Why is PETA so bloody dam stupid.... [Archive] - Page 6

Belz...

9th July 2009, 07:16 AM

OK, quickly, if only because the objection to this speculative and somewhat evasive answer is so obvious...

Why is it that every answer that isn't what you want to hear is labeled "evasive" ? I answered your question honestly and to the best of my abilities. Maybe that makes me an idiot in your eyes but I certainly am no liar.

An animal has to BE dead - that is, it has to be killed

But your claim is like saying that finding pictures of car crashes funny is like having a kick at causing accidents. It simply doesn't follow.

And yet you think the duck-killer is psychotic, and his actions indefensible.

I never said that. I said I'd have him checked by a shrink. Plus the act is illegal. I don't think it's immoral, per se.

What makes you so different from the duck-kicking kid?

I don't kick my food to death for fun.

You're both getting kicks from the death of an animal, and the kicks REQUIRE animal death.

No, we're not. Enjoying the taste simply isn't the same thing as getting a "kick" out of doing something sadistic.

What, in other words, is so awesome about taste that it supersedes your moral sense on what is, on the face of it, a very similar issue?

Here you go again, stating, as though it isn't a point of contention, that killing animals for food is immoral. It quite clearly isn't the case that we all agree on that, in fact several of us have explicitly stated that we don't think it's immoral.

For the record, the taste of meat isn't "so awesome" as to supersede any of my moral values. But as I said before, and this wasn't adressed, I consider that forcing people to eat things they do not like is inflicting harm at best, and torture at worst.

Further: where do you stand on necro-bestiality?

Don't particularily care, actually. The damn thing's dead. Again, however, I'd suggest a psychologist.

Let's tighten the analogy

Ugh. "Bestiality" and "tighten" in close proximity is not pretty ;)

This isn't a question of how the death is performed, but a question designed to draw out why you think taste deserves special status.

I isn't. I don't think killing animals for food is wrong. It isn't just for the taste, although you'd like to make it appear that way.

volatile

9th July 2009, 07:31 AM

No, we're not. Enjoying the taste simply isn't the same thing as getting a "kick" out of doing something sadistic.

Why not? You do not need to eat meat. But you do, because it tastes good.You're engaging in an activity which requires in the death of animals solely (principally, perhaps) for the pleasure it brings you. How is that not sadistic?

I mean, the duck-shagger would have all the defences you have for your meat-eating - it's convenient, pleasurable and, in RandFan's altruism argument, he's giving them life before he kills them for the thrill. And yet you find his actions "sadisitc" or psychologically-troubled. Why?

Here you go again, stating, as though it isn't a point of contention, that killing animals for food is immoral. It quite clearly isn't the case that we all agree on that, in fact several of us have explicitly stated that we don't think it' immoral.Which is why we're having this discussion. You claim "it's not immoral", and then express moral concern about similar behaviours.

That's the point.

For the record, the taste of meat isn't "so awesome" as to supersede any of my moral values. But as I said before, and this wasn't adressed, I consider that forcing people to eat things they do not like is inflicting harm at best, and torture at worst.You eat vegetables, nuts and seeds in addition to your steak already, right? So who's forcing anyone to do anything?

You think dead-duck sex is indicative of psychological problems, but then state that "the taste of meat isn't "so awesome" as to supersede any of my moral values". Those two statements are contradictory. Explain to me how you reconcile them.

GreNME

9th July 2009, 07:32 AM

So, PETA euthanising animals who cannot be re-homed (and this is not uncommon for rescue shelters) is "genocide". Maybe it is.

That is as false a statement as can be. PETA claims the "cannot be re-homed" after-the-fact of killing them, with the argument that they are putting these animals out of their misery. That's what they do. They don't go to shelters asking for the worst of the worst, and this is demonstrable in the case of the two PETA workers who were caught improperly disposing of carcasses. PETA picks up dogs of all ages, including puppies and young dogs, because they'll take whatever they can talk the shelters into giving them. I could also provide the anecdotal confirmation that they outright lie to shelters, saying that they can find a home for this one or can get the shots for that one, but whether that is taken seriously or truthfully is going to depend on opinions of myself and my views in the first place.

Why isn't killing cows for food "genocide"? What's the difference?

Here you go equivocating again. PETA's leadership and many of their members who are active enough to do more than hold signs or protest naked are of the opinion that no one should keep dogs or cats (or anything) as pets. They go so far as to follow the "one generation and out" methodology for pets. I wouldn't say that their "goal" is the eradication of species, but the goal as stated by Newkirk, who founded PETA, will lead inexorably to the eradication of dogs as a species, among others. While Newkirk wasn't the first person to use the "one generation then out" line-- that would be Wayne Pacelle, the current HSUS president, who first said that-- Newkirk definitely follows the liberation ethos of eliminating any human interaction with domesticated species and blocking any (perceived) interference with undomesticated species. Her own words: "For one thing, we would no longer allow breeding. People could not create different breeds. There would be no pet shops. If people had companion animals in their homes, those animals would have to be refugees from the animal shelters and the streets. You would have a protective relationship with them just as you would with an orphaned child. But as the surplus of cats and dogs (artificially engineered by centuries of forced breeding) declined, eventually companion animals would be phased out, and we would return to a more symbiotic relationship — enjoyment at a distance." - Ingrid Newkirk, 1989 interview

There would be no "enjoyment at a distance" for the domestic dog, cat, and even ferret breeds that exist today, among others, because they would die out without human interaction due to domestication making them uncompetitive. This goal of "one generation then out" leads inexorably toward extinction of whole species.

The problem I have with PETA in particular is not the opinion that I disagree strongly with, but the fact that PETA and similar groups spend more money on their legal and lobbying departments for pushing through loads and loads of crap legislation that progressively tries to effectively drive out and criminalize pet ownership. It starts with mandatory spay-neuter, then moves on to breed-specific "dangerous dog" laws, adds on bans for "exotic" pets (which they can often define as anything not being a dog or cat), and then the ordinances that are pushed are ones detailing how animals can be kept or more restrictions on implied aggression-- in some areas, with the implication that animal control officers can enter your home based on a phone call or written complaint of barking-- and so on to gradually force the public to have fewer sources where they can get the pets, what pet they are allowed to keep, and the conditions in which they are allowed to keep them. These groups spend so much time, money, and energy pounding their message across in a Scientology-like manner-- in other words, they don't lead with the batcrap insane "final solution"-like goals, but instead the lighter "be nicer to animals" fare-- that they pretty much dominate any conversation on the well-being or protection of animals by simply being the loudest, most distributed, and most attention-whorish in their activities. Attention is all well and good, but the logical, realistic ends of their activities compared to their utopian liberationist goals simply do not line up. I'm strongly of the opinion that the world would be a worse off place to find out the error of their goals after the elimination or near-eradication of these species, as opposed to taking a good, long, critical look at their entire set of priorities and activities instead of taking their emotional appeals and distortions at face value.

GreNME

9th July 2009, 07:36 AM

I have to say after some consideration I agree on this point that there's an inconsistancy in saying killing animals for kicks is wrong but killing them for food is ok. True it less wasteful eating them, but I doubt that animal welfare laws are based on a waste not want not rational.

Animal welfare laws are based on treating animals, even livestock, more humanely even if their ultimate purpose is to be used for food. Animal welfare often converges with conservationism, which aims to support biodiversity and maintain ecological habitats.

In other words, it's not extremism, which is why you probably see "inconsistancy" there.

volatile

9th July 2009, 07:43 AM

Animal welfare laws are based on treating animals, even livestock, more humanely even if their ultimate purpose is to be used for food. Animal welfare often converges with conservationism, which aims to support biodiversity and maintain ecological habitats.

In other words, it's not extremism, which is why you probably see "inconsistancy" there.

Gren - they could be kept in the exact same way they are now and be killed for kicks instead of food. We could convert the entire meat-production apparatus into a bestial-sex-toy-production apparatus, and retain all the "benefits" you and RandFan and Belz have cited, except for taste. It'd just need different packaging. But I think you'd find that problematic. Wouldn't you? Many happy meat-eaters would.

If we're interested in biodiversity, then let's do something about that. Let's not engage in practices which go against the very heart of conservationist ethics by using animals as commodities. There are innumerable ways "to support biodiversity and maintain ecological habitats" other than mass-producing food animals - and in fact, an elimination of livestock farming would probably help this goal in a number of ways.

On PETA - I don't agree with them, nor was that the point of my post. What I objected to was (as usual) one poster's inconsistent application of a standard. He was outraged enough at the euthanasia programme to call it "genocide", but still eagerly supported the killing of a different species for a much more amorphous reason.

Mid

9th July 2009, 07:51 AM

volatile

9th July 2009, 07:59 AM

I'd just like to point out that I'm not a vegetarian so the inconsistency that I'm seeing here is in my own attitudes and behaviour.

Which is why I went vegan.

It's also what Cain and Kevin and I have been arguing in favour of all thread. Consistency with other behaviours.

I appreciate that someone, finally, has understood what we've been saying. :)

GreNME

9th July 2009, 08:17 AM

GreNME:

Thanks. With this clarification I can say a few things, but one very important thing: this is a terrible argument. It also seems to rely heavily upon a dark, stilted understanding of "across the board." Should I have said the law ought to strive for inconsistency? Most importantly, just because it's difficult to legislate and enforce competing claims does not mean animals lack moral standing. Perhaps more devastating to your (no pun intended) densely written objection is that the law is arguably simpler with regard to animals, whose interests are the same regardless of where we find them versus the competing moral claims of people rooted in a tribal or religious culture (read as "thick" identities).

Calling it a terrible argument and not at all actually addressing what was said does not lead me to take your accusation very seriously. That you speak to the "interests" of animals being simpler to the more complex variations for humans as if that's somehow damning of what I said, humans are the only ones who are required to follow the laws, so you're not making much of a point here. Whether you value the different versions of human systems one way or another compared to animals is ultimately subjective to the fact that it is what it is, and there is no universality within it.

The problem with this construction is that you have it perfectly backwards. First we dispute relative merits of value systems -- are animals worthy of moral considerations -- then we can argue over circumstances (e.g., animals as livestock, which is an important and practical concern), and later we can argue over the "human application of death" on a species by species or case by case basis, but this is something any criminal justice system will "muddle" through anyway.

Nope, it's only backwards because you wish to work backwards from the conclusion. You are trying to drive the conversation from the preconceived notion that it's a moral issue to begin with. You need to define the values you're using first, then present the moral argument, and follow through with why your moral argument is applicable to something most currently consider morally neutral in the general sense. The biggest failure in your arguments, Cain, is that you continually refuse to acknowledge that any value system but the one you are applying is valid, yet you have never once quantified it. You construct hypothetical intellectual games and you make rhetorical statements and assertions, but while you may be aware of your foundational value set you're beginning from the argument that the inherent symbiotic relationship between humans and animals is wrong, and you've placed death (and "harm") as the basis for it. So, beginning from that basis, then explaining the value as a (negative) moral construct instead of a symbiotic one, and then offering the conclusion as morally superior, is what would make an argument. You have yet to do that, and you're damning everyone else for not accepting what you've been proposing already that has contained an as-yet-unmade argument with what appears to be an assumed conclusion. None of those who disagree with you share your foregone conclusion, yet you keep coming at anything said as if they should. It would do your posts well to explain why.

GreNME

9th July 2009, 08:26 AM

Gren - they could be kept in the exact same way they are now and be killed for kicks instead of food. We could convert the entire meat-production apparatus into a bestial-sex-toy-production apparatus, and retain all the "benefits" you and RandFan and Belz have cited, except for taste. It'd just need different packaging. But I think you'd find that problematic. Wouldn't you? Many happy meat-eaters would.

My happiness is not connected to my eating of meat, so your punctuation of an assertion with an obvious emotional accusation just shows the weak ground your argument is standing on. I've explicitly argued that, in as much as I feel anything about the current state of the food market, there is much that can be changed for the better and should be changed for the better, on many levels. Your (and others') constant disregard of this has been a blind spot in the criticisms against what I've said.

If we're interested in biodiversity, then let's do something about that. Let's not engage in practices which go against the very heart of conservationist ethics by using animals as commodities. There are innumerable ways "to support biodiversity and maintain ecological habitats" other than mass-producing food animals - and in fact, an elimination of livestock farming would probably help this goal in a number of ways.

It would also be throwing out the baby with the bathwater, as far as my opinion is concerned. That there's a symbiotic relationship between humans and domestic animals is historically demonstrable. That doesn't mean I advocate the over-exploitation of this, but my objections in the welfare and conservation terms are not based on the assumption of intrinsic wrong of eating meat, any more than my objections to the production and consumption of fossil fuels is based on the assumption of intrinsic wrong of using fossil fuels. My objection is that both can be done in a manner that is less wasteful, less destructive, and more in line with our civil and social level of development.

On PETA - I don't agree with them, nor was that the point of my post. What I objected to was (as usual) one poster's inconsistent application of a standard. He was outraged enough at the euthanasia programme to call it "genocide", but still eagerly supported the killing of a different species for a much more amorphous reason.

The problem is that PETA's ultimate solution of liberation leads precisely to a condition of genocide. Just because it's done through ignorant misunderstanding of consequences makes it no less objectionable.

volatile

9th July 2009, 08:34 AM

Gren - how can you deny that you consider the treatment of animals a moral issue, but then advocate animal-environmentalism, a moral position?

It's not fair to Cain to berate him for "trying to drive the conversation from the preconceived notion that it's a moral issue to begin with" because this is an issue you yourself accept as a moral one. This is what we mean about inconsistency. You might claim that meat-eating, of all our interactions with animals, is not a moral issue, but then you make arguments against euthanasia or for animal welfare laws, say, in explicitly moral terms. If animals are worthy of moral consideration - a point I think you agree with - on what basis can you exclude food animals from your moral framework?

In fact, I don't even think you do that - after all, you have accepted that you are in favour of anti-cruelty legistaltion and for better standards of care. These are examples of taking food animals as a moral issue. Cain's argument is built on that very point of agreement.

GreNME

9th July 2009, 08:36 AM

I'd just like to point out that I'm not a vegetarian so the inconsistency that I'm seeing here is in my own attitudes and behaviour. My point is that finding the killing for kicks of animals wrong but seeing killing for food as being ok seems to be rating my pleasure from eating meat as being more morally justifiable than the animal killers pleasure from just killing.

I disagree with your point completely. Cultivating an animal for food is simply not equitable to killing an animal for fun or for sex. Considering them the same is part of the equivocation fallacy that's been mentioned before-- unless one can present an argument of why they are the same, the assertion is insufficient.

GreNME

9th July 2009, 08:39 AM

volatile

9th July 2009, 08:44 AM

My happiness is not connected to my eating of meat, so your punctuation of an assertion with an obvious emotional accusation just shows the weak ground your argument is standing on.

You don't think that the "Mmmmm,.... steak" posts on page one, or RandFan's admission that a vegan diet would be intolerable, taste wise, is reason for me to doubt you? Are you now saying that you do not consider the taste-factor to be an issue, and that you have other compelling reasons behind your dietary choices? If you wish to disregard the pleasure principle entirely, you are thus required, that you make a positive argument that meat-eating is better than the alternative in terms of environmentalism, your principal aim. I do not believe that you could support such an argument.

In any case, mine is most resolutely not an emotional argument, but a technical one. I contend that sexual pleasure and gastronomic pleasure are not dissimilar, and as such to disagree with one would also be to disgaree with the other.

What's your take on the industrialised production of bestial sex-toys? It's a legitimate question, and an important one.

I've explicitly argued that, in as much as I feel anything about the current state of the food market, there is much that can be changed for the better and should be changed for the better, on many levels. Your (and others') constant disregard of this has been a blind spot in the criticisms against what I've said.Not at all. On this, we agree. This shows that you see the welfare of animals as a moral issue, and that it should be discussed in moral terms. To turn away from this statement to claim that meat-eating is not a question worthy of moral consideration shows up the inconsistencies we've been talking about.

On what grounds - for what reasons - do you think animals should be treated better?

Where do you stand on testing cosmetics on animals?

I'd like to understand your rationalisations.

It would also be throwing out the baby with the bathwater, as far as my opinion is concerned. That there's a symbiotic relationship between humans and domestic animals is historically demonstrable. That doesn't mean I advocate the over-exploitation of this, but my objections in the welfare and conservation terms are not based on the assumption of intrinsic wrong of eating meat, any more than my objections to the production and consumption of fossil fuels is based on the assumption of intrinsic wrong of using fossil fuels. My objection is that both can be done in a manner that is less wasteful, less destructive, and more in line with our civil and social level of development.No-one's argued that there is an "intrinsic" wrong with eating meat. In fact, I have directly expressed the contrary view on more than one occasion. But the point is, if bio-diversity is your goal, let's work on bio-diversity. It's quite clear that in a number of cases, farming reduces and inhibits the diversity you say you support. The two things, in other words, are separate issues, and citing "bio-diversity" in support for meat-eating makes no sense, as your desired goals can be achieved (and, perhaps, better achieved) in ways entirely divorced from the production of livestock.

volatile

9th July 2009, 08:49 AM

You're viewing it in black and white. I don't view what I eat as a moral issue.

Yes, you've said.

But that's inconsistent with all your other positions on animals. From your posts, it's clear you view animal issues from within an explicitly moral framework. "Better", in your last post, is but the most recent example.Welfare, conservationism, euthanasia and extinction are all moral issues. You have no grounds to exclude meat-eating, and meat-eating alone, from moral consideration.

And that's the problem. You still haven't made a credible case why diet should be excluded from your moral system.

I view being less wasteful, proactive about the environment, and having a healthier diet and relationship to our resources a moral issue. They are not the same thing, I see no reason to make them the same thing, and no argument has been sufficiently made to change that.You're making a meta-argument here. All these positions are one step removed from a central point - which is regarding animals themselves as worthy of moral consideration. Why worry about euthanasia, for example, the if animal death doesn't bother you? Why worry about improving the welfare conditions of livestock if you do not consider animals themselves worthy of moral consideration?

Mid

9th July 2009, 08:59 AM

Belz...

9th July 2009, 09:08 AM

Why not? You do not need to eat meat.

You do not need to eat vegetables.

But you do, because it tastes good.

And also because it's the easiest way to get the proteins I need. You seem to conveniently ignore that point every time it's brought up.

You're engaging in an activity which requires in the death of animals solely (principally, perhaps) for the pleasure it brings you. How is that not sadistic?

Do you kill bugs in your home ? If you do, you're doing so in order to maintain a certain amount of comfort, which is a pleasure don't actually need. In other words, you are engaging in an activity which requires the death of animals solely for the pleasure it brings you. How is that not sadistic ?

Perhaps now you see why your question isn't relevant.

I mean, the duck-shagger would have all the defences you have for your meat-eating - it's convenient, pleasurable and, in RandFan's altruism argument, he's giving them life before he kills them for the thrill. And yet you find his actions "sadisitc" or psychologically-troubled. Why?

Apples and oranges, Volatile. If you can't see that, I can't really help you.

Which is why we're having this discussion. You claim "it's not immoral", and then express moral concern about similar behaviours.

That's the point.

No, it's not. You are the one who is incapable of distinguishing between two very different things. Those behaviours aren't even remotely similar.

You eat vegetables, nuts and seeds in addition to your steak already, right? So who's forcing anyone to do anything?

My point is that you're claiming that we shouldn't eat meat. That it's not really a question of choice unless you're evil. So presumably you'd like to force me to NOT eat meat or at least convince me to do so. My argument is that this would result in harm towards me.

You think dead-duck sex is indicative of psychological problems, but then state that "the taste of meat isn't "so awesome" as to supersede any of my moral values". Those two statements are contradictory. Explain to me how you reconcile them.

I don't see how they are contradictory. In fact, they have nothing to do with one another, whatsoever.

GreNME

9th July 2009, 09:08 AM

You don't think that the "Mmmmm,.... steak" posts on page one, or RandFan's admission that a vegan diet would be intolerable, taste wise, is reason for me to doubt you? Are you now saying that you do not consider the taste-factor to be an issue, and that you have other compelling reasons behind your dietary choices?

Wait, so I make a personal statement about myself, and you try to catch me in some supposed contradiction by using other people's statements?

You're doing a helluva job there, Volatile.

In any case, that is most resolutely not an emotional argument, but a technical one. I contend that sexual pleasure and gastronomic pleasure are not dissimilar, and as such to disagree with one would also be to disgaree with the other.

Which is more equivocation on your part. Well, either that or you lack experience of sexual pleasure to know the difference on a personal level (though scientifically speaking that should be a limiting factor). No, eating even the most tasty of meals, regardless of whether meat is present or not, is nothing at all like sexual pleasure, not in the mechanics or the motivation.

What's your take on the industrialised production of bestial sex-toys? It's a legitimate question, and an important one.

How is this legitimate as a question? This reeks of spaghetti-on-the-wall technique. No context, no details, no circumstance, just a demand for a black-or-white answer. Again, you can do better than this.

I've explicitly argued that, in as much as I feel anything about the current state of the food market, there is much that can be changed for the better and should be changed for the better, on many levels. Your (and others') constant disregard of this has been a blind spot in the criticisms against what I've said.
Not at all. On this, we agree. This shows that you see the welfare of animals as a moral issue, and that it should be discussed in moral terms. To turn away from this statement to claim that meat-eating is not a question worthy of moral consideration shows up the inconsistencies we've been talking about.

You keep saying that, but have yet to back it up. At this point I'm tired of trying to provide you an explanation that I think is actually addressing the argument you're claiming to make (but not explicitly making) with your attempts to highlight (what you call) inconsistencies.

On what grounds - for what reasons - do you think animals should be treated better?

Which animals? The answer depends on which animals you're asking about. Do you really not see the ways you're slithering around actually making an argument?

Where do you stand on testing cosmetics on animals?

I'd like to understand your rationalisations.

Sorry, but I don't believe you would like that. I believe you would like me to continue supplying defensive arguments so that you can continue to try to pick them apart and consider that your full argument. So no, you make your case, then I'll make my case, and we can go from there. Let's be intellectually honest with each other for once in this thread.

For the record, I see no reason or need for cosmetic testing. That's pretty much it. Other than that I'm agnostic on it.

No-one's argued that there is an "intrinsic" wrong with eating meat. In fact, I have directly expressed the contrary view on more than one occasion. But the point is, if bio-diversity is your goal, let's work on bio-diversity. It's quite clear that in a number of cases, farming reduces and inhibits the diversity you say you support. The two things, in other words, are separate issues, and citing "bio-diversity" in support for meat-eating makes no sense, as your desired goals can be achieved (and, perhaps, better achieved) in ways entirely divorced from the production of livestock.

I'm not making an argument supporting eating meat. I'm not defending anything. That you're continually demanding that I defend it without putting forth an argument against it first is ridiculous and long past tiresome. All I've said is that I don't see the value of a moral argument that the symbiotic relationship between humans and domesticated animals is inherently wrong, in moral terms or otherwise. I think that there are a number of things that are curently operationally wrong, in that the wrong-ness of the means has become wasteful, damaging, and unhealthy. I've already said a number of times that those "number of cases" you object to on moral grounds against eating meat I object to (though apparently to a lesser degree) for reasons not having to do with eating meat, yet you insist that I should be viewing it from your perspective. Well, give me your perspective first so that I can evaluate!

volatile

9th July 2009, 09:12 AM

I disagree with your point completely. Cultivating an animal for food is simply not equitable to killing an animal for fun or for sex. Considering them the same is part of the equivocation fallacy that's been mentioned before-- unless one can present an argument of why they are the same, the assertion is insufficient.

They are the same because they are both killing an animal for the pleasure it brings. If other food sources are available, the choice to eat meat becomes solely one of preference. This is belied by any number of "Mmmm... steak" posts in this thread and elsewhere. The taste of meat is by far the over-riding concern when justifying meat-eating and, in any case, we could achieve any and all other supposed benefits of industrial meat production cited thus far in the thread (altruism, conservation, protection from extinction) other than taste by turning the whole apparatus over to making bestial sex toys.

With this in mind, in what way are taste and sexual pleasure from bestiality different, and why is one OK but the other frowned upon? Why is the sensation of taste enough to dispel the obvious problem you have with a hypothetically-identical system of production geared towards necro-bestiality?

I don't see a difference. Could you please explain why you do?

GreNME

9th July 2009, 09:16 AM

Yes, you've said.

But that's inconsistent with all your other positions on animals. From your posts, it's clear you view animal issues from within an explicitly moral framework. "Better", in your last post, is but the most recent example.Welfare, conservationism, euthanasia and extinction are all moral issues. You have no grounds to exclude meat-eating, and meat-eating alone, from moral consideration.

So you say, but you never explain why I have no such grounds (even though that's not an accurate summation of what I'm doing).

And that's the problem. You still haven't made a credible case why diet should be excluded from your moral system.

That's a little better than the above, and closer to addressing what I actually said. My reply is: you have never, not in this thread or the last, provided any kind of argument explaining why I should include diet as a moral issue.

You're making a meta-argument here. All these positions are one step removed from a central point - which is regarding animals themselves as worthy of moral consideration. Why worry about euthanasia, for example, the if animal death doesn't bother you? Why worry about improving the welfare conditions of livestock if you do not consider animals themselves worthy of moral consideration?

I have never stated that animals are not worthy of moral consideration. However, that does not equate to my believing that all animals are worthy of equal consideration under any terms and without context. That's your own faulty construct right there, and until you actually provide a real argument that lays out where your attribution of values actually lies, I'm not inclined to keep trying to guess. So instead you get to keep making these strawman arguments that would make your position easier to hold in moral absolutist terms.

GreNME

9th July 2009, 09:18 AM

Why is the sensation of taste enough to dispel the obvious problem you have with a hypothetically-identical system of production geared towards necro-bestiality?

Wow, just wow. Really, Volatile, until you make an actual argument that isn't built on strawmen responses to answers I give, I'm really not inclined to continue down this path with you.

GreNME

9th July 2009, 09:20 AM

This is my suggestion, Volatile: start a new thread, sans the baggage in this one. Fill out your argument, from bases to the conclusion (or the closest approximation), within the first post. If you really want to do this, then let's to it in an intellectually honest manner.

tyr_13

9th July 2009, 09:21 AM

They are the same because they are both killing an animal for the pleasure it brings. If other food sources are available, the choice to eat meat becomes solely one of preference. This is belied by any number of "Mmmm... steak" posts in this thread and elsewhere. The taste of meat is by far the over-riding concern when justifying meat-eating and, in any case, we could achieve any and all other supposed benefits of industrial meat production cited thus far in the thread (altruism, conservation, protection from extinction) other than taste by turning the whole apparatus over to making bestial sex toys.

With this in mind, in what way are taste and sexual pleasure from bestiality different, and why is one OK but the other frowned upon? Why is the sensation of taste enough to dispel the obvious problem you have with a hypothetically-identical system of production geared towards necro-bestiality?

I don't see a difference. Could you please explain why you do?

Do you believe that stealing to feed yourself is just as bad as stealing to buy a new Ipod? Do you believe that killing someone to defend yourself is different from killing to watch a man die? They are both stealing, they are both killing.

The urge to eat, and eat meat, is fundamentally different from the urge for sex, or to watch something die. Your equivocation is weak on this level. They are not at all the same except for the death of the animal.

I haven't even seen any evidence that it would even be possible for a large percentage of the populace to get nutrition from a vegetarian diet, let alone a vegan one. I share many of the concerns of wasteful and destructive production (especially with cattle and hogs right now), but that doesn't mean that eating meat is wrong.

If eating meat is morally wrong because of harm it causes animals, and animals have the right not to be harmed, then they have the responsibility not to harm in turn. Are you then for the jailing of wolves? Of mountain lions? This isn't a strawman or me mocking you. If you are consistent in your argument, this is a logical conclusion. Please tell us why or why not.

EDIT: Damnit GreNME, you can't go posting so many good posts while I'm trying to struggle through what I'm trying to say! Unfair. :p

volatile

9th July 2009, 09:28 AM

Wait, so I make a personal statement about myself, and you try to catch me in some supposed contradiction by using other people's statements?

I'm interested if you'd disagree with them. Taste is not a consideration in your diet?

Which is more equivocation on your part. Well, either that or you lack experience of sexual pleasure to know the difference on a personal level (though scientifically speaking that should be a limiting factor).

I'm not a necro-besaphile, but I can imagine that there are people who are. On what grounds do you belittle their pleasure?

No, eating even the most tasty of meals, regardless of whether meat is present or not, is nothing at all like sexual pleasure, not in the mechanics or the motivation.

Why? They are both activities orientated towards the fulfilment of pleasure. One might even argue that sexual pleasure is MORE powerful than even the juciest lamb chop.

You're the one who claims not to see diet as a moral issue - so explain to me why a system of aninmal cultivation geared towards the production of tasty meat is OK and hypothetically-identical one geared towards the production of bestial sex-aids is not? Why is the use of animals to fulfil a sexual desire a moral issue, and the use of them to fulfil a gastronomic one isn't?

I don't understand your point.

How is this legitimate as a question?

Because I'm interested i9n why you exclude diet and diet alone from your consideration of animals. If you're bothered about necro-bestiality - and, it seems you are - I'd like to know why. Clearly.

You keep saying that, but have yet to back it up. At this point I'm tired of trying to provide you an explanation that I think is actually addressing the argument you're claiming to make (but not explicitly making) with your attempts to highlight (what you call) inconsistencies.

Gren, I've backed it up over and over again. All you've done in return is stonewall. "It's not a moral issue" you cry, over and over again, all the while failing to explain why this might be the case, given your other views.

At least one poster has understood and acknowledged that I have made a logical and sound case. As such, your pretence that I haven't done so rings all the more hollow.

Which animals? The answer depends on which animals you're asking about. Do you really not see the ways you're slithering around actually making an argument?

