Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 03-13-2002, 06:59 AM

And of course Scombrid is another incapable of arguing, preferring the same approach of the others who have nothing constructive to say about the problem of eating pieces of dead animals.

I'd recommend that those people who want to eat meat stop the cowardly sanatized approach of leaving the dirty work of facing the animal to other people and do it themselves. At least, let the animal see who is responsible for its death.

Most of them live in conditions that are new and revolting. Go and look at the room they have to "live" in. Go and look at the way the are *normally* treated. It is an industry somewhat analgous to that in Matrix where humans are used to provide electricity. We are disgusted at the treatment of humans there. You are not disgusted with the ordinary treatment of the animals you will eat.

Everything about the business of eating dead animal flesh in other circumstances would make a compassionate moral human being sick.

x-member · 03-13-2002, 07:44 AM

Actually,

Several users have found my comments very amusing. You have failed to convince anyone to bend to your fanatical and possibly psychotic position. I, on the other hand, have given several people a good belly laugh.

Not only have my posts been equally logical to yours, I've helped people enjoy the day.

P.S. Spin, I AM a reptoid.

P.P.S. Spin, try learning UBB code, it may help you communicate. Look at the buttons below the reply button.

spin · 03-13-2002, 07:56 AM

Jon:
------------------------
"Several users have found my comments very amusing."
------------------------

Fine, some of it is to me, but totally void of content.

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

"Fanatical" and "psychotic", now you are really in trouble with straight ad hominem without any argument. Jonny, Jonny, Jonny, are you reduced so low that, still without an argument, merely insult? It's indicative of bankrupt thought. Is it true with you?

Jon:
------------------------
I, on the other hand, have given several people a good belly laugh.
------------------------

Perhaps you've found your role in life, unable to do anything else, but make the gallery snigger.

Jon:
------------------------
Not only have my posts been equally logical to yours, I've helped people enjoy the day.
------------------------

Again, saying so means little. I don't have your necessity to help people enjoy the day. You are merely ridiculing and insulting. Some people like that. Some people can only do that. If you don't like the subject and have nothign constructive to add to it, why don't you just let it go instead of empty ad hominem and sarcasm?

There are higher forms of wit than sarcasm. Try it some time.

--------------------------
UBB is simply ugly.

Mageth · 03-13-2002, 07:58 AM

Your knowledge of the concept of an argument is astounding. Please, dear sir, pay close attention to my posts. When I said that the word "soul" was used as Lucretius used it, in NO CONCEIVABLE WAY was it at all an argument. "I am a Vegetarian" is about as much of an argument as that. I was stating HOW something was implied, yet you automatically see it as an "argument"?

You don't recognize sarcasm when you see it, huh?

There are NUMEROUS evidences to suggest that the brain produces consciousness.

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?

Furthermore, whether or not it is true that lizards rape each other, my point is made -- if copying what other animals do is a great method for forming morality, then would it be acceptable to follow lizards that raped each other? You have not even commented on this.

Your point is wasted. I never said copying what other animals do is a great method for forming morality. You for some reason insist on twisting things I've said to say something I did not say. It's starting to get annoying (but I'll resist; don't let the trolls get the best of you!)

To backtrack and clarify the matter, here's my original statement that this comment percolated from:

"And since we share traits with "lower" animals [commenting on your OP, I believe], one trait (carnivorous and omnivorous) animals share is no compunction when killing and eating other animals! (and noncarnivores don't seem to have a compunction when killing other animals)."

I was commenting about your comparison to humans with "lower" animals, implying that it's, IMO, flawed because, AFAIK, no other animal has any compunction about killing and possibly eating other animals (excepting, of course, within the species (and, of course, many species will kill each other, e.g. males in competition for females, and many are cannibalistic).

Furthermore, I did not say that you believed they well equal -- I said that they were not equal.

Here's what you said:

"The difference between watching TeeVee [sic] and eating an animal has significant moral differences, and if you think they are equal, I open you to prove how."

You definitely implied that I think they are equal.

