Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 03-13-2002, 04:49 PM

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

This is of course why no primates have claws, nor ripping teeth. Read the article I cited, which is specifically on primate diet.

Jon
------------------
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.
------------------

This is in order of progression of events:

The first motive was to put forward as simply as possible some of the various arguments which support the rights of animals, both to be spared routine execution not for any crimes but for the pleasure of people who don't even participate in the killing process.

The second motive was to attempt to show what people were doing to avoid even contemplating the arguments that were being put forward.

Third motive was that there were a lot of thoughtless silly people who were betraying an inability of dealing with anything that was outside their own presuppositions lusts and habits, and this was a pisser. (When the smartass gets a reaction, he then appeals to the audience saying that he has been misunderstood by an extremist who may be deranged or whatever the phrase may have been. He shouldn't stick his hand in the fire if he doesn't want to get burnt.)

echidna · 03-13-2002, 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tronvillain:
<strong>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.</strong>

But surely there is a dilemma between deriving personal enjoyment at the cost of inflicting suffering on another.

One can weigh them against each other, and conclude that the enjoyment is more important, but a degree of guilt (albeit suppressable) seems natural.

punkersluta · 03-13-2002, 04:55 PM

Baloo...

Quote:

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.

Even if we allow plants to participate in it, and grant them moral rights, to what would it avail? Plants are not conscious beings, and I say this not to exclude them, but I say this to ask, what would we act in accordance to them? They cannot feel pain or suffering, joy or desire. If you chop down a tree or water it, the tree will not feel pain or joy, either way. It is not capable of interests. You are assuming that, since it is life like a conscious being, that it would like to be treated like a conscious being: gently, affectionately, morally. Of course, a plant is not capable of suffering, so whatever you do to it is about as equal moral as anything else you could do to it.

"We owe justice and grace and benignity to other creatures that are capable of it; there is a natural commerce and mutual obligation betwixt them and us." - Michel de Montaigne [Quoted from Animals' Rights Considered In Relation To Social Progress, by Henry S. Salt, chapter 2, 1894.]

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

For 108,
Punkerslut

MadKally · 03-13-2002, 05:09 PM

spin,
Please answer what I posted on page 8..

Thanks,
sock

punkersluta · 03-13-2002, 05:13 PM

sock puppet...

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?

Punkerslut: Whether or not it is true that the Nazis did controlled, scientific experiments to Jews (which, from what I have read, they did), it is irrelevant. If it is false, the question may then be posed: if Jews were experimented on and it contributed to the advance of science, would it be acceptable?

"One could not stand and watch very long without becoming philosophical, without beginning to deal in symbols and similes, and to hear the hog squeal of the universe. Was it permitted to believe that there was nowhere upon the earth, or above the earth, a heaven for hogs, where they were requited for all this suffering? Each one of these hogs was a separate creature. Some were white hogs, some were black; some were brown, some were spotted; some were old, some young; some were long and lean, some were monstrous. And each of them had an individuality of his own, a will of his own, a hope and a heart's desire; each was full of self-confidence, of self-importance, and a sense of dignity. And trusting and strong in faith he had gone about his business, the while a black shadow hung over him and a horrid Fate waited in his pathway. Now suddenly it had swooped upon him, and had seized him by the leg. Relentless, remorseless, it was; all his protests, his screams, were nothing to it - it did its cruel will with him, as if his wishes, his feelings, had simply no existence at all; it cut his throat and watched him gasp out his life. And now was one to believe that there was nowhere a god of hogs, to whom this hog personality was precious, to whom these hog squeals and agonies had a meaning? Who would take this hog into his arms and comfort him, reward him for his work well done, and show him the meaning of his sacrifice?" - Upton Bealle Sinclair [Upton Bealle Sinclair, The Jungle, 1906, Chapter 3.]

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

For 108,
Punkerslut

x-member · 03-13-2002, 05:15 PM

Punkerslut:

I noticed you're replying for Spin... Are you the same person perhaps?

Jon

spin · 03-13-2002, 05:17 PM

Baloo, as you are alive to write your comment, I have to assume that you don't eat stones or similar things and are playing devil's advocate and that you don't believe a word of what you wrote, having some other, unstated, purpose for your post. Hence, what you have written is simple sophistry. What exactly is it that you actually advocate, that eating animals is ok by you? If so, fine, be honest, argue your case. If you have something else in mind, out with it.