Evasiveness and inability to answer noted, Gren. You know very well that we're talking, in this context, about animals in food production. In fact, if you're following the argument, it's quite clear that I was referring you your repeated claims that conditions for livestock should be improved. If you think that animals should be treated better, then you see animals themselves as worthy of moral consideration. We've been over this.

Sorry, but I don't believe you would like that. I believe you would like me to continue supplying defensive arguments so that you can continue to try to pick them apart and consider that your full argument. So no, you make your case, then I'll make my case, and we can go from there. Let's be intellectually honest with each other for once in this thread.

So rather than making a positve case, you'll pretend I was lying?

This is where Cain starts getting snarky, and where I start getting disappointed. You'll note that you've not made any attempt either to answer the questions or justify your psotions, but instead baldly calim that the questions are pointless, or that 'm "dishonest" when asking you to make a case.

You cannot seriously, with a straight face, still claim that I haven't made a case when other posters have acknowledged that I have, and when your entitre rebuttal is basically "But... no". I've explained, in some detail, how I believe your exclusion of diet from your broader stance on animals is inconsistent, and you have made no positive case to the contrary other than gainsaying. This post alone is clear enough evidence of that.

If you have a case to make, make it.

For the record, I see no reason or need for cosmetic testing. That's pretty much it. Other than that I'm agnostic on it.

No reason or need. I agree.

What reason or need do you have to eat meat?

I'm not making an argument supporting eating meat.

Well, hurry up and do so. Without a considered argument in its favour, its as unsupportable as a behaviour as any other.

All I've said is that I don't see the value of a moral argument that the symbiotic relationship between humans and domesticated animals is inherently wrong, in moral terms or otherwise.

And yet at the same time, you have moral qualms about all sorts of human-animal interactions (welfare, euthanasia and, it seems, bestiality). So you're being either dishonest (with yourself, perhaps) or you're being stupid.

I know you're not stupid.

volatile

9th July 2009, 09:34 AM

Do you believe that stealing to feed yourself is just as bad as stealing to buy a new Ipod? Do you believe that killing someone to defend yourself is different from killing to watch a man die? They are both stealing, they are both killing.

No and no. But these two are not relevant examples. I suggest you read my posts earlier in the thread; I thought I'd made it abundantly clear earlier. Another poster got it and even restated the entire argument correctly and concisely in his own terms, so it can't have been that obscure.

The urge to eat, and eat meat, is fundamentally different from the urge for sex, or to watch something die. Your equivocation is weak on this level. They are not at all the same except for the death of the animal.

The point, Tyr, is not about the "urge" to eat. Of course we must eat. But I guarantee that most posters on this forum can buy a nutritionally-complete vegan diet from the same stores they buy their meat from. So the analogy is not about the "urge" but about the end result - the pleasure that results.

The taste of meat is cited (and you can see this in this thread) as the primary or even the only reason for eating it. As such, if you want to support meat-production but oppose killing for necro-bestial purpouses, you must explain why the satiation of taste is sufficient to overcome the moral bjections to the satation of sexual desire when an animal death is involved.

I'm running for my train, but the rest of your objections have been covered in this thread already.

GreNME

9th July 2009, 09:47 AM

I'm not making an argument supporting eating meat.
Well, hurry up and do so. Without a considered argument in its favour, its as unsupportable as a behaviour as any other.

Nope, not good enough. We (humans) do not operate from a tabula rasa, so if you're demanding that a proper counter argument be made against the supposed immorality of eating meat, then make the argument against eating meat in the first place.

And yet at the same time, you have moral qualms about all sorts of human-animal interactions (welfare, euthanasia and, it seems, bestiality). So you're being either dishonest (with yourself, perhaps) or you're being stupid.

I know you're not stupid.

I also know that you are likely not fond of false dichotomies, yet there one is in your post.

tyr_13

9th July 2009, 10:03 AM

No and no. But these two are not relevant examples. I suggest you read my posts earlier in the thread; I thought I'd made it abundantly clear earlier. Another poster got it and even restated the entire argument correctly and concisely in his own terms, so it can't have been that obscure.

Don't assume that anything couldn't be obscured in 20+ pages on a forum.

The point, Tyr, is not about the "urge" to eat. Of course we must eat. But I guarantee that most posters on this forum can buy a nutritionally-complete vegan diet from the same stores they buy their meat from. So the analogy is not about the "urge" but about the end result - the pleasure that results.

The taste of meat is cited (and you can see this in this thread) as the primary or even the only reason for eating it. As such, if you want to support meat-production but oppose killing for necro-bestial purpouses, you must explain why the satiation of taste is sufficient to overcome the moral bjections to the satation of sexual desire when an animal death is involved.

I'm running for my train, but the rest of your objections have been covered in this thread already.

This is faulty reasoning. Just because someone cites taste as their primary reasoning does not mean that it is the primary reason overall. It would be like saying that evolution is wrong because someone who believes in evolution cites some faulty evidence.

The rest of my objections it appears, though I may have missed it, have been said over and over to be covered, but asserting doesn't make it so.

Rogue1stclass

9th July 2009, 10:22 AM

So, PETA euthanising animals who cannot be re-homed (and this is not uncommon for rescue shelters) is "genocide". Maybe it is.

Why isn't killing cows for food "genocide"? What's the difference?

As has already been pointed out, PETA isn't killing animals that cannot be rehomed. I'm not necessarily against that. What PETA is doing--the actual PETA, not the media attention whore--is in a small, stupid way, attempting to exterminate species of animals. They go and they lie to people to get them turn over animals with the promise of a new home--I mean, this is PETA, right, they are against fishing, they'll work tirelessly for my dog, right--then they take the animal into the van, kill it before they leave the driveway, and dump it into a trash bin in a plastic bag.

What's more, PETA infiltrates "no kill" shelters and attempts to change that policy. They lobby for laws to make pet ownership more difficult. The stupid antics you see are just the marketing face, the real push of PETA is the end of pet ownership.

As for the killing of cows, no, that not genocide. Genocide is the attempted destruction a bloodline. Cattle farmers don't do that. In fact, it is in their express interest to keep the bloodlines going.

The analogy is the Matrix. Would Neo still be the hero (such as he was) is he tried to destroy everyone still in the Matrix on the probably very true grounds that most of them couldn't survive outside it?

Rogue1stclass

9th July 2009, 10:25 AM

EDIT: Damnit GreNME, you can't go posting so many good posts while I'm trying to struggle through what I'm trying to say! Unfair. :p

I have this same problem...

GreNME

9th July 2009, 10:33 AM

Put it this way, volatile: I think we can both agree that unreasonable search and seizure is wrong. However, I'm not against search and seizure. Personally, I don't support a theocracy in the United States, but as far as my thoughts about Iran are concerned I am not advocating for their theocracy to be taken down, neither overnight nor over a period of years. While I believe that the absurdity of George W. Bush's religious views skewed a lot of his decisions while he was in office, I don't have any such view that Barack Obama is working from such skewed views despite his religious views.

None of that is inconsistent, internally or externally. Saying it is so details more about what is being brought to the discussion than what is inherent to those statements. The reason for this-- which pertains to each-- is that the position on the subjects is not going to be a binary "for" or "against" approximation in a real sense, unless one can only see in those terms. In my approximation, the issue of eating meat is similar to, though not the same as, each of those statements, in that the advocating of one does not necessarily preclude the outright wrong-ness of the other. And in the context of this (and the previous) thread, no such argument has been outlined to explain why I should change that approximation.

thaiboxerken

9th July 2009, 11:58 AM

OK, fine.

Why not? And where do you stand on the necro-bestiality issue?

Because testing to see if such products are harmful on animals first makes it safer to test on humans.

If you want to have sex with dead animals, that's fine with me. I think it's gross, as the site of any corpse never aroused me sexually.

thaiboxerken

9th July 2009, 12:11 PM

volatile

9th July 2009, 12:18 PM

I often use my computer for pleasure, like interacting in this forum. There are, however, some people that use their computers for please to watch child pornography. Volatile, does this mean that using computers for "kicks" is immoral? Why or why not?

Because I can make a coherent case that child pornography is immoral without invalidating or contradicting any of my other moral positions.

Can you do the same for duck-******* in a way that does not contradict a premise of your meat eating? What's so wrong about duck-******, or more precisely, farming ducks explicitly for the purpose of having sex with their dead corpses?

Explain it to me, in the framework of your broader ethics.

volatile

9th July 2009, 12:27 PM

Put it this way, volatile: I think we can both agree that unreasonable search and seizure is wrong. However, I'm not against search and seizure.

Sure. The key word is "unreasonable" - the search must be justified IN THE POSITIVE. With good reasons to mitigate the negatives (and, in this case especially, the inconsistencies with a broader position that values right to privacy). In fact, this in an excellent example of precisely why a positive case does need to be made; somewhat of an own goal on your part.

Personally, I don't support a theocracy in the United States, but as far as my thoughts about Iran are concerned I am not advocating for their theocracy to be taken down, neither overnight nor over a period of years.Sure, but that's for a bunch of very sensible reasons - if asked, I'm sure you (or I) could justify this at length, rationally and consistently.

While I believe that the absurdity of George W. Bush's religious views skewed a lot of his decisions while he was in office, I don't have any such view that Barack Obama is working from such skewed views despite his religious views.And that's because... it is possible to make a positive case that he is not doing so.

None of that is inconsistent, internally or externally. Saying it is so details more about what is being brought to the discussion than what is inherent to those statements. The reason for this-- which pertains to each-- is that the position on the subjects is not going to be a binary "for" or "against" approximation in a real sense, unless one can only see in those terms. In my approximation, the issue of eating meat is similar to, though not the same as, each of those statements, in that the advocating of one does not necessarily preclude the outright wrong-ness of the other. And in the context of this (and the previous) thread, no such argument has been outlined to explain why I should change that approximation.Because, even in the examples you give above, each action or belief can be justified in the affirmitve, logically and sensibly, and without contradiction. Even in shades of grey.

I've never held a dogmatic position - there are plenty of circumstances in which eating meat is perfectly justifiable. But the key word is "justifiable". I think it's possible to make a case that eating meat is OK when no other sources are available, if the animal has died of old-age or natural causes or if the meat would otherwise go to waste. But these would be positive cases.

A positive case can be made, even if that case has to take into account ambiguities. I don't see that you've done that for your diet - you've just ring-fenced it from rational consideration, and for no good reason other than to do so is uncomfortable.

thaiboxerken

9th July 2009, 12:28 PM

volatile

9th July 2009, 12:33 PM

This is faulty reasoning. Just because someone cites taste as their primary reasoning does not mean that it is the primary reason overall. It would be like saying that evolution is wrong because someone who believes in evolution cites some faulty evidence.

OK, fine.

So what are your other reasons? I've not yet heard one that stands up to any kind of real scrutiny. What are YOUR reasons for eating meat?

The rest of my objections it appears, though I may have missed it, have been said over and over to be covered, but asserting doesn't make it so.

Sorry, as I said, I was rushing for a bus.

The first thing to note is that even IF wolf on bunny crime is immoral, that would have no bearing on my arguments at all.

The second thing to note, of course, is that the cost of dealing with wolf-on-bunny crime would likely be more harmful than leaving them be.

The third thing is that most moral philosophies (not all) and much of human psychology, as Cain has already explained, privileges the resolution of direct harms above indirect harms. Wolf-on-bunny crime is not our fault. Meat-eating most certainly IS our fault, and situation we already have the ability to do something about.

volatile

9th July 2009, 12:41 PM

Nope, not good enough. We (humans) do not operate from a tabula rasa, so if you're demanding that a proper counter argument be made against the supposed immorality of eating meat, then make the argument against eating meat in the first place.

When I go into a supermarket, I actively make choices about what to buy for dinner. Explain to me why that ISN'T a tabula rasa?

In any case, I alreadly made the argument, a dozen times - even if you reject the animals-as-moral-agents argument (which you don't), it's certainly harmful to the environment, and in stark conflict with most popularly accepted positions on how animals should be treated (positions which have, at their core, an understand that animals - particularly mammals - are agents with interests). Even if the harms are minimal (and I don't think they are), excluding a good reason to eat meat, we should abstain.

I've said that before. To you. Pretending I've NOT made the argument is extremely disingenuous, as is snipping all the points that could lead to a discussion in favour of... well, what?

You haven't said anything. You haven't argued anything. You've just gainsayed and / or pretended there isn't anything to discuss.

I'd rather not let the sex vs. taste issue go, if you don't mind. You seem to have a moral qualm with raising animals for bestial purposes. Why? Why are harms committed in the course of the fulfillment of the sexual desire to be condemend (or at the least to be viewed as problematic), whereas harms committed in the course of fulfillment of the taste desire to be accepted?

Remember - we could, hypothetically, convert the entire meat industry to an animal-sex-orientated one with a change of packaging. Methods of slaughter the same, husbandry the same - we get all be "conservational" benefits you see as the reason to eat meat. And yet - you still balk. Why?

volatile

9th July 2009, 12:54 PM

I see nothing wrong with have sex with dead ducks, if someone wanted to raise ducks for the explicit purpose of doing so isn't wrong either. I wouldn't do it, since it just doesn't turn me on.

OK, really?

You seem to think you have a case where you can say killing animals is wrong, yet you haven't made a convincing argument. Why is killing animals, for food, inherently wrong?

It's not inherently wrong. I said that 2 posts ago.

It's wrong when one has nutritionally-complete dietary alternatives easily available. The harms - and you yourself read the UN article on the harms of meat production, even if you don't consider death a 'harm' - are easily mitigated. And yet you choose not to, and you choose not to for spurious reasons.

That's the case. In the absence of compelling reasons to eat meat - a demonstrably harmful activity - one should not.

So, what are the compelling reasons?

Your argument that we can get the same nutrition from a vegan diet doesn't sit well with me.

Then you are in clear disagreement with professional nutritionists, incluing the American Dietary Association. Where's your evidence that a vegan diet is injurious to health?

Do you think holding cows hostage for their milk is wrong?

The production of milk involves killing calves, industrially, so yes. If you small-hold a cow and milk it yourself, fine by me.

Do you small-hold your own cow?

What about eggs? Is the crux of your argument that because of modern technology, it's suddenly wrong to kill for meat? Is hunting for food wrong?

If you're going to argue with me, at least read what I've already written. If you HAVE to hunt for food, then that's fine. If you don't, then it's not.

Do you live in sub-saharan Africa? Are there no food shops in your town?

Eggs are an interesting issue, but I don't think I'd have an issue with eating small-held chicken eggs. The harms are minimal.

If the death of the animal is pain-less, is it still wrong to kill the animal for food?

If you have other forms of food available that are nutritionally equivalent, yes.

It's not a complicated argument, Ken. It's basicaly a logical progression:

1) Meat eating does demonstrable harm
2) These harms are not sufficiently outweighed by the benefits in most circumstances
3) Therefore, we should refrain from eating meat.

I don't think you have an argument with 1 - you've accepted the environmental harms are real, and in the absence of any conflicting evidence, I think it's fair to take this point as agreed.

And neither you nor anyone else has presented a positive case for the benefits of meat-eating (in fact, you have actively refused to do so).

Therefore, the conclusion holds.

You're free to argue 2 if you want, but once again, this requires a positive case for the benefits sufficient to mitigate the harms.

GreNME

9th July 2009, 01:01 PM

When I go into a supermarket, I actively make choices about what to buy for dinner. Explain to me why that ISN'T a tabula rasa?

Your going into the supermarket did not dictate to you the choice to switch diets. Stop being so obtuse.

In any case, I alreadly made the argument, a dozen times - it's harmful to the environment, and in stark conflict with most popularly accepted positions on how animals should be treated (positions which have, at their core, an understand that animals - particularly mammals - are agents with interests). Even if the harms are minimal (and I don't think they are), excluding a good reason to eat meat, we should abstain.

And those arguments have been countered. Numerous times. Your refusal to accept the counters does not negate their existence.

I've said that before. To you. Pretending I've NOT made the argument is extremely disingenuous, as is snipping all the points that could lead to a discussion in favour of... well, what?

I don't know, what? As far as I'm concerned, eat what you feel is right for you to eat. You're the one who is making the judgment here, so you're the one who has to justify why we should take it seriously.

You haven't said anything. You haven't argued anything. You've just gainsayed and / or pretended there isn't anything to discuss.

That's BS and you know it. I'm asking you to make a clear case and stop doing like truthers do, equivocating to ridiculous extremes and demanding all kinds of conditions be met before an answer can be considered acceptable.

I'd rather not let the sex vs. taste issue go, if you don't mind. You seem to have a moral qualm with raising animals for bestial purposes. Why? Why are harms committed in the course of the fulfillment of the sexual desire to be condemend (or at the least to be viewed as problematic), whereas harms committed in the course of fulfillment of the taste desire to be accepted?

What you've found is a topic that is just shock-worthy enough to think it jars the reader into putting some credit to your equivocation, but in the end it's just more equivocation. Bestiality isn't sex with animals, it's masturbation using something other than one's own hand. It's not that I have some sort of moral taboo against masturbating with something other than one's own hand, but constructing a hypothetical shock-scenario to the degree you are, just to try to get around the absurdity of your equivocation fallacy is, at best, indicative of the increasingly emotional attachment you have to the issue.

Remember - we could, hypothetically, convert the entire meat industry to an animal-sex-orientated one with a change of packaging. Methods of slaughter the same, husbandry the same - we get all be "conservational" benefits you see as the reason to eat meat. And yet - you still balk. Why?

Because you've delved into the realm of the absurd in the effort to elicit some kind of shock reaction. That's really just as pathetic and juvenile as the 'protests' PETA engages in.

GreNME

9th July 2009, 01:02 PM

Sure. The key word is "unreasonable" - the search must be justified IN THE POSITIVE.

No, because search and seizure is not in and of itself considered wrong. The measure of "unreasonable" is subjective and arbitrary, depending on the judgment of those who are challenged on it. The boundaries of search and seizure are already defined-- as are the allowable treatment of animals-- yet the application can come up for scrutiny (Bruce Schneier (http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/07/court_limits_on.html) talked about S&S recently, hence it being in my mind), which I agree is a fair way to approach it. So, feel free to produce your scrutiny and conclusion, and we can examine it.

Sure, but that's for a bunch of very sensible reasons - if asked, I'm sure you (or I) could justify this at length, rationally and consistently.

So? Like I already said, I don't consider a vegetarian or vegan diet wrong, so there's nothing for me to justify either way.

And that's because... it is possible to make a positive case that he is not doing so.

That's not my reasoning at all. That's yours. See what I mean about what you bring to the discussion?

Because, even in the examples you give above, each action or belief can be justified in the affirmitve, logically and sensibly, and without contradiction. Even in shades of grey.

No, it's because those things I mention were basic assumptions of general stances that many people have, used specifically because they display what I meant about what you bring to the discussion when dealing with these types of issues. It's not even a black-grey-white issue, because I've already expressed a position that would be considered 'grey' and you are still treating it as if it were totally black or totally white, which still denotes a binary approach.

I've never held a dogmatic position - there are plenty of circumstances in which eating meat is perfectly justifiable. But the key word is "justifiable". I think it's possible to make a case that eating meat is OK when no other sources are available, if the animal has died of old-age or natural causes or if the meat would otherwise go to waste. But these would be positive cases.

A positive case can be made, even if that case has to take into account ambiguities. I don't see that you've done that for your diet - you've just ring-fenced it from rational consideration, and for no good reason other than to do so is uncomfortable.

My comfort has nothing to do with it, and is simply another one of the appeals to emotion I'm asking you to eschew when presenting your case. If you have a complaint about eating meat-- I certainly have a problem with the amount of meat eaten, and have explained it in pretty detailed form already-- then you should be able to express it. Expecting people to defend against an argument that hasn't yet been made is not reasonable. If you are so convinced of the right-ness of your argument, then there is no reason why you would be resisting laying it out in clear form for us.

ZirconBlue

9th July 2009, 01:04 PM

ZirconBlue:

While I agree you favor using animals in a more efficient manner, it's not clear you think "necro-bestiality" should be permitted.

Like I said, I've never really thought about it. I maintain the right to revise my opinion on further thought and debate, but for now, I would say that, as long as there are no public health issues with it, I guess I don't have any problem with people having sex with dead animals, and it probably should not be legislated against.

A direct answer will put you in one of two camps: those who believe in arguing for morality based on reason and those who prefer to legislate their sentiments.

I'm not sure whether my response clarifies which camp I should be in. In general, I'm not in favor of legislating morality.

We may not enjoy the idea of gay sex

I enjoy the idea quite a lot, actually.

or incest because those behaviors are "disgusting" -- the so-called "yuck" factor

No big "yuck" factors for me. My problems with incest have more to do with power dynamics of families and whether both parties are truly consenting, than with any squeamishness over siblings having sex.

-- but these questions normally come down to "who's harmed here?"

Correct. "An ye harm none, do what ye will."

If you do not think an animal merits ANY moral consideration whatsoever, then what's the harm in allowing sadists to do as they please

I believe that animals merit some moral consideration, but that it's not equal to that of humans, and it's not even equal from animal to animal. For that matter, I don't think all humans necessarily merit the same moral consideration. Well, I'm not sure "moral consideration" is the right term, here. I'm trying to say "not all life is equal", even within a species, let alone across species.

(compare with virtual child pornography)

I have no problem with virtual child pornography. If no actual children are used to create the pornography, then it should be allowed, IMO.

If you say such sadists may eventually "escalate," harm humans, then that's an empirical claim we'd have to investigate.

I know that torturing animals is often a precursor to other undesirable behaviors, but I have not studied it enough to know if any causal link has been demonstrated. As you say, we'd have to investigate.

The differences here are fundamental because they go to whether or not you think animals are property.

Some animals are property. Animals in the wild don't belong to anyone.

If you think animals are property, then people should be able to dispose of their property as they please (provided they're not harming anyone else).

The phrase in parentheses is very important. Disposing of animals in some ways can create public health issues, or otherwise harm others.

Instead people like RandFan pussyfoot around the issue saying, "Nobody here ADVOCATES torturing animals." Well, maybe nobody here advocates burning the Bible either, but I'm guessing that most of us believe it's a right.

I certainly don't advocate torturing animals, but I have to admit that I'm not sure whether it should be illegal or not. And I'm not sure that the law should be the same for individuals' pets as it should be for animals raised for consumption. I'll have to think on that a bit.

thaiboxerken

9th July 2009, 01:09 PM

It's wrong when one has nutritionally-complete dietary alternatives easily available.

So it's more about the technology than the killing?

So you are in clear disagreement with professional nutritionists, incluing the American Dietary Association. Where's your evidence that a vegan diet is injurious to health?Yes. There are other experts that say it is not nutritionally equivalent.

The production of milk involves killing calves, industrially, so yes. If you small-hold a cow and milk it yourself, fine by me. So it's ok to imprison a cow for it's milk, but not to kill it afterwards? Why?

If you're going to argue with me, at least read what I've already written. If you HAVE to hunt for food, then that's fine. If you don't, then it's not.So we should only do those activities that are necessary?

Do you live in sub-saharan Africa? Are there no food shops in your town?It's irrelevant.

1) Meat eating does demonstrable harm
2) These harms are not sufficiently outweighed by the benefits in most circumstances
3) Therefore, we should refrain from eating meat.1. You have not shown this. At best, you've shown that raising livestock is harmful to the environment.

2. You have not shown this either, as #1 is false.

3. Conclusion based on false premise.

Also, you've made the claim that eating an animal if it dies of old age is ok. So, what if we changed the way we get meat to raising livestock for the purpose of harvesting the meat after the animals die of old age?

If a painless death is irrelevant to you, then how does sentience come into play at all?

volatile

9th July 2009, 01:16 PM

Your going into the supermarket did not dictate to you the choice to switch diets. Stop being so obtuse.

In a way, it did. I realised that what I bought for dinner was not jusitifable, as the tofu is right there next tot eh chicken. So to speak. I had no excuses not to.

Every time I shop, I have a choice. So do you. On what basis do you pick the meat?

And those arguments have been countered. Numerous times. Your refusal to accept the counters does not negate their existence.

Really not - you said "it's not an issue" and "hmmm... conservation", even whilst holding animals as moral concerns in all other spheres, and forgetting that the conversational aims can be achieved just as well, if not better, without the killing. I also explained that in the absence of compelling reasons for eating meat, we should not do it. You've never countered that other than by gainsaying and avoidance.

And so we're going round in circles. Circles that could be broken as soon as you explained what the good reasons for making the chicken choice. WHen you're at the supermarket door, your choices ARE starting from a flat bottom, a tabula rasa,as far as I can see.

If you content otherwise, explain what exactly compells me towards the meat.

That's BS and you know it. I'm asking you to make a clear case and stop doing like truthers do, equivocating to ridiculous extremes and demanding all kinds of conditions be met before an answer can be considered acceptable.

Again with the gainsaying, rather than just answering the quesiton.

On what grounds is the comparison not apposite. How are raising for sex and raisign for taste different, and why should one be condemned and the other accepted?

All I ask is that you engage in some discussion, rather than just avoiding questions which, were you to answer them, would show your position as rather shallow.

What you've found is a topic that is just shock-worthy enough to think it jars the reader into putting some credit to your equivocation, but in the end it's just more equivocation. Bestiality isn't sex with animals, it's masturbation using something other than one's own hand. It's not that I have some sort of moral taboo against masturbating with something other than one's own hand, but constructing a hypothetical shock-scenario to the degree you are, just to try to get around the absurdity of your equivocation fallacy is, at best, indicative of the increasingly emotional attachment you have to the issue.

Even if it is "masturbation with something other thanone's hand", that doesn't negate my point.

Is raising ducks to use them as sex-toys wrong? It's a straightforward question.

Because you've delved into the realm of the absurd in the effort to elicit some kind of shock reaction. That's really just as pathetic and juvenile as the 'protests' PETA engages in.

Not to shock, Gren. To make you think about the logical consequences of your position. In fact, why is this even shocking to you? You don't even think how we treat animals is a moral issue, apparently. The process in my duck-sex-toy factory is exactly the same as the meat-factories you support (or don't see as a problem). Only the marketing is different.

If you are against dead-duck-*******, tell me why you are. You'd need to tell the duck-****** why he was wrong - he could answer will all the rebutals you've given to me, couldn't he?

So I'm asking: In your opinion, in what grounds can duck-******* be condemned, in your opinion? Why do you even think it's shocking, given your previous assertions?

volatile

9th July 2009, 01:21 PM

No, because search and seizure is not in and of itself considered wrong. The measure of "unreasonable" is subjective and arbitrary, depending on the judgment of those who are challenged on it. The boundaries of search and seizure are already defined-- as are the allowable treatment of animals-- yet the application can come up for scrutiny (Bruce Schneier (http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/07/court_limits_on.html) talked about S&S recently, hence it being in my mind), which I agree is a fair way to approach it. So, feel free to produce your scrutiny and conclusion, and we can examine it.

Look, Gren. If you're against unreasonable search and seizure, then you must be prepared to justify searches and seizures. That is, give reasons for them.

It may be subjective and arbitrary, but the case will need to be made in the positive even so - and those reasons might be disagreed with by others with firmer, more secure arguments.

If you consider meat-eating reasonable, then give us the reasons.

That's not my reasoning at all. That's yours. See what I mean about what you bring to the discussion?

You don't think Obama is being theocratic. You have positive reasons for believing so.

What are your positive reasons for meat-eating?

We're in that circle again, where I give reasons why meat-eating is problematic, and you then tell me that, whilst there are no reasons it's good, that doesn't matter.

Would you accept such an argument in defence of any other harmful activity?

Cavemonster

9th July 2009, 01:24 PM

Is raising ducks to use them as sex-toys wrong? It's a straightforward question.

Is raising cows to create leather for bondage gear wrong?
Is raising sheep to use their intestine as condoms for those allergic to latex wrong?

I don't see why.

Is raising ducks to use as sex toys wrong? No, is is kind of gross? Yes, very much so in my opinion. It's a matter of taste.

Cain

9th July 2009, 01:55 PM

Calling it a terrible argument and not at all actually addressing what was said does not lead me to take your accusation very seriously. That you speak to the "interests" of animals being simpler to the more complex variations for humans as if that's somehow damning of what I said, humans are the only ones who are required to follow the laws, so you're not making much of a point here. Whether you value the different versions of human systems one way or another compared to animals is ultimately subjective to the fact that it is what it is, and there is no universality within it.

Well, let's at least try to be accurate. I called it a terrible argument, and then explained why it's a terrible argument. Observing that it's difficult to legally sort these issues out says nothing at all; first comes the moral argument -- that is, whether or not these issues are worth pursuing. I went on to point out (unnecessarily) that your argument fails on it's own terms as it's probably easier for a legal system to deal with animal rights.

Nope, it's only backwards because you wish to work backwards from the conclusion. You are trying to drive the conversation from the preconceived notion that it's a moral issue to begin with.

This seems like another uniquely bad argument, and I think Volatile's observations indicate you believe otherwise (or ought to for the sake of consistency):

Welfare, conservationism, euthanasia and extinction are all moral issues. You have no grounds to exclude meat-eating, and meat-eating alone, from moral consideration.

Your response went something like, "that's what YOU say" and then demanded he demonstrate meat-eating is a moral issue, even though it obviously involves competing interests, even though philosophers who (attempt to) justify meat-consumption agree it's a moral issue. It's possible for a person to insist he does not view an issue as a moral matter, but sincerity is not enough. An artist may murder people in order to create a crime scene of "transcendent beauty," but there's still an undeniable moral dimension. Reasons for eating meat tend to be more hum drum, given little or no thought, but your behavior still impacts creatures with interests who, it just so happens, are given consideration in other contexts.

You need to define the values you're using first, then present the moral argument, and follow through with why your moral argument is applicable to something most currently consider morally neutral in the general sense....