"I am killing the dead man," "I am punching the punched child," etc., etc., etc.. These are not logical statements. I could expound on this more, but I refrain for it would not be quite useful.

Reread my original comment. You're the one that came up with "assuming an assumption." What I originally said was that you were assuming your assumption was correct. IE assuming the correctness of your assumption. Perfectly logical, plain English. Get it?

rofl -- scientists from all over the world come to similar conclusions about the disease and cancers caused by eating meat, and yet you have a differing interpetation of evidence! Cute!

Here's what your "ignorance" comment was in response to:

The same goes with meat; I enjoy eating it, and it's a better source of proteins and other substances than any plants (in spite of any vegetarian propaganda you may have at hand).

I didn't say anything about disease and cancer. IF you think meat is not a better source of protein (and some other things) than vegetables, then I can claim you're ignorant as well. And here's a quote I'll post as part of my argument (from <a href="http://www.quackbusters.com.au/chronicles/meat.htm" target="_blank">quackbusters</a>):

Quote:

Myth: We will enjoy better health if we don't include meat in our diet.

Fact: The principle constituent of meat is protein, made up of long chains of amino acids. Not only is protein one of the most complex organic compounds in the world, it also provides the primary building blocks of cells that comprise our body.

Of the twenty amino acids found in the human body, only eight are essential, meaning that they must be provided through our diet. The remainder, non-essential amino acids, can be made by our body from other sources.

A protein that does not contain all of the essential amino acids necessary to maintain growth is said to be an incomplete protein, or a protein of poor biological value. Conversely, proteins containing all of the essential amino acids required to maintain this equilibrium, are said to be proteins of high biological value. In this respect, the proteins of whole egg rank the highest of all, closely followed by red and white meats.

Proteins derived from vegetable origin however, are usually of poorer biological value as they do not always contain the full complement of essential amino acids. The exceptions to that in the vegetable kingdom are soybeans, peanuts and cottonseed. Additionally, iron from meat sources (called haem or blood iron), is far more efficiently absorbed by our body than non-haem iron from vegetable sources, not to mention vitamin B12 - found in all meats, and essential for the production of red blood cells by our body.

Vegetables are a particularly poor source of vitamin B12. The mineral, copper, is also more predominantly found in meat (especially shellfish), than vegetables. In our body, copper helps to combine iron into the haemoglobin molecule of our red blood cells, thereby increasing their oxygen-carrying capacity. Copper and iron also promote the activity of vitamin C, an important anti-oxidant that protects our blood vessels and benefits our immune system

Interestingly, a deficiency in copper has been associated with increased blood cholesterol levels, anaemia, and problems in bone development. Meat is certainly a good thing, but keep it lean, as too much fat (as we all know) is detrimental to our health. Moderation is the key word. Diets high in meat protein come into popularity from time to time, but be cautioned that the uric acid skeleton resulting from excessive meat digestion and its subsequent breakdown, will happily crystallise in our joints as gout, or even in our kidneys to form kidney stones.

AS I SAID, differing interpretation of the evidence. Not everyone agrees with you, you know.

Finally, Mageth... Please, produce for me evidence that the brain does not produce consciousness.

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

You are either simply unable to comprehend what I'm saying OR you are deliberately trying to twist what I do say. I get the feeling it's the latter, which IMO is pure trollish behavior.

scigirl · 03-13-2002, 08:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by spin:
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.

I'm still waiting for that data that proves that animals suffered as much as humans did during the holocaust.

The people who suffered during the holocaust did not simply suffer because of the physical cruelty placed upon them. If it was just about the physical cruelty, than why did many holocaust survivors commit suicide after WWII? Huh, spin? Do you have an answer?

Well I do. It is precicely because humans have empathy for each other, and they are mentally aware of each other's suffering. After WWII, holocaust survivors had such emotional trauma and anguish from the realization of what had happened, "Why did my fellow man hate me so much?" Thus, the suicides ensued.

If the holocaust is comparable to animal research, you would expect to see similar suicide rates in mice and cows, right? Well, you don't.

