Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Pomp · 03-13-2002, 03:55 PM

spin,

I can't be bothered after dealing with a number of apparent clones on the issue to take you to court on each of your statements.

In light of your subsequent complaint that:

Quote:

�there are few participants interested in discussing the topic with any seriousness�

It seems odd to me that you �can�t be bothered� to respond in full to a poster who is, quite obviously, discussing the topic seriously. At any rate�

You've shown nothing moral to your contract theory. What's moral about it?

I usually consider any theory that deals with how moral agents ought to behave to be a moral theory. Since contract theory obviously deals with such matters, I think it is fair to call it a moral theory. There are very few serious philosophers who would not label it as such.

I hope you would agree that contract theory is a theory about morals (in fact, I find it difficult to see how you could rationally disagree with this proposition), making it a moral theory in that sense (the sense in which I am using it). I suspect that your objection is simply that contract theory does not comply with your own moral theory making it an �immoral theory.� Is this correct?

What�s moral about your moral theory? Also, since your definition is obviously quite different from mine, just how do you define �moral theory?�

Exclusion is a typical act of someone who is not moral.

You yourself exclude many classes of thing from moral consideration. You have your own reasons, which are perfectly valid under your own moral theory, but someone who, for example, holds that plants deserve moral recognition, might point out to you that, �Exclusion is a typical act of someone who is not moral.� Can you demonstrate some objective standard by which the grounds you use to exclude certain things from moral consideration are more valid than the grounds on which I exclude certain things from moral consideration?

You go on to attempt to say that I am working on a different morality from many of the posters. I agree. I also attempted to show that there are other people working on other moral bases as well, people who didn't uphold your contract theory.

How does the fact that there are people who do not accept my moral theory undermine my point that not everyone accepts, or will be persuaded by arguments using, the same moral theory? I don�t intend to prove that contract theory is the one true moral theory. It�s not. I only intend to demonstrate the reason why your argument is not persuasive, namely, that it is based on assumptions that not all of us share.

A picture is worth a thousand words, PB.

A picture, like language, reflects a clear intent to communicate. I realize that your comment to Malaclypse was mudslinging, rather than a serious argument, but your statement that his sentence had no communicative value seems at odds with your previous broad interpretation of what ought to be considered communicative. Malaclypse�s use of a common language to express ideas to you represents a clear desire to communicate. It is not at all clear that we ought to interpret the reaction of a threatened cow as representing communicative intent, rather than a simple attempt to avoid pain.

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

spin · 03-13-2002, 03:55 PM

spin:
------------------------
Anthropologists studying early humanoids show what the early diet was due to the teeth that have been preserved. The evidence points to a diet of varous nuts and other vegetable sources. The diet changed with the climate change that gradually reduced the jungles to savannah in the zone east of the Great Riff Valley. The necessary diet change led to opportunistic consumption of meat.
------------------------

tronvillain:
------------------------
I see. They can determine the percentage of meat eaten from teeth? I'd like you to back taht up with something - at least I gave a link.
------------------------

I don't know about stuff on the web, other than the fact that there's a lot of dubious stuff there, so while I look for something better, you could try:

"Diet and Primate Evolution", Katharine Milton, Scientific American, August 1993, p.70 ff.

And another aside. Think of all the various primates and monkey and what they eat. Do you notice that none of them can be classified as "omnivores"? They are all primarily plant eaters.

But I'm sure I've got something even more specific on the subject s omewhere.

Mageth · 03-13-2002, 04:11 PM

Um, spin, most primates are generally classified as omnivores. Look it up.

[edited to add: I should probably say "many if not most" - but since spin claims that none of them are, it probably doesn't matter]

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

x-member · 03-13-2002, 04:20 PM

"Spin",

May I ask you what exactly is your objective in this discussion? For the amount of time you've spent on it, and the number of words you've typed, I assume you have some kind of outcome in mind.

Jon

spin · 03-13-2002, 04:35 PM

PB, sorry, I find your consistent use of this "contract theory" stuff as arbitrary manipulation for obvious ends. You want to eat meat so you stack your theory to suit it. I see nothing moral in that.
And Dahmer says your contract theory is arbitrary.

PB:
--------------------------------
A picture, like language, reflects a clear intent to communicate. I realize that your comment to Malaclypse was mudslinging, rather than a serious argument, but your statement that his sentence had no communicative value seems at odds with your previous broad interpretation of what ought to be considered communicative.
--------------------------------

This is what I said:
--------------------------------
if there is any core argument in the above, you'll need to flesh out the second sentence which is the only one that has the possibility of any communicative value.
--------------------------------

In the context Macaclypse had made two unwarranted value judgments and so, by exclusion I was left with one statement whose worth I couldn't evaluate because of the means of expression and the lack of evidence of substance behind the assertions.

PB:
--------------------------------
Malaclypse’s use of a common language to express ideas to you represents a clear desire to communicate. --------------------------------

Here is Macaclypse's sentence:
--------------------------------
In this case you are equivocating degree of intelligence with qualitative differences in cognitive processes.
--------------------------------

That's not a particularly helpful comment which doesn't attempt to be easily accessible to unpacking. So, I don't find your comment about his "use of common language" reflective of reality.

