Michael Vick indicted for dog fighting

[bobdroege7]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/17/AR2007071701393.html

Good news for poochies all over USA.

from http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0031507/

the movie Jesse James (1939)

"Shooting' too good for him, hanging's too good for him, he should be run out in the street and shot like a dog!"

Just a quote about how I feel about Mr Vick.

[bobdroege7]

Help mods, can you move this to politics please

thanks

[yairhol]

It said he also was involved in the executions of dogs that did not perform well.

I hope he gets fried for this.

Regards,
Yair

[kerikiwi]

Destroying unwanted dogs ( the term 'execution' is dubious) is the least of it. Unwanted horses are destroyed as a matter of course, as are thousands upon thousands of dogs and cats.

[Puppycow]

Destroying unwanted dogs ( the term 'execution' is dubious) is the least of it. Unwanted horses are destroyed as a matter of course, as are thousands upon thousands of dogs and cats.
They are euthanized, but not like this:
The indictment said that in April 2007, Peace, Phillips and Vick "executed approximately eight dogs that did not perform well in 'testing' sessions by various methods, including hanging, drowning and/or slamming at least one dog's body to the ground." Vick also is alleged to have consulted with Peace before Peace killed a losing dog by electrocution in 2003.

[bobdroege7]

And wanted cattle are carefully destroyed and placed on my plate.

Sometimes, it's not what you do, but how you do it that matters.

to me anyhow.

[yairhol]

I bet that since this guy is an NFL star, the league will take good care of business (in the bad sense) and somehow get him off trial or make his punishment much much less severe than it would have been for an ordinary person.
The league is thinking about money. Justice is not a part of its decision making process.

Regards,
Yair

[clerihew80]

I bet that since this guy is an NFL star, the league will take good care of business (in the bad sense) and somehow get him off trial or make his punishment much much less severe than it would have been for an ordinary person.
The league is thinking about money. Justice is not a part of its decision making process.

Regards,
Yair
I don't know about that. This case, coming as it does after a series of high-profile scandals involving football players behaving badly, has attracted a ********* of bad publicity for the league. From the indictment alone Vick is facing suspension. If he's convicted, who knows? The league or the Falcons organization could throw the book at him.

[Puppycow]

I bet that since this guy is an NFL star, the league will take good care of business (in the bad sense) and somehow get him off trial or make his punishment much much less severe than it would have been for an ordinary person.
The league is thinking about money. Justice is not a part of its decision making process.

Regards,
Yair

What, the NFL is all-powerful? They can snap their fingers and make it go away?

Has PETA responded to this yet? There might be a use for them after all.

For many sports fans, this could be a fly in the ointment. Who wants to root for a guy like that? At the margin at least, it could turn off some percentage of Falcons fans. The question is how many.

[Katana]

What, the NFL is all-powerful? They can snap their fingers and make it go away?

Has PETA responded to this yet? There might be a use for them after all.

For many sports fans, this could be a fly in the ointment. Who wants to root for a guy like that? At the margin at least, it could turn off some percentage of Falcons fans. The question is how many.


The Humane Society of the United States has been pretty vocal since the investigation began. They were calling for the NFL to discipline Vick and for Nike to cancel its endorsement deal with him back in April. Neither organization was willing to act until the legal system had, and I agree with that approach. I'm not sure that I agree with a policy of disciplining players who may be found to be innocent of charges down the road.

However, given how the NFL and teams have handled other "problem players" of late, I would be surprised if Vick escaped this without some serious consequences.

[aggle-rithm]

Who wants to root for a guy like that? At the margin at least, it could turn off some percentage of Falcons fans. The question is how many.

The ones that don't participate in dog fighting themselves, I suppose. :(

[Complexity]

Stake him down and let the dogs have him.

[joobie]

vick has seriously gotta be one of the dumbest people alive.

it apparently runs inthe family, too, since his brother is also a moron.

[BPSCG]

The Humane Society of the United States has been pretty vocal since the investigation began. They were calling for the NFL to discipline Vick and for Nike to cancel its endorsement deal with him back in April. Neither organization was willing to act until the legal system had, and I agree with that approach. I'm not sure that I agree with a policy of disciplining players who may be found to be innocent of charges down the road.

However, given how the NFL and teams have handled other "problem players" of late, I would be surprised if Vick escaped this without some serious consequences.I sent the following email to Nike:
"I will not buy any Nike products as long as Michael Vick represents your company."

Click http://www.nike.com/, then click "Customer Service" at the bottom, then on the popup window, click "Contact Us."

MS-NBC fired Don Imus when they decided it would cost him too much money to keep him. Nike will do the same with Vick, if enough people tell them.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

vick has seriously gotta be one of the dumbest people alive.

it apparently runs inthe family, too, since his brother is also a moron.

Remind me - what did his brother do? I recall him doing something stupid and getting kicked off the team, but I don't remember what it was.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Remind me - what did his brother do? I recall him doing something stupid and getting kicked off the team, but I don't remember what it was.

Maybe they could develop a Michael Vick signature shoe for running from the police.


ETA: That's weird, I quoted myself. I was supposed to quote BPSG's Nike post.

[coalesce]

I sent the following email to Nike:
"I will not buy any Nike products as long as Michael Vick represents your company."

Click http://www.nike.com/, then click "Customer Service" at the bottom, then on the popup window, click "Contact Us."

MS-NBC fired Don Imus when they decided it would cost him too much money to keep him. Nike will do the same with Vick, if enough people tell them.

Done, thanks.

And can we un-retire Lawrence Taylor to play against Micahel Vick for one game and tell Lawrence that Vick is really Joe Theismann?

