Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Not Prince Hamlet · 03-13-2002, 06:12 PM

Spin,

I'd have to agree. I'm not sure what flew up your butt this morning, but there's no need to be so unkind to Bonduca.

First of all, I happen to know her, and I can tell you that if you think she's stupid, you've got another thing coming. This girl is so smart, it's uncanny, and just because you don't happen to agree with her doesn't change that fact.

She is also an incredibly kind person, one who does not deserve such ridicule. I've never known her to do an unkind thing to anybody, no matter what the circumstances.

You may feel you're showing everybody how masterful and intelligent you are, but what you're actually showing them is that you're insecure and a bully. Believe me, nobody is mistaking your abuse for genuine wit

Jeff

punkersluta · 03-13-2002, 06:25 PM

Quote:

Unless you think that Punkerslut seriously crafts wallets out of duct-tape

Although I can see the humor, I once had a duct-tape wallet... But it's just too trendy these days.

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

For 108,
Punkerslut

spin · 03-13-2002, 06:27 PM

Mageth,

If you read my earlier posts, you'll know that I talk about opportunistic meat eating both in early humans and in modern chimpanzees.

I don't really know enough about the baboon's physical structure, but the vervet monkey for example has proportionally a much shorter intestine than than many of the other members of the family, while that of the human is quite long. The length of the intestine was one of the key issues I've discussed elsewhere. The shorter the intestine the more lilkely the animal is to be a meat eater. Meat can't stay in the system long before it goes foetid and poisonous.

Mageth · 03-13-2002, 06:30 PM

I only said that I was not going to argue continuously against things you tend to repeat, unless you were capable of producing some evidence. To those others who are genuinly interested in arguing or find some serious flaw with Vegetarianism, I will answer.

Actually, you never said that until now. Here's what you said: "This is my last post in response to things that you say." Now you're putting words in your own mouth that you didn't say.

Most if not all of my supposed "repititions" are rebuttals to your twisting my words. I have to repeat them to illustrate that I didn't say what you say I did.

And what evidence are you asking for? I've provided evidence on this thread in several places. In turn, I've asked you for evidence several times and not gotten much, generally only outdated quotes (which, since you've said are not "arguments," I can only assume are not posted as evidence in support of your arguments).

x-member · 03-13-2002, 06:30 PM

Spin:

I would like a cite on meat going fetid and poisonous if it stays too long in the digestive tract. This smells like either total BS or an Urban Legend to me.

Jon

spin · 03-13-2002, 06:30 PM

Bill Sneddon:
-------------------------
This seems disingenuous at best. Contractarian moral theories are well-known, with a long history stemming from the philosophical thought of Hobbes, Kant, Locke, and Rousseau (among others). Contemporary contractarian theorists include John Rawls and David Gauthier. Such theories are obviously not some type of "arbitrary manipulation."

It is obvious that you disagree with the either the foundation or the application being used by PB, but you have so far failed to provide any kind of real rebuttal to PB's arguments.
-------------------------

It was PB's manipulation of the idea. As I said, the notion I received of the contract was to include the most possible in order to protect the most possible. PB, apparently unaware of the spirit of such an idea, uses it specifically to exclude.

Bill Snedden · 03-13-2002, 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by punkersluta:
Please refer to the numerous works of Jane Goodall and her work with Chimpanzees. It is highly accepted that these creatures are fully knowledgable in this area.

I am aware of Jane Goodall's work (she is a childhood idol of mine!), and also of Frans de Waal's. It is certainly not highly accepted that chimpanzees are "fully knowledgable" in the area of moral and ethical systems. Whatever gave you that idea?

Certainly their research supports the idea that aspects of morality and culture exist in primates, but I have yet to see any claims (supported or otherwise) that any non-human animals have the type of highly abstract ethical systems that have been developed and are prevalent in humans.

Quote:

Originally posted by punkersluta:
If an animal is capable of moral feeling, of delivering food to its harmed companions, is it not certainly capable of understanding property?

That's a big if. Simply delivering food to a "harmed companion" is not indication of "moral feeling." I see no necessary relation between the two. Certainly animals are capable of acts that we see as compassionate or empathetic. However, it could be nothing more than our own post hoc rationalization of such behavior.

Quote:

Originally posted by punkersluta:
In every single mammalian creature, there is a mating process, a form of consent and acceptance. Some animals dance for each others, some build houses (certain birds), some battle each other, etc., etc..

I'm very sorry, but the instinctive actions of animals involved in mating do not demonstrate anything approaching what humans would understand as "consent and acceptance". In the non-human animal world, there is no evidence (that I've seen, anyway) that such behavior is motivated by anything other than instinct. Do you suggest that a cow might refuse a bull based on moral considerations? What evidence do you provide to support this contention?

Quote:

Bill: If you are going to use arguments that depend upon the possession by non-human animals of moral and ethical systems equivalent to human ones, you will need to provide some evidence to demonstrate their existence. Otherwise, your argument will fail.

punkersluta: Absolutely not. I can ask these things hypothetically, and you fail to understand that humans are animals who do these things, too. If it is acceptable to imitate a lion and slaughter, may I imitate a human and destroy?

Ummm..your reply is non sequitur. I was pointing out that the arguments you were using seem to depend upon a logical equivalency between human and non-human ethical systems. If you are unable to prove such an equivalency (ie, that non-human animals possess complex, abstract ethical systems), then your argument will fail.

Quote:

Bill: This would seem to me to be inconsistent. Given the same "trapped on an island" scenario, would you argue that it was acceptable to kill and eat a human child if no other option were present?

punkersluta: It would absolutely be acceptable.

Well, at least you're consistent. Please stay away from my children.