I should think the examples, "hypothetical games" or whatever you want to call them, unmistakably refer to accepted moral principles that have been repeated countless times. I do not think there has been a failure to understand the arguments; on the contrary, I think people see the implications all too clearly, which is why participation in this thread so often feels like yanking teeth.

This is not intended as a "formal" argument as it summarizes/highlights the basic tactic seen throughout this thread.

-It's wrong to cause harm to a morally significant being for a relatively trivial reason (think about -- oh, say -- stealing money to pay for an IPOD).

-Animals are morally significant beings, meaning their interests are worthy of our consideration. (We've attempted to get explicit consent on this many times, though the example involving a sadist works well. If you think it's OK for a sadist to dispose of an animal however he pleases, then you probably do not believe animals are morally significant beings, which would then move discussion to sub-arguments such as what constitutes a morally significant being, how do animals differ from humans who have moral standing, and so on. Why is torturing animals wrong? I suspect most people think it's wrong because it involves causing great harm for a trivial end; or consideration of interests -- the animal's versus the torturer's -- favors the animal.

-Typical meat consumption involves harming animals for a trivial reason (taste). Here you get into other sub-arguments: "eating is not trivial; we must eat in order to live." That's mistaken for reasons identified earlier, more than once (i.e., you are not required to eat MEAT in order to live). Others want to argue death is not harm (even if this was true, animals raised in factory farms suffer quite a bit). There are exceptional cases where the consumption of meat does not violate the harm principle as we understand it: passive death/killing (e.g., eating an animal that has died from natural causes, or a freak accident (roadkill)). Active killing for food purposes can also be justified: "if I do not eat this animal, then I will die." In such a case any pleasant taste is an unintended byproduct of a far more compelling interest: living. In any case, it might be useful to compare typical factory farm meat to purchasing conflict-diamonds.

Put another way, an animal's interest in its one and only life, in not suffering, outweighs a human interest in the taste of meat, which has plenty of substitutes in the industrialized western world.

-------------------
ZiriconBlue:

I agree that if "necro-bestiality" has "public health issues," then it may warrant outside intervention. For the purposes of these discussions it's usually best to assume the behavior is self-contained. Your point on a cases of incest that are not consensual is another exception for a similar reason: it involves coercion. It should go without saying that some types of harm do not raise moral concern, perhaps when two (or more) people engage in consensual rough sex.

I believe that animals merit some moral consideration, but that it's not equal to that of humans, and it's not even equal from animal to animal.... I'm trying to say "not all life is equal", even within a species, let alone across species.

I think you're expressing a commonly accepted view, but later on you write:

I certainly don't advocate torturing animals, but I have to admit that I'm not sure whether it should be illegal or not.

Well, this goes back to a consideration of interests, the interest in the animal not suffering versus the pleasure a human derives from the act.

Cavemonster

9th July 2009, 02:10 PM

-Typical meat consumption involves harming animals for a trivial reason (taste).

Much vegetable consumption involves the harming of animals for a trivial reason (taste)

As I discussed with Volatile, anything grown on a large modern farm has blood on it's hands from land clearing, pest control, pesticides released into the environment, transportation and so on. These could be avoided by growing your own food or buying from small farms with more sustainable practices.

Why is eating a pineapple or tomato (that animals died and suffered so you could have) a regrettable small foible while eating meat is a wrong that must be addressed.

Is it the number of animals killed? Because as I stated above, a pound of steak only adds .2% of a life to the tally, probably not as much as the extra pesticides used to keep those tomatoes blemish free.

Is it that switching to a purely vegan diet is "easy" while buying your food locally or growing it is "too hard"?

Why do you draw the line at the way in which it's acceptable for animals to be killed for your convenience/enjoyment at exactly the place you do? Could it be that the visceral artifact of the chunk of meat makes the emotional issue more clear?

GreNME

9th July 2009, 03:09 PM

In a way, it did. I realised that what I bought for dinner was not jusitifable, as the tofu is right there next tot eh chicken. So to speak. I had no excuses not to.

Every time I shop, I have a choice. So do you. On what basis do you pick the meat?

Now you're being intentionally obtuse. No one's decision on what they eat comes from a blank slate. Not yours, not mine, not anyone's. I don't just mean what you or I may have had for dinner yesterday, I mean in general. If you're not jumping to conclusions with stuff like this then you're really reaching the level of bad faith on the discussion quickly.

I'm not really interested in going tit-for-tat in a constant circle with you, volatile. You're still not actually making an argument, you're making loose insinuations and when objections come up you revert to these cheap hypothetical nonsense ploys. You keep insisting that I (or someone else) defend eating meat, when you've not come even close to presenting something to defend against. You're demanding that we use values dictated by you and within the context of your foregone conclusion, but it just doesn't work like that. So I'll see if I can explain this one more time, in a different context (and with pictures):

One of the most basic areas of differing (though not always necessarily competing) opinions on social issues is where the basis of the argument comes. This can usually be broken down to a sliding scale with 'Liberty/Freedom' on one end and 'Equality/Equity' on the other.

http://image.grenme.com/Social/socialbar1.png

Most people you're going to come across will fall somewhere in the middle area of this sliding scale.

http://image.grenme.com/Social/socialbar2.png

There are people who hold extreme views, and they can typically be represented as...
http://image.grenme.com/Social/socialbar3a.png
OR
http://image.grenme.com/Social/socialbar3b.png

Those extremes signify a greater-than-average assignment of value to one ideal or the other, often at the expense of the other. PETA, for example, would qualify as the former (though it could arguably go even further to the edge), while in a rough sense a typical anarchist ethos would fall pretty much around the latter.

Your arguments, volatile, seem to be close to the edge of the average area for people, leaning heavily toward the Equality/Equity spectrum,
http://image.grenme.com/Social/socialbar3c.png

While many of the arguments you're using are arguing against the opposite end of that average area,
http://image.grenme.com/Social/socialbar3d.png

And in the meantime all of my own posts and arguably the majority of RandFan's posts (among others), have actually fallen even further in the middle of that average area,
http://image.grenme.com/Social/socialbar3e.png

To at least some degree, considering the general view of distaste or disapproval for cruelty to animals, the line arguably falls closer to the Equality/Equity side than the true mid-level (as shown above), but ultimately still falls closer to the Liberty/Freedom side of the spectrum than, based only on your posts so far (since you haven't really been completely agreeable to stating your own case from the start), your own position and perspective on this issue. Every objection, every disagreement, and every rejection to the points you attempt to make-- which consist primarily of asking a pointed question and attempting to point out contradiction-- has come from that perspective that is differently situated than your own.

However, for you to not know this would require a level of wanton disregard or ignorance that I wouldn't attribute to you. However, you persist in arguing without the acknowledgment of that difference in value on the scale of Equality/Equity versus Liberty/Freedom. You keep asserting that the different perspective is wrong and unjustified, but every attempt to get you to flesh out your position results in you going right back to the attempts to take a response to your assertions and try to turn that into the contradiction that proves your point.

But that's the problem: it doesn't prove your point. Even in cases where you might see something contradictory, that doesn't automagically affirm your case by default (as I pointed out, the issue is not binary), and even if it did there is no way for those of us trying to reason with you to judge for ourselves, because there is no post where your position has taken anything but a challenging assertive tone instead of presenting an argument, plain and simply. You're so wrapped up in this game of "Gotcha!" with your hypothetical constructs and rhetorical acrobatics that after nearly three dozen pages there is still little else going on but tit-for-tat sniping. I'm aware that I've taken part in some of it as well, which is why I've instead written this post asking you to try a different presentation and approach it in a way that doesn't involve relying on the "Gotcha!" nonsense and the tit-for-tat that's gone on throughout the thread.

And honestly, to give credit where credit is due, Cain is currently approaching this with more intellectual honesty and reason right now.

volatile

9th July 2009, 03:15 PM

GreNME

9th July 2009, 03:34 PM

Well, let's at least try to be accurate. I called it a terrible argument, and then explained why it's a terrible argument. Observing that it's difficult to legally sort these issues out says nothing at all; first comes the moral argument -- that is, whether or not these issues are worth pursuing. I went on to point out (unnecessarily) that your argument fails on it's own terms as it's probably easier for a legal system to deal with animal rights.

I know what you argued, but I disagree that it explained why what I originally said was a terrible argument. I've already stated that saying the moral argument comes first assumes the conclusion before it's reached. I can keep saying this using different sentence structure each time I point it out, but the fact of the matter is that beginning with the conclusion isn't useful in this context. We know what the basic conclusion is: that eating meat is wrong. You now have to lead an argument to that conclusion instead of starting from it.

This seems like another uniquely bad argument, and I think Volatile's observations indicate you believe otherwise (or ought to for the sake of consistency):
Welfare, conservationism, euthanasia and extinction are all moral issues. You have no grounds to exclude meat-eating, and meat-eating alone, from moral consideration.

Your response went something like, "that's what YOU say" and then demanded he demonstrate meat-eating is a moral issue, even though it obviously involves competing interests, even though philosophers who (attempt to) justify meat-consumption agree it's a moral issue. It's possible for a person to insist he does not view an issue as a moral matter, but sincerity is not enough. An artist may murder people in order to create a crime scene of "transcendent beauty," but there's still an undeniable moral dimension. Reasons for eating meat tend to be more hum drum, given little or no thought, but your behavior still impacts creatures with interests who, it just so happens, are given consideration in other contexts.

No, because I don't consider every part of animal welfare or conservationism a moral issue. The argument volatile makes is inaccurate because it assumes far too much and then argues against those assumptions. I and others have continually attempted to point this out, and yet the assertions keep coming back to these types of false assumptions.

I should think the examples, "hypothetical games" or whatever you want to call them, unmistakably refer to accepted moral principles that have been repeated countless times. I do not think there has been a failure to understand the arguments; on the contrary, I think people see the implications all too clearly, which is why participation in this thread so often feels like yanking teeth.

This is not intended as a "formal" argument as it summarizes/highlights the basic tactic seen throughout this thread.

Let's go through them, then, because I'm of the opinion that again many assumptions are being made that are not reflective of what people are really saying.

-It's wrong to cause harm to a morally significant being for a relatively trivial reason (think about -- oh, say -- stealing money to pay for an IPOD).

This is a subjective statement, through and through. Different factors and different opinions on what constitutes harm, what constitutes morally significant, and what constitutes trivial reasons.

-Animals are morally significant beings, meaning their interests are worthy of our consideration. (We've attempted to get explicit consent on this many times, though the example involving a sadist works well. If you think it's OK for a sadist to dispose of an animal however he pleases, then you probably do not believe animals are morally significant beings, which would then move discussion to sub-arguments such as what constitutes a morally significant being, how do animals differ from humans who have moral standing, and so on. Why is torturing animals wrong? I suspect most people think it's wrong because it involves causing great harm for a trivial end; or consideration of interests -- the animal's versus the torturer's -- favors the animal.

This is an assertion without substance and is again based on subjective assignment. On top of the subjectivity of morally significant, both the interests of the animals (which I assume at this point you're referring to domestic livestock) and worthiness of consideration are subjective and are not a 'total yes' or 'total no' binary scenario.

-Typical meat consumption involves harming animals for a trivial reason (taste). Here you get into other sub-arguments: "eating is not trivial; we must eat in order to live." That's mistaken for reasons identified earlier, more than once (i.e., you are not required to eat MEAT in order to live). Others want to argue death is not harm (even if this was true, animals raised in factory farms suffer quite a bit). There are exceptional cases where the consumption of meat does not violate the harm principle as we understand it: passive death/killing (e.g., eating an animal that has died from natural causes, or a freak accident (roadkill)). Active killing for food purposes can also be justified: "if I do not eat this animal, then I will die." In such a case any pleasant taste is an unintended byproduct of a far more compelling interest: living. In any case, it might be useful to compare typical factory farm meat to purchasing conflict-diamonds.

Again, this gets into the subjective assumptions of what constitutes trivial reasons.

Put another way, an animal's interest in its one and only life, in not suffering, outweighs a human interest in the taste of meat, which has plenty of substitutes in the industrialized western world.

I would say that this is a better way for you to put it than the way it was put above, as it avoids most of the subjective assertions. However, the value of human taste for meat compared to the individual lives of each animal, regardless of whether this is to be constituted as suffering-- none of which has been conclusively argued-- has not been established as a completely moral issue. In bringing up the alternatives, it definitely can be made into a strong practicality issue, but the constant assertion of a moral issue is still not established.

As an alternative argument, I would say that there are significant changes to both the meat and the crop farming industries (they are typically tied to each other in many ways) that could be made that not only improve the time alive for the animals used for feedstock, but improve the quality of the land on which these food sources come, provide a smaller destructive footprint on the local and regional ecology, are more beneficial to the environment in general, and could result in reduced consumption of several foods that tend to be over-consumed-- not just meat, but corn and soy by-products in particular. Oh, and such changes would have the added benefit of our crops being able to be used as resources in competitive products in a market that requires greater transparency for what we eat, which (over time) allows for healthier foods to compete in a market currently dominated by high-fructose corn syrup products.

Sure, there's a bit of moral wrangling in that ideological argument, but even what's in there isn't a primary driver.

GreNME

9th July 2009, 03:38 PM

Again with the meta-arguments? And with pictures?! Are you serious?

Rather than spend a few seconds actually answering the questions, you draw a diagram to show just how reasonable you think you're being? Seriously?

I've asked some pertinent questions to try and get a handle on exactly what you believe, and why you believe it, and in return you draw me a diagram? Do you think that's to your intellectual credit?

Let's ask directly: What's wrong with bestiality, Gren? Is sex with animals a moral issue?

ETA: I think that's a fair question, by the way. It's not a gotcha. I'm interested in pinning down exactly what your criteria are for determining which animal/human interactions are worthy of moral consideration, and on what grounds you make the distinction. A clear response to that question might help us get back to some productive discussion.

My only guesses are that you are really working hard to not get the fact that I've been making this argument for dozens of pages, or maybe you are under the impression that somehow trying to focus on trying to get me to work through hypothetical conundrums is going to prove a point, or maybe some other as-yet-unclear motivation, but you thinking that trying to make a moral argument at me while ignoring the larger picture is going to fly, then you've crossed pretty clearly into the batcrap insane line of arguments.

volatile

9th July 2009, 03:39 PM

volatile

9th July 2009, 03:42 PM

My only guesses are that you are really working hard to not get the fact that I've been making this argument for dozens of pages, or maybe you are under the impression that somehow trying to focus on trying to get me to work through hypothetical conundrums is going to prove a point, or maybe some other as-yet-unclear motivation, but you thinking that trying to make a moral argument at me while ignoring the larger picture is going to fly, then you've crossed pretty clearly into the batcrap insane line of arguments.

Gren, seriously. I'm trying to understand what you do, and do not consider a moral issue, and I'm not sure what your answer to that question would be. So humour me: In your moral framework (or a-moral framework, as it might be), how do you deal with bestiality? Is it wrong, and if so, why?

[By the way, of course I think "somehow trying to focus on trying to get [you] to work through hypothetical conundrums is going to prove a point". I think you think it's going to prove a point to, which is why you're quite comically evading it.]

GreNME

9th July 2009, 03:45 PM

One thing stands out in that post: Why would you want to "improve" livestock animals' time alive if they are not worthy of moral consideration? Wanting to make their lives better is a moral judgement, Gren.

But it's not the primary driver in what I said! Why can you not understand this and accept that different priorities do not always have to mean that there's some kind of contradiction? I also happen to be of the opinion (based on experience) that cows, pigs, and chicken that have not been subjected to the harsher environments in the industrialized production facilities actually tend to taste better-- is the fact that I include that as part of the motivation still making it a clearly contradictory moral judgment on my part?

Jeez, man. Instead of jumping to conclusions and playing this corny game of "Gotcha!" why not actually try to consider the whole of what's being said for once.

volatile

9th July 2009, 03:51 PM

But it's not the primary driver in what I said! Why can you not understand this and accept that different priorities do not always have to mean that there's some kind of contradiction? I also happen to be of the opinion (based on experience) that cows, pigs, and chicken that have not been subjected to the harsher environments in the industrialized production facilities actually tend to taste better-- is the fact that I include that as part of the motivation still making it a clearly contradictory moral judgment on my part?

Jeez, man. Instead of jumping to conclusions and playing this corny game of "Gotcha!" why not actually try to consider the whole of what's being said for once.

It's not GOTCHA at all. You can pretend details don't matter, but they do. Your entire argument rests, and has rested, on your continued assertion that livestock are not worthy of moral consideration, but then, there you are, making a reasonable argument which requires moral consideration of livestock. I'm sorry you feel "caught out", but these issues are the conclusions of your own lines of argument. If you think that they sound like "gotchas", maybe that says more about the strength of your arguments than you'd like it to.

On any other topic, you'd be on anyone engaging in such duplicity like a tonne of bricks. And you know it.

If you now wish to claim that your concern for animal welfare is that such animals taste better, then you'll need to empirically prove that you or people in general can tell the difference between the two, in the first instance. You may also wish to reconsider all those arguments you made in response to our criticisms of the taste imperative.

dudalb

9th July 2009, 04:09 PM

Nope. Oh, they may say as much on their website (somewhere, probably in smaller print, away from the front page), but I can attest to knowing that they still go to municipal and other shelters asking to "help" find the animals new homes and take some off the hands of the shelters. They have about five facilities like this that I know of personally.

So we can now say that PETA are a bunch of Hypocrites as well as being Batcrap Crazy?

dudalb

9th July 2009, 04:14 PM

Kevin_Lowe

9th July 2009, 04:17 PM

GreNME

9th July 2009, 04:43 PM

It's not GOTCHA at all. You can pretend details don't matter, but they do. Your entire argument rests, and has rested, on your continued assertion that livestock are not worthy of moral consideration, but then, there you are, making a reasonable argument which requires moral consideration of livestock. I'm sorry you feel "caught out", but these issues are the conclusions of your own lines of argument. If you think that they sound like "gotchas", maybe that says more about the strength of your arguments than you'd like it to.

On any other topic, you'd be on anyone engaging in such duplicity like a tonne of bricks. And you know it.

If you now wish to claim that your concern for animal welfare is that such animals taste better, then you'll need to empirically prove that you or people in general can tell the difference between the two, in the first instance. You may also wish to reconsider all those arguments you made in response to our criticisms of the taste imperative.

Yup, now you're definitely jumping into extremism-land. I did not "claim that [my] concern for animal welfare is that such animals taste better," I pointed out that your assumptions and jumping to conclusions are falling short of the reality.

Volatile, trying to discuss this with you is quickly becoming similar to trying to discuss the merits of more than one candidate in an election with someone who is essentially a one-issue voter. Do you really not see how narrow a scope you're demanding I (and everyone else) work from?

Really, things would go much better if you rebooted your argument (for why you believe eating meat is immoral) and posted it in a thread specifically dedicated to that subject. I'd ask Kevin but he's too busy ignoring anything honestly critical and Cain (who would probably provide a better argument at this point) is responding to multiple people at once in each post.

dudalb

9th July 2009, 04:43 PM

Now you're not even pretending to make sense.

Oh, the Irony.

GreNME

9th July 2009, 04:46 PM

Oh, the Irony.

At this point I doubt he can help it, or even realizes it. Again, it's the Dunning-Kruger effect (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyOHJa5Vj5Y) in all its splendor.

XyOHJa5Vj5Y

ZirconBlue

9th July 2009, 04:46 PM

I agree that if "necro-bestiality" has "public health issues," then it may warrant outside intervention. For the purposes of these discussions it's usually best to assume the behavior is self-contained. Your point on a cases of incest that are not consensual is another exception for a similar reason: it involves coercion. It should go without saying that some types of harm do not raise moral concern, perhaps when two (or more) people engage in consensual rough sex.

I think you're expressing a commonly accepted view, but later on you write:

Well, this goes back to a consideration of interests, the interest in the animal not suffering versus the pleasure a human derives from the act.

I agree with all of this, although we likely disagree on some specific instances of what constitutes "suffering", and I probably put more weight on the human pleasure side of the scale.

volatile

9th July 2009, 04:50 PM

Gren, I explained my position as a numbered series of bullet points on the previous page! Demonstrable harm, lack of necessity and lack of a sufficient positive case to mitigate the harms. That's my case, always has been my case, and at least one poster in this thread without a horse in the race has read, understood and clearly restated it in his own terms.

How on earth can you claim I "haven't made an argument" at the same time as you yourself AGAIN refuse to answer questions, dismiss questions out of hand without justification, make contradictory statements, evade any lines of questioning which may require you actually say something and claim, outright, that you don't *need* to make an argument.

It's astonishing.

Tell me what you think about the moral status of bestiality, Gren. Why won't you?

volatile

9th July 2009, 04:54 PM

GreNME

9th July 2009, 05:00 PM

Today, 12:43 AM "I did not "claim that [my] concern for animal welfare is that such animals taste better,"

Yesterday, 11:45 PM "I also happen to be of the opinion (based on experience) that cows, pigs, and chicken that have not been subjected to the harsher environments in the industrialized production facilities actually tend to taste better... I include that as part of the motivation"

One hour, Gren. And you dare accuse me of "intellectual dishonesty"

You're being ridiculous now. I pointed out that it was not the only reason. My reasoning includes both, but is driven by neither. Stop trying to attribute an argument I've not made to me.

Really. That you have to reach so very far at trying to make what doesn't fit for you into something that does fit for you shows how little of an actual argument you have.

Kevin_Lowe

9th July 2009, 05:27 PM

At this point I doubt he can help it, or even realizes it. Again, it's the Dunning-Kruger effect in all its splendor.

Back when that paper was originally published (yes, not all of us learned about it from Youtube) a number of people pointed out that it was only a matter of time before some incompetent people started using it to insulate themselves from criticism.

As the research shows, if you're bad at philosophy you may not know you're bad at philosophy. You may even think you're in the top 25% of the population in terms of reasoning skills, when in fact you are solidly down in the bottom 25%.

However not knowing you're bad at philosophy you could end up making a fool of yourself by waving that paper at people who are actually on the far end of the bell curve from your incompetent self.

Consider: You are avoiding clearly stated arguments and retreating into incoherent rants about other people being "bat-crap insane". You're starting into RandFan's game of saying "Yes I say all sorts of things, but my beliefs aren't driven by any of them, so you can't ask me to keep my claims consistent. Consistency is for people whose beliefs are driven by their stated bases for belief". You're trying to wiggle out of consistency by calling consistency a "gotcha" or a "hypothetical conundrum" when in fact it's a prerequisite for calling yourself a rational human being. You're outright denying Volatile has even made an argument when it's stared you in the face in black and white bullet points.

Are you absolutely sure that your impressions about your own philosophical competence are justified? One of the important lessons of the Dunning-Kruger paper is not to get too sure of yourself when you're in unfamiliar territory, because you might just be making a total fool of yourself and not know it.

GreNME

9th July 2009, 06:22 PM

Are you absolutely sure that your impressions about your own philosophical competence are justified? One of the important lessons of the Dunning-Kruger paper is not to get too sure of yourself when you're in unfamiliar territory, because you might just be making a total fool of yourself and not know it.

Irony aside, what you're asking is better applied to your arguments, not mine. You see, you're the one arguing that one diet is morally superior than others. I've already pointed out that, yes, there are merits and strengths to a number of reasons to switch to a vegetarian or vegan diet. You're the one getting stuck on the issue that because there are valid criticisms for how meat is currently produced that consumption of meat is immoral.

But go ahead, Kevin: assume it's everyone else who has the problem here.

Kevin_Lowe

9th July 2009, 06:29 PM

Irony aside, what you're asking is better applied to your arguments, not mine. You see, you're the one arguing that one diet is morally superior than others. I've already pointed out that, yes, there are merits and strengths to a number of reasons to switch to a vegetarian or vegan diet. You're the one getting stuck on the issue that because there are valid criticisms for how meat is currently produced that consumption of meat is immoral.

But go ahead, Kevin: assume it's everyone else who has the problem here.

Here's a case in point. I haven't argued that at all, at any time in this thread. All I've been doing, throughout this thread, is criticising specific pro-meat-eating arguments for being incoherent or stupid.

I've been very careful about that in fact. You may recall RandFan getting quite frustrated that he couldn't get me off the topic of RandFan's logical errors by baiting me into talking about my personal beliefs on the matter.

You assume I must have been arguing that "one diet is morally superior than others" because you're not too good at keeping track of who said what.

So once again, are you absolutely sure you're the one who is in a position to judge competence?

tyr_13

9th July 2009, 06:55 PM

OK, fine.

So what are your other reasons? I've not yet heard one that stands up to any kind of real scrutiny. What are YOUR reasons for eating meat?

For the same reason the wolf does. It is nutritious, easy source of energy. It is a source that we have evolved to rely on. I eat it because the cow doesn't care if it is eaten by a wolf or a human, except that the cow doesn't exist in nature as the Urak went away and the human is a lot more likely to kill it faster.

Sorry, as I said, I was rushing for a bus.

The first thing to note is that even IF wolf on bunny crime is immoral, that would have no bearing on my arguments at all.

Why? If they have rights, they have responsibilities.

The second thing to note, of course, is that the cost of dealing with wolf-on-bunny crime would likely be more harmful than leaving them be.

If it is a cost-benefit breakdown, what are the costs of switching to vegetarian or vegan diets for 10% of the population? 20%? 50%? How much more farmland? How many more wild animals die for that farmland? The land for raising animals isn't always the same as the land for planting. One cannot just turn cattle ranches into soybean farms.

The third thing is that most moral philosophies (not all) and much of human psychology, as Cain has already explained, privileges the resolution of direct harms above indirect harms. Wolf-on-bunny crime is not our fault. Meat-eating most certainly IS our fault, and situation we already have the ability to do something about.

The wolf gets off because it is a wolf. The human has the exact same reasons for eating meat. You believe that humans are much more responsible for their actions than animals, and that means we shouldn't eat them. Some of the rest of us feel that humans are much more aware of our actions and being, and therefore it isn't as bad to eat animals, especially ones we raise and provide for.

Cavemonster

9th July 2009, 07:40 PM

If it is a cost-benefit breakdown, what are the costs of switching to vegetarian or vegan diets for 10% of the population? 20%? 50%? How much more farmland? How many more wild animals die for that farmland? The land for raising animals isn't always the same as the land for planting. One cannot just turn cattle ranches into soybean farms.

I'm sure there would be costs associated with switching to vegan diets, but extra land use wouldn't be one of them. To get a pound of meat, you need to grow many pounds of vegetable matter, corn, grass whatever, so if you include not just holding the cows, but the land required to feed them, you actually do much better just growing vegetables on the land and eating them in terms of calories/acre.

Actually, this study on diets and land use suggests that the best balance is a low meat diet rather than a no meat diet, since cattle and some of their feed can be raised on low quality land unsuitable for other agriculture.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071008130203.htm

In terms of use of fuels a vegan seems much better
A 2006 study at the University of Chicago concluded that a person switching from a typical American diet to a vegan diet with the same number of calories would prevent the emission of 1485 kg of carbon dioxide. The difference exceeds that of an individual switching from a Toyota Camry to the hybrid Toyota Prius, and collectively amounts to over 6% of the total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.[17]

I'm sure there are negatives to eliminating meat from the diet, people who like meat are likely to replace it with highly processed soy products which are a bit dubious for health and the environment. You need to be more thoughtful to make sure you are getting all your vitamins, and many people don't think much about their food, so increased malnutrition is a possibility, although I'm sure in a more vegan society, products and knowledge that addressed this would become more ubiquitous.

Overall, the societal, environmental and health effects seem like strong positives. The environmental argument is easier to make than the moral one, but for both environmental, and health reasons, less meat may make more sense than no meat and animal products.

GreNME

9th July 2009, 08:01 PM

Here's a case in point. I haven't argued that at all, at any time in this thread. All I've been doing, throughout this thread, is criticising specific pro-meat-eating arguments for being incoherent or stupid.

No, you're correct here. I used the wrong description of what you've been doing. Good on you for accepting the criticism that RandFan and I have been making about your posts, though: assertions and remarks are certainly better descriptors of what you've been doing, since you have continually failed to put forth an argument.

I've been very careful about that in fact. You may recall RandFan getting quite frustrated that he couldn't get me off the topic of RandFan's logical errors by baiting me into talking about my personal beliefs on the matter.

You assume I must have been arguing that "one diet is morally superior than others" because you're not too good at keeping track of who said what.

So once again, are you absolutely sure you're the one who is in a position to judge competence?

I think your behavior has been pretty self-explanatory, so it doesn't require my judgment. As for my own competence, considering you haven't even presented an argument and have instead been sniping from the start, your display of bad faith isn't a very good starting point to begin assessing the competence of others. However, in my own self-assessment, I haven't been judging myself as any better or worse in terms of competence, and have instead been critical when things I've been saying have either been ignored or taken out of context. For example, a breif run-down from my own perspective on how things have been shaking for the however-many pages:

I point out my reasoning for agreeing partially on how I feel the industry for producing meat operates. However, in this assessment I don't make it about morality or the suffering of animals, and don't present a moral judgment on eating meat. This reasoning goes largely ignored (by you, by volatile, and so on).

Volatile, on the other hand, criticizes myself and others for eating meat on moral grounds. Volatile brings up suffering of animals and environmental aspects in his arguments.

I have, on repeated occasions, expressed an alternative to not eating meat to address the environmental concerns (my partial agreement). I've also pointed out that there are different lines drawn based on different priorities and values that determine whether eating meat is the moral issue or the current state of mass production is the (in my own case, practical) issue.

Volatile criticizes my statements as not being consistent on moral grounds based on his own assertions of it being a moral issue.

I respond that it isn't a moral issue to most people, including myself, and that an argument is necessary to judge the validity.

