Freethought & Rationalism Archive

hal9000 · 03-28-2002, 08:44 PM

Having just finished raping a nazi cannibal who went by the name of J. Dahmer, I sat down to a big plate of ribs for dinner and turn on the secular web to see what was new. That�s when I stumbled upon this thread, sorry I�m so late to the party. So I got to thinking well hell, this guy spin and his buddies should check out this story here, called <a href="http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetId=77" target="_blank">The Mensa Flu.</a> There�s an amusing point made in it, something that fits spin and his PETA buddies to a �T�. Bon appetite! Bwahahaha!

spin · 03-28-2002, 08:47 PM

99%,

As I have stated elsewhere the notion of "sentient" is important in understanding. I merely gave a definition of animal, as asked.

If you think you don't need a reason to kill a cockroach, I would disagree with you. This doesn't mean that you might not do so inadvertantly, an action you cannot help, but with volition I think you need a reason. And I hate cockroaches.

Perhaps you could argue that they are spreaders of disease or something like that -- if we are referring to my statement of morals -- and appeal to the second part of the statement. (The same spark that pushes the cockroach also pushes you.)

99Percent · 03-28-2002, 09:07 PM

We kill cockroaches not only because they spread desease, but because they are directly competing for food reasources with us. If we don't keep them in check they can seriously wipe us out. This also applies to rats, a decidedly higher living organism than cockroaches, or any other plague organism.

This is because they obviously don't have any moral regard for our well being, much less for our lives. They are amoral because they don't have a mind of their own. I don't see why we should be respecting their lives if they don't give a damn in respecting ours.

[ March 28, 2002: Message edited by: 99Percent ]</p>

Viti · 03-28-2002, 09:20 PM

I kill cockroaches because the little shits are known to crawl into the ears and mouths of sleeping humans, spread disease, multiply in the millions per year, and here in Vegas they all but walk up and say "this is my house biped"

Corwin · 03-28-2002, 09:34 PM

I don't kill cockroaches because I never see them. LOVE living in the northwest...

spin · 03-28-2002, 09:45 PM

99%
----------
This is because they obviously don't have any moral regard for our well being, much less for our lives. They are amoral because they don't have a mind of their own. I don't see why we should be respecting their lives if they don't give a damn in respecting ours.
-----------

While I agree they are in conflict with our food sources, I don't think the argument that they are amoral means anything more than they have no facilities to be moral. We do. Our best approach I would have thought would be prevention of entry, so that they cannot "compete" for the same food sources.

The easy way out costs less and kills life.

Corwin · 03-28-2002, 10:16 PM

So is there any situation where you would advocate killing an animal as a moral act spin?

Detached9 · 03-29-2002, 12:14 AM

[Corwin]: Sentience is generally defined as 'having human level intelligence'

Where did you find this definition? Did you just make this up? I don't find your definition in four dictionaries, so I must wonder, where did you come up with this definition of sentience?

Oh, by the way, as a vegetarian, I don't approve of most of PETA's actions, or their blatant misinformation. I would never use PETA as an "unbiased" source.

Here's a link to what the ADA thinks of a vegetarian diet:
<a href="http://www.eatright.org/nfs/nfs95.html" target="_blank">http://www.eatright.org/nfs/nfs95.html</a>

[ March 29, 2002: Message edited by: Detached9 ]</p>

The AntiChris · 03-29-2002, 04:07 AM

Corwin:

Quote:

If you feel that other animals are as important as your own species, or more so, possibly you'd like to be the first to make more room for them by eliminating yourself?

Quote:

If there's no effective difference between animals and humans.... are you by any chance out enjoying yourself in the barnyard? After all.... human... animal... they're both 'conscious' in your opinion.... so there should be nothing wrong with a wooly or furry girlfriend, right?

Quote:

Answer the question: If there's no objective difference between animals and humans, if both are 'conscious,' thus making it somehow wrong to eat animals.... is it or is it not 'ok' to have sex with them?

Quote:

How do you know lab animals aren't consenting? How do you know my dinner didn't go willingly?

Quote:

The moral imperative of any lifeform is to survive. No animal products in your diet? You die. Simple.

Quote:

... ever wonder why vegans are generally skinny and tend toward being somewhat frail? Not enough protein.

Quote:

Notice how they are frequently somewhat... unstable? Lack of B-12.

"Straws" and "clutching at" spring to mind.