Michael

[Overman]

nevemind.

[Darth Rotor]

nevemind.

Was that a sausage machine? It looks from the video that someone put a whole, unskinned cow into a sausage machine.

The film didn't show blood spray, or I didn't see it, so I can't tell if the cow was alive or dead when the machine made it into what I think was sausage.

Did I see that correctly?

DR

[Overman]

Thats why I took it out...I couldn't verify the video...

I guess its still a good question though...

What is the difference between a dog and other animals that makes people uproar over inhumane treatment of dogs v. other animals?

[The Shank]

Can't get access to the message board on Vick's website. I wonder why?

[kerikiwi]

What is the difference between a dog and other animals that makes people uproar over inhumane treatment of dogs v. other animals?

I don't think people do.

[New Ager]

What, the NFL is all-powerful? They can snap their fingers and make it go away?

Has PETA responded to this yet? There might be a use for them after all.

For many sports fans, this could be a fly in the ointment. Who wants to root for a guy like that? At the margin at least, it could turn off some percentage of Falcons fans. The question is how many.

(New Ager)

I would say a lot. Here in Atlanta, fans are not happy.

Personally, I have no desire to root for him.

The season, if he plays, seems like a waste.

I think the fans the will start rooting for one of the backups to replace him.

[EvilSmurf]

Remind me - what did his brother do? I recall him doing something stupid and getting kicked off the team, but I don't remember what it was.

Scrut, it's all Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Vick)

[BPSCG]

Here's Nike's response to my email:

Response (Kelly) - 07/18/2007 12:16 PM
Thank you for contacting us regarding Michael Vick.

There is no change in the status of the agreement between Nike and football player Michael Vick. Nike will continue to monitor the situation, but has nothing further to say at this time.

We appreciate that you took the time to contact us and your feedback will be passed along to the proper department.

Sincerely,

Nike

[Katana]

Here's Nike's response to my email:


I'll let you know what they said in response to mine.

Thanks, Beeps.

[BPSCG]

I'll let you know what they said in response to mine.

Thanks, Beeps.Betcha the JREF million that it's exactly the same as their response to me, right down to the last comma. :biggrin:

[bigred]

I don't exaggerate in the slightest when I say I would very much love to see some eye-for-an-eye justice here. Drown him, hang him, shoot him, or maybe just throw him in a ring with a bunch of very nasty pit bulls. I would rejoice in his elimination from this world. Sadly, this would never happen, because it's "too cruel." So much for the punishment fitting the crime.

[Hutch]

Here's Nike's response to my email:

"Send that #@$%%# the bedbug letter!"

I think everybody is just waiting to see if another shoe will drop, if one of the other guys involved will rat and "tell all" on Oprah or Larry King.

Somebody on ESPN noted that this is not some country prosecutor tryingforaname (see Duke lacrosse), but that these are Federal charges, and the Feds don't usually mess around with something like this unless they think they have the goods.

Another person who figures riches and fame do not equal responsibility and planning...it seems almost an epidemic among the wealthy and powerful, from way back to the present (and probably well into the future--old Karl Marx was many things, but mostly a cock-eyed optomist on human nature)

We shall see.

[Darth Rotor]

Click http://www.nike.com/, then click "Customer Service" at the bottom, then on the popup window, click "Contact Us."

Thanks for the link, Beeps.

My letter:
I will be returning the Nike Golf Balls I just purchased to the store for a refund, unopened.

I will no longer use Nike Golf balls, but will instead use Titlest again.

I will no longer purchase for my son any Nike Products for his tennis: shirts, shoes, nothing.

Off to addidas for running shoes.

Unless

You people Drop Michael Vick.

By the way, Phil Knight and friends, you people are unwittingly staining Tiger's name, as his lead sponsor, by also having on staff a trouble maker like Michael Vick, for all that he's a fantastic athlete.

Have you no shame?

DR

[joobie]

Remind me - what did his brother do? I recall him doing something stupid and getting kicked off the team, but I don't remember what it was.

He played quarterback collegiately at Virginia Tech, but was dismissed from its football program "due to a cumulative effect of legal infractions and unsportsmanlike play." [1] He was originally signed by the Miami Dolphins as an undrafted free agent in 2006. The Miami Dolphins released him on May 1, 2007.
Marcus Vick has been involved in multiple traffic and minor criminal violations in Virginia resulting in convictions, and as of June 4, 2007, was the defendant in a civil lawsuit on behalf of a 17-year old girl alleging they had a nearly two-year long sexual relationship and that Marcus Vick offered to provide her alcohol and marijuana and asked her to have sex with other men.

details (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Vick)

[LostAngeles]

I heard Ron Mexico (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Vick#Ron_Mexico_lawsuit) is the real culprit here...

Seriously, I don't think the NFL and the owners of the Falcons and the fans are letting him out of this one and good for them!

[Katana]

Betcha the JREF million that it's exactly the same as their response to me, right down to the last comma. :biggrin:


Well, evidently I don't rank up there with you.

They didn't even bother to respond.

Then again, perhaps the volume is too much for Nike to handle (I'd like to think).

[BPSCG]

Thanks for the link, Beeps.

My letter:
I will be returning the Nike Golf Balls I just purchased to the store for a refund, unopened.

I will no longer use Nike Golf balls, but will instead use Titlest again.

I will no longer purchase for my son any Nike Products for his tennis: shirts, shoes, nothing.

Off to addidas for running shoes.

Unless

You people Drop Michael Vick.