Furthermore spin, can I ask YOU a question? Have you ever taken a drug - over the counter or prescrption? Have you ever taken a pet to the veterinarian? If so, you have reaped the benefits of animal research whether you like it or not. So unless you completely avoid all health care - for you AND your pets (that even includes aspirin), than you are a hypocrite. That's right - animal research benefits animals too - ever think of that?

There are humane and inhumane ways to do animal research. I personally feel that research done on primates is morally tenuous, for the reasons I described above about awareness. But your comparison of all animal researchers with nazis is laughable, and it also shows your complete ignorance of scientists.

I have read several books of nazi survivors, and I have done several experiments on mice and cows. I can assure you, they are NOT EVEN CLOSE to the same thing.

scigirl

SallySmith · 03-13-2002, 08:11 AM

I realize that everyone was having a grand ole time with that alien thing - I've only been skimming so I didn't read it in detail - but I have thought before how humans are to non-human animals as aliens - depicted in the movies, and the Alien-type aliens, not the E.T. type - are to humans. The treatment is often quite similar and I find that completely hypocritical. After all, they are not depicted as just being at the top of the food chain; instead they are sinister and evil. Plus they're really goopy and ugly. But I guess so are some people. But I digress...

As some people may remember from previous threads, I think eating meat is unethical unless you could kill it yourself. Right now I think eating meat is unethical unless not only could you kill it yourself, but you could be sure that the animals you're eating were treated humanely. I didn't always think this; actually I didn't give it much thought until a few years ago, which is pretty disgusting really - since an animal is having its life taken for your dinner I really think you should at least be thankful for it. Anyway, the thing that did it for me is my cat Bert. I could never eat Bert; I like to think even if I was starving to death I wouldn't eat her. However, as maybe I would eat a person in this situation perhaps this is not true. Anyway, I decided it was hypocritical for me to love my cat but eat other animals, particularly ones that I could have as pets. If I am honest with myself, I know that if I raised a cow for slaughter, I would give the cow a name, get attached to the damn cow, and never be able to kill it.

As for some of the other stuff:

For Kally: Although I find the concept of animal testing disgusting, I reluctantly have to support it. I cannot say that I do not value the results. I do, and I generally value a human life more than any other animal's. I do think that it needs to be better policed and the amount done can probably be greatly reduced, though.

You can be perfectly healthy as a vegetarian. Vegetarians with healthy diets (not a bunch of junk food) get enough protein.

I don't care about the food chain or what other animals do to each other. It's completely irrelevant to whether or not you make the choice to eat meat. I mean, if a pig jumped off a bridge, would you do it too?

Malaclypse the Younger · 03-13-2002, 08:19 AM

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.

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.

Malaclypse the Younger · 03-13-2002, 08:22 AM

As to the "evil alien" argument, it should be noted that if evil aliens had the power to eat us, the presence or absence of our moral or personal objections would be irrelevant--they would eat us regardless.

SallySmith · 03-13-2002, 08:26 AM

Um, I wasn't using the alien thing as an argument. It was more of an observation.

Mageth · 03-13-2002, 08:29 AM

Hey, what if those cannibalistic aliens ARE cows? Then we'd be competing with them for the same food source!

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

03-13-2002, 06:59 AM	#121
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	And of course Scombrid is another incapable of arguing, preferring the same approach of the others who have nothing constructive to say about the problem of eating pieces of dead animals. I'd recommend that those people who want to eat meat stop the cowardly sanatized approach of leaving the dirty work of facing the animal to other people and do it themselves. At least, let the animal see who is responsible for its death. Most of them live in conditions that are new and revolting. Go and look at the room they have to "live" in. Go and look at the way the are normally treated. It is an industry somewhat analgous to that in Matrix where humans are used to provide electricity. We are disgusted at the treatment of humans there. You are not disgusted with the ordinary treatment of the animals you will eat. Everything about the business of eating dead animal flesh in other circumstances would make a compassionate moral human being sick.