Volatile again brings up the suffering of animals part, and repeats the earlier assertions. Also begins inserting nonsense about sex with animals-- which isn't actually sex but is masturbation with a foreign object (either living or dead depending on the post).

I state that the animal masturbation scenario is ridiculous and equivocation, and state again that suffering of animals is a relative, subjective line to draw, and that without a proper argument isn't quantified.

Volatile again reiterates that suffering of animals is wrong, thus eating meat is wrong, and refers back again to the animal masturbation scenario-- the only possible outcomes of which being admittance that the behavior is okay, thus being brought up as a "Gotcha!" due to my animal welfare stance; or a statement that it is not okay, thus being brought up as a "Gotcha!" due to the supposed (but not argued) wrongness of raising animals for food. If there is a third option that is not as apparent, please feel free to share as I'm open to alternative scenarios.

In the meantime, Cain makes some fairly cogent statements that he clarifies is not proper argument, but a framework on which to go over the basics.

In my reply to Cain's statements, accepting that they aren't an argument but are the closest that have been in this thread so far, I again go back to my alternative scenario that has a different focus that animal suffering or the assumed wrong-ness of raising foodstock.

Volatile misinterprets my alternative scenario to mean that I am actually applying moral reasons to the issue of eating meat.

I state that volatile's assessment is untrue, and that while better treatment appeals to the animal welfare ideals I hold, I just as easily could apply the fact that meat under less mass-produced conditions tends to taste better, based on personal experience.

Volatile misinterprets my reply to claiming I changed my reasons (ostensibly regarding the mass-production model criticism) to being about getting tastier meat.

I object to the seemingly intentional misinterpretation of what I'm saying

You (Kevin) bounce in with your typical sniping remarks, (again ostensibly) oblivious to the context of the conversation.

The long and short of it, Kevin, is that despite my animal welfare ideals, I have not been convinced that eating meat has any inherent wrong-ness because no sufficient argument has been presented establishing as much. So far, Cain has come the closest to presenting in a reasoned manner the basis for the argument, though not the argument itself. Volatile has presented counter-arguments to relies myself and others have made regarding the boatload of assertions on this thread, but no prime argument to the wrong-ness of eating meat except to state that there are alternatives, which does not a convincing argument make (since I myself offered an alternative).

Despite your increasingly banal snipes, Kevin, you're pretty much the last person on this thread to be offering any judgment about competence on the subject-- you're even more a "Gotcha!" seeker than volatile has been the last few pages, and you're about as effective at it as Sean Hannity is at comedy.

GreNME

9th July 2009, 08:18 PM

I'm sure there would be costs associated with switching to vegan diets, but extra land use wouldn't be one of them. To get a pound of meat, you need to grow many pounds of vegetable matter, corn, grass whatever, so if you include not just holding the cows, but the land required to feed them, you actually do much better just growing vegetables on the land and eating them in terms of calories/acre.

Actually, this study on diets and land use suggests that the best balance is a low meat diet rather than a no meat diet, since cattle and some of their feed can be raised on low quality land unsuitable for other agriculture.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071008130203.htm

Distributing the production and letting local producers market on equal terms with the mass-marketers would provide even lower long-term costs and more efficient use of the land (not to mention lower fuel use, as you get into below).

In terms of use of fuels a vegan seems much better

There are caveats to that, primarily that the mass-production of crops would have to also undergo a shift in what they're producing, and would have to diversify (which is a huge problem in crop farming currently).

I'm sure there are negatives to eliminating meat from the diet, people who like meat are likely to replace it with highly processed soy products which are a bit dubious for health and the environment. You need to be more thoughtful to make sure you are getting all your vitamins, and many people don't think much about their food, so increased malnutrition is a possibility, although I'm sure in a more vegan society, products and knowledge that addressed this would become more ubiquitous.

Overall, the societal, environmental and health effects seem like strong positives. The environmental argument is easier to make than the moral one, but for both environmental, and health reasons, less meat may make more sense than no meat and animal products.

Precisely, which is a prevailing reason why I advocate it. There are also economic factors pertaining to exportable crops (primarily for large producers) and lowered use of damaging fuels in a distributed model, among other benefits (some of which get into softer sciences like sociology and political science).

There are risks as well: huge droughts would disrupt the flow of available food in a given region, and in areas without sufficient water viability the cost of obtaining food could increase-- provided there's not sufficient importing of food from elsewhere, which is possible (and why larger producing companies shouldn't be completely counted out).

Considering human ability to increase efficiencies, adding a wider array of determining factors to the establishment of industrial farming than simple cost-profit comparisons seems like the most sensible move that addresses current concerns about the mass-production industries as well as a number of other social and political issues that have come into the public discourse over recent years (like the environment, sustainability, etc.).

Cavemonster

9th July 2009, 08:28 PM

There are risks as well: huge droughts would disrupt the flow of available food in a given region, and in areas without sufficient water viability the cost of obtaining food could increase-- provided there's not sufficient importing of food from elsewhere, which is possible (and why larger producing companies shouldn't be completely counted out).

Drought effects meat production just as severely though, remember that a kg of meat requires 4kg of grain and 100kg of hay to produce, plus all the water used directly in watering and processing the animals.

And since we're not realistically talking about the whole world, or the whole of the US even converting to veganism, the 10, 20, 30 percent conversion rate actually get's us comfortably closer to an environmental ideal in food production.

Kevin_Lowe

9th July 2009, 08:39 PM

No, you're correct here. I used the wrong description of what you've been doing. Good on you for accepting the criticism that RandFan and I have been making about your posts, though: assertions and remarks are certainly better descriptors of what you've been doing, since you have continually failed to put forth an argument.

I think your behavior has been pretty self-explanatory, so it doesn't require my judgment. As for my own competence, considering you haven't even presented an argument and have instead been sniping from the start, your display of bad faith isn't a very good starting point to begin assessing the competence of others.

This doesn't even make sense as a criticism. It's not "bad faith" to decline to play the game the way you want me to play it. It would only be bad faith if I promised to do so and then did not.

If your arguments hold up, they hold up. If they don't, they don't. Getting sniffy because I point out that your arguments don't hold up is simply childish.

If you want to tell yourself that you are a rational person, you should be able to justify your morally important decisions.

However, in my own self-assessment, I haven't been judging myself as any better or worse in terms of competence

This is a straightforward lie. You can't claim that calling other posters "the poster child for Dunning-Kruger syndrome" does not involve an implicit claim that you hold the necessary level of competence to accurately judge who is philosophically competent and who is not.

blah blah blah

Your "summary" conveniently leaves out the arguments that you have been presented with and which you seem to wish to avoid responding to.

Simply making the facile claim that killing animals so you can eat them "is not a moral issue" does not make it so. In fact this claim is inconsistent with any position that holds that animal cruelty is wrong on moral grounds.

On this point the vivisectionists of the 1800s who claimed that animals were mere automatons that could not feel pain were morally in advance of you. Implicit in their position was the conclusion that if animals did feel pain, it would be morally relevant. Whereas you are happy to argue from the position that hurting animals to bring about human pleasure "is not a moral issue" until someone convinces you otherwise.

Of course nobody can ever do that because you've invented a novel rhetorical escape hatch: claiming that nobody is allowed to point out contradictions in your views because to do so is to cry "gotcha", and crying "gotcha" is somehow against the rules. I don't know where you came up with it, but I am pretty sure it isn't a display of philosophical competence.

This deserves some kind of place in a museum of ridiculous arguments, along with RandFan's claim that contradicting yourself is a necessary part of moral philosophy. As Cain keeps pointing out, that sort of nonsense would be dogpiled immediately in any other thread. If someone tried to present such rubbish to support, say, Japanese whaling, they'd get laughed at. However when it's one of our pleasurable cultural institutions up for scrutiny people trundle out these inane arguments and then get terribly offended when their inanity is pointed out.

But don't worry... you are definitely a philosophical authority capable of judging accurately who is competent and who is not. After all, you can link to a Youtube video you found. If that isn't sufficient expertise, what could be?

tyr_13

9th July 2009, 08:49 PM

GreNME

9th July 2009, 09:09 PM

Drought effects meat production just as severely though, remember that a kg of meat requires 4kg of grain and 100kg of hay to produce, plus all the water used directly in watering and processing the animals.

And since we're not realistically talking about the whole world, or the whole of the US even converting to veganism, the 10, 20, 30 percent conversion rate actually get's us comfortably closer to an environmental ideal in food production.

Oh, I meant the risks as pertaining to a less-meat-eating market that was using techniques that use cattle as part of the process in maintaining the soil for the crop production. Sorry if I wasn't clear on that. What I'm pointing to is having a sort-of-like return to a farm with hybridized meat and crop production, where the cattle (or pigs or goats or whatever livestock) are actually grazing on the lower-grade plants for part of a season, and after harvest also take part in taking care of eating down the plant material on the field. The details are obviously more complicated considering the different farming techniques of today, but considering the amount of plant matter that isn't used in food farming (and land going unused in subsidized farming), it's not like we're lacking the available raw materials or acreage to make having livestock and crops on a rotating group of fields a viable and beneficial food-production model. It's just that there are obviously areas in the country (and the world) where variations would be necessary and supplementary methods (for crops and meat) would be required.

GreNME

9th July 2009, 09:14 PM

[masturbatory pontification snipped]

But don't worry... you are definitely a philosophical authority capable of judging accurately who is competent and who is not. After all, you can link to a Youtube video you found. If that isn't sufficient expertise, what could be?

Why, gee, Mr. Lowe! You're absolutely right! I have done gone and seen the errors of my ways. I'm going to have a tough time sleeping tonight, pondering the wonder and intellectual insight you've gone and supplied for me and all the other yahoos here. I don't think I can thank you enough!

Do you really manage to make it through life like this, or is this persona something you put on when you get to the internet? I don't really care what your answer is, I'm just making the observation that it's a wonder anyone suffers you if this is how you regularly come off.

Cain

10th July 2009, 02:59 AM

CaveMonster:
Much vegetable consumption involves the harming of animals for a trivial reason (taste)

This isn't argument against moral vegetarianism/veganism because vegetables are not primarily consumed for reasons of taste. You might claim some vegetable are more harmful to animals than others and vegetarians who consume those vegetables disregard the interests of animals for taste. Your examples use fruit, however (and I doubt pineapples require an unusual amount of pesticide). I see where you're going with your argument, but since it relies on considerable precision and calculation, this does not bode well...

Why is eating a pineapple or tomato (that animals died and suffered so you could have) a regrettable small foible while eating meat is a wrong that must be addressed.

Is it the number of animals killed? Because as I stated above, a pound of steak only adds .2% of a life to the tally, probably not as much as the extra pesticides used to keep those tomatoes blemish free.

Well, this is an interesting framing device. You talk about how "animals died and suffered" so I could have a pineapple, yet in the case of meat you're all too willing to disaggregate harm.

Is it that switching to a purely vegan diet is "easy" while buying your food locally or growing it is "too hard"?

Why do you draw the line at the way in which it's acceptable for animals to be killed for your convenience/enjoyment at exactly the place you do? Could it be that the visceral artifact of the chunk of meat makes the emotional issue more clear?

And as I'm sure Volatile told you earlier there's more he can do, and I'll tell you now there's more I can do. Perhaps the most moving scene in Schindler's List is where Oskar Schindler engages in harsh self-criticism: he could have saved ten more people by trading in his car, two more for his pin. People with serious moral beliefs should never live up to them, but they should try their best. You seem more interested in rationalizing excuses.
---------------------
Ross Perot/GreNME:
I've already stated that saying the moral argument comes first assumes the conclusion before it's reached.

Yes, you have stated that, but it's an unreasonable statement. Take for instance abortion. We have to determine the moral status of the fetus (at different stages because each is contentious) before according legal rights to the parties involved. This is utterly elementary.

My comments quoted in bold:
-It's wrong to cause harm to a morally significant being for a relatively trivial reason

This is a subjective statement, through and through. Different factors and different opinions on what constitutes harm, what constitutes morally significant, and what constitutes trivial reasons.

Really, you want to challenge this one now? Let's focus on the principle first, which is not really a subjective statement the way you seem to intend. I suggest you try to avoid using the words "subjective," "objective," "absolute" "intrinsic," and "inherent," because you have a habit of flubbing them up. If you want to claim that what people will REGARD as trivial varies from person to person, fine. If you want to say we disagree over what constitutes harm, fine. I allow for that later on. But if you want to say everything is hopelessly subjective -- that killing a person because "I felt like it" versus killing him because he was going to blow up innocents -- then you're outside the realm of morality and rationality.

This is also precisely why it's good to use examples to justify certain types of behavior because it teases out these principles without using confusing language.

-Animals are morally significant beings, meaning their interests are worthy of our consideration.

This is an assertion without substance and is again based on subjective assignment. On top of the subjectivity of morally significant, both the interests of the animals (which I assume at this point you're referring to domestic livestock) and worthiness of consideration are subjective and are not a 'total yes' or 'total no' binary scenario.

Once again you're overplaying your hand. If instead of "animals" we said "humans" these objections would be equally irrelevant: as an idea, the bolded text does not tell us whether or not we should hold doors open for old ladies at the post office; it does not tell us if we should volunteer at the homeless shelter. It's not nearly that ambitious either. It only attempts to establish shared values: animals are worthy of our considerations. To use a most extreme example, we should not torture them for pleasure. Yes, it's entirely possible for a person to privilege the tortuer's pleasure against the relatively "trivial" pain and suffering inflicted upon the animal. And again, that's part of the reason why examples are used: to calibrate levels of concern.

However, the value of human taste for meat compared to the individual lives of each animal, regardless of whether this is to be constituted as suffering-- none of which has been conclusively argued-- has not been established as a completely moral issue. In bringing up the alternatives, it definitely can be made into a strong practicality issue, but the constant assertion of a moral issue is still not established.

This is difficult to take seriously. Whenever interests collide you are probably going to encounter an issue with at least some moral dimension. Do you think the "Humane" in "Humane Slaughter Act" is just careless word choice?

-----------------------------
ZiriconBlue:
I agree with all of this, although we likely disagree on some specific instances of what constitutes "suffering", and I probably put more weight on the human pleasure side of the scale.

As I mentioned earlier in this post, this is where thought experiments become useful because it allows us to gauge interests, and then argue over appropriate levels of concern. A person could believe that humans merit moral consideration, so opposes violence yet steals things from people. He might argue, "I'm not hurting anyone" (which would "cross the line"); he simply values the pleasure he'll get from spending your money more than whatever harm he has done to you. This is where regulating competing interests comes into play, and we must do so in a manner that is as impartial as possible (in spite of how the public may react: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DF9gSyku-fc )

Belz...

10th July 2009, 04:29 AM

It's wrong when one has nutritionally-complete dietary alternatives easily available.

Which is something that also applies to vegan diets.

Belz...

10th July 2009, 04:33 AM

Again with the meta-arguments? And with pictures?! Are you serious?

Sure beats rhetoric, doesn't it ?

Belz...

10th July 2009, 04:34 AM

You do not need to eat vegetables.

And also because it's the easiest way to get the proteins I need. You seem to conveniently ignore that point every time it's brought up.

Do you kill bugs in your home ? If you do, you're doing so in order to maintain a certain amount of comfort, which is a pleasure don't actually need. In other words, you are engaging in an activity which requires the death of animals solely for the pleasure it brings you. How is that not sadistic ?

Perhaps now you see why your question isn't relevant.

Apples and oranges, Volatile. If you can't see that, I can't really help you.

No, it's not. You are the one who is incapable of distinguishing between two very different things. Those behaviours aren't even remotely similar.

My point is that you're claiming that we shouldn't eat meat. That it's not really a question of choice unless you're evil. So presumably you'd like to force me to NOT eat meat or at least convince me to do so. My argument is that this would result in harm towards me.

I don't see how they are contradictory. In fact, they have nothing to do with one another, whatsoever.

Again, Volatile, I wait for your reply.

Belz...

10th July 2009, 04:44 AM

Simply making the facile claim that killing animals so you can eat them "is not a moral issue" does not make it so.

Indeed! And saying it is doesn't make it so, either. So perhaps we should actually determined whether it's a moral issue or not, before we reach conclusions ?

volatile

10th July 2009, 05:59 AM

Again, Volatile, I wait for your reply.

Belz, you're not saying anything substatial that has not been addressed in detail already!

1) I need to eat SOMETHING. This is clear. What's your point?

2) What do you mean by "easiest", exactly? And why should "ease" be taken as a relevant criteria?

3) If the bugs are actively causing me discomfort or danger of food poisoning, I'll kill them. The benefit (my health and safety) outweighs the negatives. Can the same positive case be made for meat eating? Are the reasons for eating meat as strong as the reasons for getting rid of flies from my fridge? Make a positive case as to what these reasons are, and we can evaluate it.

4) "Those behaviours aren't even remotely similar." - Why not? On what grounds do you distinguish them? I've explained why I consider them similar - they are actions in pursuit of a satiation of pleasure. In what relevant ways do they differ?

5) What "harm" would you not eating meat cause?

Cavemonster

10th July 2009, 06:42 AM

CaveMonster:
And as I'm sure Volatile told you earlier there's more he can do, and I'll tell you now there's more I can do. Perhaps the most moving scene in Schindler's List is where Oskar Schindler engages in harsh self-criticism: he could have saved ten more people by trading in his car, two more for his pin. People with serious moral beliefs should never live up to them, but they should try their best. You seem more interested in rationalizing excuses.

No, I'm asking you a question and you're boiling down to a tu quoque.

You and Volatile are addressing my argument as though I'm saying:
"Yes I agree that participating in a system that kills animals for an end product of my pleasure is wrong, but you do it too, so how can you criticize me"

But I'm actually saying:
"The issue of whether killing animals for reasons of taste is wrong has led to a tangled mess of opinion. Let's say I just give you that one. But you draw another line, the line where a certain amount of avoidable animal death for the tastiness/convenience is acceptable, the 'I'm not perfect" line.

I will jaywalk, I will procrastinate, I will act slightly immorally or even illegally at times, I'm not perfect. I draw the line of acceptable legal/moral behavior at whether a human being is likely to suffer in any way as a result.

You and Volatile say "I'm not perfect" no one is, of course. But you're trying to sell the idea that there is an important difference between your side of the line for animal deaths (wrong but not wrong enough to change in a hurry) and the meat eating side (Must change).

I've asked several times why you draw the line exactly there for those two distinctions, but I haven't gotten an answer yet. I can tell you exactly where I draw the line for my legal/moral imperfections, and exactly why.

ZirconBlue

10th July 2009, 06:46 AM

ZiriconBlue:

As I mentioned earlier in this post, this is where thought experiments become useful because it allows us to gauge interests, and then argue over appropriate levels of concern. A person could believe that humans merit moral consideration, so opposes violence yet steals things from people. He might argue, "I'm not hurting anyone" (which would "cross the line"); he simply values the pleasure he'll get from spending your money more than whatever harm he has done to you. This is where regulating competing interests comes into play, and we must do so in a manner that is as impartial as possible (in spite of how the public may react: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DF9gSyku-fc )

I agree. Well, I can't view the youtube link right now, so I don't know about that, but I agree with everything else in this paragraph.

Telaynay's G'son

10th July 2009, 07:02 AM

Wouldn't it be appropriate to excise some of the emotion out of this discussion?

First, there are basically three types of fauna on the planet...carnivore, omnivore & herbivore. The first two fall under predator status in that they consume herbivores with humans being omnivores.

It appears emotional based thinking would cast these facts aside and attempt to insert a line of thinking that is outside the natural order of life.

One classic example of where this type of aberrant mindset can become accepted dogma is through media indoctrination such as the Disney movie Bambi. Case in point, the real world applications are a buck deer has absolutely no paternal interests and mate each fall for procreation functions only w/o any bonding whatsoever. They are self-preservation first and foremost only and leave does/fawns to fend for themselves.

The point is a media product such as that movie presents a distorted and fantasy version of actual reality in the outdoor world. Yet, many have bought into such a presentation and extraappropriated it into their version of reality. Get out and spend time in the outdoors to observe the facts of life and then maybe you won't be susceptible to allowing others to do your thinking for you.

The rationale that we should evelate ourselves to a higher plane of being (such as a vegan lifestyle) appears to ignore/discount the cause/effect relationship of commercial farming on the environment.

How much methane was produced when there were ~100 million bison (along with deer, elk, bears & wolves numbering in the thousands) roaming north america?

Belz...

10th July 2009, 07:06 AM

Belz, you're not saying anything substatial that has not been addressed in detail already!

Neither are you, yet I'm still talking to you.

1) I need to eat SOMETHING. This is clear. What's your point?

I thought that would be obvious. You can't make an argument against eating meat that isn't true of eating vegetables as well.

2) What do you mean by "easiest", exactly?

Easier to digest.

3) If the bugs are actively causing me discomfort or danger of food poisoning, I'll kill them. The benefit (my health and safety) outweighs the negatives.

What's so awesome about getting rid of bugs that takes precedence over morality ?

Can the same positive case be made for meat eating?

Yes. In fact it has.

Are the reasons for eating meat as strong as the reasons for getting rid of flies from my fridge? Make a positive case as to what these reasons are, and we can evaluate it.

That's the part that you not only have not understood but completely ignored so far. I'll write it bigger so you'll spot it, this time:

It is not up to us to make a case for eating meat but YOURS to make one for NOT doing so, because it is YOUR claim.

4) "Those behaviours aren't even remotely similar." - Why not? On what grounds do you distinguish them? I've explained why I consider them similar - they are actions in pursuit of a satiation of pleasure. In what relevant ways do they differ?

They're the same only in the same way that sending troops to Afganistan to get rid of the Taliban is the same as going there yourself and raping their little children. You're equivocating two different things, and if you can't distinguish them I can't help you much more.

5) What "harm" would you not eating meat cause?

Now you're being deliberatly obtuse, because I explained it when I said it. I don't like vegetables. Forcing myself to eat only vegetables is an awful prospect to me. Hence the harm.

realpaladin

10th July 2009, 07:09 AM

It is not up to us to make a case for eating meat but YOURS to make one for NOT doing so, because it is YOUR claim.

Seconded.

But the way to do that seems to be to convince you that logically it is not a good thing to do. Or else you are wrong.

I am wrong. On many levels. Now what?

volatile

10th July 2009, 07:17 AM

It is not up to us to make a case for eating meat but YOURS to make one for NOT doing so, because it is YOUR claim.

Yes, Belz. And it is one I have made, repeatedly. At least one poster has read it, understood it, and re-stated it in his own terms, and it is disingenuous to pretend otherwise.

In case you're not following:

1) Meat eating causes demonstrable harms
2) The benefits are not sufficient to mitigate these harms.

The lack of a positive case in the face of demonstrable harms is rather key to my point. Either argue the harms - to do so, you'd need to take on the scientific muscle of the UN - or make a positive case that the benefits outweigh the negatives.

You can all wriggle all you like, but the fact that you all baulk at ever justifying your demonstrably-harmful and demonstrably-unnecessary actions speaks volumes about just how rational your positions are.

Can you, or can you not, rationally defend your dietary choices? When you go shopping for food, you can choose a harmful diet, or a less harmful one. On what grounds can you justify picking the harmful one?

They're the same only in the same way that sending troops to Afganistan to get rid of the Taliban is the same as going there yourself and raping their little children. You're equivocating two different things, and if you can't distinguish them I can't help you much more.What?

You think that killing for food - for taste, as meat-eating is not necessary - is OK, but killing for sexual pleasure is wrong. On what grounds do you distinguish between the validity of gastronomic pleasure and the invalidity of sexual pleasure in this equation.

Now you're being deliberatly obtuse, because I explained it when I said it. I don't like vegetables. Forcing myself to eat only vegetables is an awful prospect to me. Hence the harm.

What are you? Five years old or something? In any case - are you purely carnivorous? Or do you supplement your diet with grains, cereals, beans and, yes, vegetables on occasion?

But let's probe this line of reasoning. I wonder how you'd feel about the same argument offered in favour of a similarly harmful behaviour: "I hate taking my trash with me to the nearest trashcan. I don't like having trash in my bag. Forcing me to carry trash around rather than dropping it on the ground is an awful prospect."

Is this an argument you'd accept in defence of littering?

volatile

10th July 2009, 07:39 AM

On littering:

Perhaps we can recast this argument as one for or against littering. The litter-bug, it seems to me, would express many of the opinions expressedin favour of meat-eating.

The Tidy Advocate - I think you should take your trash home with you

The Litter-Bug - But it's convenient, and easy, and enjoyable to throw it in the street. What have you got against it?

TA - Well, it harms the environment, for starters. It also happens that dropping litter might be considered anti-social; there's a moral dimension too. Furthermore, there's no reason to drop litter - disposing of it in a trashcan is a trivial inconvenience.

LB - So? Why should I stop? You haven't told me why it's WRONG!

TA - There are demonstrable harms, and there's no good reason to do it.

LB - Why is it WRONG, though? I HATE carrying trash around - it's dirty. I'd much rather throw it in the street.

TA - But littering is harmful in a variety of ways. And your laziness isn't really doing much to make a case that it's a worthwhile activity.

LB - So? Why is it wrong?

volatile

10th July 2009, 07:44 AM

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2009/06/05/2009-06-05_evil_teen_who_tossed_cat_in_the_oven.html (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2009/06/06/2009-06-06_cheyenne_cherry_teen_accused_of_burning_cat_in_ oven_was_busted_in_2008_in_armed_.html)

Cheyenne Cherry roasted a cat alive because she "hates cats" and thought it would be funny.

Is this a moral issue?

tyr_13

10th July 2009, 07:47 AM

In case you're not following:

1) Meat eating causes demonstrable harms
2) The benefits are not sufficient to mitigate these harms.

The lack of a positive case in the face of demonstrable harms is rather key to my point. Either argue the harms - to do so, you'd need to take on the scientific muscle of the UN - or make a positive case that the benefits outweigh the negatives.

In case you're not following:

1) No, eating meat causes harms, but the natural harms of nature, and often times less than that. The other harms you attribute to the eating of meat are incidental to the production of meat, not to the eating of it.
2) Many of the benefits are subjective, and will differ based on who you ask. It is essentially personal. In your opinion the benefits don't outweigh the harms. This is not an objective fact.

And did you just use the term, 'the scientific muscle of the UN' and assume we wouldn't see that as an appeal to authority?

volatile

10th July 2009, 07:52 AM

You believe that humans are much more responsible for their actions than animals,

Yes, I do.

A dog can hump another dog without consent, and in the street. A cat can piss on my neighbours lawn. If I did either of those things, I'd be held accountable in a court of law.

Humans are more responsible for their actions than animals. Evolution gave us brains powerful enough to rationalise the consequences of our actions. The same is not true of wolves, or even the higher primates in any full sense. As rational creatures, we can and should act rationally. That's what this forum is about, right? Rationality?

Where we have an active choice to make, we should aim make the least harmful one, especially when the choice is trivially easy to make.

tyr_13

10th July 2009, 08:00 AM

Yes, I do.

A dog can hump another dog without consent, and in the street. A cat can piss on my neighbours lawn. If I did either of those things, I'd be held accountable in a court of law.

Humans are more responsible for their actions than animals. Evolution gave us brains powerful enough to rationalise the consequences of our actions. The same is not true of wolves, or even the higher primates in any full sense. As rational creatures, we can and should act rationally. That's what this forum is about, right? Rationality?

Where we have an active choice to make, we should aim make the least harmful one, especially when the choice is trivially easy to make.

Again with faulty premises! The choice is not trivially easy in the least. There are instincts, thousands of years of tradition, socio-cultural influences, and the sheer difficulty of doing a vegan or vegetarian diet right.

Rationally, a chicken is dumb. Absolutely dumb. In exchange for protection and a longer life than it would have in the wild, I get to eat it and gain it's protein and other nutrients. Rationally, eating the eggs is also a good idea (I support stem cell research too, so don't think I'm applying a different standard to humans).

I'll be the first one to get in line when they start selling shmeat. But don't give this issue the insult of calling the choice trivially simple.

volatile

10th July 2009, 08:00 AM

In case you're not following:

1) No, eating meat causes harms, but the natural harms of nature, and often times less than that. The other harms you attribute to the eating of meat are incidental to the production of meat, not to the eating of it.

How do you draw the line between production and eating in your every day life? You can mitigate the harms from production by not eating it. Yours is not a valid objection to being vegan, nor a case in favour of eating meat.

2) Many of the benefits are subjective, and will differ based on who you ask. It is essentially personal. In your opinion the benefits don't outweigh the harms. This is not an objective fact.This is true, and something Cain has already addressed.

Do you believe in complete moral relativism? That there is no right and wrong? That's the consequence of this line of thinking.

I wonder if you'd take those subjective benefits - and here again we're talking about taste - as defence for other harmful actions? See my littering example - is the litterbug's pleasure in littering sufficent for us to shrug our shoulders and say "Hey, well. Each to their own! If you enjoy dropping trash, go ahead. After all, your benefit is subjective - thus I can't argue with it, even if it causes demonstrable harm."

And did you just use the term, 'the scientific muscle of the UN' and assume we wouldn't see that as an appeal to authority?An appeal to authority is not falacious if the authority knows what they're talking about. Citing Stephen Hawking on black holes would not be "an appeal to authority". Similarly, citing a body which has condcuted extensive scientific research - for which no counter-evidence exists, as far as I am aware - is not "an appeal to authority".

What did Kevin say earlier about irrational people sticking around here long enough to learn how rational people talk?

volatile

10th July 2009, 08:06 AM

Again with faulty premises! The choice is not trivially easy in the least. There are instincts, thousands of years of tradition, socio-cultural influences,

We were talking about fallacies in that last post. You just made three - the naturalistic fallacy, the argument from tradition and the argumentum ad populum. Unlike your mistaken accusation of argument to authority, these are cast iron fallacies.