PB:
--------------------------------
It is not at all clear that we ought to interpret the reaction of a threatened cow as representing communicative intent, rather than a simple attempt to avoid pain.
--------------------------------

If you see a hungry baby bawling, you can receive communication without the sender having the intent of communicating. I was dealing with content, not intent.

Mageth · 03-13-2002, 04:36 PM

<a href="http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/mammals/primate/Lorisprintout.shtml" target="_blank">The loris is classified as an omnivore</a>

<a href="http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/mammals/" target="_blank">Chimpanzees are classified as omnivores</a>

<a href="http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/mammals/" target="_blank">Orangs are classified as omnivores</a>

<a href="http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/mammals/" target="_blank">Gibbons and siamangs are classified as omnivores</a>

<a href="http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/mammal/monkey/Baboonprintout.shtml" target="_blank">Baboons are classified as omnivores.</a>

<a href="http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/mammals/monkey/Mandrillprintout.shtml" target="_blank">Mandrills eat small animals such as lizards and snakes.</a>

<a href="http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/mammals/primate/Tarsierprintout.shtml" target="_blank">Tarsiers are - guess what - carnivores!</a>

Even gorillas are known to occasionally supplement their diet with ants and termines.

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

MadKally · 03-13-2002, 04:38 PM

spin,

MadKally said:
Has anyone in your family ever had:
Vaccines and antibiotics to prevent and treat infections or anesthetics used in all forms of surgery? Diabetes, asthma or high blood pressure?
How about cancer, heart disease, depression, or newly emerged infections such as HIV. Have you ever owned a pet? Veterinary medicine is, by definition, the result of animal research.
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?
If so, maybe you should thank our animal friends or you probably wouldn't be here to go nuts in the first place.

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

sock puppet: This statement doesn't even make sense. The concentration camp experiments you appear to be referencing contributed nothing to "later medicine." They were uncontrolled, unblinded, unrandomized forms of sadistic torture from which no reliable or useful conclusions could be drawn.

What theory or treatment modality do you think was borne of these atrocities?

spin said:
I'm quite amused at the inordinate number of people who feel the necessity to come in to the discussion who aren't contributing to it in any way. Most try to be funny, some merely nitpick, so attempt to take a distanced_I'm not_involved approach.

sock puppet: Please answer the questions asked by serious contributors to this subject.

Thank you in advance..

punkersluta · 03-13-2002, 04:40 PM

Greetings, again, everyone.

It appears that this thread has gained nearly 100 posts since I last saw. I shall try to address all the concerns brought up...

alek0...

Quote:

1) You claimed that cats can do well on vegeterian diet. Prove it. in particular address the issues of taurine and vit. A, as well as necessity of having different set of enzymes to digest vegetable matter. Also address the issue of our enormous knowledge on animal nutrition which results in "experts" recommending alfalfa for cats which is listed among poisonous plants for cats.

I don't understand what you're saying here. First, you say that experts say that know a lot about nutrition and then say that alfalfa is poisonous to cats, which is also brought up by experts. Seems like a dichotomy, "We recommend alfalfa for cats which is poisonous," -- or a highly unethical medical standard. Of course, if you're referring to the cat food products at Pangea Vegan story, they have no Alfalfa in them: see [urlhttp://www.pangeaveg.com/cgi-bin/miva?Merchant2/merchant.mv+Screen=PROD&Store_Code=Pangea&Product_ Code=571&Category_Code=14-dog-cat]here[/url].

Quote:

Retardation of myelination due to dietary vitamin B12 deficiency

Vegetarians will absolutely have no problem attaining their B12 vitamins. Vegans, however, who abstain from both dairy and meat may have problems. Vitamin B12 can be found in various plants, however such as seaweed.

Quote:

Long-term practitioners of vegan vegetarian were found to be at a higher risk of exceeding lumbar spine fracture threshold (adjusted odds ratio = 2.48, 95% confidence interval = 1.03-5.96) and of being classified as having osteopenia of the femoral neck (3.94, 1.21-12.82).

Milk also has strong associations with osteoporosis -- although as far as we can know about osteoporosis, it is not yet an entirely understood disease. Although taking in more dairy than necessary can lead to a 2% increase in bone mass, this is only temporary, and the bones go back to normal mass once the intake of dairy is brought down to normal. Furthermore, milk contains Vitamin D, which has a leaching effect that destroys calcium. It is highly suggested among many leading scientists that it is better to get your calcium and nutrients from dark green vegetables. Milk is certainly not as healthy. In fact, the FDA said that the only reason it recommends milk is that it is healthier than beer. (information derived from "Worrying About Milk" by Will Hively in Discover magazine (August 2000, Volume 21, Number 8).

tronvillain...

Quote:

hostility was a perfectly reasonable response to being insulted.