Quote:

Bill: This is a poor set of analogies. Guns and knives are not moral agents.

punkersluta: And human teeth are? What if the knife was made out of a tooth?

Ummm...again, non sequitur. The material from which the knife/gun is constructed is moot. The issue against which you are arguing is that function provides no support for morality. You provided analogies using instruments which are of conscious design, but are not conscious themselves and then attempted to extend that analogy to conscious agents. I was pointing out that knives and guns are not themselves conscious agents and therefore your analogies do not hold.

As I said, evolutionary function is not sufficient to determine morality, but it does provide a rational basis for argument against immorality.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

[ March 13, 2002: Message edited by: Bill Snedden ]

Mad Kally · 03-13-2002, 06:35 PM

Quote:

Spin said:
The shorter the intestine the more lilkely the animal is to be a meat eater. Meat can't stay in the system long before it goes foetid and poisonous.

That's just amazing that they would forget to teach me that in my anatomy and physiology classes..

Bill Snedden · 03-13-2002, 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by spin:
It was PB's manipulation of the idea. As I said, the notion I received of the contract was to include the most possible in order to protect the most possible. PB, apparently unaware of the spirit of such an idea, uses it specifically to exclude.

You might want to do some additional reading on Contractarian theory. PB is not "manipulating" anything. Under contractarian ethics, "rights" are determined by social contract. Non-human animals are not capable of entering into such contracts. Therefore, they are excluded from the framework of the theory. In short, because they are incapable of entering into the contracts upon which the recognition of "rights" are based, they have none.

That is Contractarianism; no manipulation.

As I said, obviously you disagree with the foundation or the application. Perhaps an elucidation of your own ethical framework would aid in understanding exactly why.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

[ March 13, 2002: Message edited by: Bill Snedden ]

spin · 03-13-2002, 06:39 PM

Jon:
------------------
I would like a cite on meat going fetid and poisonous if it stays too long in the digestive tract. This smells like either total BS or an Urban Legend to me.
------------------

You can make of it what you like at the moment, I'm rather busy to go hunting for something I read years ago... Wait, I tell you what, if you can find me someone who knows how to rip data (out of a running app.) which describes listview headers, eg the caption and the width of each column, then I'll look for it for you. I have my priorities.

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

03-13-2002, 06:12 PM	#241
Not Prince Hamlet Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: New Jersey, USA Posts: 1,309	Spin, I'd have to agree. I'm not sure what flew up your butt this morning, but there's no need to be so unkind to Bonduca. First of all, I happen to know her, and I can tell you that if you think she's stupid, you've got another thing coming. This girl is so smart, it's uncanny, and just because you don't happen to agree with her doesn't change that fact. She is also an incredibly kind person, one who does not deserve such ridicule. I've never known her to do an unkind thing to anybody, no matter what the circumstances. You may feel you're showing everybody how masterful and intelligent you are, but what you're actually showing them is that you're insecure and a bully. Believe me, nobody is mistaking your abuse for genuine wit Jeff

03-13-2002, 06:27 PM	#243
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	Mageth, If you read my earlier posts, you'll know that I talk about opportunistic meat eating both in early humans and in modern chimpanzees. I don't really know enough about the baboon's physical structure, but the vervet monkey for example has proportionally a much shorter intestine than than many of the other members of the family, while that of the human is quite long. The length of the intestine was one of the key issues I've discussed elsewhere. The shorter the intestine the more lilkely the animal is to be a meat eater. Meat can't stay in the system long before it goes foetid and poisonous.

03-13-2002, 06:30 PM	#244
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	I only said that I was not going to argue continuously against things you tend to repeat, unless you were capable of producing some evidence. To those others who are genuinly interested in arguing or find some serious flaw with Vegetarianism, I will answer. Actually, you never said that until now. Here's what you said: "This is my last post in response to things that you say." Now you're putting words in your own mouth that you didn't say. Most if not all of my supposed "repititions" are rebuttals to your twisting my words. I have to repeat them to illustrate that I didn't say what you say I did. And what evidence are you asking for? I've provided evidence on this thread in several places. In turn, I've asked you for evidence several times and not gotten much, generally only outdated quotes (which, since you've said are not "arguments," I can only assume are not posted as evidence in support of your arguments).

03-13-2002, 06:30 PM	#245
x-member Banned Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: free Posts: 123	Spin: I would like a cite on meat going fetid and poisonous if it stays too long in the digestive tract. This smells like either total BS or an Urban Legend to me. Jon

03-13-2002, 06:30 PM	#246
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	Bill Sneddon: ------------------------- This seems disingenuous at best. Contractarian moral theories are well-known, with a long history stemming from the philosophical thought of Hobbes, Kant, Locke, and Rousseau (among others). Contemporary contractarian theorists include John Rawls and David Gauthier. Such theories are obviously not some type of "arbitrary manipulation." It is obvious that you disagree with the either the foundation or the application being used by PB, but you have so far failed to provide any kind of real rebuttal to PB's arguments. ------------------------- It was PB's manipulation of the idea. As I said, the notion I received of the contract was to include the most possible in order to protect the most possible. PB, apparently unaware of the spirit of such an idea, uses it specifically to exclude.

03-13-2002, 06:39 PM	#250
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	Jon: ------------------ I would like a cite on meat going fetid and poisonous if it stays too long in the digestive tract. This smells like either total BS or an Urban Legend to me. ------------------ You can make of it what you like at the moment, I'm rather busy to go hunting for something I read years ago... Wait, I tell you what, if you can find me someone who knows how to rip data (out of a running app.) which describes listview headers, eg the caption and the width of each column, then I'll look for it for you. I have my priorities.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.