"We evolved to do x" is not an argument in favour of "x". It could be used to support rape or eugenics. "My society has always done x" is not an argument in favour of "x". If could be used to support slavery, genital mutilation, whale-hunting and a whole host of things. "Everyone else does it" is not an argument in favour of "x". Your mum probably pointed that out to you when she said "If everyone else put their head in an oven, would you?".

The only arguments put forward in favour of meat-eating are of this order of rationality. That is to say - they're broadly fallacious.

and the sheer difficulty of doing a vegan or vegetarian diet right. What on earth do you mean? Read about 2 sides of A4 and you'll have enough information to eat a healthy, nutritionally-complete vegan diet.

I'll be the first one to get in line when they start selling shmeat. But don't give this issue the insult of calling the choice trivially simple.At the supermarket, the tofu and the chicken are on adjacent aisles. The soy milk and the real milk are next to each other on the shelf. You buy vegetables, beans and grains ANYWAY - just buy more of them to offset the calories lost from removing meat. How could the choice be any more trivial than that?

Cain

10th July 2009, 08:21 AM

Cavemonster:
I've asked several times why you draw the line exactly there for those two distinctions, but I haven't gotten an answer yet. I can tell you exactly where I draw the line for my legal/moral imperfections, and exactly why.

You asked me several times? As far as I know you've asked me once why I draw the line for convenience/enjoyment where I do, and that I answered. I've explained (many times) where and why I draw the line for moral reasons, not that your argument had any relevance. Dropping your vegetarianism-for-taste bit -- which is inaccurate, and most certainly implies hypocrisy -- is better reconstructed as "informed animal harm reduction," which counter-intuitively suggests consuming animals in order to reduce suffering -- a convenient truth. If this is essentially what you're arguing, and it's something that crops up on almost every thread on this topic, then I accept the basic reasoning and see it as no challenge to the moral arguments put forth as it does not alter the status of animals, but merely offers a modest proposal for suffering reduction.
---------------------------------
Tyr_13 writes (to Volatile):

The other harms you attribute to the eating of meat are incidental to the production of meat, not to the eating of it.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "incidental," but it seems a similar argument can be made for the consumption of conflict diamonds. It's true that mining diamonds need not involve slaughtering people with machetes, but that's what happens, and when you buy diamonds you're supporting that activity (even if you preferred it did not happen). Assuming wearing diamonds causes no harm (bracket out conspicuous consumption, signaling), then you have an apt comparison, and maybe you can see why your objection misses the point.

Cavemonster

10th July 2009, 08:38 AM

At the supermarket, the tofu and the chicken are on adjacent aisles. The soy milk and the real milk are next to each other on the shelf. You buy vegetables, beans and grains ANYWAY - just buy more of them to offset the calories lost from removing meat. How could the choice be any more trivial than that?

Volatile,
If altering our diet were trivial, why is there a $40 billion diet industry instead of people making the trivial decision to consume less calories? Because our food drives, what we like to eat, what we want to eat are more than trivial. They are deeply rooted, intermeshed with our culture our history, our brain and body chemistry and much more.

Think of a food you don't like very much, liver I might guess? Suppose that tomorrow, A scientist created a new food that has all the nutrients a person needs, and is grown in a lab in a way that harms absolutely no animals, with a far, far smaller footprint than the industrial farm produce that you currently eat. Every supermarket stocks it abundantly right next to your vegetables, and it's so cheap to make that it's 10¢ a pound.

By your standards, it eliminates more animal suffering/death and environmental impact than switching from meat to veganism would. The only drawback is that you would be eating only something that tastes like liver for the rest of your life. Is the taste trivial? Would you make the switch?

Rogue1stclass

10th July 2009, 08:52 AM

Hey, I'll take the bait.

I eat meat because it is higher in energy (in the form of protein and fats) and building materials (complete amino acids) per volume than other foods.

I'm kind of a skinny guy with a not exceptionally efficient metabolism. I require more fuel than the average person, even just running at idle. For me to get the energy I require out of less energy rich food would require a lot more eating on my end. This is a problem because I don't generally enjoy the act of eating, and in fact often forget to do so until I start to notice the physical effects of hunger ("the shakes" and such).

Case in point--right now. Excuse me while I eat half a chicken sandwich.

I was convinced once to go vegitarian for one day a week. By the end of that day, I always felt like I was dying. I simply couldn't get enough to eat. When I found myself standing in the pantry eating tuna out of the can with my fingers, I realized that this wasn't going to work.

Eating is something I do to stay alive. I have absolutely no interest in utilizing a less effecient approximation of the diet I evolved to do so on some abstract moral grounds. When they can grow a steak in a vat, that's one thing, but having to eat twice as much tofu and mushrooms for the sake of an animal that does even know what life is, much less value it? No, thanks.

BTW, my cat would disagree with you on the morality of eliminating livestock farming. It has already been established that cats need animal matter to survive. If we don't farm livestock, then where is that meat going to come from? Or should we just get rid of the cats too?

volatile

10th July 2009, 08:57 AM

By your standards, it eliminates more animal suffering/death and environmental impact than switching from meat to veganism would. The only drawback is that you would be eating only something that tastes like liver for the rest of your life. Is the taste trivial? Would you make the switch?

That's really not complicated. Of course I would.

Wouldn't you?

Cain

10th July 2009, 09:03 AM

Or should we just get rid of the cats too?

Bye Kitty.

Rogue1stclass

10th July 2009, 09:09 AM

Bye Kitty.

So, exactly how many species do you want to exterminate in the name of animal rights?

tyr_13

10th July 2009, 09:10 AM

How do you draw the line between production and eating in your every day life? You can mitigate the harms from production by not eating it. Yours is not a valid objection to being vegan, nor a case in favour of eating meat.

I could make money by killing someone and taking their money. I could make money by working a full day. The 'making money' part isn't what is moral or immoral in the equation. I could eat meat by destroying the environment. I could eat meat and not destroy the environment (and any other combination). The eating meat part is irrelevant.

This is true, and something Cain has already addressed.

Not very well.

Do you believe in complete moral relativism? That there is no right and wrong? That's the consequence of this line of thinking.

This is a faulty conclusion. Just because I believe some things are neither moral, nor immoral, doesn't mean that I think every action is moral or immoral. Cutting down rainforest for cows is, in my view, immoral. Cutting down rainforests for soybeans is likewise immoral in my view. African coming of age rituals involving the removal of the clitoris is immoral in my view. African coming of age rituals are not all immoral in my view.

I wonder if you'd take those subjective benefits - and here again we're talking about taste - as defence for other harmful actions? See my littering example - is the litterbug's pleasure in littering sufficent for us to shrug our shoulders and say "Hey, well. Each to their own! If you enjoy dropping trash, go ahead. After all, your benefit is subjective - thus I can't argue with it, even if it causes demonstrable harm."

No because it isn't the litterbug's land to do it on. Your strawmaning is painful.

An appeal to authority is not falacious if the authority knows what they're talking about. Citing Stephen Hawking on black holes would not be "an appeal to authority". Similarly, citing a body which has condcuted extensive scientific research - for which no counter-evidence exists, as far as I am aware - is not "an appeal to authority".

The UN is not a scientific body. You didn't say 'reports from scientific panels funded the UN', but the UN's scientific muscle. This is an appeal to a false authority.

What did Kevin say earlier about irrational people sticking around here long enough to learn how rational people talk?

Ad hom. Sweet. I was wondering when you'd get to those.

Cavemonster

10th July 2009, 09:11 AM

That's really not complicated. Of course I would.

Wouldn't you?

Then why don't you eat purely beans and rice and (vegan) vitamin supplements?

Even organic, pesticide free beans and rice is far less expensive than a diet that contained, say tinned pineapples.

There is a diet available to you that is nutritionally complete, easy to procure and has a much lower environmental footrpint and animal loss of life than you currently use.

Compared to wheat or corn, rice uses much smaller amounts of land, and land that generally did not need to be cleared. Beans can easily be produced domestically in almost any climate. They are available at the grocery store down the street.

Yet you still engage in extravagences that result in the death of more animals, like eating imported fruit. If foregoing the taste of imported fruit is trivial, why don't you do it?

Belz...

10th July 2009, 09:12 AM

1) Meat eating causes demonstrable harms

That has not been shown. Aside from environmental concerns, we simply do not agree on this. Ergo, your case has not been made.

2) The benefits are not sufficient to mitigate these harms.

Personal opinion.

You can all wriggle all you like, but the fact that you all baulk at ever justifying your demonstrably-harmful and demonstrably-unnecessary actions speaks volumes about just how rational your positions are.

Don't get excited.

I'd like to point out that eating plants is harmful because it kills the plants and uses valuable land that otherwise would be available to wild animals. Therefore we should commit species suicide and stop using up the damn ecosystem to our advantage.

....or... we could instead eat what we like to eat and accept a certain level of consequences to our actions like we do when we build hydroelectric dams, coal power plants and nuclear reactors.

Can you, or can you not, rationally defend your dietary choices?

I don't need to. Remember the part in red ?

When you go shopping for food, you can choose a harmful diet, or a less harmful one. On what grounds can you justify picking the harmful one?

On the grounds that I don't see it as harmful.

What?

You heard me.

You think that killing for food - for taste, as meat-eating is not necessary - is OK, but killing for sexual pleasure is wrong. On what grounds do you distinguish between the validity of gastronomic pleasure and the invalidity of sexual pleasure in this equation.

Bolding mine. Vegetable-eating is not necessary, and causes demonstratable harm.

What are you? Five years old or something?

If you want to trade insults I will be more than happy to go to Flame Wars with you and duke it out. Otherwise please refrain from this childish name calling.

In any case - are you purely carnivorous?

Almost.

But let's probe this line of reasoning. I wonder how you'd feel about the same argument offered in favour of a similarly harmful behaviour: "I hate taking my trash with me to the nearest trashcan. I don't like having trash in my bag. Forcing me to carry trash around rather than dropping it on the ground is an awful prospect."

... which is why I can pay somebody else to do it for me.

I'm not sure we're using the same definition of "similar".

Belz...

10th July 2009, 09:15 AM

tyr_13

10th July 2009, 09:20 AM

We were talking about fallacies in that last post. You just made three - the naturalistic fallacy, the argument from tradition and the argumentum ad populum. Unlike your mistaken accusation of argument to authority, these are cast iron fallacies.

"We evolved to do x" is not an argument in favour of "x". It could be used to support rape or eugenics. "My society has always done x" is not an argument in favour of "x". If could be used to support slavery, genital mutilation, whale-hunting and a whole host of things. "Everyone else does it" is not an argument in favour of "x". Your mum probably pointed that out to you when she said "If everyone else put their head in an oven, would you?".

You really don't see the issue with treating animals like humans? No, "we evolved to do x" is not an argument in favor of "x", but as you can see from my post, it most certainly is an argument about the ease of doing so.

Arguing the popularity of an action which is neither moral or immoral seems very salient to continuing the act. It isn't a logical fallacy to say that we shouldn't stop doing something the overwhelming majority favors that harms no people. I guess you want people to stop watching WWE too?

The only arguments put forward in favour of meat-eating are of this order of rationality. That is to say - they're broadly fallacious.

No, sorry, show how, don't tell.

What on earth do you mean? Read about 2 sides of A4 and you'll have enough information to eat a healthy, nutritionally-complete vegan diet.

Which isn't to say that eating that diet is trivially easy. It isn't easy. Don't feed me ******** and act like it's organic soybean paste. How much time and effort to do something that you don't like which isn't moral or immoral?

At the supermarket, the tofu and the chicken are on adjacent aisles. The soy milk and the real milk are next to each other on the shelf. You buy vegetables, beans and grains ANYWAY - just buy more of them to offset the calories lost from removing meat. How could the choice be any more trivial than that?

And you'd need to balance the right veggies to get other nutrients besides calories. Vegans often have very low energy, almost non-existent sex drive, and brittle bones. We don't all live in cities. Tofu is not next to the chicken where I shop most of the time. It certainly isn't the same damn price. I happen to like tofu, but eat more fish and chicken. I also grow a substantial portion of what I eat. It takes a lot of work to eat right with any food source, so you still are building an argument on a faulty premise.

garcia<3

10th July 2009, 09:36 AM

Bye Kitty.

Your joking, right?

Rogue1stclass

10th July 2009, 09:37 AM

Your joking, right?

I don't know whether he is or not, but the extermination of domestic animals is the end goal of PETA, so it wouldn't surprise me if he was serious.

garcia<3

10th July 2009, 09:47 AM

I don't know whether he is or not, but the extermination of domestic animals is the end goal of PETA, so it wouldn't surprise me if he was serious.

I don't keep up with what Peta does and I'm sure it's been mentioned in this thread but it's way too long to read, so why does Peta want to exterminate all pets?

tyr_13

10th July 2009, 10:15 AM

Rogue1stclass

10th July 2009, 10:53 AM

I don't keep up with what Peta does and I'm sure it's been mentioned in this thread but it's way too long to read, so why does Peta want to exterminate all pets?

They don't really state it openly anymore, but domestic animals are something of an abomination to them. You can't really free them, but keeping them is a form of imprisonment or slavery. So, the only solution is extermination.

It's still present in the subtext. Here's a quote from their website:

The most important thing that animal guardians can do is to spay or neuter their animals and avoid buying animals from breeders or pet stores, which contribute to the overpopulation crisis.

That doesn't sound unreasonable, until you realize that it's basically saying that the most important thing you can do is to discourage breeding, not just in your animal, but in general. There is no measure for responsible breeding, buying from a reputable breeder, or such. No. In fact, the page goes on to say that there is no such thing as responsible breeding. So, the most important thing you can possibly do is to take in an animal that exists, and ensure that it can't breed.

What do you think the end result of that would be if it became law?

Add to that the shockingly high rate of euthanasia at the PETA "shelter" as well as attempts to infiltrate and reverse "no kill" shelters and opposition to Trap-Neuter-Return strageties for dealing with feral cats (in favor of eradication), and it's really not hard to see what they are trying to do.

Oh, and while I don't have the quotes on hand, they've also said as much.

garcia<3

10th July 2009, 11:13 AM

What do you think the end result of that would be if it became law?

It's already the law in Los Angeles.

http://www.laanimalservices.com/spayneuterlaw.htm

It looks like if you are a registered breeder you are exempt. I guess that means more chihuahuas :eek:

thaiboxerken

10th July 2009, 11:31 AM

Volatile:

There are experts that say vegan eating is somewhat inferior to a meat-eating diet. So the nutrition argument is out.

It it ok to imprison a cow for it's milk as long as you don't kill it afterwards? Why or why not?

Are we do to only those activities that are necessary?

You have not shown meat-eating is harmful. At best, you've shown that raising livestock is harmful to the environment.

You've made the claim that eating an animal if it dies of old age is ok. So, what if we changed the way we produce meat? We can raise livestock for the purpose of harvesting the meat after the animals die of old age. Would it still be wrong?

If a painless death is irrelevant to you, then how does sentience come into play at all?

Stankeye

10th July 2009, 11:54 AM

After re-reading the last couple of pages, it ocured to me that some of the other posters are doing a much better job articulating my viewpoint than I am. Also, it is unfair to expect the 'other side' to keep up with several determined posters. With those things in mind, I think I'll go back to lurking mostly if no one has any strong objections.

I don't blame you. They went through this last year and I lurked around then.

What I did take away from it last go round was from TEEK, who I keep waiting to show up again.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3915139&postcount=114

I don't care if an animal dies to feed me.

Belz...

10th July 2009, 12:04 PM

I don't care if an animal dies to feed me.

Indeed.

Not to be blunt or evil-sounding, but most people don't even blink at the thought of actual humans dying in third-world countries. Or even second-world or first-world ones... so why the fuss over animals ?

Belz...

10th July 2009, 12:05 PM

If a painless death is irrelevant to you, then how does sentience come into play at all?

I've been saying this for a while, now. This makes vegans guilty of harm against plants.

For some reason not a soul in this thread has bothered to counter this.

Cain

10th July 2009, 12:10 PM

Your joking, right?

Kidding on the square. I have no problem with the idea of "animal companions," but cats eat meat, so it would be wrong to keep one. If we ever do grow meat in a vat (which will be better than sliced bread), then I'd probably get a cat.

Cavemonster

10th July 2009, 12:15 PM

Kidding on the square. I have no problem with the idea of "animal companions," but cats eat meat, so it would be wrong to keep one. If we ever do grow meat in a vat (which will be better than sliced bread), then I'd probably get a cat.

Okay, we're caught in loops again, but there's a potentially interesting direction.

Vat Grown Meat.

Personally, I'm all for it. I eat and love meat, but I'm not entirely comfortable with the conditions it's raised in or the environmental effects. Vat grown meat, if it tasted like the kind made from real animals would be fantastic.

How do other meat eaters feel about it? Vegans?
If instead of an animal, you're raising tissue without a nervous system, does that eliminate ethical concerns?

garcia<3

10th July 2009, 12:20 PM

Okay, we're caught in loops again, but there's a potentially interesting direction.

Vat Grown Meat.

Personally, I'm all for it. I eat and love meat, but I'm not entirely comfortable with the conditions it's raised in or the environmental effects. Vat grown meat, if it tasted like the kind made from real animals would be fantastic.

How do other meat eaters feel about it? Vegans?
If instead of an animal, you're raising tissue without a nervous system, does that eliminate ethical concerns?

I still wouldn't eat it, but that's because I don't like the taste of meat.

Cavemonster

10th July 2009, 12:27 PM

I still wouldn't eat it, but that's because I don't like the taste of meat.

But is there a reasonable objection to others eating it?

garcia<3

10th July 2009, 12:34 PM

But is there a reasonable objection to others eating it?

No not even now.

Rogue1stclass

10th July 2009, 02:27 PM

Kidding on the square. I have no problem with the idea of "animal companions," but cats eat meat, so it would be wrong to keep one. If we ever do grow meat in a vat (which will be better than sliced bread), then I'd probably get a cat.

But the question is, what do we do with cats (and ferrets, which also need meat and are even less able to survive in the wild) until then?

Though, yeah, vat grown meat would be the greatest technological impovement to food since holding it over fire. It would also make this entire discussion moot, because then the technology really would be in place to eliminate killing from our diet. Right now, the closest we can come is a gross approximation, and that's just not good enough.

I'm thin and weedy enough as it is.

realpaladin

10th July 2009, 02:52 PM

GreNME

10th July 2009, 02:53 PM

I've already stated that saying the moral argument comes first assumes the conclusion before it's reached.
Yes, you have stated that, but it's an unreasonable statement. Take for instance abortion. We have to determine the moral status of the fetus (at different stages because each is contentious) before according legal rights to the parties involved. This is utterly elementary.

Abortion is a reasonable enough example for your purposes, but I disagree that establishing the moral status of the fetus (or zygote or whatever) is necessary before according legal rights. The pro-life contingent may balk at the suggestion, but intent of the person carrying the zygote or fetus comes into play first and foremost. Further, when it comes down to it the health and well-being of the mother(-to-be) still trumps that of the unborn in almost every case (there are, of course, exceptions).

So, while I don't fault you for your example, I would point out that even with that example the establishment of moral status is not necessarily going to be the first step.

-It's wrong to cause harm to a morally significant being for a relatively trivial reason
This is a subjective statement, through and through. Different factors and different opinions on what constitutes harm, what constitutes morally significant, and what constitutes trivial reasons.
Really, you want to challenge this one now? Let's focus on the principle first, which is not really a subjective statement the way you seem to intend. I suggest you try to avoid using the words "subjective," "objective," "absolute" "intrinsic," and "inherent," because you have a habit of flubbing them up. If you want to claim that what people will REGARD as trivial varies from person to person, fine. If you want to say we disagree over what constitutes harm, fine. I allow for that later on. But if you want to say everything is hopelessly subjective -- that killing a person because "I felt like it" versus killing him because he was going to blow up innocents -- then you're outside the realm of morality and rationality.

While you may have a point in criticizing my hyperbole with the "through and through" comment, I go on to point out more precisely where my contention lies. I don't at all consider it "hopelessly subjective" in this case, but I do consider criteria for that part of the argument subjective. I'm not precisely why you're unhappy with what I said regarding trivial reasons or moral significance, because it does vary, and not simply from person to person-- this is certainly falls under the category of subjective for social and cultural differences as well. As to the subjectivity of "what constitutes harm" (my words), if you're fine with the disagreement on that mark (for now) we can come back to it.

This is also precisely why it's good to use examples to justify certain types of behavior because it teases out these principles without using confusing language.

I don't have a problem with examples on principle, but examples in the place of an actual argument are neither sufficient replacement or reasonably capable of making the argument on their own. The more outlandish and outrageous (or at least from a commonly agreed-upon) application of example that gets brought up, the less likely it's going to serve a rhetorical purpose and the more likely it's going to stir emotional or reactionary responses-- which is why comedians, politicians, and news pundits tend to use them so frequently.

-Animals are morally significant beings, meaning their interests are worthy of our consideration.
This is an assertion without substance and is again based on subjective assignment. On top of the subjectivity of morally significant, both the interests of the animals (which I assume at this point you're referring to domestic livestock) and worthiness of consideration are subjective and are not a 'total yes' or 'total no' binary scenario.
Once again you're overplaying your hand. If instead of "animals" we said "humans" these objections would be equally irrelevant: as an idea, the bolded text does not tell us whether or not we should hold doors open for old ladies at the post office; it does not tell us if we should volunteer at the homeless shelter. It's not nearly that ambitious either. It only attempts to establish shared values: animals are worthy of our considerations. To use a most extreme example, we should not torture them for pleasure. Yes, it's entirely possible for a person to privilege the tortuer's pleasure against the relatively "trivial" pain and suffering inflicted upon the animal. And again, that's part of the reason why examples are used: to calibrate levels of concern.

I'm not misunderstanding what you're saying here, Cain, but the fact is that the bolded part does not establish anything-- it asserts it. Also, stating that replacing "animal" with "human" is just equivocating. This is where, in the last thread, a whole slew of pedantic nonsense came about, and afterward it seemed those disagreeing with you had to specify "non-human animals" to be clear despite the obvious connotative difference between the uses of "human" and "animal" in the first place. That distinction alone, however, is quite insignificant because while I would flat-out disagree on the argument of "all animals" having at least some claim to moral consideration, I can accept that there are exceptions that can arguably be said to have some kind of moral consideration applied to them. But that does not make the bolded text an agreed-upon assertion because it avoids nuance in favor of a generalized, universal statement-- hence my calling it a case of "subjective assignment." There is no absolutely yes or absolutely no answer to that statement.

However, the value of human taste for meat compared to the individual lives of each animal, regardless of whether this is to be constituted as suffering-- none of which has been conclusively argued-- has not been established as a completely moral issue. In bringing up the alternatives, it definitely can be made into a strong practicality issue, but the constant assertion of a moral issue is still not established.

This is difficult to take seriously. Whenever interests collide you are probably going to encounter an issue with at least some moral dimension. Do you think the "Humane" in "Humane Slaughter Act" is just careless word choice?

"[A]t least some" is a whole lot different than a "completely" moral issue, which is what I rejected in that quoted text (honest, I included it to show precisely that). I don't have a problem with some morality being played, but when it is the results are going to vary, and again subjectivity follows.

I'll try to explain, but not exactly with an example of the type you prefer. Have you ever heard someone say that if you ask two people of some given ethnic or cultural type an opinion, to expect three answers? I've heard this said about Catholics (nuns, priests, Jesuits, Irish, etc.), Jews, Russians, Italians, and a few others I'm probably forgetting. There's a 'truth' in the saying, but not in that it means some ethnic or cultural group has some sort of inherent probability to exhibit ridiculous numbers of opinion (though that's the implication of the joke, most times). Instead, the 'truth' of the statement is that the more people you add to an attempt at drawing a consensus, the less likely you are to actually reach that consensus (outside of broad, generalized, non-specific concepts). This sort of idea is behind some types of (government) bureaucracies, meant to keep the government accountable not to the concentrated focuses of smaller, more insular or elitist groups, but to the general populations they govern and with a certain degree of general acceptance. When talking about issues involving any amount of morals, total or partial, implicit or explicit, real or otherwise, the one guarantee one has approaching the subject is that there is not going to be a strong consensus on very specific aspects of the topic.

That concept applies to this discussion because this is key to why asserting such a specific moral authoritative claim on such a broad and varied topic isn't going to be seriously considered without a significant and solid forward argument, not demands for justifications and defenses. I think the parts you've brought up can be put together into a fairly significant argument, and I'd also state that the existence of a notable vegetarian and vegan dietary population is evidence that it's solid enough for some people. But universally? No, I'm not convinced of that, particularly because of the subjective nature of the issue to begin with. That doesn't mean I'm personally against the different diet-- I've already stated that I'm definitely not, and I also advocate a diet of less meat and support a definitive change of the mass-production food market in general. But agreement on some things does not necessitate agreement on all, and agreeing on data is not always the same as agreeing on conclusions.

I'd also like to take a moment and say that I appreciate the last few posts we've traded back and forth. I think they are some of the better conversation in the thread.

GreNME

10th July 2009, 02:58 PM

Since I saw no other answers to it:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2009/06/05/2009-06-05_evil_teen_who_tossed_cat_in_the_oven.html (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2009/06/06/2009-06-06_cheyenne_cherry_teen_accused_of_burning_cat_in_ oven_was_busted_in_2008_in_armed_.html)

Cheyenne Cherry roasted a cat alive because she "hates cats" and thought it would be funny.

Is this a moral issue?

It seems more like a mental health issue to me.

GreNME

10th July 2009, 03:08 PM

I don't keep up with what Peta does and I'm sure it's been mentioned in this thread but it's way too long to read, so why does Peta want to exterminate all pets?

Well, it's not that everyone in PETA has the goal of eliminating all pets. It's that the organization has from the very top (down to at least the middle levels of the organization) a goal of increasingly making having, breeding, raising, or selling animals (domestic or otherwise) more difficult. The reason is, as has been stated, they view this activity as unacceptable exploitation that should be done away with. It is the Animal Liberation methodology from the mid-1970's turned into a lobbying and general Hollywood-harassment group. PETA was the first group started completely for that purpose, and they remain the most outlandish in their public persona (in general). Other organizations like HSUS and the ASPCA have, since the early-to-mid-1980's, had their highest positions taken over through organized fiat to begin following similar methodologies-- with Wayne Pacelle, current head of HSUS, being nearly on par with Ingrid Newkirk or Bruce Friedrich (of PETA) in terms of extremity of positions relating to animal liberation.

Rogue1stclass

10th July 2009, 04:20 PM

Since I saw no other answers to it:

It seems more like a mental health issue to me.

I missed that question. But I think it's rather obvious that the destruction of the cat, a carnivore that requires meat farming so that we can give it Little Friskies, serves the greater good of animal welfare and the environment.

Granted, a more humane death would be prefered, but the suffering of the cat is still minimal compared to the suffering it's life caused.

Cain

11th July 2009, 05:17 AM

Abortion is a reasonable enough example for your purposes, but I disagree that establishing the moral status of the fetus (or zygote or whatever) is necessary before according legal rights. The pro-life contingent may balk at the suggestion, but intent of the person carrying the zygote or fetus comes into play first and foremost. Further, when it comes down to it the health and well-being of the mother(-to-be) still trumps that of the unborn in almost every case (there are, of course, exceptions).

The very fact you speak in terms of trumps suggests prior moral consideration. It's an almost inescapable fact that issues are evaluated morally before they go through the legal system.

While you may have a point in criticizing my hyperbole with the "through and through" comment, I go on to point out more precisely where my contention lies. I don't at all consider it "hopelessly subjective" in this case, but I do consider criteria for that part of the argument subjective. I'm not precisely why you're unhappy with what I said regarding trivial reasons or moral significance, because it does vary, and not simply from person to person-- this is certainly falls under the category of subjective for social and cultural differences as well. As to the subjectivity of "what constitutes harm" (my words), if you're fine with the disagreement on that mark (for now) we can come back to it.

As I said, it's establishing a generally agreed upon moral principle, and you're always free to disagree on a case-by-case basis, but your objection was just needlessly argumentative. If somebody says it's wrong to steal money in order to buy in an IPOD -- as someone did earlier, I get the idea they're trying to convey. I may challenge it can claim, "Oh no, IPODs are extremely important -- hardly trivial," but that in no questions the principle as a principle.

I'm not misunderstanding what you're saying here, Cain, but the fact is that the bolded part does not establish anything-- it asserts it.

Then you clearly are misunderstanding things because the bolded part is not intended to establish anything in the sense you mean. It's but one component of the argument. Asserting "all humans are mortal" does not establish that all humans are mortal, nor does calling "Socrates a human" establish that Socrates is, in fact, human.

"[A]t least some" is a whole lot different than a "completely" moral issue, which is what I rejected in that quoted text (honest, I included it to show precisely that). I don't have a problem with some morality being played, but when it is the results are going to vary, and again subjectivity follows.

...

That concept applies to this discussion because this is key to why asserting such a specific moral authoritative claim on such a broad and varied topic isn't going to be seriously considered without a significant and solid forward argument, not demands for justifications and defenses.

A topic can have many facets. Vegetarianism can be viewed in a moral frame ("I should not harm animals because it's wrong to do so") but it can also be viewed in a prudential frame ("by going vegetarian I will live longer and be healthier"). Almost no one in this discussion is arguing the second. Moreover, I think most of us recognize that moral concerns tend to take priority, which is why it's not the least bit unfair to generally call this a "moral issue." In any case, it is a moral issue as presented in this thread.

Kevin Lowe's comparison to 19th century vivisectionists cuts to the point, and I cannot improve upon it.