I'm sorry that you find reasoning, logic, and evidence to be so insulted.

Jon Up North...

Quote:

I notice nobody has voiced their support for giving Bovines the right to vote. But, if we are to extend them greater rights, why stop at liberty? Why not equality and fraternity? If allowing Bovines their franchise seems silly, then it quite possible indicates that there is a certian limit to their rights.

I'm calling my lobby group Bovines Ultimate Life and Liberty, Suffrage and Health Into Tomorrow, aka BULL SHIT.

I already addressed the progression of the liberty of non-human animalia. Allow me to quote myself...

When Kachana said...

Quote:

The list goes on, in short, do you think it is POSSIBLE to inhabit a world where all animals are conferred with equal rights? If so, do you have any links or information on what governmental policies might look like in such a world where your principle is consistently applied.

I responded...

Quote:

I certainly do think so. Of course, the change from a non-Humanist world into a world that embraces equality of all animals may be gradual. The first and most obvious changes would be that they would no longer be used for food, for experimentation, for circuses, and other industries where they are generally abused. Although I do not have a quote on it because I lent the book out, in the book Animal Liberation by Peter Singer, Singer believes that there should be reservations for the cows that are now being slaughtered. That, once their equality is recognized, they will live freely on plantations. (Of course, although I agree with him, I think their sexual activity should be monitored. You may bring up the objection that this is immoral on the grounds that "individuals have a right to procreate," but I highly disagree. In fact, if someone refuses to have an abortion in certain cases, they themselves may be immoral on account of the fact that they bring a child into a world full of suffering when not necessary. It is true that cows have a right to intercourse, per se, but not a right to overpopulate the world with calves that cannot be fed.)

As far as the conflicts between the animal world (untouched by civilization) and civilization (predominantly human), things should be settled rationally and practically. As to the predators and the prey of the world, their existence keeps each other in good balance. Without the predators, the prey would quickly overpopulate and then have widespread starvation. I don't think that civilization should mess with those kind of natural balances until (1) we have enough dedication from the people and enough resources to make those kinds of changes properly and effectively, providing the prey and the predators with an environment where they are in easy acces of genetically altered foods to fit their bodies. (2) although not necessary for rights, I would find it incredibly pleasing if a method of specific communication was brought up between humans and non-humans. It is true that we can communicate with body and facial expressions, but specific words would be by far helpful. (There has been specific communication among certain primates with humans.)

As far as rights and duties are concerned... Would a government have to hold equal responsibility to other animals as well as humans? "Should a hedgehog have as much of a right to be on a waiting list as a girl needing a transplant?" I do not think that a government has any moral obligation to help those not under the rule of the government. A good government would hold regard for those outside its borders; as the Stoics said something along the lines of, "A good government works for all humanity and not only its citizens." Of course, if a government does not help those outside its borders, I wouldn't call it immoral. If the wolves and the bears and the lions lived without preying on smaller animals, were capable of communication, and paid their taxes, then I would absolutely agree with certain things you've said, such as, "Would you support taxation that gave funding to medical research proportionate to an animal's populations (leaving little left over for humans)?"

Of course, that is not the case today. Also, although it is surely no answer but rather a helpful, guiding principle, I shall quote Henry Stephens Salt...

"As for the demand so frequently made on reformers, that they should first explain the details of their scheme-how this and that point will be arranged, and by what process all kinds of difficulties, real or imagined, will be circumvented-the only rational reply is that it is absurd to expect to see the end of a question, when we are now but at its beginning. The persons who offer this futile sort of criticism are usually those who under no circumstances would be open to conviction; they purposely ask for an explanation which, by the very nature of the case, is impossible because it necessarily belongs to a later period of time. It would be equally sensible to request a traveller to enumerate beforehand all the particular things he will see by the way, on the pain of being denounced as an unpractical visionary, although he may have a quite sufficient general knowledge of his course and destination." -- Henry Stephens Salt, [Animals' Rights, Chapter 1.]

PJPSYCO...

Quote:

If cows are getting equal rights then I say tofu as well. Let's see how the vegatarians like it when their primary food source says stop eating their children.

I have to ask. I have respect for everything I eat both plant and animal, do you punkersluta?

I already addressed this -- (1) I provided evidence that plants are not conscious, (2) I provided evidence that animals are conscious, (3) I provided evidence that conscious beings have a moral responsibility to each other.

Mad Kally...

Quote:

Why is it that every time someone starts a topic like this, the vegans go completely nuts?

I think you are completely ignorant of this subject. Whenever I start a topic like this, I get all sorts of morons and fools: (1) "God made animals out of meat so we could eat them!" (2) "Jesus's divine morality states that we can consume his creation!" (3) "Teeth are designed to eat flesh!" (4) "There is real evidence that plants are conscious beings!" (5) "Where's the proof that animals are conscious beings? None! Because they aren't!"

Hell, take a look at the first page. Several people jumped on me because I use quotes at the bottom of my posts and tronvillain said "fuck your plea for vegitarianism."

Mab Kally...