By the way, Phil Knight and friends, you people are unwittingly staining Tiger's name, as his lead sponsor, by also having on staff a trouble maker like Michael Vick, for all that he's a fantastic athlete.

Have you no shame?


DRNike makes golf balls???

[Katana]

Nike makes golf balls???


Oh, yeah.

Used and, ahem, lost a couple just last weekend.

[HarryKeogh]

Nike makes golf balls???

It's true. When I was a 7-year-old child in China I worked in their golf ball factory inspecting the products. If they didn't have the correct number of dimples I had to report the discrepancy to my 8-year-old supervisor.

I still miss gossiping with the crew around the water cooler stagnant pond in the back of the shop.

[BPSCG]

Well, evidently I don't rank up there with you.

They didn't even bother to respond.

Then again, perhaps the volume is too much for Nike to handle (I'd like to think).I like to think that Nike is afraid to cross swords with the dread Katana. :biggrin:

[Katana]

I like to think that Nike is afraid to cross swords with the dread Katana. :biggrin:


Hah!

I like that.

:D

[Darth Rotor]

Nike makes golf balls???
Tiger Woods plays them. They are either number two or three in terms of quality and preference (depends on which Golf Mag reviews the stats, performance, etc) behind Titleist. Or they aren't, and it's all a load of paid marketing hype. :)

The chip Tiger Woods hit on the 16th at the Masters in 2005, that hung on the edge and then fell into the hole for birdie, got zoomed in on in the replay and clearly showed the Nike logo on the ball. That clip has been replayed over and over. Tiger also plays Nike irons, but rumor has it that the design is actually Mizuno, milled to their specs, with a Nike Logo on them. Not sure it that is true.

There is a promotion out at the moment where one can win some great prize on marked boxes of Nike balls. I have found them to be almost as good as Titleist, (maybe a bit longer, not quite as "touch" friendly around the green for scrambling and inferior for putting) and with the coupon I had for 6 dollars off, the Nike box was a good deal.

DR

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I have found them to be almost as good as Titleist, (maybe a bit longer, not quite as "touch" friendly around the green for scrambling and inferior for putting) and with the coupon I had for 6 dollars off, the Nike box was a good deal.

I have found that Titleists go too far into the woods for my taste.

[bigred]

I heard Ron Mexico (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Vick#Ron_Mexico_lawsuit) is the real culprit here...

Seriously, I don't think the NFL and the owners of the Falcons and the fans are letting him out of this one and good for them!
If Vick weasels out of jail time (or gets a token tiny amount of the time he deserves) and comes back from whatever suspension and leads the Falcons to glory on the field, you'd be amazed how quickly people will forgive and forget. Actually "nauseated" is more like it for me, but being nauseated by the NFL/its players/its fans is hardly new to me.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Nike suspends release of Vick line

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/football/nfl/07/19/bc.fbn.vick.nike.ap/index.html?cnn=yes

[Darth Rotor]

I have found that Titleists go too far into the woods for my taste.
Ah, but in the woods there is shade, a place to take a quick pee, possibly finding more balls than the one you hit in there, and sometimes other surprises. (This relates to a shot I sliced into the woods, in Virginia, near a fence that separated the Golf Course from a small house. As I approached the ball wedged under the fence behind a tree limb, motion caught my eye. I looked through the fence, and saw a vigorous example of intramural fleshy pursuits through the window (no blinds drawn, oops!) about 20 feet from me. Moving slowly, so as not to attract attention, I picked up my ball and moved away from the opening. The pursuing continued as I turned and headed back to the course, through the brush. When I dropped my ball (unplayable lie, penalty stroke) I was asked: "How many strokes is that" I could not help but reply "More than I could count." The puzzled looks turned into laughter as I explained what I had encountered.)
Nike suspends release of Vick line

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/football/nfl/07/19/bc.fbn.vick.nike.ap/index.html?cnn=yes
A statement released by Nike Inc. said the company "is concerned by the serious and highly disturbing allegations made against Michael Vick, and we consider any cruelty to animals inhumane and abhorrent.
Yeah. Even Nike won't put dogs to work in its sweat shops. :eye-poppi

OK, cheap shot, I'll knock it off.

DR

[The Central Scrutinizer]

(This relates to a shot I sliced into the woods, in Virginia, near a fence that separated the Golf Course from a small house. As I approached the ball wedged under the fence behind a tree limb, motion caught my eye. I looked through the fence, and saw a vigorous example of intramural fleshy pursuits through the window (no blinds drawn, oops!)

Well, Virginia is for lovers!

[bobdroege7]

It's true. When I was a 7-year-old child in China I worked in their golf ball factory inspecting the products. If they didn't have the correct number of dimples I had to report the discrepancy to my 8-year-old supervisor.

I still miss gossiping with the crew around the water cooler stagnant pond in the back of the shop.

You sir, are a no good yankee liar!

[ponderingturtle]

Thats why I took it out...I couldn't verify the video...

I guess its still a good question though...

What is the difference between a dog and other animals that makes people uproar over inhumane treatment of dogs v. other animals?

I would be against bull baiting as well. And I am ok with people killing dogs, cats and horses for food. It is about method.

[ponderingturtle]

Does Nike have other brands owned by the same company or is it just nike?

[bigred]

I don't know, but I hope we talk a lot more about golf balls than the actual topic of the thread.

[Tricky]

I looked through the fence, and saw a vigorous example of intramural fleshy pursuits through the window (no blinds drawn, oops!) about 20 feet from me. Moving slowly, so as not to attract attention, I picked up my ball and moved away from the opening. The pursuing continued as I turned and headed back to the course, through the brush. When I dropped my ball (unplayable lie, penalty stroke) I was asked: "How many strokes is that" I could not help but reply "More than I could count." The puzzled looks turned into laughter as I explained what I had encountered.)

