivores, who kill because a mental defect or deficiency prevents them from recognizing the wrongness of their actions, we are obligated to prevent them from hunting to the degree that we are able.

By the rules of logic, you must either show that my argument is not a proper application of Modus Tollens, or demonstrate that one of my premises are false.

Your move.

JL

Also, what makes you so sure our livestock would prefer a life in the wild to one on a farm where they are well fed, warm and dry? Don't project our human goals and desires on these animals. Covered in filth? Yeah, so what? Chickens eat their own shit spin, I doubt they're too upset about how tidy their house is.

What if, by their standards, they live a better life and die an easier death than in the wild? Would you still oppose? Or have we fouled the whole thing just because we're responsible?

By the way, your dismissal of meat eating because it is not essential rests upon the presupposition that it is immoral, when in fact is exactly that notion which is being attacked by asserting what we are doing is perfectly natural, is part of our heritage. Participation in the food chain is not immoral. It does not brutalize us. It isn't evil. The animals don't wail in anguish at their unavoidable fate. They are not moral, let alone capable of understanding morality. We are simply getting involved in a natural process that plays out every second of every minute of every day.

JL

You beat me too it frosty. Sorry for the cross posting.

frostymama

that they do... and they peck each other and pluck the feathers out of the weak ones (Ever heard of a "pecking order"? Those SOBs are brutal... um... and stupid.)

[ March 17, 2002: Message edited by: frostymama ]</p>