Rogue1stclass

11th July 2009, 09:35 AM

GreNME

11th July 2009, 10:42 AM

Here's my cat, playing in a tiny rocking chair:

http://i261.photobucket.com/albums/ii65/Rogue1stclass/Sprite.jpg

What, exactly, is the moral method of dealing with her? Should I shoot her, or dash her brains out a rock?

I suggest an overdose of morphine. It's gentler on the cat and it makes less mess and blood spatter. As always, be sure to check with your veterinarian first before anything.

Cavemonster

11th July 2009, 10:49 AM

I suggest an overdose of morphine. It's gentler on the cat and it makes less mess and blood spatter. As always, be sure to check with your veterinarian first before anything.

I suggest an overdose of snuggles and belly rubs.

GreNME

11th July 2009, 11:08 AM

Abortion is a reasonable enough example for your purposes, but I disagree that establishing the moral status of the fetus (or zygote or whatever) is necessary before according legal rights. The pro-life contingent may balk at the suggestion, but intent of the person carrying the zygote or fetus comes into play first and foremost. Further, when it comes down to it the health and well-being of the mother(-to-be) still trumps that of the unborn in almost every case (there are, of course, exceptions).
The very fact you speak in terms of trumps suggests prior moral consideration. It's an almost inescapable fact that issues are evaluated morally before they go through the legal system.

I'm not sure I adequately answered you if the only impression you got from what I said involved trumps. I mean, clearly trumps can come into play in some cases, but considering the vast majority of cases where an abortion takes place the only trumps at issue are the ruling of Roe v. Wade. Why you focus more on my third sentence instead of the second-- where I clearly state "intent of the person carrying the zygote or fetus comes into play first and foremost"-- is admittedly a bit puzzling. However, since there is no one, single driving factor in determining the right-ness or wrong-ness of abortion, I really would rather this not become a discussion about which certain thing of the many I believe go into consideration is my message on abortion. I'll say that I agree on there being one side of the abortion debate (pro-life) who begins from moral consideration, but I'll point out that this is not the case for both sides of the debate. Can you at least find that agreeable?

As I said, it's establishing a generally agreed upon moral principle, and you're always free to disagree on a case-by-case basis, but your objection was just needlessly argumentative. If somebody says it's wrong to steal money in order to buy in an IPOD -- as someone did earlier, I get the idea they're trying to convey. I may challenge it can claim, "Oh no, IPODs are extremely important -- hardly trivial," but that in no questions the principle as a principle.

Then which principle are you talking about with regard to eating meat? The death of livestock? Animals feeling pain? Something else, or a combination thereof? Regardless, you're skipping part of the idea conveyed earlier regarding stealing-- the idea was that not all cases of stealing are weighed equally. This idea applies here as well. That doesn't invalidate your principle against eating meat, but neither does it invalidate those whose principles do not exclude them from eating meat.

Then you clearly are misunderstanding things because the bolded part is not intended to establish anything in the sense you mean. It's but one component of the argument. Asserting "all humans are mortal" does not establish that all humans are mortal, nor does calling "Socrates a human" establish that Socrates is, in fact, human.

That all humans eventually die is a proven fact. Moral consideration of all animals is not. It's really that simple. There may be degrees of considerations depending on the animals in question, but again that doesn't necessarily establish a principle against eating meat.

A topic can have many facets. Vegetarianism can be viewed in a moral frame ("I should not harm animals because it's wrong to do so") but it can also be viewed in a prudential frame ("by going vegetarian I will live longer and be healthier"). Almost no one in this discussion is arguing the second. Moreover, I think most of us recognize that moral concerns tend to take priority, which is why it's not the least bit unfair to generally call this a "moral issue." In any case, it is a moral issue as presented in this thread.

Kevin Lowe's comparison to 19th century vivisectionists cuts to the point, and I cannot improve upon it.

I think you missed the point of what I wrote. Vegetarians are not the only ones who can lay claim to the idea that harming animals is "wrong" as a general rule. The difference is in the line drawn between where the point of "wrong" basically lies. You again assert that this is a moral issue that takes priority, but again this only works if there's a predetermined conclusion of the harm and the wrong-ness of the harm. It still essentially begins by working backward from the conclusion, which is demonstrably not universally accepted as the same thing to everyone.

GreNME

11th July 2009, 11:14 AM

I suggest an overdose of snuggles and belly rubs.

Still, be sure to check with your veterinarian before applying. ;)

thaiboxerken

11th July 2009, 12:12 PM

Or you can batter and deep fry the cat. Be sure to check with your local vegetarian before applying the batter.

Cain

12th July 2009, 04:23 AM

Why you focus more on my third sentence instead of the second-- where I clearly state "intent of the person carrying the zygote or fetus comes into play first and foremost"-- is admittedly a bit puzzling.

Because it makes no sense. Is it wrong for Michael Jackson -- full of anger and malicious intent -- to take a baseball bat to a car? Well, it depends upon who owns the car. If he owns the car, then it's not a big deal. The first thing that's established is moral standing, who has trump rights; the zygote's life versus a woman's choice. You then get into the idea that "a baby's heart beats after 21 days" versus "it's a clump of cells/blob of tissue." After establishing fundamentals one can venture off into "intent," such as the pro-lifers who allow for exceptions in the case of rape (a highly questionable move given their premises).

However, since there is no one, single driving factor in determining the right-ness or wrong-ness of abortion, I really would rather this not become a discussion about which certain thing of the many I believe go into consideration is my message on abortion. I'll say that I agree on there being one side of the abortion debate (pro-life) who begins from moral consideration, but I'll point out that this is not the case for both sides of the debate. Can you at least find that agreeable?

I cannot because the pro-life claim must be answered; it's unavoidable. I hope all fellow pro-choicers have at least considered the status of the fetus and rejected right-to-life claims made on its behalf for rational reasons. The first question is "Is this organism worthy of our moral considerations, why or why not?" Now somebody might say that animals are just another form of private property, creatures that can be treated as cars and rocks. Most people, however, elevate them to another level: it's wrong to be cruel to them.

Then which principle are you talking about with regard to eating meat? The death of livestock? Animals feeling pain? Something else, or a combination thereof? Regardless, you're skipping part of the idea conveyed earlier regarding stealing-- the idea was that not all cases of stealing are weighed equally. This idea applies here as well. That doesn't invalidate your principle against eating meat, but neither does it invalidate those whose principles do not exclude them from eating meat.

Even though the paragraph you're responding to is poorly written, I think it clearly answers all of this already. The principle just says that it's wrong to do harm for a trivial reason. It does not discuss what constitutes harm and what's trivial (although you can see where that's going from umpteen previous posts). The only thing it really seeks to do is bracket out ethical egoism -- the idea that one should always self-maximize because one's own interests are paramount. What I'm saying is not anything any sane person disagrees with in principle. When it comes to specific cases, harming animals, stealing IPODs, murdering people, there may be some disagreement.

That all humans eventually die is a proven fact. Moral consideration of all animals is not. It's really that simple. There may be degrees of considerations depending on the animals in question, but again that doesn't necessarily establish a principle against eating meat.

I think you missed the point of what I wrote. Vegetarians are not the only ones who can lay claim to the idea that harming animals is "wrong" as a general rule. The difference is in the line drawn between where the point of "wrong" basically lies. You again assert that this is a moral issue that takes priority, but again this only works if there's a predetermined conclusion of the harm and the wrong-ness of the harm. It still essentially begins by working backward from the conclusion, which is demonstrably not universally accepted as the same thing to everyone.

Almost all people do believe animals are worthy of moral consideration, but fine, if someone wants to dispute it, he can dispute it. You almost never do, however, instead insisting that you think lots of people disagree about these thin gs, and the mere fact they do somehow undermines moral universalism. As for the "working backward" stuff, I've already addressed that in this post as well as earlier, and the only person doing that is you.

Rogue1stclass

12th July 2009, 04:30 PM

No one is arguing that animals shouldn't receive moral consideration.

What we are arguing is that all animals shouldn't receive equal moral consideration, which frankly you agreed to pages and pages ago when you excluded all but one subphylum of Animalia from your definition of "animal".

All we are really doing at this point is quibbling.

BTW, there is evidence that cephalopoid mollusks have cognative processes greater than many vertebrates. Octopi in particular are noted for their intelligence and problem-solving, while squids can have pretty complex social structures and communication. You should probably add them to your list of animals of moral consideration.

Besides, Taki tastes like old rubber anyway. ;)

volatile

12th July 2009, 04:35 PM

I can pretty much guarantee that Cain considers octupi, at least, worthy of moral consideration. If you think otherwise, maybe you've not been reading his posts clearly enough.

thaiboxerken

12th July 2009, 04:58 PM

Now that you're back, can you answer the questions below?

Volatile:

There are experts that say vegan eating is somewhat inferior to a meat-eating diet. So the nutrition argument is out.

It it ok to imprison a cow for it's milk as long as you don't kill it afterwards? Why or why not?

Are we do to only those activities that are necessary?

You have not shown meat-eating is harmful. At best, you've shown that raising livestock is harmful to the environment.

You've made the claim that eating an animal if it dies of old age is ok. So, what if we changed the way we produce meat? We can raise livestock for the purpose of harvesting the meat after the animals die of old age. Would it still be wrong?

If a painless death is irrelevant to you, then how does sentience come into play at all?

Rogue1stclass

12th July 2009, 09:47 PM

I can pretty much guarantee that Cain considers octupi, at least, worthy of moral consideration. If you think otherwise, maybe you've not been reading his posts clearly enough.

I was just making a suggestion. If he has already considered the unique gifts of cephelopod mollusks, then he is free to disregard it.

Just as everyone has disregarded my question of what to do about housecats.

Kevin_Lowe

12th July 2009, 11:42 PM

I was just making a suggestion. If he has already considered the unique gifts of cephelopod mollusks, then he is free to disregard it.

Just as everyone has disregarded my question of what to do about housecats.

I think that anyone who is consistent about valuing animal life also has to hold that house cats should not be allowed out, and that people who let house cats out are morally responsible for their pets torturing and killing everything they can catch.

It's just a matter of whether they want to pick that fight or not, at any given time. House cats are a sacred cow, much like eating meat.

It's not a remotely original observation, but if there was an animal that bred like a cat, killed like a cat, went feral like a cat and looked like a toad we'd shoot it on sight.

Rogue1stclass

13th July 2009, 02:27 AM

I think that anyone who is consistent about valuing animal life also has to hold that house cats should not be allowed out, and that people who let house cats out are morally responsible for their pets torturing and killing everything they can catch.

The question isn't whether they should be allowed out, but whether they should exist at all. To keep a cat alive and healthy, other animals have to die.

Should Felis catus be made extinct? If so, how exactly is this valuing animal life?

It's just a matter of whether they want to pick that fight or not, at any given time. House cats are a sacred cow, much like eating meat.

House cats are an animal that made civilization possible in the Western hemisphere. Before the domestication of the cat, rodents tore through stored food supplies leading to famine and starvation. Cats kept the rodents managable and allowed for Humanity to reach the point in our evolution where it is possible to even consider giving up animal protein.

Is the morally responsible thing to do now really to exterminate them now that we don't need them anymore (if indeed we don't)?

It's not a remotely original observation, but if there was an animal that bred like a cat, killed like a cat, went feral like a cat and looked like a toad we'd shoot it on sight.

And if there were a toad as intelligent as a cat, as social as a cat, and as useful as a cat, we'd keep them as pets. So what?

The fact of the matter is that cats do exist and they do require animal protein to be healthy. It is our responsibility as the species who dragged them out of the desert 4000 years ago to provide this for them.

However, were it truly possible to replicate a human's natural diet without "cruelty", then this wouldn't be an issue at all.

SirPhilip

13th July 2009, 03:10 AM

There's nothing like an attentive cat to keep you sane, unless it's a Cheshire Cat.

Belz...

13th July 2009, 04:30 AM

The question isn't whether they should be allowed out, but whether they should exist at all. To keep a cat alive and healthy, other animals have to die.

In order for anything to live, something has to die.

Except autotrophs...

Kevin_Lowe

13th July 2009, 05:55 AM

The question isn't whether they should be allowed out, but whether they should exist at all. To keep a cat alive and healthy, other animals have to die.

Should Felis catus be made extinct? If so, how exactly is this valuing animal life?

We could keep a few in zoos I guess. Or we could have a market in road kill and other ethical cat food. I don't foresee us getting to that point in the next few generations though.

I can't make sense of the question "If so, how exactly is this valuing animal life?". I'm not sure what assumptions could underly a question like that.

House cats are an animal that made civilization possible in the Western hemisphere. Before the domestication of the cat, rodents tore through stored food supplies leading to famine and starvation. Cats kept the rodents managable and allowed for Humanity to reach the point in our evolution where it is possible to even consider giving up animal protein.

Evidence?

Is the morally responsible thing to do now really to exterminate them now that we don't need them anymore (if indeed we don't)?

Are you arguing that we "owe them" in some sort of interspecies, trans-temporal sense?

And if there were a toad as intelligent as a cat, as social as a cat, and as useful as a cat, we'd keep them as pets. So what?

I find that unlikely.

The fact of the matter is that cats do exist and they do require animal protein to be healthy. It is our responsibility as the species who dragged them out of the desert 4000 years ago to provide this for them.

It looks like you are indeed arguing that we "owe them".

How does this work? Do we also owe some kind of moral debt to every species we've domesticated, relocated, driven to extinction, driven near extinction, hunted or what-have-you? Do these obligations apply to individual animals in any way, shape or form or are they owed to some metaphysical concept like "the species as a whole"?

I find it hard to believe that's your real position, but if so please elaborate on it.

GreNME

13th July 2009, 06:24 AM

Cain, I think we're getting somewhere, but due to external things out of my control and me not wanting to get bogged down in semantical discussion, I'm going to focus on what I think is a key point in your last post rather that the whole thing.

I think you missed the point of what I wrote. Vegetarians are not the only ones who can lay claim to the idea that harming animals is "wrong" as a general rule. The difference is in the line drawn between where the point of "wrong" basically lies. You again assert that this is a moral issue that takes priority, but again this only works if there's a predetermined conclusion of the harm and the wrong-ness of the harm. It still essentially begins by working backward from the conclusion, which is demonstrably not universally accepted as the same thing to everyone.

That's not quite what I'm saying, but it's a world and a half closer than volatile or Kevin has gotten in this thread, so this is meaningful. I'm not necessarily saying that this is a moral issue. I would agree with the assertion that causing harm or violence or death for what are perceived as trivial reasons would indeed count as a moral issue, and I also recognize that this is key to what you're arguing. However, the difference in where the line you mention lies is not in the moral "wrong" of raising, killing, and eating animals, but in the assertion of it counting as trivial. This crosses a line for your argument into the area of moral issues, I agree, but for those who do not have that same line it isn't crossing over into that moral issue. I'm not arguing that either side in a difference on that valuation "line" is superior to the other, but I am pointing out that while it may be a moral issue for one that does not necessitate it being a moral issue for the other.

You brought up the pro-life issue of that debate being a moral issue, and I agree with you there as well. However, I disagree in principle on the idea that if one side turns the debate toward a moral issue that it must be addressed as a moral issue by both. That simply assigns too much unearned authority to one side of an argument and it skews critical examination of the debate on both sides. With the pro-life arguments I am under no obligation to patronize the assertions of 'life' beginning at the point of conception, because that sort of assertion isn't even supported by anything but a spiritualist or religious/magical belief in what happens. Without the spiritual/magical/religious belief in the equation, the line between 'life' and 'not life' becomes somewhat more arbitrary, often moving closer to the point of viability of a fetus to survive on its own. When talking about a viable fetus, then again I would agree there are moral considerations that should be addressed, but before that point I still do not agree that is the case. Additionally, the "intent" I spoke of earlier was also not clearly expressed by myself, because that meant the intent of the mother to carry the zygote/fetus to a viable term, not for anyone else. Perhaps I'm applying a bit heavily a feminist ethic here, but the only way I could see that interpreted as a moral issue is if it becomes one of forcing women to endure something they are not inclined to endure due to a vague definition of 'life'. However, this is where the abortion debate (or any general example) begins to lose efficacy, because there are granular points and issues that begin to diverge away from the general argument into specific sub-arguments that are less applicable on a 1::1 basis to the original argument the example was brought up for. The further we diverge from the original idea behind bringing up the example, the less realistically applicable it tends to become. So, on the issue of abortion used as an example, I'll simply say that I feel we may agree on some points but not necessarily on the point that moral considerations from one side need to be addressed fully by the other.

GreNME

13th July 2009, 06:42 AM

House cats are an animal that made civilization possible in the Western hemisphere. Before the domestication of the cat, rodents tore through stored food supplies leading to famine and starvation. Cats kept the rodents managable and allowed for Humanity to reach the point in our evolution where it is possible to even consider giving up animal protein.
Evidence?

:rolleyes:

While his hyperbole that cats were some nexus that made the difference (I'd argue it was dogs and sheep, but only in teasing) is a bit strong, Rogue1stclass is correct in the description of how cats who domesticated contributed to the development of humans society, and not just on the Western side.

Linky 1 (http://www.chicagotribune.com/services/newspaper/premium/chi-catsjun29,0,6078075.story), Linky 2 (http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSN2836309320070628), Cited Study (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/317/5837/519) (in previous two links)

Perhaps you should learn you a few books instead of arguing from incredulity, Kevin. It may help you to seem like less... inadequate. The domestic species that exist today are tied to human civilization going back for millennia, often to the very dawn of what we qualify as "civilization" in terms of history and anthropology. While I don't think I agree fully with the moral case Rogue1stclass makes, your incredulous dismissal shows just how much you're arguing from ignorance.

Kevin_Lowe

13th July 2009, 07:13 AM

:rolleyes:

While his hyperbole that cats were some nexus that made the difference (I'd argue it was dogs and sheep, but only in teasing) is a bit strong, Rogue1stclass is correct in the description of how cats who domesticated contributed to the development of humans society, and not just on the Western side.

This is akin to defending someone who got called out after claiming that Belgium won WW2 singlehandedly by saying "Maybe that was a bit of hyperbole, but Belgium did fight in WW2. Perhaps you should learn you a few books before you argue from ignorance!".

Perhaps you should learn you a few books instead of arguing from incredulity, Kevin. It may help you to seem like less... inadequate. The domestic species that exist today are tied to human civilization going back for millennia, often to the very dawn of what we qualify as "civilization" in terms of history and anthropology. While I don't think I agree fully with the moral case Rogue1stclass makes, your incredulous dismissal shows just how much you're arguing from ignorance.

Firstly, asking for evidence is not the same thing as advancing an argument from ignorance. As ways of embarrassing yourself on a skeptic's discussion board go, this claim of yours stands out as an exceptional one, even for you and even for this thread.

Secondly, the claim that I was incredulous of (and still am incredulous of) is not that domesticated cats have been around a long time, but that "House cats are an animal that made civilization possible in the Western hemisphere". If you've got some evidence for that claim I'm sure we'd all like to see it.

tyr_13

13th July 2009, 07:35 AM

(derail)

Interesting note about cats. They were self-domesticating. We didn't make any real attempts to train them at first. They just started showing up where the food was, we started feeding them, and then we started worshiping them. They act like gods because we treat them that way.

(/derail)

Cain

13th July 2009, 07:35 AM

The question isn't whether they should be allowed out, but whether they should exist at all. To keep a cat alive and healthy, other animals have to die.

Should Felis catus be made extinct?

This is a false dichotomy, the one usually pitched on behalf of "livestock." Just because we stop breeding animals does not mean they will cease to exist as a species. Besides, cats are clever; they're survivors.

If so, how exactly is this valuing animal life?

I think you've established that already in at least two of your posts: cats are carnivores who feed off other animals.

House cats are an animal that made civilization possible in the Western hemisphere. Before the domestication of the cat, rodents tore through stored food supplies leading to famine and starvation. Cats kept the rodents managable and allowed for Humanity to reach the point in our evolution where it is possible to even consider giving up animal protein.
...
It is our responsibility as the species who dragged them out of the desert 4000 years ago to provide this for them.

These are just bad arguments and, incidentally, much, much weaker than the kind favoring reparations to descendants of slaves. Simply because cats proved beneficial to us through the centuries does not mean we have a special obligation to their species as a whole. If we do ever do manage to grow meat in a vat, do you think it follows we should keep tens of millions of cows around because their ancestors died for us?

In an economic sense -- and a response to crude sociobiologists into gene maximization -- it's crazy how people spend hundreds of dollars a year on pet food while humans go to sleep hungry (and something like 1/3 of pets are overweight).

A better argument for your position would ignore cats' historic utility and say, "Look, my cat's a member of my family, and you think I should kill it? You're messing with my family." As it stands, your argument suggests people may not have as good a reason for keeping other animals as members of their families.
-----------------------
GreNME:
However, the difference in where the line you mention lies is not in the moral "wrong" of raising, killing, and eating animals, but in the assertion of it counting as trivial. This crosses a line for your argument into the area of moral issues, I agree, but for those who do not have that same line it isn't crossing over into that moral issue. I'm not arguing that either side in a difference on that valuation "line" is superior to the other, but I am pointing out that while it may be a moral issue for one that does not necessitate it being a moral issue for the other.

Just because people may sincerely view an activity in an amoral light does not mean that it's an amoral issue. We can think of captains of industry who do things that wreak havoc on the environment, families, and so on, but to them they're bringing a "product" to "market," responding to the "laws of supply and demand."

On pro-lifers framing abortion as a moral issue:
That simply assigns too much unearned authority to one side of an argument and it skews critical examination of the debate on both sides. With the pro-life arguments I am under no obligation to patronize the assertions of 'life' beginning at the point of conception, because that sort of assertion isn't even supported by anything but a spiritualist or religious/magical belief in what happens.

I partially agree, which is why earlier I had attempted to clarify with a different example. In a better world abortion -- especially first term abortions -- are not considered moral or immoral. The fact Americans have as many abortions as they do points to their stupidity (or ignorance) rather than immorality on account of the fact that there is a literally a pill that can be taken to prevent pregnancy, along with many other effective methods. In other words, abortion is a shockingly dumb form of birth control -- totally cost inefficient.

Let's change examples from abortion to masturbation and the religious claim that it's "immoral" (offending God for a trivial pleasure). Again, the first useful question to ask on almost any topic is "where's the harm?" In the case of animal rights, I think the harms are obvious and no longer seriously debated. Rogue says "No one is arguing that animals shouldn't receive moral consideration." Even religious people need to cast their arguments in terms of harm, but their understanding of the universe raises many fundamental questions: Does God exist? How do you know God says masturbation is wrong? How can I "harm" or even "offend" God -- isn't He all-powerful? If God does exist, and you know He disapproves of masturbation, doesn't this concern only God and myself? And so on. Is it worth harming God for the pleasure of ejaculating? Well, we reject the first part right off, so what difference does it make? You, however, agreed to the first in our application -- animals are worthy of our moral consideration, so it doesn't matter whether you consider reasons non-trivial because non-trivial here really reads as "justified." The issue is inescapably moral because interests are at stake.

GreNME

13th July 2009, 08:04 AM

This is akin to defending someone who got called out after claiming that Belgium won WW2 singlehandedly by saying "Maybe that was a bit of hyperbole, but Belgium did fight in WW2. Perhaps you should learn you a few books before you argue from ignorance!".

Which is a good example of you continuing to argue from ignorance. The reality is that domestic animals-- in the case brought up specifically, domestic cats-- really did serve not only a useful purpose in the development of human civilization, but a crucial one that addressed a problem early humans who were building civilization faced. Again, in the case of cats, it was pest control first and foremost, with the more social of the creatures evolving into house pets and not simply food-storage-area (outside) pets.

Firstly, asking for evidence is not the same thing as advancing an argument from ignorance. As ways of embarrassing yourself on a skeptic's discussion board go, this claim of yours stands out as an exceptional one, even for you and even for this thread.

There's a difference between requiring evidence for an outrageous claim and demanding proof of something that's not only well-accepted as historical and anthropological certainty, but is easily found using a simple google search for verification. Demanding a citation for any little bit of information that counters your own ignorance is not behaving skeptically, it's arguing from incredulity.

Secondly, the claim that I was incredulous of (and still am incredulous of) is not that domesticated cats have been around a long time, but that "House cats are an animal that made civilization possible in the Western hemisphere". If you've got some evidence for that claim I'm sure we'd all like to see it.

You're obviously still arguing from incredulity, because I pointed out the scientific study that the first two links I gave referenced, a study that has also gone on to be cited in several scientific studies on similar subject matter since its publication. Domestic cats were one of the species that made the transition from hunter-gatherer to agrarian and sedentary societies possible by removing one of the major factors limiting the food storage problem (pests). That you continue to disbelieve in the face of evidence presented supporting that claim displays your argument from incredulity that much more.

Kevin_Lowe

13th July 2009, 08:28 AM

Which is a good example of you continuing to argue from ignorance. The reality is that domestic animals-- in the case brought up specifically, domestic cats-- really did serve not only a useful purpose in the development of human civilization, but a crucial one that addressed a problem early humans who were building civilization faced. Again, in the case of cats, it was pest control first and foremost, with the more social of the creatures evolving into house pets and not simply food-storage-area (outside) pets.

Evidence that this was crucial?

There's a difference between requiring evidence for an outrageous claim and demanding proof of something that's not only well-accepted as historical and anthropological certainty, but is easily found using a simple google search for verification. Demanding a citation for any little bit of information that counters your own ignorance is not behaving skeptically, it's arguing from incredulity.

If it's that well-accepted then one of you might be able to provide evidence.

You're obviously still arguing from incredulity, because I pointed out the scientific study that the first two links I gave referenced, a study that has also gone on to be cited in several scientific studies on similar subject matter since its publication. Domestic cats were one of the species that made the transition from hunter-gatherer to agrarian and sedentary societies possible by removing one of the major factors limiting the food storage problem (pests). That you continue to disbelieve in the face of evidence presented supporting that claim displays your argument from incredulity that much more.

The first link includes very brief mention of some guy being quoted as saying that domestic cats were "critical" to early agriculture, as an aside to the main point of the article. No other evidence is provided.

The second two links have absolutely nothing to do with the issue of cats as being necessary for agriculture or civilization.

The scientific study you reference has nothing to do with the issue of cats being necessary for agriculture or civilization.

What did I say earlier about posters aping the style of rationality without grasping the substance? It's not enough to call out the names of logical fallacies and cite scientific studies at random.

GreNME

13th July 2009, 09:10 AM

Just because people may sincerely view an activity in an amoral light does not mean that it's an amoral issue. We can think of captains of industry who do things that wreak havoc on the environment, families, and so on, but to them they're bringing a "product" to "market," responding to the "laws of supply and demand."

Indeed, simply asserting it's an amoral issue is definitely not enough to make it a moral issue. However, that places us at an impasse, since neither of us asserting one way or the other automagically makes it a moral or amoral issue. As such, it would make sense that providing an argument that establishes the moral argument instead of working from a pre-supposed assumption of the moral argument makes more sense in this light, does it not?

On pro-lifers framing abortion as a moral issue:

I partially agree, which is why earlier I had attempted to clarify with a different example. In a better world abortion -- especially first term abortions -- are not considered moral or immoral. The fact Americans have as many abortions as they do points to their stupidity (or ignorance) rather than immorality on account of the fact that there is a literally a pill that can be taken to prevent pregnancy, along with many other effective methods. In other words, abortion is a shockingly dumb form of birth control -- totally cost inefficient.

I think I can mostly agree with your assessment there.

Let's change examples from abortion to masturbation and the religious claim that it's "immoral" (offending God for a trivial pleasure). Again, the first useful question to ask on almost any topic is "where's the harm?" In the case of animal rights, I think the harms are obvious and no longer seriously debated. Rogue says "No one is arguing that animals shouldn't receive moral consideration." Even religious people need to cast their arguments in terms of harm, but their understanding of the universe raises many fundamental questions: Does God exist? How do you know God says masturbation is wrong? How can I "harm" or even "offend" God -- isn't He all-powerful? If God does exist, and you know He disapproves of masturbation, doesn't this concern only God and myself? And so on. Is it worth harming God for the pleasure of ejaculating? Well, we reject the first part right off, so what difference does it make? You, however, agreed to the first in our application -- animals are worthy of our moral consideration, so it doesn't matter whether you consider reasons non-trivial because non-trivial here really reads as "justified." The issue is inescapably moral because interests are at stake.

I was in (near) agreement with you right up to the last two sentences. The two sentences "animals can be worthy of moral consideration" (which is closer to what I agreed on) and "animals can be domesticated for food" are not conflicting statements, because the statement that animals can be considered on moral grounds does not necessitate their being used for food as a required moral subject (except as part of the statements you're making). Essentially, putting it in terms of my alternative argument that there is good reason to lower consumption (but not remove it completely), the reasoning for a change in consumption does not necessitate using moral grounds to come to the conclusion. To use your example, while masturbation in and of itself may not be a problem, public masturbation (or impulsive masturbation at any time during the course of the day, which risks numerous instances of public masturbation) is something I would say I have a problem with, though on social and practical terms and not moral ones. Sure, a moral argument could be put forth, but it isn't necessary to the ends of viewing public masturbation as wrong (in this case, keeping it illegal).

Again, this boils down to where the line is drawn concerning what constitutes the "wrong" (in this case, eating meat). While I can acknowledge the reasoning you have for your line being drawn where it is, that does not mean I agree that is where the line should be drawn and have not been convinced through the arguments using a moral basis that there is an underlying moral reasoning that would compel everyone. Feel free to write that off as me essentially saying "what works for some doesn't necessarily work for all," but again this is the subjectivity of the issue coming into play.

GreNME

13th July 2009, 09:22 AM

Evidence that this was crucial?

If it's that well-accepted then one of you might be able to provide evidence.

The first link includes very brief mention of some guy being quoted as saying that domestic cats were "critical" to early agriculture, as an aside to the main point of the article. No other evidence is provided.