At least it wasn't an unplayable lay. That really gives new meaning to playing out of the rough. What was par on that hole anyway?


(and countless other golf jokes.)

[Darth Rotor]

At least it wasn't an unplayable lay. That really gives new meaning to playing out of the rough. What was par on that hole anyway?


(and countless other golf jokes.)
He had an extra stiff shaft on an oversized driver, so he was was able to take two strokes off of the round. She particulary liked the way he stroked it from the frog hair, and that he consistently found the hole from the rough. Her only complaint was that his bag was old and cracked.

DR

[Puppycow]

Vick has been barred from training camp (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/23/AR2007072301392.html?hpid=topnews)

Looks like the NFL is keeping him at arms length for now.

[Overman]

Someone is attempting to cash in on this.... (http://www.peta.org/)

[bigred]

? I'm no PETA fan, but anything they can do to aid the anti-Vick cause, more power to them. He's a POS who will not get anything near the punishment he deserves.

[daredelvis]

According to the news stories I have read the NFL commissioner stepped in and told the Falcons to hold off with any punishment. My first thought when I heard this was, "wow, the team was going to do the right thing".

Turns out the Falcons wanted to suspend him for FOUR GAMES!

I was a moron.
? I'm no PETA fan, but anything they can do to aid the anti-Vick cause, more power to them. He's a POS who will not get anything near the punishment he deserves.

This is the second crime Vick has committed. Causing PETA to get one more dime should add 5 years on to his prison term IMHO.

Daredelvis

[Overman]

http://images.cafepress.com/product/152438730v16_150x150_Front_Color-White.JPG

'and for only 20.99 you can get this cute 'Sack Vick' T-shirt!!!

BTW it goes real well with the tote bag...

http://images.cafepress.com/product/152443500v11_150x150_Front.JPG

Peta...BS.

[EvilSmurf]

Can Nike unilaterally break their contract with Vick? If they can, they ought to.

[bigred]

Turns out the Falcons wanted to suspend him for FOUR GAMES!I have no idea why you hid this in a "spoiler," but FYI that is apparently the max punishment a team can give under the circumstances. Bizarre eh?

Supposedly the commisioner is a "tough guy" and unlike the limp-wristed POS he recently replaced, isn't going to play w/sub-human slime like this (the NFL is loaded with em). I call BS on that one.

[LostAngeles]

http://www.slate.com/id/2171266/entry/2171267/ to read the complaint against Michael Vick.

So to him, these dogs weren't companions, they weren't friends, they didn't herd sheep, they didn't help hunt, their entire purpose was to either die and lose him money or die and win him money.

I've seen Tamagotchis better treated than that.

Can we petition the NFL Commissioner to fire Vick with a punch to the face?

[joobie]

one of his co-defendants is going to plead guilty according to various sports outlets.

[Cain]

According to the news stories I have read the NFL commissioner stepped in and told the Falcons to hold off with any punishment. My first thought when I heard this was, "wow, the team was going to do the right thing".

It's my understanding that they were motivated more by self-interest than doing "the right thing." I read/heard somewhere that if the team got to suspend him, then they would not have to pay him.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

one of his co-defendants is going to plead guilty according to various sports outlets.

That has to be bad news for Vick.

[LostAngeles]

That has to be bad news for Vick.

Is it wrong of me to find joy in that news? Considering what I've read, the thought of sending him and his co-defendants to jail for a long time makes me quite happy.

[MelBrooksfan]

http://images.cafepress.com/product/152438730v16_150x150_Front_Color-White.JPG

'and for only 20.99 you can get this cute 'Sack Vick' T-shirt!!!

BTW it goes real well with the tote bag...

http://images.cafepress.com/product/152443500v11_150x150_Front.JPG

Peta...BS.


PETA: Capitalizing on animal abuse since 2007.

[Cain]

Of course people are going to use this as an opportunity to Peta bash, and I suppose it's all the more infuriating considering Peta is in the right (yet again). I'm not a member, I don't give money, I don't appreciate how they treat women like meat, blah blah blah, but Peta does more important work than the JREF. Way, way, way more important work.

So to him, these dogs weren't companions, they weren't friends, they didn't herd sheep, they didn't help hunt, their entire purpose was to either die and lose him money or die and win him money.


The passions this case arouses sort of surprises me. First, there's the obvious morally arbitrary social double-standard toward dogs, "man's" so-called best friend. Then there's the other component, which is that dogs are being mistreated for no good reason. If we were using them to hunt other, lesser animals -- ho, ho, ho, then that would be one thing. The fact we are witnessing convulsions in response to this affair is an implicit confession that animals have at least some rights. Or at least some animals do, though that standard, again, can only be described as arbitrary.

I admire the explicitly no non-human rights crowd. If they gave a **** about anything or anyone other than themselves, they could set the time aside to fashion signs reading "No Time 4 No Crime; Free Vick Now!" They could also pose k difficult and awkward questions such as, "On what authority can the government decide how I should dispose of my own property?" People do not need to see dogs tear out one another's insides any more than they need to eat veal, or porkchops for that matter. What if a person derives more utility from ****ing a goat than eating it? Isn't that up to the individual to decide? The state ought to remain neutral with respect to our lifestyle decisions. I imagine a person here who says, "I don't need a 56 inch television, any more than I need a Hummer. But I have these things, and I enjoy them very much :). By the way, Jeeves, the foie gras tonight is to die for."