Chris

Tom Piper · 03-29-2002, 04:25 AM

tronvillain,

You said,

Quote:

If you are not indifferent between the two deaths, it seems likely that you do not actually hold that there are no morally relevant differences between the two species. I am trying to determine whether you agree with the argument or not.

How is my agreement or disagreement with the argument relevant to the evaluation of the argument? I don't see how, but if you can show me how, I am interested in finding out.

You said,

Quote:

Tom Piper:
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is premissible to eat it -> it is nonsapient.

The (logically equivalent) contrapositive of this is

It is sapient -> it is not permissible to eat it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Except that Melaclypse said it was a necessary condition, not a sufficient one, and your initial statement assumes that it is a sufficient condition.

The statement

It is premissible to eat it -> it is nonsapient

shows 'nonsapience' as a necessary condition on 'permissible to eat'.

Malaclypse said,

Quote:

I am not saying, however, that individual nonsapience is a sufficient condition to eat. I'm saying that it's only a necessary condition.

Have I misunderstood your remark?

Tom

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

03-28-2002, 08:44 PM	#211
hal9000 Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: just over your shoulder Posts: 146	Having just finished raping a nazi cannibal who went by the name of J. Dahmer, I sat down to a big plate of ribs for dinner and turn on the secular web to see what was new. That�s when I stumbled upon this thread, sorry I�m so late to the party. So I got to thinking well hell, this guy spin and his buddies should check out this story here, called <a href="http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetId=77" target="_blank">The Mensa Flu.</a> There�s an amusing point made in it, something that fits spin and his PETA buddies to a �T�. Bon appetite! Bwahahaha!

03-28-2002, 08:47 PM	#212
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	99%, As I have stated elsewhere the notion of "sentient" is important in understanding. I merely gave a definition of animal, as asked. If you think you don't need a reason to kill a cockroach, I would disagree with you. This doesn't mean that you might not do so inadvertantly, an action you cannot help, but with volition I think you need a reason. And I hate cockroaches. Perhaps you could argue that they are spreaders of disease or something like that -- if we are referring to my statement of morals -- and appeal to the second part of the statement. (The same spark that pushes the cockroach also pushes you.)

03-28-2002, 09:07 PM	#213
99Percent Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: my mind Posts: 5,996	We kill cockroaches not only because they spread desease, but because they are directly competing for food reasources with us. If we don't keep them in check they can seriously wipe us out. This also applies to rats, a decidedly higher living organism than cockroaches, or any other plague organism. This is because they obviously don't have any moral regard for our well being, much less for our lives. They are amoral because they don't have a mind of their own. I don't see why we should be respecting their lives if they don't give a damn in respecting ours. [ March 28, 2002: Message edited by: 99Percent ]</p>

03-28-2002, 09:20 PM	#214
Viti Contributor Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Down South Posts: 12,879	I kill cockroaches because the little shits are known to crawl into the ears and mouths of sleeping humans, spread disease, multiply in the millions per year, and here in Vegas they all but walk up and say "this is my house biped"

03-28-2002, 09:34 PM	#215
Corwin Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 4,369	I don't kill cockroaches because I never see them. LOVE living in the northwest...

03-28-2002, 09:45 PM	#216
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	99% ---------- This is because they obviously don't have any moral regard for our well being, much less for our lives. They are amoral because they don't have a mind of their own. I don't see why we should be respecting their lives if they don't give a damn in respecting ours. ----------- While I agree they are in conflict with our food sources, I don't think the argument that they are amoral means anything more than they have no facilities to be moral. We do. Our best approach I would have thought would be prevention of entry, so that they cannot "compete" for the same food sources. The easy way out costs less and kills life.

03-28-2002, 10:16 PM	#217
Corwin Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 4,369	So is there any situation where you would advocate killing an animal as a moral act spin?

03-29-2002, 12:14 AM	#218
Detached9 Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Posts: 341	[Corwin]: Sentience is generally defined as 'having human level intelligence' Where did you find this definition? Did you just make this up? I don't find your definition in four dictionaries, so I must wonder, where did you come up with this definition of sentience? Oh, by the way, as a vegetarian, I don't approve of most of PETA's actions, or their blatant misinformation. I would never use PETA as an "unbiased" source. Here's a link to what the ADA thinks of a vegetarian diet: <a href="http://www.eatright.org/nfs/nfs95.html" target="_blank">http://www.eatright.org/nfs/nfs95.html</a> [ March 29, 2002: Message edited by: Detached9 ]</p>

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.