The second two links have absolutely nothing to do with the issue of cats as being necessary for agriculture or civilization.

The scientific study you reference has nothing to do with the issue of cats being necessary for agriculture or civilization.

What did I say earlier about posters aping the style of rationality without grasping the substance? It's not enough to call out the names of logical fallacies and cite scientific studies at random.

Your attempts to grasp at straws have been noted, as well as your inability to read the evidence presented.

The fact is that there is a noticeable and measurable causal relationship between domestic animals and the establishment of human civilization (as the study establishes). One of the examples within the study involves how cats domesticated as pest control, particularly in the Fertile Crescent and moving outward (as society grew). You're really going to great lengths to deny this evidence, and at this point it seems that you're taking Truther methodology and demanding that the precise wording you want in order to drop your incredulity be presented for you instead of the evidences that are in existence where the data that proves your incredulity wrong are part of the examples of a larger commentary (in this case, on the development of human civilization).

Seriously, Kevin, arguing with you about this is getting to be like arguments with Dotty Murdock's followers, who seem to think that there should be some evidence existing out there stating explicitly that Horus and Jesus were not the same mythical figure, or else their rejection of the reams of evidence that runs contrary to their ignorance is somehow justified. Get over it. There are not going to be scientific publications that say "cat's made civilization possible" out there. There are, however, existent pulications on the development of human civilization, and on the whole whenever any of the factors are listed that were integral in mankind establishing civilization, domestication of animals (including cats) are near the top of the list in terms of direct and necessary causal relationships. Stop being so deliberately obtuse to the information provided and reacting so knee-jerk every time your ignorance is pointed out.

realpaladin

13th July 2009, 11:45 AM

Any one side convinced any of the other side yet? PM me when that happens, ok?

Rogue1stclass

13th July 2009, 12:05 PM

We could keep a few in zoos I guess. Or we could have a market in road kill and other ethical cat food. I don't foresee us getting to that point in the next few generations though.

In a few generations, it will likely be a moot point, as the cloning of animal tissue in isolation will probably be practical.

I can't make sense of the question "If so, how exactly is this valuing animal life?". I'm not sure what assumptions could underly a question like that.

Cats can't help what they are or what they need to eat. To condem them for this is not valuing animal life. It is either "favoring" prey species or anthropomorphication.

I put "favor" in quotes because protecting prey species from predation is hardly doing them any favors. These species are design to survive despite predation, and taking that out of the equation will increase the suffering by more individuals long term.

Evidence?

This from a modern guide on grain storage found here: http://www.fao.org/docrep/t1838e/T1838E1L.HTM

...Once a large population of rodents has established itself in a store considerable losses, that cannot be retrieved, have already occurred and subsequent control action is expensive...

Normally predation will not keep rats and mice at economic population levels. One exception is the keeping of cats. Cats do not directly control rats and mice by feeding on them. It is their presence, which keeps most rats and mice away. A survey conducted in a Myanmar village has clearly shown that households with cats had no rats while those without cats in the same village were visited by rats.

Bolding mine. Keep in mind, this is with modern agriculture and storage technigues. 4000 years ago, "considerable losses" meant people didn't eat.

Also, it seems we are not done with cats, after all.

Are you arguing that we "owe them" in some sort of interspecies, trans-temporal sense?

How is that any different than owing cows in some vague, abstract moral sense.

I find that unlikely.

The popularity of monitor lizards in the pet trade says otherwise, and they have none of the advantages of a cat.

It looks like you are indeed arguing that we "owe them".

How does this work? Do we also owe some kind of moral debt to every species we've domesticated, relocated, driven to extinction, driven near extinction, hunted or what-have-you? Do these obligations apply to individual animals in any way, shape or form or are they owed to some metaphysical concept like "the species as a whole"?

I find it hard to believe that's your real position, but if so please elaborate on it.

So, we don't owe a moral debt to animals?

Awesome, debate solved.

Seriously, I have difficultly believing your position too. You are essentially arguing that we should cause the deaths of millions of animals so that you won't feel bad about them suffering or causing suffering. Further, you are arguing that this is somehow better for the animals themselves.

Tell me, is it better to be born in slavery, or not at all? What if you have absolutely no concept of what slavery is, much less that you are in it?

Cain

13th July 2009, 03:35 PM

Feel free to write that off as me essentially saying "what works for some doesn't necessarily work for all," but again this is the subjectivity of the issue coming into play.

Again, it's a moral issue when you're interfering with the affairs of others, especially in a violent way. This is just a horribly meaningless tangent.

GreNME

13th July 2009, 03:40 PM

Again, it's a moral issue when you're interfering with the affairs of others, especially in a violent way. This is just a horribly meaningless tangent.

I don't think it's a tangent. The value you're using to call it interfering with the affairs of others-- other whats? people? individuals?-- is where the difference comes in, provided you're responding to my statement about the subjectivity of the issue.

Kevin_Lowe

13th July 2009, 04:18 PM

Your attempts to grasp at straws have been noted, as well as your inability to read the evidence presented.

"Grasping at straws"? I think you should look in the mirror. You're trying to defend an extraordinary claim (that cats were necessary for civilisation), by extrapolating wildly from snippets and asides, and lying outright about the content of scientific papers.

The fact is that there is a noticeable and measurable causal relationship between domestic animals and the establishment of human civilization (as the study establishes).

Now you're taking correlation for causation. Are you trying to be nice to people playing fallacy bingo at home by employing all the major ones, or are you really this clueless?

Just because wild cats moved in with humans shortly after humans started stockpiling grain (and hence stockpiling rodents), because their prey was there, does not entail the conclusion that they saved civilisation by showing up.

One of the examples within the study involves how cats domesticated as pest control, particularly in the Fertile Crescent and moving outward (as society grew). You're really going to great lengths to deny this evidence, and at this point it seems that you're taking Truther methodology and demanding that the precise wording you want in order to drop your incredulity be presented for you instead of the evidences that are in existence where the data that proves your incredulity wrong are part of the examples of a larger commentary (in this case, on the development of human civilization).

Now you're comparing people to Truthers, because you've seen people do that and you think it's clever.

Look, GreNME, there's more to this skepticism business than trying to copy the terms used as best you can. You also have to think. I realise that you want this claim to be true because then you'd have scored a point, but the whole point of skepticism is reserving belief until you see some proper evidence.

You've got absolutely no direct evidence that cats are necessary to agriculture, and there's an obvious alternative hypothesis to explain the facts, which is that agriculture causes cats to show up, rather than cats enabling agriculture to work.

Seriously, Kevin, arguing with you about this is getting to be like arguments with Dotty Murdock's followers, who seem to think that there should be some evidence existing out there stating explicitly that Horus and Jesus were not the same mythical figure, or else their rejection of the reams of evidence that runs contrary to their ignorance is somehow justified. Get over it. There are not going to be scientific publications that say "cat's made civilization possible" out there. There are, however, existent pulications on the development of human civilization, and on the whole whenever any of the factors are listed that were integral in mankind establishing civilization, domestication of animals (including cats) are near the top of the list in terms of direct and necessary causal relationships. Stop being so deliberately obtuse to the information provided and reacting so knee-jerk every time your ignorance is pointed out.

So now you're comparing me to Dotty's followers (because you've seen the big kids doing that and want to copy them), and at the same time admitting that you are never going to find any evidence for the claim you are supporting. Classy.

All you have is evidence that domestication in general was vital to civilisation, which nobody was contesting in the first place.

You're really scraping the bottom of the barrel here. This issue isn't even relevant to the main thread topic, but you're still desperately casting about trying to prove me wrong about something, no matter what it is or how you do it.

To Rogue1stclass

Cats can't help what they are or what they need to eat. To condem them for this is not valuing animal life. It is either "favoring" prey species or anthropomorphication.

I put "favor" in quotes because protecting prey species from predation is hardly doing them any favors. These species are design to survive despite predation, and taking that out of the equation will increase the suffering by more individuals long term.

There's so much wrong here I barely know where to start. The animal rights position usually starts from the premise that individual animals have rights, not that metaphysical entities like species' have rights and individual animals do not. If your premise is that individual animals have rights it's entirely consistent to say that keeping an animal which kills lots of other animals is a bad idea.

As for the predation avoiding suffering argument, that's a highly specific one that only applies to prey species prone to boom/bust breeding cycles where cats are the main controlling factor. Can you name any particular species' of prey animals in suburbia that would suffer or breed out of control as a result of housecats disappearing?

This from a modern guide on grain storage found here: http://www.fao.org/docrep/t1838e/T1838E1L.HTM

Bolding mine. Keep in mind, this is with modern agriculture and storage technigues. 4000 years ago, "considerable losses" meant people didn't eat.

That's a huge leap. You got from "considerable losses" to "civilisation would not have happened" in one mighty jump to the conclusion you wanted. Wouldn't it be easier to admit that you just made that claim up, or heard it on some daft cat-fancier web site, and now you've thought about it the claim might actually be a load of rubbish?

How is that any different than owing cows in some vague, abstract moral sense.

As I said above, the animal rights position usually starts from the premise that individual animals have moral importance. It does not start from the premise that we owe historical debts to species' as a whole because of what happened millennia ago.

The popularity of monitor lizards in the pet trade says otherwise, and they have none of the advantages of a cat.

Do I need to post pictures of monitor lizards and toads?

So, we don't owe a moral debt to animals?

Awesome, debate solved.

Not so fast. If I denied, say, that modern USians owed something to descendants of slaves because of how their ancestors were treated, would it follow that descendants of slaves had no moral status whatsoever? Or could it be possible that the descendants of slaves were still moral entities worthy of consideration, even if modern USians didn't "owe them" for historical injustices?

I also noticed that you completely ignored some very important questions I put to you. Do we also owe some kind of moral debt to every species we've domesticated, relocated, driven to extinction, driven near extinction, hunted or what-have-you? Do these obligations apply to individual animals in any way, shape or form or are they owed to some metaphysical concept like "the species as a whole"?

I think that it's going to turn out that you do not actually hold to this "owe them" story consistently. I think it's going to turn out that you just pulled this story out to defend cat ownership, and that you aren't willing to apply the concept of "owing them" to every other species we've historically interacted with.

As I kept saying to RandFan, consistency is a prerequisite for rationality. I don't think you hold this position consistently, and I don't think it's a rational position.

Seriously, I have difficultly believing your position too. You are essentially arguing that we should cause the deaths of millions of animals so that you won't feel bad about them suffering or causing suffering. Further, you are arguing that this is somehow better for the animals themselves.

If those millions of animals are going to torture and kill hundreds of millions of animals, yes, I'd say the world would be a better place without those millions.

Tell me, is it better to be born in slavery, or not at all? What if you have absolutely no concept of what slavery is, much less that you are in it?

Say what? What does this have to do with cats killing other animals? Granted PETA morally equates domestication with slavery, but I don't think any posters here have been doing so.

GreNME

13th July 2009, 05:19 PM

You've got absolutely no direct evidence that cats are necessary to agriculture, and there's an obvious alternative hypothesis to explain the facts, which is that agriculture causes cats to show up, rather than cats enabling agriculture to work.

Along with the "lessons in skepticism" and "philosophy 101" from Kevin Lowe, now we have more ridiculous strawmen.

Seriously, Kevin, just stop backpedaling into strawmen like that. You're arguing yourself into a corner. Again. Either address what I've actually pointed out or just admit that there was something about what is now a common pet that you didn't realize. You don't have to come at this like such a fanatic.

Kevin_Lowe

13th July 2009, 07:06 PM

Along with the "lessons in skepticism" and "philosophy 101" from Kevin Lowe, now we have more ridiculous strawmen.

That was Rogue1stclass's claim. Look, since you're lying about it now I'll quote it again.

T
House cats are an animal that made civilization possible in the Western hemisphere. Before the domestication of the cat, rodents tore through stored food supplies leading to famine and starvation. Cats kept the rodents managable and allowed for Humanity to reach the point in our evolution where it is possible to even consider giving up animal protein.

There. That's the claim I wanted to see evidence for. You can try shifting the goalposts to "cats help keep rodents away", or "domestication of animals made civilisation possible, and cats are animals", but it's not going to work.

Seriously, Kevin, just stop backpedaling into strawmen like that. You're arguing yourself into a corner. Again. Either address what I've actually pointed out or just admit that there was something about what is now a common pet that you didn't realize. You don't have to come at this like such a fanatic.

"Backpedaling" and "straw man" are two more terms you've obviously picked up around here but can't quite use appropriately yet.

As usual I've been completely consistent and replied to the arguments actually made, and you're arguing in some fantasy world that exists only inside your own head.

You keep acting like it's news to me that domesticated cats have been around since the dawn of civilisation. It's not news to me, and it's not the claim I was taking issue with. Perhaps more importantly, even if it was news to me it would still be completely irrelevant to the thread topic, and your pursuit of that point while ignoring the thread topic just indicates you've got nothing meaningful to contribute.

GreNME

13th July 2009, 09:12 PM

That was Rogue1stclass's claim. Look, since you're lying about it now I'll quote it again.

House cats are an animal that made civilization possible in the Western hemisphere. Before the domestication of the cat, rodents tore through stored food supplies leading to famine and starvation. Cats kept the rodents managable and allowed for Humanity to reach the point in our evolution where it is possible to even consider giving up animal protein.

There. That's the claim I wanted to see evidence for. You can try shifting the goalposts to "cats help keep rodents away", or "domestication of animals made civilisation possible, and cats are animals", but it's not going to work.

And I already pointed out the hyperbole, and where it was incorrect. It wasn't just cats that made civilization possible, it was domestication of animals (which included cats) that made it possible. I then provided the evidence that supports it. You're refusing to acknowledge it, instead intent on trying to get Rogue1stclass to continue arguing nonsense-- which seems to be what you're good at.

"Backpedaling" and "straw man" are two more terms you've obviously picked up around here but can't quite use appropriately yet.

Your "obvious alternative hypothesis to explain the facts" (your own words) was the backpedaling, your hyper-literalism even after the the overblown rhetoric was pointed out (and corrected, with citation) was (and is) your strawman. Your assumption of intellectual superiority is your own personal problem.

As usual I've been completely consistent and replied to the arguments actually made, and you're arguing in some fantasy world that exists only inside your own head.

Are you always the hero in your little epics?

You keep acting like it's news to me that domesticated cats have been around since the dawn of civilisation. It's not news to me, and it's not the claim I was taking issue with. Perhaps more importantly, even if it was news to me it would still be completely irrelevant to the thread topic, and your pursuit of that point while ignoring the thread topic just indicates you've got nothing meaningful to contribute.

In case you missed it, Cain and I have been having a civil and useful exchange for a couple pages now. Of course, with your civility filter on backward I can understand how you've missed more meaningful posts.

Rogue1stclass

13th July 2009, 09:38 PM

Missed this one earlier.

This is a false dichotomy, the one usually pitched on behalf of "livestock." Just because we stop breeding animals does not mean they will cease to exist as a species. Besides, cats are clever; they're survivors.

I was specifically addressing a PETAish pattern of extermination. The cessation of breeding is a less extreme position, but it still does not address what we are to do about the animals that exist in the here and now. The average lifespan of a cat is around 15 years, with examples living up to twice that. Do we or do we no have a moral responsibility to provide for those animals for that period?

I think you've established that already in at least two of your posts: cats are carnivores who feed off other animals.

So an animal's life is worth less dependant on features that it can't control? Is this actually something you would like to argue?

These are just bad arguments and, incidentally, much, much weaker than the kind favoring reparations to descendants of slaves. Simply because cats proved beneficial to us through the centuries does not mean we have a special obligation to their species as a whole. If we do ever do manage to grow meat in a vat, do you think it follows we should keep tens of millions of cows around because their ancestors died for us?

I disagree. If an animal's life is comparable in value to a human's, then we still have an obligation to consider it's needs regardless of it's benefit to us. You can weigh things like the amount of cats fed verses the amount of "harm" done to cattle, but to say that "we don't need you anymore, so we are going to phase you out like vaccuum tubes" is not an acceptable answer.

In an economic sense -- and a response to crude sociobiologists into gene maximization -- it's crazy how people spend hundreds of dollars a year on pet food while humans go to sleep hungry (and something like 1/3 of pets are overweight).

Yes. It's also crazy how many people spend hundreds of dollars a year for internet access so they can argue with strangers on line for those same reasons. Yet here we are.

A better argument for your position would ignore cats' historic utility and say, "Look, my cat's a member of my family, and you think I should kill it? You're messing with my family." As it stands, your argument suggests people may not have as good a reason for keeping other animals as members of their families.

The cat's historic utility was incidentally to my argument. My argument is that cats are here now--out of the bag, so to speak--and by your own argument it is our responsibility to provide for them.

Kevin_Lowe

13th July 2009, 10:21 PM

And I already pointed out the hyperbole, and where it was incorrect. It wasn't just cats that made civilization possible, it was domestication of animals (which included cats) that made it possible. I then provided the evidence that supports it. You're refusing to acknowledge it, instead intent on trying to get Rogue1stclass to continue arguing nonsense-- which seems to be what you're good at.

Again, you're acting as if common knowledge is somehow news to us. You are patting yourself on the back for providing evidence for trivially true claims nobody was contesting in the first place.

Your "obvious alternative hypothesis to explain the facts" (your own words) was the backpedaling

Sorry, you don't understand the words you are using.

Backpedalling is when a person retreats from a previously stated position to a safer one. Say, retreating from "cats are responsible for Western civilisation" to "cats help keep rodents out of grain stores".

Explaining that correlation is not causation, and providing an alternative hypothesis for the sake of illustration in which the arrow of causation goes in the opposite direction is not backpedalling. It's supporting my original position, which was skepticism towards the claim that cats are responsible for Western civilisation.

, your hyper-literalism even after the the overblown rhetoric was pointed out (and corrected, with citation) was (and is) your strawman. Your assumption of intellectual superiority is your own personal problem.

I can see how my style of writing seems like "hyper-literalism" to you. I actually respond to what people say, not to what I wished they had said or what I think they said after skim-reading it.

Next bit of skeptical education for you: Proper use of the term "straw man".

A "straw man" is when someone ignores the actual argument put forward by another poster, and makes up their own "straw man" version of the argument which is easier for them to attack. Then they attack the straw man.

In this case, my actual position was "I am skeptical of the claim that cats were responsible for the development of civilisation". That's not a straw man, because that was Rogue1stclass's actual claim which they have still not retracted or supported. It doesn't become a straw man just because you afterwards tried to change the subject, either. As long as it's still Rogue1stclass's actual position it cannot be a straw man.

You jumped in and started posting stuff that was irrelevant to that argument, while claiming it was relevant. I'm not sure whether you just got confused or whether you were actually being mendacious. Then you backpedalled (see how I use the term correctly?) and started claiming that you had really only been arguing that the domestication of animals was responsible for civilisation. However unless Rogue1stclass is your sock, just because you backpedal doesn't mean that he has backpedalled.

Rogue1stclass

14th July 2009, 12:12 AM

To Rogue1stclass[/b]

[quote]There's so much wrong here I barely know where to start. The animal rights position usually starts from the premise that individual animals have rights, not that metaphysical entities like species' have rights and individual animals do not. If your premise is that individual animals have rights it's entirely consistent to say that keeping an animal which kills lots of other animals is a bad idea.

You seem stuck in some kind of word game.

I don't have any interest in doing that, so I'll just restate.

A cat cannot help what it needs to eat. To condemn the cat for this is not valuing animal life. It is valuing the life of the animals it needs to eat.

As for the predation avoiding suffering argument, that's a highly specific one that only applies to prey species prone to boom/bust breeding cycles where cats are the main controlling factor. Can you name any particular species' of prey animals in suburbia that would suffer or breed out of control as a result of housecats disappearing?

I was speaking specifically about domesticated livestock. All domestic livestock will overproduce if checks are not made on them. They were kind of designed that way.

That's a huge leap. You got from "considerable losses" to "civilisation would not have happened" in one mighty jump to the conclusion you wanted. Wouldn't it be easier to admit that you just made that claim up, or heard it on some daft cat-fancier web site, and now you've thought about it the claim might actually be a load of rubbish?

Ya know, you've quoted my post like 4 times, try to actually read it. "House cats are an animal that made civilization possible in the Western Hemisphere". That's a very qualified claim that both myself and GreNME have posted evidence for. Inflating it out to "civilization would not have happened without cats" is something that happened in your head.

Further, I specified the ways in cats helped early civilizations. They helped control rodents in food stores. Would you not agree that unchecked, rodents will decimate food stores? Would you not agree that having food stores is one of the reasons that people began to congragrate in villages and cities, and access to these stores allowed people to move from subsistance farming into specializations such as masonary and government?

If not, then you are arguing against one of the basic tenents of anthropology.

As I said above, the animal rights position usually starts from the premise that individual animals have moral importance. It does not start from the premise that we owe historical debts to species' as a whole because of what happened millennia ago.

Well, because of that importance, those animals are here now. They have a genetic deficiency that causes to sicken and die if not fed a certain diet. They can't help that, they didn't ask to be here. Do we just not consider that at all?

Do I need to post pictures of monitor lizards and toads?

Sure, start with the most popular species, Varanus exanthema.

Not so fast. If I denied, say, that modern USians owed something to descendants of slaves because of how their ancestors were treated, would it follow that descendants of slaves had no moral status whatsoever? Or could it be possible that the descendants of slaves were still moral entities worthy of consideration, even if modern USians didn't "owe them" for historical injustices?

But those are not your options with cats. You have the option to either meet their needs, or not. I you choose "not", then all moral consideration means is that you'll usher them into extinction more gently.

I also noticed that you completely ignored some very important questions I put to you. Do we also owe some kind of moral debt to every species we've domesticated, relocated, driven to extinction, driven near extinction, hunted or what-have-you? Do these obligations apply to individual animals in any way, shape or form or are they owed to some metaphysical concept like "the species as a whole"?

You seem to having issues with the concept of species. I suggest you take the matter up with the entire science of biology.

I think that it's going to turn out that you do not actually hold to this "owe them" story consistently. I think it's going to turn out that you just pulled this story out to defend cat ownership, and that you aren't willing to apply the concept of "owing them" to every other species we've historically interacted with.

As I kept saying to RandFan, consistency is a prerequisite for rationality. I don't think you hold this position consistently, and I don't think it's a rational position.

You'd be wrong. Yes, I feel that we do owe a duty to other animals, particularly those that we brought along with us into civilization. We owe the continuation of their species and the best lives we can provide for them. That some individuals have to die so that others can live, or even just live better, is a sad but unavoidable fact.

My education is in biology and anthropology. In these sciences, to paraphrase a classic, the lives of individuals don't amount to a hill of beans. What matters in the continuation and eventual evolution of species and societies. Sacrifices are and have to be made for those to happen.

In my personal life, I admit to being irrational. I value myself, my family, my girlfriend, my dog, my cat, my lizard, my snake and my squirrel more than I would other members of these species. I understand these are judgements based on emotion, and I'm fine with that.

If those millions of animals are going to torture and kill hundreds of millions of animals, yes, I'd say the world would be a better place without those millions.

And I'd disagree.

Say what? What does this have to do with cats killing other animals? Granted PETA morally equates domestication with slavery, but I don't think any posters here have been doing so.

It's late and I honestly don't remember where I was going with this. Probably something about the extinction of domestic cattle to keep them from suffering. I'm just going to agree that it had nothing to do with cats and let it go.

Rogue1stclass

14th July 2009, 04:14 AM

There. That's the claim I wanted to see evidence for. You can try shifting the goalposts to "cats help keep rodents away", or "domestication of animals made civilisation possible, and cats are animals", but it's not going to work.

I wanted to respond to this specifically to point out that I clearly said "an animal". "An" meaning "a particular kind amonst others" in this context. Are you claiming that cats did not have a hand in making civilization possible? On what do you base that claim?

GreNME

14th July 2009, 06:24 AM

Again, you're acting as if common knowledge is somehow news to us. You are patting yourself on the back for providing evidence for trivially true claims nobody was contesting in the first place.

You're making ridiculous arguments, Kevin. You hopped all over a hyperpolic statement in order to avoid the larger point Rogue1stclass was making regarding your line of argument that would lead logically to abandoning all domestic species. That you're now working so hard to try to explain yourself is only making your arguments seem that much less honest.

Great job.

Kevin_Lowe

14th July 2009, 06:41 PM

I wanted to respond to this specifically to point out that I clearly said "an animal". "An" meaning "a particular kind amonst others" in this context. Are you claiming that cats did not have a hand in making civilization possible? On what do you base that claim?

Second post first. I've quoted your entire remark in context twice now, but I guess I'm going to have to do it a third time. Here we go:

House cats are an animal that made civilization possible in the Western hemisphere. Before the domestication of the cat, rodents tore through stored food supplies leading to famine and starvation. Cats kept the rodents managable and allowed for Humanity to reach the point in our evolution where it is possible to even consider giving up animal protein.

There's no way you can spin that so that you really meant "House cats plus lots of other animals made civilization possible in the Western hemisphere".

Either stand by your words or retract them: don't insult our intelligence by claiming you meant something entirely different when the meaning of your statement was completely unambiguous.

You seem stuck in some kind of word game.

I don't have any interest in doing that, so I'll just restate.

If you don't understand my point you can always ask for clarification. To restate it: Individual animals are morally important because they can feel or suffer. That's the basis of the animal rights thesis.

Animal rights can't be based on some kind of cherry-picked debt to a species as a whole. If that was the basis I could, for example, torture a neutered cat to death for fun with no moral problems, since the species as a whole would go on unaffected.

A cat cannot help what it needs to eat. To condemn the cat for this is not valuing animal life. It is valuing the life of the animals it needs to eat.

Sometimes you need to make a choice between two bad outcomes. In this case, we can save the cat or we can save everything the cat is going to kill and/or have killed on its behalf. I can value the life of the cat and still value the life of all those other animals more.

I was speaking specifically about domesticated livestock. All domestic livestock will overproduce if checks are not made on them. They were kind of designed that way.

Am I going to have to quote you your own words again? You said "I put "favor" in quotes because protecting prey species from predation is hardly doing them any favors. These species are design to survive despite predation, and taking that out of the equation will increase the suffering by more individuals long term.".

How does that remark make any sense if you intended it to be about domesticated livestock, that we do protect from predation? How does that remark make any sense if you intended it to be about domesticated livestock, who will not breed out of control because we control when and how often they breed?

It looks to me like you lost the thread of the conversation.

Ya know, you've quoted my post like 4 times, try to actually read it. "House cats are an animal that made civilization possible in the Western Hemisphere". That's a very qualified claim that both myself and GreNME have posted evidence for. Inflating it out to "civilization would not have happened without cats" is something that happened in your head.

What? It's plain English. If X is what makes Y possible then without X, Y would not have been possible.

Further, I specified the ways in cats helped early civilizations. They helped control rodents in food stores. Would you not agree that unchecked, rodents will decimate food stores? Would you not agree that having food stores is one of the reasons that people began to congragrate in villages and cities, and access to these stores allowed people to move from subsistance farming into specializations such as masonary and government?

If not, then you are arguing against one of the basic tenents of anthropology.

Like GreNME you're arguing for points which nobody is arguing against. Nobody is saying that cats don't keep away rodents, or that rodents don't eat grain, or that food storage did not make larger communities possible.

The claim you are being asked to support is that cats made civilisation possible.

Well, because of that importance, those animals are here now. They have a genetic deficiency that causes to sicken and die if not fed a certain diet. They can't help that, they didn't ask to be here. Do we just not consider that at all?

Sure we consider it. We might, after considering it, still think that keeping them alive by killing other animals, or letting them kill other animals, is not the moral course of action.

You seem to having issues with the concept of species. I suggest you take the matter up with the entire science of biology.

You seem to be having issues with the concept of species. I suggest you take it up with the entire science of biology. A species is just a set of organisms which can successfully interbreed with each other, nothing more.

You'd be wrong. Yes, I feel that we do owe a duty to other animals, particularly those that we brought along with us into civilization. We owe the continuation of their species and the best lives we can provide for them. That some individuals have to die so that others can live, or even just live better, is a sad but unavoidable fact.

Okay, so answer the damn questions that I asked you twice already.

Do we also owe some kind of moral debt to every species we've domesticated, relocated, driven to extinction, driven near extinction, hunted or what-have-you? Do these obligations apply to individual animals in any way, shape or form or are they owed to some metaphysical concept like "the species as a whole"?

My education is in biology and anthropology. In these sciences, to paraphrase a classic, the lives of individuals don't amount to a hill of beans. What matters in the continuation and eventual evolution of species and societies. Sacrifices are and have to be made for those to happen.

Congratulations, you have found the naturalistic fallacy.

Belz...

15th July 2009, 04:15 AM

There's no way you can spin that so that you really meant "House cats plus lots of other animals made civilization possible in the Western hemisphere".

Actually, there can. I read it as saying "cats are [one of the animals] that made..."

Honestly, I can't see how you could miss that. In fact, even if you did miss it, wouldn't it be better to just say you didn't understand what he meant, therefore not blaming either him or yourself, and move on ? Or does this line of "argument" serve a purpose ?

Individual animals are morally important because they can feel or suffer. That's the basis of the animal rights thesis.

Interesting. Is that the only criterion ? I asked this before because it would mean that some humans don't qualify as morally important.

Sometimes you need to make a choice between two bad outcomes. In this case, we can save the cat or we can save everything the cat is going to kill and/or have killed on its behalf. I can value the life of the cat and still value the life of all those other animals more.

Or, to rephrase what you just said, we can save the human or we can save everything the human is going to kill and/or have killed on its behalf.

Rogue1stclass

15th July 2009, 03:58 PM

Kevin, I don't know what to tell you.