All you write is:
-------------------
You, by your very own arguments, have no morals. None. Your "rights of conscious 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.
-------------------

Thanks for using some of my vocabulary and thoughts. The moral is attempting to extend
protection and the right to live to the most possible creatures.

Baloo still:
-------------------
You exclude anything that is not concious.
-------------------

Actually, I don't deliberately exclude anything. I'm maximising the coverage to at least animals.

Baloo:
-------------------
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.
-------------------

This is vainly interested only in the form of the communication and not the spirit. Parody in itself is not particularly useful either for entertainment or intellectual communication.

Baloo:
-------------------
Care to defend your "moral" theory?
-------------------

Not my "moral" theory, but my moral theory. Unnecessary pain and unnecessary death at the hands of morally conscious beings is immoral.
As human beings don't need to eat meat to get what is necessary for their diets, choosing to eat meat, causes unnecessary pain and unnecessary death, and renders the eaters immoral.

Carnivorous animals in the wild eat meat, which both is necessary for their diets and not open to their choice in the matter. They are outside any moral criticism here. (The difference is choice.)

You may propose some way that everyone can survive not eating plant products, and I'd be happy if you could, but unless you can, I don't think you're in any position to pass any judgements regarding morals in this situation.

Still the criterion is: unnecessary pain and unnecessary death at the hands of morally conscious beings is immoral.

punkersluta · 03-13-2002, 05:18 PM

Jon Up North...

Quote:

Punkerslut:

I noticed you're replying for Spin... Are you the same person perhaps?

Jon

Ha! =) It would be amusing if we were, but no. I have a different style of posting than he. Notice how he individually responded to all those posts yesterday night while I was busy playing computer games? Notice how I responded to all of them today with one huge-ass post? He is, from what I see, though, full of vigor, vitality, and intellect -- something I rarely see on BBs. (Although, of course, my observation of this will most likely mean little to nothing to you.)

"The animals below us have also their rights before God. Animal life, sombre mistery! Immense world of thoughts and of dumb sufferings! All nature protests against the barbarity of man, who misapprehends, who humiliates, who tortures his inferior brethren.... Life-death. The daily murder which feeding upon animals implies-those hard and bitter problems sternly placed themselves before my mind. Miserable contradiction! Let us hope that there may be another globe in which the base, the cruel fatalities of this may be spared to us." - Michelet ["La Bible de l'Humanit�." Quoted from Animals' Rights Considered In Relation To Social Progress, by Henry S. Salt, chapter 4, 1894.]

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

For 108,
Punkerslut

Mageth · 03-13-2002, 05:19 PM

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!

You made the absolute statement "a brain is necessary to produce consciousness," remember? Such an absolute statement is more than likely unprovable. And read carefully, real slow, maybe say the words out loud: I didn't ask for proof, I asked for EVIDENCE!

Damn, you continually attribute stuff to me that I haven't said.

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."

Oh, I'm so heartbroken that you're taking your marbles and going home.

Seriously, grow up. Adults aren't supposed to quit a discussion in a snit just because they disagree.

I occasionally include "IMO" (and demonstrably not at the end of every other sentence) because it's the right thing to do when one is posting an opinion. You should try it sometimes. If you'd done that in your first post, things might have gone a little smoother for you.

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.

No, it's fact. I want you to refrain from the things I asked you to refrain from, and as far as I can tell your comprehension is appalling (even though I'm beginning to think your twisting of my statements is deliberate). As I said in my previous post, you've repeatedly twisted things I've said to make it look like I've said something else. This annoys the hell out of me.

And if you're free to use such statements (and introduce them to the debate) then I'm free to (I don't have to, but I'm free to).

I'll make a deal with you: I'll stop using sarcasm if you'll dispense with the condescending, rude comments.

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.

I didn't post the whole page, for brevity and copyright purposes, but here's another excerpt:

Due to the exceptionally high quality of meat protein, we actually do not need a lot of meat in our diet to meet our requirements. Where meat provides certain nutrients in which fruit and vegetables are incomplete, so do fruit and vegetables provide certain nutrients and fibre in which meat is incomplete.