Quote:

Vaccines and antibiotics to prevent and treat infections or anesthetics used in all forms of surgery? Diabetes, asthma or high blood pressure?

How about cancer, heart disease, depression, or newly emerged infections such as HIV. Have you ever owned a pet? Veterinary medicine is, by definition, the result of animal research.

The difference between taking a vaccination and eating meat is significant. The reason why I do not eat meat is obvious -- by refusing to buy flesh, I harm the industry based on carnage and murder. If I refuse to take a vaccination, it does not stop animal experimentation in even the slightest. For several reasons: many of those animal experimentations are funded by charities and the government; the only way to stop that kind of animal abuse is campaigning against it. If you refuse to take a vaccination, you do not harm the industry. If a vaccine is invented, for example, and it is used by 1 person or 100,000,000 people, it doesn't matter, as the same amount of animals would have been experimented on and died either way.

scigirl...

Quote:

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.

Whether or not cows are dumb does not justify their murder. According to that reasoning, should we make slaves out of every human with an IQ lower than 100 and make everyone above 100 a slaveowner? Can we consume the bodies of infants and the insane and the senile, simply because they are "dumb"? Furthermore, I would not trade my life to graze in "the prettiest areas of the world," and I doubt that you would either. Also, you fail to consider how cows are treated: they are dehorned, branded, castrated, beaten, abused, etc., etc., etc..

Jon...

Quote:

You have failed to convince anyone to bend to your fanatical and possibly psychotic position.

Simple fallacy -- asside from your assertion of it being "fanatical" or "psychotic," whether or not an audience can be convinced of anything is completely irrelevant to the truth of statement. If people reject the theory of gravity, does that make it any less valid?

Mageth...

Quote:

I didn't say the brain doesn't produce consciousness. What I said was "Can you provide evidence that a brain is necessary to produce consciousness?" IOW, could something else besides a brain as we know it produce consciousness? Do I have to explain everything to you?

Why ask for proof of something you do not deny? At least make a slight attempt at being reasonable. Not to mention that you said such a statement was unlikely to be proven!

Quote:

DAMMIT, I did not say that the brain does not produce consciousness. Please, refrain from attributing things to me which I did not say.

This is my last post in response to things that you say. I think that long, long ago, you debated someone and once they said, "Well, that's cruel, IMO." Ever since then, at the end of every other sentence you include "IMO." Now that I debated you, you have been copying things that I've said: "Please refrain from...." -- "Your comprehension is appalling..." -- etc., etc., etc.. Perhaps it's sarcasm, but hell if I can tell.

Also, your quote from quackbusters fails to take into the fact that Americans take in nearly 50% more protein than we need and most goes to waste, not to mention that doctors have concluded that the only way to fail in getting enough protein is if you are starving -- rice and potatoes has enough.

Malaclypse the Younger...

Quote:

The vegetarian ethical argument here shows a persistent logical fallacy--two actually.

The first is that because of some similarity between two actions, they must be morally identical. This fallacy is used for arguments such as the "evil aliens".

The second fallacy is declaring that some particular similarity exists, it is morally determinant. This fallacy is either used as an argument from authority ("this similarity is determinant because I said so") or a post hoc fallacy (I am uncomfortable eating animals, I am uncomfortable eating people, therefore any similarity between the two is morally determinant).

Throw in a few ad hominems and nonsequiturs, and you have the vegetarian moral argument presented here in its entirety.

Absolutely not. The reason I am a Vegetarian is because an animal is a conscious being, capable of suffering, and to cause suffering is immoral. When compared to the suffering imparted on humans because of their race, it is morally IDENTICAL to the suffering imparted on non-human animals.

Also, the fact that you fail to comprehend the vegetarian moral argument should raise some red flags for the scientifically minded. You believe to have debunked it, yet you fail to understand what you are debunking!

Quote:

An ethical argument is most persuasive (to me, at least) when the proponent presents him or herself as a moral exemplar. Sadly, the proponents in this debate have displayed simple ethical flaws, such as rudeness, (unjustified) arrogance and sloppy reasoning to the point of intellectual dishonesty. Frankly the proponents completely fail to make the emotional case that I want to be like them.

"Anyway, fuck your plea for vegitarianism." -- He was not a proponent, and he was one of the first to disagree with me.

voltaire321...

Quote:

When animals refrain from eating other animals because it is cruel then so will I. Until that point I don't see why I should have to eat beans while all the other omnivores in the world get to have meat. I'm an animal too damnit! It's the way the world works. The food chain and all that good stuff.

(1) I am not a Vegetarian because eating meat itself is intrinsically cruel. I am a Vegetarian because causing suffering to a conscious being is cruel. By purchasing meat and thrusting the meat industries further, you are -- instrumentally -- causing suffering to a conscious being. (2) Yes, although humans are also animals, all animals have a moral responsibility. Whether or not lions or other predators kill other animals, we still have a moral obligation to refrain from killing innocent animals when unnecessary. Some animals rape each other, steal from each other, murder each other -- this does not justify any individual doing it, though. (3) Whether or not it is or is not the way the world works has absolutely nothing to do with the matter of Moral Vegetarianism. The world may delve into neo-Nazism; just because that's the way everything is done it does not justify neo-Nazism. (4) The Food Chain is a scientific observation, not a moral foundation.