[LostAngeles]

Of course people are going to use this as an opportunity to Peta bash, and I suppose it's all the more infuriating considering Peta is in the right (yet again). I'm not a member, I don't give money, I don't appreciate how they treat women like meat, blah blah blah, but Peta does more important work than the JREF. Way, way, way more important work.



The passions this case arouses sort of surprises me. First, there's the obvious morally arbitrary social double-standard toward dogs, "man's" so-called best friend. Then there's the other component, which is that dogs are being mistreated for no good reason. If we were using them to hunt other, lesser animals -- ho, ho, ho, then that would be one thing. The fact we are witnessing convulsions in response to this affair is an implicit confession that animals have at least some rights. Or at least some animals do, though that standard, again, can only be described as arbitrary.

I admire the explicitly no non-human rights crowd. If they gave a **** about anything or anyone other than themselves, they could set the time aside to fashion signs reading "No Time 4 No Crime; Free Vick Now!" They could also pose k difficult and awkward questions such as, "On what authority can the government decide how I should dispose of my own property?" People do not need to see dogs tear out one another's insides any more than they need to eat veal, or porkchops for that matter. What if a person derives more utility from ****ing a goat than eating it? Isn't that up to the individual to decide? The state ought to remain neutral with respect to our lifestyle decisions. I imagine a person here who says, "I don't need a 56 inch television, any more than I need a Hummer. But I have these things, and I enjoy them very much :). By the way, Jeeves, the foie gras tonight is to die for."

The reasons for domesticating dogs include what I listed. Dogs were helpful back in the day. You would expect those dogs to be generally well-treated and not thrown into a ring and expected to tear apart another dog for the heck of it.

Cruelty masked as entertainment is, in a word, disgusting. (Might be why Dubya isn't attending a gladiatorial match in his honor tonight.)

When it comes to eating meat? Please examine your dentition and compare it to that of carnivores and herbivores. You'll note that it seems to be a blend of both. Humanity evolved eating meat. Culturally, we've adapted so that we can subsist on a vegetarian diet. We can go omnivore or we can go herbivore. Given time and interest, hell, we could probably choose to go carnivore if we wanted.

I like meat. I don't like fois gras. I don't like veal. But I like meat. What you choose to eat is your own buisness.

Cruelly executing an animal because it didn't, "perform," is not. It makes you an *******.

[Cain]

The reasons for domesticating dogs include what I listed. Dogs were helpful back in the day. You would expect those dogs to be generally well-treated and not thrown into a ring and expected to tear apart another dog for the heck of it.

So? I'm pretty sure dogs have not been historically domesticated to aid the blind or sniff out illegal drugs. What happened "back in the day" is not really relevant.

Cruelty masked as entertainment is, in a word, disgusting.

Agreed, but "entertainment" is notoriously subjective. In a recent (still ongoing?) wrestling thread someone insisted on comparing the WWE to Shakespeare.

When it comes to eating meat? Please examine your dentition and compare it to that of carnivores and herbivores. You'll note that it seems to be a blend of both.

Such as... howler monkeys and gorillas?

I like meat. I don't like fois gras. I don't like veal. But I like meat. What you choose to eat is your own buisness.

Yeah, you like to eat meat. Michael Vick enjoys seeing his dogs tear each other limb from limb. How is his entertainment any of your business?

[Puppycow]

Of course people are going to use this as an opportunity to Peta bash, and I suppose it's all the more infuriating considering Peta is in the right (yet again). I'm not a member, I don't give money, I don't appreciate how they treat women like meat, blah blah blah, but Peta does more important work than the JREF. Way, way, way more important work.



The passions this case arouses sort of surprises me. First, there's the obvious morally arbitrary social double-standard toward dogs, "man's" so-called best friend. Then there's the other component, which is that dogs are being mistreated for no good reason. If we were using them to hunt other, lesser animals -- ho, ho, ho, then that would be one thing. The fact we are witnessing convulsions in response to this affair is an implicit confession that animals have at least some rights. Or at least some animals do, though that standard, again, can only be described as arbitrary.

I admire the explicitly no non-human rights crowd. If they gave a **** about anything or anyone other than themselves, they could set the time aside to fashion signs reading "No Time 4 No Crime; Free Vick Now!" They could also pose k difficult and awkward questions such as, "On what authority can the government decide how I should dispose of my own property?" People do not need to see dogs tear out one another's insides any more than they need to eat veal, or porkchops for that matter. What if a person derives more utility from ****ing a goat than eating it? Isn't that up to the individual to decide? The state ought to remain neutral with respect to our lifestyle decisions. I imagine a person here who says, "I don't need a 56 inch television, any more than I need a Hummer. But I have these things, and I enjoy them very much :). By the way, Jeeves, the foie gras tonight is to die for."

So you think that you are more moral than the rest of us, is that it? Holier than thou?

[Cain]

So you think that you are more moral than the rest of us, is that it?

Yes and no (in that order). Inasmuch as it is wrong to needlessly consume animals, then yes, I suppose I am "more moral" in at least that one respect. I'm not sure why so many meat-eaters obsess over this "you think you're better than me" nonsense. I do not consciously try to measure my morality against others, particularly with regard to eating meat; I would not read much into it about a person because it is a cultural and moral blind spot. Although I am sick of arguing about vegetarianism on this board, I think I am posing a fundamental question in a rather provocative and interesting way (while staying on topic).