Remember that all-important balance.

I agree that many eat too much meat. Look at my earlier posts for evidence of that.

And when you say "doctors have concluded that" I must ask for references to published studies. You know, it's strange but not all scientific studies are totally accepted at face value by all scientists, and all medical research is not accepted at face value by all doctors. Your statement "doctors have concluded that" does not make what you say a fact.

I said:

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

punk responded:

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

<snip assorted gratuitous, repetitive examples>

Um, dude, I've never made the argument that design justifies usage. Once again, you're attributing something to me that I haven't said. My reply was in response to spin's demonstrably false statement implying that no primates are omnivores. BTW, his argument appears to be that "all primates are herbivores, therefore we should be too" is more along the lines of your "design doesn't justify usage" complaint.

x-member · 03-13-2002, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Notice how I responded to all of them today with one huge-ass post? He is, from what I see, though, full of vigor, vitality, and intellect -- something I rarely see on BBs. (Although, of course, my observation of this will most likely mean little to nothing to you.)

Actually what leads me to think that you are different people is that 1) You know how to use UBB code

and 2) No space aliens.

In all honesty though (and all debate aside) that you were absent the time that Spin appeared and then you appeared when Spin subsided -though it turns out to be cooincidently- did make me wonder.

Cheers.

Jon

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

03-13-2002, 04:49 PM	#201
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	Mageth: ------------------ Um, spin, most primates are generally classified as omnivores. Look it up. ------------------ This is of course why no primates have claws, nor ripping teeth. Read the article I cited, which is specifically on primate diet. Jon ------------------ 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. ------------------ This is in order of progression of events: The first motive was to put forward as simply as possible some of the various arguments which support the rights of animals, both to be spared routine execution not for any crimes but for the pleasure of people who don't even participate in the killing process. The second motive was to attempt to show what people were doing to avoid even contemplating the arguments that were being put forward. Third motive was that there were a lot of thoughtless silly people who were betraying an inability of dealing with anything that was outside their own presuppositions lusts and habits, and this was a pisser. (When the smartass gets a reaction, he then appeals to the audience saying that he has been misunderstood by an extremist who may be deranged or whatever the phrase may have been. He shouldn't stick his hand in the fire if he doesn't want to get burnt.)

03-13-2002, 05:09 PM	#204
MadKally Banned Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: LALA Land in California Posts: 433	spin, Please answer what I posted on page 8.. Thanks, sock

03-13-2002, 05:13 PM	#205
punkersluta Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: On the underground Posts: 45	sock puppet... 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? Punkerslut: Whether or not it is true that the Nazis did controlled, scientific experiments to Jews (which, from what I have read, they did), it is irrelevant. If it is false, the question may then be posed: if Jews were experimented on and it contributed to the advance of science, would it be acceptable? "One could not stand and watch very long without becoming philosophical, without beginning to deal in symbols and similes, and to hear the hog squeal of the universe. Was it permitted to believe that there was nowhere upon the earth, or above the earth, a heaven for hogs, where they were requited for all this suffering? Each one of these hogs was a separate creature. Some were white hogs, some were black; some were brown, some were spotted; some were old, some young; some were long and lean, some were monstrous. And each of them had an individuality of his own, a will of his own, a hope and a heart's desire; each was full of self-confidence, of self-importance, and a sense of dignity. And trusting and strong in faith he had gone about his business, the while a black shadow hung over him and a horrid Fate waited in his pathway. Now suddenly it had swooped upon him, and had seized him by the leg. Relentless, remorseless, it was; all his protests, his screams, were nothing to it - it did its cruel will with him, as if his wishes, his feelings, had simply no existence at all; it cut his throat and watched him gasp out his life. And now was one to believe that there was nowhere a god of hogs, to whom this hog personality was precious, to whom these hog squeals and agonies had a meaning? Who would take this hog into his arms and comfort him, reward him for his work well done, and show him the meaning of his sacrifice?" - Upton Bealle Sinclair [Upton Bealle Sinclair, The Jungle, 1906, Chapter 3.] <a href="http://www.punkerslut.com" target="_blank">www.punkerslut.com</a> For 108, Punkerslut