Quote:

If you want to impose your vegetarianism on me then get the HELL OUT OF MY FACE!

This is a public forum for the free exchange of ideas. If at the notice of something slightly different than what society accepts turns you into someone so ignorant, then perhaps you are incapable of handling the purpose of public forum.

Koyaanisqatsi...

Quote:

Only an arrogant, homocentric f*ck would think they could possibly know whether or not plants are conscious

It's a question of SCIENCE -- not philosophy or morals. The fact that scientists have failed to produce an organ in plants that produces consciousness would seem to indicate that plants themselves are not likely to be conscious beings. Of course, then all scientists and scientifically minded individuals are "arrogant, homocentric f*ck"s.

Quote:

Only a sanctimonious, arrogant, homocentric f*ck would think that a natural process which is innate and older than the hills should be altered in order for personal cause c�l�bre melodrama to replace legitimate concerns.

lol, are you possibly capable of making sentences that follow a little bit of sense? (1) Natural process of what? Natural Selection? Tantament to Capitalism and Social Darwinism. Of course, not everyone is a Socialist. Hehe... lol, your sentence can be cut down to "Only a f*ck would think that a natural process should be altered replace legitimate concerns." So, we should ignore legitemate concerns? Next time make sure you know what you're talking about before you make yourself look bad.

Quote:

As has been no doubt noted, just about every other animal in the entire world eats each other alive and/or injects a slow acting poison which liquifies internal organs while keeping the organism breathing so the food doesn't spoil; fates far more terrifying IMO than Gomer with a blunt force trauma gun.

I already answered this argument LONG ago. Quote...

Quote:

1. It does not matter that animals eat each other. This holds no reflection on morality. Primates are known to steal from each other, salamanders are known to cannibalize each other, and some Galapagos lizards are known to rape each other. However, it does not give us any right to steal, to cannibalize, or to rape other humans. Then, certainly, if animals consume each other, it does not give humans any right to consume animals.

2. It is true that lions and other predators must hunt to kill. However, humans are certainly not in that situation. We do not need to kill other conscious animals to keep ourselves alive. In fact, humans will live longer and survive longer if we STOP eating meat, as proven by numerous studies in science and nutrition. However, lions do not have an option to stop eating meat. If the same situation were for humans, then eating animals would be justified. If a human was trapped on an island with no consumable vegetation, then hunting and killing an animal to consume would be justifiable, as no other option would be present. However, in today's world, we do not need to kill any animals to survive.

...

You also later stated...

Quote:

If you want to pretend that you're on a higher plane of existence than the one you're on, go right ahead.

Would you mind telling me what the hell you're talking about?

Quote:

But as with everything else in this society, if you want to preach your unsupportable opinions to anyone else, my vote is, piss up a rope.

Wow, what eloquence... You must carry around two dictionaries: Ebonics and Modern English.

Kachana...

Quote:

Punker, the issue of whether a country could successfully implement policies in which animals have most if not all of the rights humans have is obviously a very large one covering many different topics. I think it's a topic for many threads rather than one about vegetarianism, and as I don't know your exact position on animal rights (you don't seem to see them totally equal to humans, for instance they'd get less healthcare and no special police protection against being eaten)

I did not say that -- I said that a government has no moral responsibility to individuals that are not citizens of that government. I *DID NOT* say that governments have absolutely no responsibility to non-humans. In my opinion, as I have stated numerous times, all conscious beings deserve equal consideration of their interests.

Quote:

What's wrong with me bying meat of animals killed in such a way? You don't need to convince me that slaughterhouses in America and various other countries have awful standards, I believe you, but you have not convinced me that there is something wrong with killing and ating animals when their suffering is partialled out of the equation.

This equation can work for anything -- rape a girl and give her a candy cane afterwards. It doesn't matter if they are given something back. It matters if the individual consents.

Quote:

Whatever rhetoric you want to bathe your examples in, The fact is that medical research using animals WILL significantly enhance your life, and the life of other animals that are treated by the medicines derived.

According to this reasoning, we should have 1% of the population of humans tested on because the results from such tests will further the lives of humans.

Brighid...

Quote:

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

You have not been following the scientific data provided. Meat is detrimental to the health of any human.

SallySmith...

Quote:

I would be a liar if I said I didn't miss it at times (eating meat). I was a pretty big meat-eater so it was a big adjustment. I cut out one thing at a time over a period of several years. Now I am surprised that in fact, it's pretty damn easy. The only thing I hate is that there still aren't that many good vegetarian options in terms of eating out, even in a veg-friendly place like Seattle. It's a hell of a lot better than the midwest, though.