[Puppycow]

Yes and no (in that order). Inasmuch as it is wrong to needlessly consume animals, then yes, I suppose I am "more moral" in at least that one respect. I'm not sure why so many meat-eaters obsess over this "you think you're better than me" nonsense. I do not consciously try to measure my morality against others, particularly with regard to eating meat; I would not read much into it about a person because it is a cultural and moral blind spot. Although I am sick of arguing about vegetarianism on this board, I think I am posing a fundamental question in a rather provocative and interesting way (while staying on topic).

Fair enough. So, you think that only vegetarians are morally pure enough to condemn Michael Vick's crime. But if eating meat is wrong, then I guess that means we should kill all the carnivorous animals, right? Of course not, that was only a rhetorical question. If killing for food is OK for a lion, then it is OK for us. Deliberate cruelty is in a different category. Meat should be raised and slaughtered humanely. PETA, BTW is also against animal research, which is necessary for scientific reasons. I hardly consider standing in the way of scientific progress to be as important as standing for it.

[Number Six]

Of course people are going to use this as an opportunity to Peta bash, and I suppose it's all the more infuriating considering Peta is in the right (yet again). I'm not a member, I don't give money, I don't appreciate how they treat women like meat, blah blah blah, but Peta does more important work than the JREF. Way, way, way more important work.

I think it's questionable whether Peta does any good at all and may even do harm. (It's questionable whether the JREF does any good too, but the JREF's job is much, much tougher.) Peta operates in a way that makes people hate them, which naturally drives people the other side of whatever issue Peta takes. The public outrage over Vick is in spite of Peta, not because of it.

If you morally equate animals with people then you're going to annoy most people and that's going to make them not want to listen to you. A boy is a dog is a fish is a pig.

[Cain]

Fair enough. So, you think that only vegetarians are morally pure enough to condemn Michael Vick's crime.

No. Perhaps they're a little more consistent, though not as consistent as vegans.

But if eating meat is wrong, then I guess that means we should kill all the carnivorous animals, right? Of course not, that was only a rhetorical question. If killing for food is OK for a lion, then it is OK for us.

"Should"/"ought" implies "can." So far as I know lions are not moral agents, and are otherwise incapable of reasonably obtaining a steady food supply without resorting to violence (in their natural environment, of course). Really though I've been over this exact point dozens of times here. Not interested.

Deliberate cruelty is in a different category. Meat should be raised and slaughtered humanely. PETA, BTW is also against animal research, which is necessary for scientific reasons. I hardly consider standing in the way of scientific progress to be as important as standing for it.

Do you not agree that we can learn more about humans by experimenting on humans? Oh, but I guess that is not "necessary" according to you, and consequently not such a big deal that you favor obstructing scientific progress. That's more or less the exact moral argument at the center of the movie EXTREME MEASURES. I forget the exact wording of the famous quote, "Experimenting on animals is important because they're just like humans. We can morally experiment on animals because they're nothing like humans." And yes, of course it is better for cows to be raised and slaughtered humanely. You see, it's cows who are raised, not meat The trouble with humanely raising and slaughtering animals is that it's almost impossible given the massive scale of operations, as documented by undercover investigations. Perhaps you, unlike the industry, favor keeping cameras trained at all points of "production" in order to catch criminals and prevent harm.

Number Six:
I think it's questionable whether Peta does any good at all and may even do harm. (It's questionable whether the JREF does any good too, but the JREF's job is much, much tougher.) Peta operates in a way that makes people hate them, which naturally drives people the other side of whatever issue Peta takes. The public outrage over Vick is in spite of Peta, not because of it.

I used to think that was the case, but not so much anymore. Some people are going to take offense at Peta regardless of its methods because they don't enjoy seeing their morality questioned in a fundamental way. Hence all the "you think you're better than me" ******** that flies around. Plus, they just looooooove eating animals. Also, unless it really is trying to rid the world of religious belief, I do not think the JREF's job is nearly as difficult (not that it matters).

[MelBrooksfan]

Deon Sanders responds: http://www.news-press.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070726/SPORTS/707230309/1075

[LostAngeles]

Deon Sanders responds: http://www.news-press.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070726/SPORTS/707230309/1075

Yeah, and when Deion Sanders was commentating for CBS's football coverage, I didn't enjoy him because of his eloquence. I just liked his suits. Shannon Sharpe does a much, much better job.

While his points about the things done to other NFL players are valid, this whole bit about, "status," rings hollow with me.

[shuize]

Deon Sanders responds: http://www.news-press.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070726/SPORTS/707230309/1075


Thanks for the link. I was starting to forget why I believe idiot celebrity athletes should enjoy their wealth in silence.

The only thing I can gather from this situation is that we're using Vick ... I believe Vick had a passion for dogfighting. I know many athletes who share his passion. The allure is the intensity and the challenge of a dog fighting to the death. It's like ultimate fighting, but the dog doesn't tap out when he knows he can't win ... We should have the same passion for man that we have for man's best friend.


Hey, um, Dion, dogfighting is a felony. But I hear ya man, even though it's a crime, it's, like, wrong to judge people who do it and everything. 'Cause, like, if we can't solve all crimes, it's wrong to prosecute anyone.

This situation reminds me of a scene in the movie "New Jack City," when drug dealer Nino Brown is on the witness stand and eloquently says, "This thing is bigger than me."


Yeah, Dion, it's probably a conspiracy. :eye roll:

[Number Six]

used to think that was the case, but not so much anymore. Some people are going to take offense at Peta regardless of its methods because they don't enjoy seeing their morality questioned in a fundamental way. Hence all the "you think you're better than me" ******** that flies around. Plus, they just looooooove eating animals. Also, unless it really is trying to rid the world of religious belief, I do not think the JREF's job is nearly as difficult (not that it matters).