03-13-2002, 05:15 PM	#206
x-member Banned Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: free Posts: 123	Punkerslut: I noticed you're replying for Spin... Are you the same person perhaps? Jon

03-13-2002, 05:17 PM	#207
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	Baloo, as you are alive to write your comment, I have to assume that you don't eat stones or similar things and are playing devil's advocate and that you don't believe a word of what you wrote, having some other, unstated, purpose for your post. Hence, what you have written is simple sophistry. What exactly is it that you actually advocate, that eating animals is ok by you? If so, fine, be honest, argue your case. If you have something else in mind, out with it. All you write is: ------------------- You, by your very own arguments, have no morals. None. Your "rights of conscious 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. ------------------- Thanks for using some of my vocabulary and thoughts. The moral is attempting to extend protection and the right to live to the most possible creatures. Baloo still: ------------------- You exclude anything that is not concious. ------------------- Actually, I don't deliberately exclude anything. I'm maximising the coverage to at least animals. Baloo: ------------------- 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. ------------------- This is vainly interested only in the form of the communication and not the spirit. Parody in itself is not particularly useful either for entertainment or intellectual communication. Baloo: ------------------- Care to defend your "moral" theory? ------------------- Not my "moral" theory, but my moral theory. Unnecessary pain and unnecessary death at the hands of morally conscious beings is immoral. As human beings don't need to eat meat to get what is necessary for their diets, choosing to eat meat, causes unnecessary pain and unnecessary death, and renders the eaters immoral. Carnivorous animals in the wild eat meat, which both is necessary for their diets and not open to their choice in the matter. They are outside any moral criticism here. (The difference is choice.) You may propose some way that everyone can survive not eating plant products, and I'd be happy if you could, but unless you can, I don't think you're in any position to pass any judgements regarding morals in this situation. Still the criterion is: unnecessary pain and unnecessary death at the hands of morally conscious beings is immoral.

03-13-2002, 05:19 PM	#209
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	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! You made the absolute statement "a brain is necessary to produce consciousness," remember? Such an absolute statement is more than likely unprovable. And read carefully, real slow, maybe say the words out loud: I didn't ask for proof, I asked for EVIDENCE! Damn, you continually attribute stuff to me that I haven't said. 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." Oh, I'm so heartbroken that you're taking your marbles and going home. Seriously, grow up. Adults aren't supposed to quit a discussion in a snit just because they disagree. I occasionally include "IMO" (and demonstrably not at the end of every other sentence) because it's the right thing to do when one is posting an opinion. You should try it sometimes. If you'd done that in your first post, things might have gone a little smoother for you. 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. No, it's fact. I want you to refrain from the things I asked you to refrain from, and as far as I can tell your comprehension is appalling (even though I'm beginning to think your twisting of my statements is deliberate). As I said in my previous post, you've repeatedly twisted things I've said to make it look like I've said something else. This annoys the hell out of me. And if you're free to use such statements (and introduce them to the debate) then I'm free to (I don't have to, but I'm free to). I'll make a deal with you: I'll stop using sarcasm if you'll dispense with the condescending, rude comments. 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. I didn't post the whole page, for brevity and copyright purposes, but here's another excerpt: Due to the exceptionally high quality of meat protein, we actually do not need a lot of meat in our diet to meet our requirements. Where meat provides certain nutrients in which fruit and vegetables are incomplete, so do fruit and vegetables provide certain nutrients and fibre in which meat is incomplete. Remember that all-important balance. I agree that many eat too much meat. Look at my earlier posts for evidence of that. And when you say "doctors have concluded that" I must ask for references to published studies. You know, it's strange but not all scientific studies are totally accepted at face value by all scientists, and all medical research is not accepted at face value by all doctors. Your statement "doctors have concluded that" does not make what you say a fact. I said: "most primates are generally classified as omnivores. Look it up." punk responded: Yet you have failed to provide one single, solitary shred of evidence that design JUSTIFIES usage! <snip assorted gratuitous, repetitive examples> Um, dude, I've never made the argument that design justifies usage. Once again, you're attributing something to me that I haven't said. My reply was in response to spin's demonstrably false statement implying that no primates are omnivores. BTW, his argument appears to be that "all primates are herbivores, therefore we should be too" is more along the lines of your "design doesn't justify usage" complaint.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.