One thing about PETA, I know they annoy the hell out of a lot of people, but they do make great strides for better treatment of animals. They were the reason that McDonalds, Burger King, and Wendy's, in that order, agreed to adopt higher standards of treatment for the animals they use. I can't remember all of the specifics, but it was things like larger cages for hens, no forced molting (starvation for a period of several weeks to squeeze out more eggs), audits of their suppliers, etc. So even though I am not in agreement with PETA on some of the issues, I do support them as a whole.

Finally, one thing I can quote where I don't have to point out the failure of logic! =)

When I became a Vegetarian, it was because I realized that consciousness was necessary for moral treatment, and from there on, I never ate meat again. I was also a big meat eater, so it was a change -- but for the better. After I stopped working at a pizza place that served pizza to its workers during lunch (in fact, I composed an article that briefly highlights that experience), I became a Vegan. Now, it's real simple for me. And, although I have had some hard times finding the evidence in many of PETA's assertions, they are the organization which has made the greatest effort and has had the greatest success in getting rights attained for animals.

Pompous Bastard...

Quote:

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.

That's not true at all. Most people believe that consciousness is the only thing required to deserve moral treatment. When it comes to moral dilemmas, some of those who are uneducated in the field or untrained in debate will often state, "Well, can it feel?" Thus indicating that consciousness and humaneness are values inherently held by most individuals.

tronvillain...

Quote:

I see. They can determine the percentage of meat eaten from teeth? I'd like you to back taht up with something - at least I gave a link.

Not that what Spin was said was incorrect, but providing a link means shit. Knock yourself out: <a href="http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/FlatHome.htm" target="_blank">The Flat Earth Society</a>.

As Spin said himself...

Quote:

I don't know about stuff on the web, other than the fact that there's a lot of dubious stuff there,

Mageth...

Quote:

most primates are generally classified as omnivores. Look it up.

Yet you have failed to provide one single, solitary shred of evidence that design JUSTIFIES usage!

A gun is made to kill. Does that mean it is morally acceptable to use it in that way?

A knife is made to stab. Does that mean it is morally acceptable to use it in that way?

Similiarly.... A human body is (or may be) made to consume flesh. Does that mean it is morally acceptable to use it in that way? Furthermore, ***EVEN*** if it is, does that mean that humans can eat each other, because we are all made of flesh?

Also, it appears that there debate of the Contract Theory versus other moral theories has come up. I will repost what I said previously about it...

Since the subject itself could fill volumes of books, I am sure, and since it often and easily gets complicated with the various ethical systems of philosophers, I will restrict my comments on Subjective and Objective Moralities to a small amount.

It is true that morality seems to change with culture to culture. Slavery was acceptable in the United States in the early 1800's yet now it is no longer acceptable. What brought about this change? Surely, it was not the slaves themselves. Although politically Lincoln may have opposed slavery for the grounds that he wanted to keep the nation united, the Abolitionists which caused such fervent hatred of slavery are the reason why the North eventually despised slavery. Why did these reformers hate slavery, though? Well, like any conscious being, they had suffered. From suffering, we all learn to detest it. So, when individuals saw scenes of slavery, of masters beating their slaves to a pulp and seeing the tragedies wrought by this horrible institution, they were bent merciless to the torments of the slave. The pains that were inherent in the slave's life became inherent in the life of the Abolitionist. It is for this same reason that many Jews from the Holocaust became Humanitarians and despised any sort of suffering. However, although this is a brief explanation of Objective Morality, of how suffering ourselves makes us hate it when others suffer, it is all that this time may permit me to write upon the subject.

Robert Green Ingersoll, God In The Constitution, date unknown...

Quote:

"The intelligent and good man holds in his affections the good and true of every land -- the boundaries of countries are not the limitations of his sympathies. Caring nothing for race, or color, he loves those who speak other languages and worship other gods. Between him and those who suffer, there is no impassable gulf. He salutes the world, and extends the hand of friendship to the human race. He does not bow before a provincial and patriotic god -- one who protects his tribe or nation, and abhors the rest of mankind."

So, you see in this previous quote, Ingersoll makes an appeal. He states that "Between him and those who suffer, there is no impassable gulf." As you can clearly see, Ingersoll made an appeal for consideration of the interests of conscious beings.

William Shakespeare also made an appeal...

A Merchant in Venice, by William Shakespeare, Act 3, Scene 1....

Quote:

To bait fish withal: if it will feed nothing else,
it will feed my revenge. He hath disgraced me, and
hindered me half a million; laughed at my losses,
mocked at my gains, scorned my nation, thwarted my
bargains, cooled my friends, heated mine
enemies; and what's his reason? I am a Jew. Hath
not a Jew eyes? hath not a Jew hands, organs,
dimensions, senses, affections, passions? fed with
the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject
to the same diseases, healed by the same means,
warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer, as
a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed?
if you tickle us, do we not laugh? if you poison
us, do we not die? and if you wrong us, shall we not
revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will
resemble you in that. If a Jew wrong a Christian,
what is his humility? Revenge. If a Christian
wrong a Jew, what should his sufferance be by
Christian example? Why, revenge. The villany you
teach me, I will execute, and it shall go hard but I
will better the instruction.