I guess it depends on what you take to be the JREF & Peta's missions. I took the JREF's mission to be get people to think critically with regards to all things, which is roughly akin to ridding the world of religious belief and also newage, which is almost impossible. And I took Peta's mission to be to ensure that people treat animals ethically, which many people are inclined to do already.

But then, that is according to my own definition of "ethical" in that context, which roughly means to be nice to dogs, don't torture animals, be careful to not inflict undo pain in medical research, etc. According to the defintion of "ethical" to many in Peta though, it means more like morally equating animals with humans (a boy is a fish is a dog is a pig), and yes, by that definition I agree that Peta's job is as hard as the JREF's job.

People don't like having their morality questioned in a fundamental way. I agree with that completely. And that is why I think that if you're going to question someones morality in a fundamental way it's important to do so very tactfully. I mean, some people will never change no matter what but others may change if you can explain to them why you think they should without simultaneously making them feel threatened. It's hard to do but I think it's worth a try. And I think Peta either doesn't try or else they do try but fail miserably.

Maybe I'm being naive in thinking that the best way to persuade people is by using reason and tact instead of yelling and over the top rhetoric. Using reason and tact is definitely the best way to sway some people and maybe I'm incorrectly extrapolating that to how to sway the masses.

[BPSCG]

Maybe I'm being naive in thinking that the best way to persuade people is by using reason and tact instead of yelling and over the top rhetoric. The problem is, if after you've purged yelling and over-the-top rhetoric, you're still preaching an over-the-top message, people still won't listen to you.

If someone tries to tell me, calmly and quietly and earnestly and rationally, that a bear has the right to catch salmon and eat them, but I do not, I'm going to dismiss him as an idiot.

If he further tries to tell me, calmly and quietly and earnestly and rationally, that a fox has the right to catch rabbits and eat them, but I do not, I'm going to dismiss him as an idiot.

If he tries to tell me, calmly and quietly and earnestly and rationally, that animals enjoy important rights that I do not, I'm going to dismiss him as an idiot.

[Overman]

LOL@Deion Sander's New Jack City reference!!!

[Cain]

I guess it depends on what you take to be the JREF & Peta's missions. I took the JREF's mission to be get people to think critically with regards to all things, which is roughly akin to ridding the world of religious belief and also newage, which is almost impossible.

I should think critical reasoning would also entail re-examining one's diet; you know, questioning cultural norms.

And I took Peta's mission to be to ensure that people treat animals ethically, which many people are inclined to do already.

But then, that is according to my own definition of "ethical" in that context, which roughly means to be nice to dogs, don't torture animals, be careful to not inflict undo pain in medical research, etc. According to the defintion of "ethical" to many in Peta though, it means more like morally equating animals with humans (a boy is a fish is a dog is a pig), and yes, by that definition I agree that Peta's job is as hard as the JREF's job.

This is the second time you repeated that line and I'm going to call ******** on it. It's not as though only PETA engages in "equating" animals with humans. When a child mistreats a family pet, the mother is inclined to ask, "How would you like it if I [did the same to you]?" Also, virtually nobody says animals should be treated exactly like humans; instead animals warrant similar consideration. I'm not sure why Newkirk's infamous comment gets as much play as it does: "A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. They are all mammals." Darwin published ORIGIN less than 150 years ago, where he demonstrated humans are created from animals. He went on to say our differences are a matter of degree rather than kind. Now of course it's going to take people a long time to not get so hung up on species. When ORIGIN was printed the U.S. still practiced slavery, and even today most Americans reject evolution.

People don't like having their morality questioned in a fundamental way. I agree with that completely. And that is why I think that if you're going to question someones morality in a fundamental way it's important to do so very tactfully. I mean, some people will never change no matter what but others may change if you can explain to them why you think they should without simultaneously making them feel threatened. It's hard to do but I think it's worth a try. And I think Peta either doesn't try or else they do try but fail miserably.

Maybe I'm being naive in thinking that the best way to persuade people is by using reason and tact instead of yelling and over the top rhetoric. Using reason and tact is definitely the best way to sway some people and maybe I'm incorrectly extrapolating that to how to sway the masses.

I used to be sympathetic to something like the view expressed above but not so much anymore. I think it's a good thing PETA and similar groups are out there being provocative and annoying because when it does stir up a discussion we get to see the empty arguments from apologists for murder. Witness BPSCG's nonsense:

If he tries to tell me, calmly and quietly and earnestly and rationally, that animals enjoy important rights that I do not, I'm going to dismiss him as an idiot.

And dogs can defecate in public whereas humans cannot. Peeing on trees is natural and convenient, yet it's OK to discriminate against me. Yeah, sure, discriminate against the human. I can understand prohibitions against anyone with mud butt from letting loose in public... but if a person poops like a rabbit, then what's the big deal? Just use a baggy to clean up the mess. Cats are permitted to play with their prey, but if a human did the same then the evil statists would intervene under the authority of "anti-cruelty" regulations.

What people do not seem to understand is that the animal rights (or animal liberation) crowd has already won an important part of the argument. Everyone already recognizes rights and/or obligations to some extent; they simply have difficulty coping with the logical implications of their moral beliefs. A lot of girls describe themselves as "big time animal lovers" and if a man does not "love" animals, then that's a deal breaker. Of course, animals is basically limited to kitties, horsies, doggies and dolphins. Other, more exotic creatures get respect when they pop up on Discovery (pandas, whales, polar bears).