03-13-2002, 07:44 AM	#122
x-member Banned Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: free Posts: 123	Actually, Several users have found my comments very amusing. You have failed to convince anyone to bend to your fanatical and possibly psychotic position. I, on the other hand, have given several people a good belly laugh. Not only have my posts been equally logical to yours, I've helped people enjoy the day. P.S. Spin, I AM a reptoid. P.P.S. Spin, try learning UBB code, it may help you communicate. Look at the buttons below the reply button.

03-13-2002, 07:56 AM	#123
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	Jon: ------------------------ "Several users have found my comments very amusing." ------------------------ Fine, some of it is to me, but totally void of content. Jon: ------------------------ You have failed to convince anyone to bend to your fanatical and possibly psychotic position. ------------------------ "Fanatical" and "psychotic", now you are really in trouble with straight ad hominem without any argument. Jonny, Jonny, Jonny, are you reduced so low that, still without an argument, merely insult? It's indicative of bankrupt thought. Is it true with you? Jon: ------------------------ I, on the other hand, have given several people a good belly laugh. ------------------------ Perhaps you've found your role in life, unable to do anything else, but make the gallery snigger. Jon: ------------------------ Not only have my posts been equally logical to yours, I've helped people enjoy the day. ------------------------ Again, saying so means little. I don't have your necessity to help people enjoy the day. You are merely ridiculing and insulting. Some people like that. Some people can only do that. If you don't like the subject and have nothign constructive to add to it, why don't you just let it go instead of empty ad hominem and sarcasm? There are higher forms of wit than sarcasm. Try it some time. -------------------------- UBB is simply ugly.

03-13-2002, 08:11 AM	#126
SallySmith Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 263	I realize that everyone was having a grand ole time with that alien thing - I've only been skimming so I didn't read it in detail - but I have thought before how humans are to non-human animals as aliens - depicted in the movies, and the Alien-type aliens, not the E.T. type - are to humans. The treatment is often quite similar and I find that completely hypocritical. After all, they are not depicted as just being at the top of the food chain; instead they are sinister and evil. Plus they're really goopy and ugly. But I guess so are some people. But I digress... As some people may remember from previous threads, I think eating meat is unethical unless you could kill it yourself. Right now I think eating meat is unethical unless not only could you kill it yourself, but you could be sure that the animals you're eating were treated humanely. I didn't always think this; actually I didn't give it much thought until a few years ago, which is pretty disgusting really - since an animal is having its life taken for your dinner I really think you should at least be thankful for it. Anyway, the thing that did it for me is my cat Bert. I could never eat Bert; I like to think even if I was starving to death I wouldn't eat her. However, as maybe I would eat a person in this situation perhaps this is not true. Anyway, I decided it was hypocritical for me to love my cat but eat other animals, particularly ones that I could have as pets. If I am honest with myself, I know that if I raised a cow for slaughter, I would give the cow a name, get attached to the damn cow, and never be able to kill it. As for some of the other stuff: For Kally: Although I find the concept of animal testing disgusting, I reluctantly have to support it. I cannot say that I do not value the results. I do, and I generally value a human life more than any other animal's. I do think that it needs to be better policed and the amount done can probably be greatly reduced, though. You can be perfectly healthy as a vegetarian. Vegetarians with healthy diets (not a bunch of junk food) get enough protein. I don't care about the food chain or what other animals do to each other. It's completely irrelevant to whether or not you make the choice to eat meat. I mean, if a pig jumped off a bridge, would you do it too?

03-13-2002, 08:19 AM	#127
Malaclypse the Younger Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: nowhere Posts: 416	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. 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.

03-13-2002, 08:22 AM	#128
Malaclypse the Younger Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: nowhere Posts: 416	As to the "evil alien" argument, it should be noted that if evil aliens had the power to eat us, the presence or absence of our moral or personal objections would be irrelevant--they would eat us regardless.

03-13-2002, 08:26 AM	#129
SallySmith Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 263	Um, I wasn't using the alien thing as an argument. It was more of an observation.

03-13-2002, 08:29 AM	#130
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Hey, what if those cannibalistic aliens ARE cows? Then we'd be competing with them for the same food source!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.