So, you see, even Shakespeare's plays have a reference to holding a certain affection towards other conscious beings. The Jew in this short exerpt makes appeals to his righst by showing the similarities between Jews and Christians. A direct quote: "If you prick us, do we not bleed?" -- This can be simplified as, "Do we not also suffer?" By making this appeal to equality, he was making an appeal on the grounds that all humans are conscious beings, despite religious background.

Finally, one more quote (as I am informed that BB posters have a small patience)...

Henry Stephens Salt, quoted from The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, edited by James Hastings....

Quote:

It is grievous to see or hear, and almost to hear of, any man, or even any animal whatever, in torture. For example, when a man turns aside to avoid crushing an insect, why does he do so? Certainly not because of any reasoned conviction as to the sufferings of the "poor beetle that we tread upon", but for the simple fact that, consciously or unconsciously, he is humane; the sight of suffering, however slight, is distasteful to him as being human. Of all mistaken notions concerning humanitarianism, the most mistaken is that which regards it as some extraneous artificial cult, forced on human nature from without; whereas in truth it is founded on an instinctive conviction from within, a very part of human development. When we talk of a man "becoming a humanitarian", what we really mean is that he has recognized a fact that was already within his consciousness - the kinship of all sentient life - of which humanitarianism is the avowed and definite proclamation.

So, you see, there certainly is a sort of "kinship" among all creatures capable of suffering. I can understand anyone's skepticism of such a theory of Objective Morality, even after that brief presentation of reasoning and evidence -- there are quite a few objections to it, all of which even if I addressed at this BB, would most likely go unread due to their massive size. However, I hope that there is at least a bit more "open-ness" to such a theory.

"Racists violate the principle of equality by giving greater weight to the interests of members of their own race when there is a clash between their interests and the interests of those of another race. Sexists violate the principle of equality by favoring the interests of their own sex. Similarly, speciesists allow the interests of their own species to override the greater interests of members of other species. The pattern is identical in each case." - Peter Singer [Animal Liberation, by Peter Singer, page 9, First Edition.]

"I have often thought if it was not for this tyranny which custom usurps over us, that men of any tolerable good-nature could never by reconcil'd to the killing of so many animals for their daily food, as long as the bountiful earth so plentifully provides them with varieties of vegetable dainties. . . . In such perfect animals as sheep and oxen, in whom the heart, the brain and nerves differ so little from ours, and in whom the separation of the spirits from the blood, the organs of sense, and consequently feeling itself, are the same as they are in human creatures; I can't imagine how a man not harden'd in blood and massacre is able to see a violent death, and the pangs of it, without concern. In answer to this, most people will think it sufficient to say that all things belong allow'd to be made for the service to man, there can be no cruelty in putting creatures to the use they were design'd for; but I have heard men make this reply while their nature within them has reproach'd them with the falsehood of the assertion." - Bernard de Mandeville [The Fable of the Bees, by Bernard de Mandeville, 1723. Quoted from Animals' Rights Considered In Relation To Social Progress, by Henry S. Salt, chapter 1, 1894.]

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

For 108,
Punkerslut

Sandy · 03-13-2002, 04:47 PM

Whew! After reading this thread I've really worked up an appetite. Anyone for a good, old fashioned Southern Pig Pickin????

Baloo · 03-13-2002, 04:49 PM

Spin,

You, by your very own arguments, have no morals. None. Your "rights of concious organisms" moral theory is not even remotely moral. I mean, what's moral about it? That you can blithely use it to exclude plants, because naturally they can't participate in your conciousness theory.

You exclude anything that is not concious.
Exclusion is a typical act of someone who is not moral. So, I accuse you of arbitrarily picking the criteria of "conciousness" just to morally justify the fact that you (directly or indirectly) barbarically slaughter thousands of living organisms every day. Care to defend your "moral" theory?

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

03-13-2002, 03:55 PM	#192
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	spin: ------------------------ Anthropologists studying early humanoids show what the early diet was due to the teeth that have been preserved. The evidence points to a diet of varous nuts and other vegetable sources. The diet changed with the climate change that gradually reduced the jungles to savannah in the zone east of the Great Riff Valley. The necessary diet change led to opportunistic consumption of meat. ------------------------ tronvillain: ------------------------ I see. They can determine the percentage of meat eaten from teeth? I'd like you to back taht up with something - at least I gave a link. ------------------------ I don't know about stuff on the web, other than the fact that there's a lot of dubious stuff there, so while I look for something better, you could try: "Diet and Primate Evolution", Katharine Milton, Scientific American, August 1993, p.70 ff. And another aside. Think of all the various primates and monkey and what they eat. Do you notice that none of them can be classified as "omnivores"? They are all primarily plant eaters. But I'm sure I've got something even more specific on the subject s omewhere.