I could, once again, point out to you that "an animal" doesn't mean "the only thing" or even "the only animal"--by definition--but you haven't listened to this simple lesson of pre-school English yet, so why bother?

In fact, since you are showing a pattern of ignoring what anyone is saying in preference of your own lept-to conclusions and increasingly hostile superiority, why bother even having a conversation with you at all?

I mean, I answered your question about whether we have a sense of duty to whatever species because we have a sense of duty to all species, and yet you accuse me of not answering the question. How can one have a meaningful dialogue with that?

I'm not going to keep going around and around with you on stupid, pedantic tangents.

GreNME

15th July 2009, 06:03 PM

Actually, there can. I read it as saying "cats are [one of the animals] that made..."

Honestly, I can't see how you could miss that. In fact, even if you did miss it, wouldn't it be better to just say you didn't understand what he meant, therefore not blaming either him or yourself, and move on ? Or does this line of "argument" serve a purpose ?

Of course it serves a purpose. Being pedantic serves the purpose of Kevin not having to admit there is a factually-based argument behind what he's criticizing, while he can instead focus on hyper-literalizing instead of requesting clarifying language. He'll wrap it in some faux-Rhetoric-101 self-justification and explain it to you as if you were a four year old, since you obviously don't understand just how seriously superior his game of playing devil's advocate in this thread is to anything anyone else is posting to the contrary.

Kevin_Lowe

15th July 2009, 06:06 PM

To Belz

Interesting. Is that the only criterion ? I asked this before because it would mean that some humans don't qualify as morally important.

Peter Singer and similar utilitarian animals rights people would say yes, and yes.

Or, to rephrase what you just said, we can save the human or we can save everything the human is going to kill and/or have killed on its behalf.

That's the crux of the issue. Except that not being obligate carnivores like cats, we have a third option of saving the human and also saving any things it would have had killed on its behalf just in order to eat. Some animals will die in any case so the human can live - that's just life in an aggressive biosphere like ours - but fewer.

To Rogue1stclass
Kevin, I don't know what to tell you.

I could, once again, point out to you that "an animal" doesn't mean "the only thing" or even "the only animal"--by definition--but you haven't listened to this simple lesson of pre-school English yet, so why bother?

I'd explain the linguistic error but as you say, why bother?

In fact, since you are showing a pattern of ignoring what anyone is saying in preference of your own lept-to conclusions and increasingly hostile superiority, why bother even having a conversation with you at all?

I mean, I answered your question about whether we have a sense of duty to whatever species because we have a sense of duty to all species, and yet you accuse me of not answering the question. How can one have a meaningful dialogue with that?

You answered the tiny bit of the question that suited you. You said that yes, you think we have an obligation to our domestic animals as species'. You completely ducked the issue of what sort of obligations we owed to the antelope, the bison, the whale, the cod, the dodo and every other other species we've ever interacted with.

You also completely ducked the question of whether we could torture animals to death for fun as long as we made sure the species continued.

I'm not going to keep going around and around with you on stupid, pedantic tangents.

These are questions that go to the heart of your identity as a rational being capable of moral thought and moral choices.

Belz...

16th July 2009, 04:11 AM

Peter Singer and similar utilitarian animals rights people would say yes, and yes.

Good. Now, could you explain to me why the ability to feel pain in any way makes a life-form more valuable than another ?

That's the crux of the issue. Except that not being obligate carnivores like cats, we have a third option of saving the human and also saving any things it would have had killed on its behalf just in order to eat.

Just as one can say that because we can choose to do something doesn't mean we should... just because we can choose NOT to do something doesn't mean we shouldn't. So really, this isn't an argument. The whole thread hangs on your one and only criterion (see above).

Kevin_Lowe

16th July 2009, 06:44 AM

Good. Now, could you explain to me why the ability to feel pain in any way makes a life-form more valuable than another ?

I should point out that "ability to feel pain" isn't quite the criterion, it's consciousness and the ability to suffer and/or be happy. People whose pain nerves don't work still count as morally important entities, assuming they have a mind like everybody else.

As for why this capacity is important, the usual formulation is that most of us as individuals apprehend that pain and suffering, all else being equal, are not things we desire. We also apprehend that other organisms are very much like us, almost certainly feel the same way as we do, and all else being equal their desires are as worthy of fulfillment as ours. From there it follows that all else being equal we should seek to maximise happiness and minimise suffering for all organisms like ourselves.

In practise most people have some kind of weighting scheme that values human suffering and whatnot differently to mouse suffering, and often some non-utilitarian values that can't be derived strictly from calculating resulting happiness and suffering as well.

Just as one can say that because we can choose to do something doesn't mean we should... just because we can choose NOT to do something doesn't mean we shouldn't. So really, this isn't an argument. The whole thread hangs on your one and only criterion (see above).

You are correct, that wasn't an argument. You attempted to restate my point about cats so it applied to humans, and in the process put a false dichotomy into my mouth. I presented a clarified version of that point as it applies to humans, which avoided the false dichotomy. It wasn't an argument for either choice, just a clarification of what the actual choices were.

Telaynay's G'son

16th July 2009, 06:49 AM

There was at least one (now closed by the Health Department) Asian restaurant in Tulsa that apparently considered cats as "livestock".

GreNME

16th July 2009, 06:50 AM

I should point out that "ability to feel pain" isn't quite the criterion, it's consciousness and the ability to suffer and/or be happy.

http://image.grenme.com/thread/rofl.jpg

Wait, project just a leeetle bit more. I don't think you adequately imprinted your own anthropomorphism onto enough different species yet.

Belz...

16th July 2009, 07:15 AM

I should point out that "ability to feel pain" isn't quite the criterion, it's consciousness and the ability to suffer and/or be happy.

Then I submit you have now created a set that only includes humans, though I'm willing to entertain the idea that other species on earth can feel what we consider to be "happiness".

It seems that you are not quite sure about what the criterion is, yourself.

People whose pain nerves don't work still count as morally important entities, assuming they have a mind like everybody else.

How about those who have a mind that doesn't work like everybody else ?

As for why this capacity is important, the usual formulation is that most of us as individuals apprehend that pain and suffering, all else being equal, are not things we desire. We also apprehend that other organisms are very much like us, almost certainly feel the same way as we do, and all else being equal their desires are as worthy of fulfillment as ours.

And how do you determine which species do and which species don't ? Does an ant qualify ? A Lemming ?

You are correct, that wasn't an argument. You attempted to restate my point about cats so it applied to humans, and in the process put a false dichotomy into my mouth.

I what ? If there was a false dichotomy it was yours, because all I did is change a species name in a sentence.

GreNME

16th July 2009, 08:58 AM

Not to break up the lengthy discussion, but pertaining to more criminal stupidity of the AR groups: ALF (Animal Liberation Front) admits to more criminal threatening activity (http://www.directaction.info/news_july13_09.htm). These are the guys that PETA leadership (not just Newkirk, but others as well) tends to support financially when they get caught and go to trial.

Kevin_Lowe

16th July 2009, 04:42 PM

Then I submit you have now created a set that only includes humans, though I'm willing to entertain the idea that other species on earth can feel what we consider to be "happiness".

No.

It seems that you are not quite sure about what the criterion is, yourself.

No.

How about those who have a mind that doesn't work like everybody else ?

Without knowing more about the mind I can't say, but if it's a mind in any meaningful sense they almost certainly count.

And how do you determine which species do and which species don't ? Does an ant qualify ? A Lemming ?

Lemmings, sure, they feel pain. Ants, probably not, as far as I'm aware insects are pretty much biological automatons.

I what ? If there was a false dichotomy it was yours, because all I did is change a species name in a sentence.

Are you even paying attention? Not all true statements about cats are true statements about humans. What gives you the idea you can just substitute names and still get true statements?

Where is this going, by the way?

Belz...

17th July 2009, 04:17 AM

No.

Really ? Then I'm sure you can give me a short list of some animals that can feel happiness ?

No.

Care to qualify this a little ?

Without knowing more about the mind I can't say, but if it's a mind in any meaningful sense they almost certainly count.

Why ? A short while ago you said you'd have to have a mind like everybody else, which isn't the case.

Lemmings, sure, they feel pain. Ants, probably not, as far as I'm aware insects are pretty much biological automatons.

And yet they appear to writhe in agony when you remove their limbs or wound them.

Are you even paying attention? Not all true statements about cats are true statements about humans. What gives you the idea you can just substitute names and still get true statements?

Ah! So that is your beef with what I said. Why in the blue hell did you call it a false dichotomy when it is nothing of the sort ?

About replacing "cat" with "human", in the context of your original sentence, I don't see why we couldn't simply transpose one for the other because both can feel pain/happiness and their victims usually can, too. You seem to think all who can feel pain/happiness are morally significant, so I don't see why you don't like my substitution.

Where is this going, by the way?

My point is to try to get you to make an argument that is consistent.

If we say that animals are morally significant and that we need to prevent their suffering, then I ask: What about those in nature ? Lots of them suffer because of other morally-significant beigns. Shouldn't we stop the killing in the wild, too ? And then you guys say "Oh, no! Not in nature. That's the way of things." That seems inconsistent to me:

1) Humans eating animals has always been the way of things, too.
2) We usually try to stop humans from being eaten by animals, anyway.
3) How in the blue hell can we determine what's the "way of things" ?

In short, you're trying to create a criterion about a distinction that doesn't exist, in my opinion, which is why I'm trying to get you to frame your argument better; to use criteria that do not work both ways.

thaiboxerken

17th July 2009, 12:47 PM

How does the sensation of pain come into play when the vegetarians state that painless euthanasia of animals is unacceptable?

Kevin_Lowe

17th July 2009, 06:41 PM

Ah! So that is your beef with what I said. Why in the blue hell did you call it a false dichotomy when it is nothing of the sort ?

Because it was, in fact, a false dichotomy. Do you not know what the term means?

About replacing "cat" with "human", in the context of your original sentence, I don't see why we couldn't simply transpose one for the other because both can feel pain/happiness and their victims usually can, too. You seem to think all who can feel pain/happiness are morally significant, so I don't see why you don't like my substitution.

Because cats die if they don't eat meat, and humans do not.

My point is to try to get you to make an argument that is consistent.

My argument is not going to seem consistent to you, until you keep track of the conversation and remember what has previously been discussed. The questions you are about to ask have already been asked and answered.

If we say that animals are morally significant and that we need to prevent their suffering, then I ask: What about those in nature ? Lots of them suffer because of other morally-significant beigns. Shouldn't we stop the killing in the wild, too ?

Already asked and answered. It would be great if we could wave a magic wand and do that while maintaining biodiversity and viable ecosystems, but it's simply not practical and it won't be until we have science-fiction level biological science. Whereas you can push your shopping trolley past the bacon today.

And then you guys say "Oh, no! Not in nature. That's the way of things." That seems inconsistent to me:

1) Humans eating animals has always been the way of things, too.
2) We usually try to stop humans from being eaten by animals, anyway.
3) How in the blue hell can we determine what's the "way of things" ?

This is what happens when you get carried away punching a straw man. This whole argument about "the way of things" is just your fantasy.

It's also just a restatement of the naturalistic fallacy, which I and Cain and Volatile have been putting the boot into with perfect consistency for the length of a thirty-six page thread, so if you haven't got that one figured out by now I don't know what hope their is for an intelligent discussion.

Aitch

18th July 2009, 03:38 AM

Pomposity and humourlessness (I may have been unlucky in the Veggies I have come across) rarely help an argument. I suspect that if and when the Veggies stop coming across as people under the impression that they are the only moral people around, people may take them seriously.

Or at least treat them with respect.

Books like this (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Pornography-Meat-Carol-J-Adams/dp/0826414486/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_b) don't help either.

Kevin_Lowe

18th July 2009, 05:23 PM

Pomposity and humourlessness (I may have been unlucky in the Veggies I have come across) rarely help an argument. I suspect that if and when the Veggies stop coming across as people under the impression that they are the only moral people around, people may take them seriously.

Or at least treat them with respect.

Those humourless civil rights activists and suffragettes were just as bad. I don't know what they were thinking, pretending to be all morally superior. I guess that's why nobody took them seriously and why they never achieved their goals of making the world a more moral place.

applecorped

18th July 2009, 05:43 PM

Yes, let's give veggies the right to vote!!!!

GreNME

18th July 2009, 07:53 PM

Those humourless civil rights activists and suffragettes were just as bad.

That's not only a weak tu quoque, it's complete BS. Civil rights and women's suffrage groups didn't engage in or advocate crap like this (http://www.directaction.info/news_july13_09.htm).

Kevin_Lowe

19th July 2009, 02:43 AM

That's not only a weak tu quoque, it's complete BS. Civil rights and women's suffrage groups didn't engage in or advocate crap like this (http://www.directaction.info/news_july13_09.htm).

I'm not sure I'd characterise it as a tu quoque argument, since my intent wasn't to argue that Aitch was being hypocritical or inconsistent but rather to argue that whether or not animal rights activists are "humourless" or "pompous" has nothing to do with whether they are right.

"I'm morally wrong and I know it, but at least I'm not humourless and pompous" isn't a stance most people want to take.

Still, it's closer to being a correct use of an argumentative fallacy than most of your recent efforts so I give you one point for trying.

Aitch

19th July 2009, 02:51 AM

GreNME

19th July 2009, 06:30 AM

I'm not sure I'd characterise it as a tu quoque argument, since my intent wasn't to argue that Aitch was being hypocritical or inconsistent but rather to argue that whether or not animal rights activists are "humourless" or "pompous" has nothing to do with whether they are right.

No, it doesn't quite qualify as the "you too!" fallacy, but calling it a false analogy falls way short of the sheer arrogance and stupidity of pretending the AR movement is in any way similar to the suffrage or civil rights movements. What you're really doing is a passive-aggressive guilt-by-association game when you do that, somewhat like when Bush compared himself to Chamberlain going into the Iraq War. Unfortunately for you, civil rights and suffrage groups didn't engage in criminal destruction of property, criminal threats, and harassment to achieve their goals, so your analogy falls way short of any accuracy.

"I'm morally wrong and I know it, but at least I'm not humourless and pompous" isn't a stance most people want to take.

Still, it's closer to being a correct use of an argumentative fallacy than most of your recent efforts so I give you one point for trying.

And again you engage in more senseless strawman attacks. You're grasping at straws at this point, Kevin.

Kevin_Lowe

19th July 2009, 03:09 PM

No, it doesn't quite qualify as the "you too!" fallacy, but calling it a false analogy falls way short of the sheer arrogance and stupidity of pretending the AR movement is in any way similar to the suffrage or civil rights movements.

Because suffragettes never planted bombs or destroyed property, and the civil rights movement had absolutely nothing to do with race riots? Not only are you ignorant of political history, but you're also trying to smear an entire movement by pointing to a handful of extremists.

What you're really doing is a passive-aggressive guilt-by-association game when you do that, somewhat like when Bush compared himself to Chamberlain going into the Iraq War. Unfortunately for you, civil rights and suffrage groups didn't engage in criminal destruction of property, criminal threats, and harassment to achieve their goals, so your analogy falls way short of any accuracy.

Ignorance is bliss, they say. Still I wouldn't swap places with you.

Let me guess, you're going to play the No True Scotsmen card next and claim that real suffragettes and civil rights activists were non-violent so the people who fought violently for change don't count? Whereas the real animal rights activists are the ALF, and the non-violent vegetarians ("pompous" and "humourless" though they be) don't count?

The bottom line is that regardless of whether they were pompous, or humourless, or even violent and destructive, they were morally right in their overall cause. Cherry-picking the actions of groups like the ALF, or criticising vegetarians for being "pompous" is just an excuse to avoid looking at whether or not the overall cause is moral.

GreNME

19th July 2009, 03:27 PM

Because suffragettes never planted bombs or destroyed property, and the civil rights movement had absolutely nothing to do with race riots? Not only are you ignorant of political history, but you're also trying to smear an entire movement by pointing to a handful of extremists.

Smear an entire movement? Kevin, I've already pointed out where the "leaders" of the "movement" have repeatedly made excuses for, supported, or outright advocated the illegal and violent behavior. There's no need for smearing, just illuminating the twisted motivations behind the movement.

And no, suffragettes were not as SOP vandalizing individual people's homes with threatening messages, they didn't destroy homes as well as workplaces, and comparing riots based on collective outrage with the criminal behavior of a fringe movement again dips into the false analogies again, and still you're playing your backwards guilt-by-association nonsense with your comparisons. At this point you may as well go whole hog and compare those who disagree with the AR extremists equivalent to racists & misogynists. After all, how far can you go before you invoke Godwin?

Ignorance is bliss, they say. Still I wouldn't swap places with you.

Nice. When in doubt, the self-titled professor of rhetorical method drops to personal attacks.

Let me guess, you're going to play the No True Scotsmen card next and claim that real suffragettes and civil rights activists were non-violent so the people who fought violently for change don't count? Whereas the real animal rights activists are the ALF, and the non-violent vegetarians ("pompous" and "humourless" though they be) don't count?

If you could stop building your strawmen for a moment you might seem a little less idiotic in your retorts. The only "no true scotsman" was just made by you, who seems to assume that all vegetarians are not eating meat for the reasons you're not-quite-saying-outright-but-implying-strongly in this thread. You're continually sticking to tried-and-true animal liberationism assertions-as-argument, and yet you're trying to weasel out of the association.

The bottom line is that regardless of whether they were pompous, or humourless, or even violent and destructive, they were morally right in their overall cause. Cherry-picking the actions of groups like the ALF, or criticising vegetarians for being "pompous" is just an excuse to avoid looking at whether or not the overall cause is moral.

Wow. And now you're arguing as if the ends justify the means.

Kevin_Lowe

19th July 2009, 05:25 PM

Wow. And now you're arguing as if the ends justify the means.

Seeing as the main arguments we've seen against meat eating are utilitarian, of course ends can justify means. If you didn't understand that yet then you really haven't got any idea what's going on.

Rogue1stclass

19th July 2009, 05:29 PM

I don't know why I'm bothering...

Kevin, I honestly can't decide whether I think you are intentionally misrepresenting arguments, if you skim them and jump to the attack, or if you lack reading comprehension.

Ignoring your bizarre attack of my mention of cats and civilization, let's go right to the question you don't think I answered.

I said we have an obligation to all animals, particularly domestic ones. All animals would, in fact, mean whales and antelopes, otters and coelocanths and whatever else you want to mention. Seriously, did you not read that or understand it, or are you just ignoring it because it doesn't say something you want to argue against?

I'm honestly curious, because it's there, in black and white for you and everyone else to see, yet you ignored it completely to accuse me of something.

Do I believe that it's morally right to torture animals for fun? No, because emotionally I don't want animals to suffer. However, I acknowledge that the pain, even life, of a particular member of a species, even our own, is insignifigant.

I admit where I stand. I don't feel a need to convince anyone that my reasons for what I'll tolerate are rational. In fact, I've said since my first post on this thread that I don't believe morality can or even should be rational.

GreNME

19th July 2009, 06:26 PM

Kevin, I honestly can't decide whether I think you are intentionally misrepresenting arguments, if you skim them and jump to the attack, or if you lack reading comprehension.

I would answer simply "yes to all," but Randfan at one point acknowledged Kevin's intellect, so my guess is that this is, for the most part, intentional.

Kevin_Lowe

19th July 2009, 07:49 PM

I admit where I stand. I don't feel a need to convince anyone that my reasons for what I'll tolerate are rational. In fact, I've said since my first post on this thread that I don't believe morality can or even should be rational.

I'm starting from the position that rationality is better than irrationality, and further that talk of morality which isn't grounded in rationality is mere hot air. So we have no basis for a discussion, since my criticisms of your position are rational ones.

Belz...

20th July 2009, 04:29 AM

How does the sensation of pain come into play

Tapped.

Belz...

20th July 2009, 04:33 AM

Because it was, in fact, a false dichotomy. Do you not know what the term means?

Ugh... whatever.

Because cats die if they don't eat meat, and humans do not.

Well, I've heard of vegans who feed their cats non-animal products.

My argument is not going to seem consistent to you, until you keep track of the conversation and remember what has previously been discussed.

I remember. I just don't find it consistent. Please stop trying to read my mind.

Already asked and answered. It would be great if we could wave a magic wand and do that while maintaining biodiversity and viable ecosystems

Why ? Why in the blue hell would you want to do that ? Do you really think that death is so undesirable ?

but it's simply not practical and it won't be until we have science-fiction level biological science. Whereas you can push your shopping trolley past the bacon today.

So basically it's about the rest of us doing what you do ?

This is what happens when you get carried away punching a straw man. This whole argument about "the way of things" is just your fantasy.

Punching strawmen hurts my fist less.

Kevin_Lowe

20th July 2009, 04:49 AM

Well, I've heard of vegans who feed their cats non-animal products.

I was under the impression that you couldn't keep a cat alive on a strictly vegan diet. If I was wrong about that, then yes, assuming that actually works, the cases are indeed comparable. (It wouldn't surprise me if the "vegan" cats were supplementing their diet with meat though if they ever get outside).

Why ? Why in the blue hell would you want to do that ? Do you really think that death is so undesirable ?

I think I'd find it undesirable to be run down and eaten alive, so I extrapolate from that to the conclusion that the world would be a better place, all else being equal, if no conscious organisms were run down and eaten alive, or had parasitic worms grow in their eyes, or what-have-you.

The fact that it's a problem we can't currently solve doesn't make it less of a problem, just a problem it's not worth losing any sleep over at the moment.

So basically it's about the rest of us doing what you do ?

...

Punching strawmen hurts my fist less.

Mmm.

Belz...

20th July 2009, 07:03 AM

Mmm.

No, really.

Basically you've been saying that we shouldn't eat meat because animals can feel pain. Other than the fact that this, as I said, disqualifies some humans and a lot of animals, I'd wager you'd still be against the practice even if no animals were ever "hurt". If so, then it's a matter of "right to live", and therefore should include plants, as well.

Kevin_Lowe

20th July 2009, 06:03 PM

No, really.

Basically you've been saying that we shouldn't eat meat because animals can feel pain.

That's the position of Singer and most animal rights activists, although to be complete you should say something like "we shouldn't harm conscious beings (including cows and humans) because they can suffer" rather than "we shouldn't eat meat because animals can feel pain". The basis for being nice to humans is the same as the basis for being nice to animals, because we're not that different.

Other than the fact that this, as I said, disqualifies some humans and a lot of animals,

Which humans and animals are you thinking of?

If you're talking about permanently comatose people, brain dead people, early-term fetuses, single-celled animals and whatnot then you're on the same page as most animal rights activists. They're happy to kill any of the above, since they aren't morally important.

If you're thinking of people unable to feel pain because their pain receptors don't work, then you're engaging with a straw man because nobody I know of argues that they don't count morally, nor is it entailed by anyone's position that I know of.

I'd wager you'd still be against the practice even if no animals were ever "hurt". If so, then it's a matter of "right to live", and therefore should include plants, as well.

You can wager on a straw man if it amuses you. I suppose it's kinder than your usual practise of punching them because it's easier.

Belz...

21st July 2009, 04:21 AM

That's the position of Singer and most animal rights activists, although to be complete you should say something like "we shouldn't harm conscious beings (including cows and humans) because they can suffer" rather than "we shouldn't eat meat because animals can feel pain". The basis for being nice to humans is the same as the basis for being nice to animals, because we're not that different.

Define "different". Are you saying that we can eat plants because they are different ?

Similitude is not part of why I don't harm humans.

Which humans and animals are you thinking of?

Vegetables, some mental illnesses, etc.; planarians, ants...

If you're talking about permanently comatose people, brain dead people, early-term fetuses, single-celled animals and whatnot then you're on the same page as most animal rights activists. They're happy to kill any of the above, since they aren't morally important.

I don't know why you're trying to make ME sound like one of those people since the examples I gave and the philosophy I described stem from YOUR criteria, not mine.

If you're thinking of people unable to feel pain because their pain receptors don't work, then you're engaging with a straw man because nobody I know of argues that they don't count morally, nor is it entailed by anyone's position that I know of.

Plants don't feel pain.

You can wager on a straw man if it amuses you. I suppose it's kinder than your usual practise of punching them because it's easier.

Did you just discover that word ? Strawman ? Because I think you've been using it for every post for a week.

If you feel I'm misrepresenting you, then why don't you state your position clearly, in a way that I can't say "hey, this applies to [x] as well!"

Kevin_Lowe

21st July 2009, 08:23 AM

Define "different".

Say what?

Are you saying that we can eat plants because they are different ?

Say what?

Similitude is not part of why I don't harm humans.

Huh?

Vegetables, some mental illnesses, etc.; planarians, ants...

Apart from the "some mental illnesses bit", which is so vague I can't tell what you mean, Singer-type animal rights activists would have no problem killing vegetables, planarians or ants. Thus no inconsistency there.

I don't know why you're trying to make ME sound like one of those people since the examples I gave and the philosophy I described stem from YOUR criteria, not mine.

Say what?

Plants don't feel pain.

WTF has that got to do with what I just posted?

Did you just discover that word ? Strawman ? Because I think you've been using it for every post for a week.

If you feel I'm misrepresenting you, then why don't you state your position clearly, in a way that I can't say "hey, this applies to [x] as well!"

If there's a way of posting so that you can't respond with word salad, let me know, I could use it.

Belz...

21st July 2009, 09:03 AM

Wow. Kevin has just gone into "I don't want to adress anything but I NEED to answer" mode.

Belz...

21st July 2009, 09:07 AM

Say what?

Define "different".

Say what?

Why should I type that again. Just read it a second time.

Huh?

:rolleyes: I don't eat humans. The fact that they are like me is not the criterion.

Apart from the "some mental illnesses bit", which is so vague I can't tell what you mean

I mean that SOME mental illnesses make people unable to feel pain.

Singer-type animal rights activists would have no problem killing vegetables, planarians or ants. Thus no inconsistency there.

There IS if they claim that you CAN'T eat animals, because planarians and ants are animals. If they say that SOME animals can't be eaten, then fine for that point.

Say what?

Please try to keep up.

WTF has that got to do with what I just posted?

Plants don't feel pain. They also can't be happy. Are they morally irrelevant because they don't feel pain/be happy or because of some other criteria ? It's important because you said that animals are morally relevant while plants are not.

If there's a way of posting so that you can't respond with word salad, let me know, I could use it.

How is "If you feel I'm misrepresenting you, then why don't you state your position clearly, in a way that I can't say 'hey, this applies to [x] as well!'" word salad ? Can't you read ?

GreNME

21st July 2009, 09:13 AM

Wow. Kevin has just gone into "I don't want to adress anything but I NEED to answer" mode.

He's been there for a while. I find extremely ironic his accusations of strawmen and his constant use of the phrase "word salad" when he can't muster a knee-jerk reaction to whatever was said.

YSM

21st July 2009, 09:20 AM

Say what?

/thread over.

Just kidding.

/thread resume.

Kevin_Lowe

21st July 2009, 05:20 PM

Oh all right...

Belz, you're either willfully misunderstanding what you are told, or you are just incredibly dense. Your current strategy seems to be to leap on any available ambiguity in what was last posted, absolutely ignoring everything that has previously been posted about that exact point, and demand clarification of points which should be utterly obvious.

Define "different".

It's a normal English word, and I have already explained the similarities between humans and non-human animals which animal rights activists believe to be morally significant. Why do I need to explain this to you again?

Why should I type that again. Just read it a second time.

This too has been asked and answered already. I have already explained the differences between plants and animals which animal rights activists believe to be morally significant. Why do I need to explain this to you again?

:rolleyes: I don't eat humans. The fact that they are like me is not the criterion.

So what is, and why is your criterion valid?

I mean that SOME mental illnesses make people unable to feel pain.

I have clarified your attempts to misconstrue the criterion as "must be able to feel pain" twice now. If you keep up this willful misrepresentation you only make yourself look foolish. Why do I have to correct you on this point again?

There IS if they claim that you CAN'T eat animals, because planarians and ants are animals. If they say that SOME animals can't be eaten, then fine for that point.

Well hooray for small mercies. You finally grasp one small part of the animal rights activist position.

Please try to keep up.

I said: If you're talking about permanently comatose people, brain dead people, early-term fetuses, single-celled animals and whatnot then you're on the same page as most animal rights activists. They're happy to kill any of the above, since they aren't morally important.

You said: "I don't know why you're trying to make ME sound like one of those people since the examples I gave and the philosophy I described stem from YOUR criteria, not mine".

Now do you want to explain to us how your response makes any **** sense? Are you just incapable of parsing if/then statements, or what?

Plants don't feel pain. They also can't be happy. Are they morally irrelevant because they don't feel pain/be happy or because of some other criteria ? It's important because you said that animals are morally relevant while plants are not.

You posted this in response to me saying "If you're thinking of people unable to feel pain because their pain receptors don't work, then you're engaging with a straw man because nobody I know of argues that they don't count morally, nor is it entailed by anyone's position that I know of."

So to recap, I explain to you that "must be able to feel pain" is not the criteria animal rights activists use. You respond by saying "Ah ha! But plants can't feel pain!".

That's like me saying "Not all dogs are labradors" and you saying "Ah ha! But my dog is a Pekinese!".

Plants are plants, Belz. They don't have a consciousness, they don't feel pain, they don't have preferences and chosen life plans, they lack every single quality that animal rights activists think separates morally important things like normal adult humans and normal adult pigs from early-term fetuses, brain-dead people, road kill and algae.

I realise you are in love with the idea that you can somehow show that animal rights activists are inconsistent in thinking it's okay to eat carrots. I know that this is a conclusion you really want. However the problem is, it's not true and it's also completely stupid.

That's the reason why you can't make a coherent, joined-up argument for your position. That's the reason you have to post nonsensical snippets and questions that don't even make sense if you have been keeping track of the conversation. It's because you're arguing for something that is simultaneously false and very, very dumb.