03-13-2002, 04:11 PM	#193
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Um, spin, most primates are generally classified as omnivores. Look it up. [edited to add: I should probably say "many if not most" - but since spin claims that none of them are, it probably doesn't matter] [ March 13, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]</p>

03-13-2002, 04:20 PM	#194
x-member Banned Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: free Posts: 123	"Spin", May I ask you what exactly is your objective in this discussion? For the amount of time you've spent on it, and the number of words you've typed, I assume you have some kind of outcome in mind. Jon

03-13-2002, 04:35 PM	#195
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	PB, sorry, I find your consistent use of this "contract theory" stuff as arbitrary manipulation for obvious ends. You want to eat meat so you stack your theory to suit it. I see nothing moral in that. And Dahmer says your contract theory is arbitrary. PB: -------------------------------- A picture, like language, reflects a clear intent to communicate. I realize that your comment to Malaclypse was mudslinging, rather than a serious argument, but your statement that his sentence had no communicative value seems at odds with your previous broad interpretation of what ought to be considered communicative. -------------------------------- This is what I said: -------------------------------- if there is any core argument in the above, you'll need to flesh out the second sentence which is the only one that has the possibility of any communicative value. -------------------------------- In the context Macaclypse had made two unwarranted value judgments and so, by exclusion I was left with one statement whose worth I couldn't evaluate because of the means of expression and the lack of evidence of substance behind the assertions. PB: -------------------------------- Malaclypse’s use of a common language to express ideas to you represents a clear desire to communicate. -------------------------------- Here is Macaclypse's sentence: -------------------------------- In this case you are equivocating degree of intelligence with qualitative differences in cognitive processes. -------------------------------- That's not a particularly helpful comment which doesn't attempt to be easily accessible to unpacking. So, I don't find your comment about his "use of common language" reflective of reality. PB: -------------------------------- It is not at all clear that we ought to interpret the reaction of a threatened cow as representing communicative intent, rather than a simple attempt to avoid pain. -------------------------------- If you see a hungry baby bawling, you can receive communication without the sender having the intent of communicating. I was dealing with content, not intent.

03-13-2002, 04:36 PM	#196
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	<a href="http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/mammals/primate/Lorisprintout.shtml" target="_blank">The loris is classified as an omnivore</a> <a href="http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/mammals/" target="_blank">Chimpanzees are classified as omnivores</a> <a href="http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/mammals/" target="_blank">Orangs are classified as omnivores</a> <a href="http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/mammals/" target="_blank">Gibbons and siamangs are classified as omnivores</a> <a href="http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/mammal/monkey/Baboonprintout.shtml" target="_blank">Baboons are classified as omnivores.</a> <a href="http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/mammals/monkey/Mandrillprintout.shtml" target="_blank">Mandrills eat small animals such as lizards and snakes.</a> <a href="http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/mammals/primate/Tarsierprintout.shtml" target="_blank">Tarsiers are - guess what - carnivores!</a> Even gorillas are known to occasionally supplement their diet with ants and termines. [ March 13, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]</p>

03-13-2002, 04:38 PM	#197
MadKally Banned Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: LALA Land in California Posts: 433	spin, MadKally said: Has anyone in your family ever had: Vaccines and antibiotics to prevent and treat infections or anesthetics used in all forms of surgery? Diabetes, asthma or high blood pressure? How about cancer, heart disease, depression, or newly emerged infections such as HIV. Have you ever owned a pet? Veterinary medicine is, by definition, the result of animal research. 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? If so, maybe you should thank our animal friends or you probably wouldn't be here to go nuts in the first place. spin said: I guess you're also in favour of the experiments performed by those Nazi scientists, the results of which were used in later medicine. sock puppet: This statement doesn't even make sense. The concentration camp experiments you appear to be referencing contributed nothing to "later medicine." They were uncontrolled, unblinded, unrandomized forms of sadistic torture from which no reliable or useful conclusions could be drawn. What theory or treatment modality do you think was borne of these atrocities? spin said: I'm quite amused at the inordinate number of people who feel the necessity to come in to the discussion who aren't contributing to it in any way. Most try to be funny, some merely nitpick, so attempt to take a distanced_I'm not_involved approach. sock puppet: Please answer the questions asked by serious contributors to this subject. Thank you in advance..

03-13-2002, 04:47 PM	#199
Sandy Junior Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Charlotte, NC USA Posts: 45	Whew! After reading this thread I've really worked up an appetite. Anyone for a good, old fashioned Southern Pig Pickin????

03-13-2002, 04:49 PM	#200
Baloo Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 417	Spin, You, by your very own arguments, have no morals. None. Your "rights of concious organisms" moral theory is not even remotely moral. I mean, what's moral about it? That you can blithely use it to exclude plants, because naturally they can't participate in your conciousness theory. You exclude anything that is not concious. Exclusion is a typical act of someone who is not moral. So, I accuse you of arbitrarily picking the criteria of "conciousness" just to morally justify the fact that you (directly or indirectly) barbarically slaughter thousands of living organisms every day. Care to defend your "moral" theory?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.