[BPSCG]

I used to be sympathetic to something like the view expressed above but not so much anymore. I think it's a good thing PETA and similar groups are out there being provocative and annoying because when it does stir up a discussion we get to see the empty arguments from apologists for murder. Witness BPSCG's nonsense:

If he tries to tell me, calmly and quietly and earnestly and rationally, that animals enjoy important rights that I do not, I'm going to dismiss him as an idiot.

And dogs can defecate in public whereas humans cannot. Peeing on trees is natural and convenient, yet it's OK to discriminate against me. Anticipation of exactly that objection is the reason I put the word "important" in there. I do not consider urinating in public to be an important right. Do you?

This is the point where you have to ask where rights come from. Why does a dog have the right to urinate in public? Why does a dog have the right not to be set to fighting other dogs to the death for the enjoyment of humans? I think you'll conclude that the only rights animals have stem from what we as humans bestow upon them. Were we to forbid dogs from urinating in public tomorrow, that right would end (leaving aside the difficulties of enforcement).

Dogs, as natural omnivores, eat meat as a necessary part of their diet. What logic grants them the right to eat meat while denying that same right to human omnivores? We're not talking about something trivial here, such as where one may defecate; we are talking about something necessary to one's health, even one's life.

[ponderingturtle]

Of course people are going to use this as an opportunity to Peta bash, and I suppose it's all the more infuriating considering Peta is in the right (yet again). I'm not a member, I don't give money, I don't appreciate how they treat women like meat, blah blah blah, but Peta does more important work than the JREF. Way, way, way more important work.

No support the humane society, PETA are a bunch of people who support firebombing research facilities.

[Cain]

Anticipation of exactly that objection is the reason I put the word "important" in there. I do not consider urinating in public to be an important right. Do you?

I suspected you would highlight "important," and the answer is that I do not consider eating meat to be important (or having dog fights, and so on).

This is the point where you have to ask where rights come from. Why does a dog have the right to urinate in public? Why does a dog have the right not to be set to fighting other dogs to the death for the enjoyment of humans? I think you'll conclude that the only rights animals have stem from what we as humans bestow upon them. Were we to forbid dogs from urinating in public tomorrow, that right would end (leaving aside the difficulties of enforcement).

Now you're confusing a couple of things. Dogs effectively have only the rights "humans bestow" in the same sense oppressed people can only exercise the rights dictators are willing to tolerate. So there's a basic distinction between what we do allow and we ought to allow. Normally dogs need exercise, and if a caregiver does not have a large enough yard then that means going out on walks, which means that at some point the animal may have to relieve himself. Shall I assume you hold dogs' "rights" are contingent upon human beliefs in a way that human "rights" are not? Meaning, for example, we humans cannot collectively decide to take away the right to religion. In an empirical sense we can: We can kill people who form churches and pray. In another sense, the moral sense, we cannot because to do so is wrong.

Presumably you think it is a violation of rights to torture an innocent person for fun, regardless of how many people share such a belief. However, your above statements seem to suggest you think a dog's right against torture does depend on whether or not people think it is OK.

Dogs, as natural omnivores, eat meat as a necessary part of their diet. What logic grants them the right to eat meat while denying that same right to human omnivores? We're not talking about something trivial here, such as where one may defecate; we are talking about something necessary to one's health, even one's life.

I am reluctant to debase the irony at work here by pointing it out. What "separates" humans from animals -- or humans from non-humans as we are technically animals -- is our ability to choose; the fact that we are moral agents. If we were irrevocably incontinent, then we could defecate whenever, where-ever. However, we're reasonably capable of controlling not only our bodily fluids but our appetites as well. The consequences of choice are responsibility and accountability.

Ponderingturtle:
No support the humane society, PETA are a bunch of people who support firebombing research facilities.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I know for a fact that this is not entirely true. Besides, what's wrong with firebombing torture chambers posing as research facilities? Suppose a member of the ALF discovered what was happening on Michael Vick's property, but the authorities refused to act. Consequently, the activist trespassed, stole "property" and firebombed the joint, thus bringing the atrocities to light.

[BPSCG]

I suspected you would highlight "important," and the answer is that I do not consider eating meat to be important Fine. Do you consider testing potentially life-saving drugs on animals to see if they are safe and effective, before testing them on humans to be "important"?

Now you're confusing a couple of things. Dogs effectively have only the rights "humans bestow" in the same sense oppressed people can only exercise the rights dictators are willing to tolerate. You haven't answered the question I asked: Where do the rights come from? Do the rights to life, liberty, and property come from God, as the Enlightenment philosophers argued? If not, where do they come from? Did rights exist before the existence of homo sapiens? If not, then animals have rights because homo sapiens invented rights and elected to bestow certain of them on the other animals.

Whatever their source, by what logic does it follow that the rights that humans have necessarily extend to animals? And if they extend to animals, how far down the food chain do those rights go? Primates? Mammals? Warm-blooded animals? Vertebrates, including crustaceans and insects with exoskeletons? Before you cry, "Slippery slope!" explain why a cow has the right not to be killed by you, but the bacteria on your hand, which poses no significant threat, does not have that same right.

Shall I assume you hold dogs' "rights" are contingent upon human beliefs in a way that human "rights" are not? Meaning, for example, we humans cannot collectively decide to take away the right to religion. In an empirical sense we can: We can kill people who form churches and pray. In another sense, the moral sense, we cannot because to do so is wrong. You are, in effect, restating my question: Where do rights come from? From God (or "nature's God," as Jefferson called him)? Or from man? Or from somewhere else?

I am reluctant to debase the irony at work here by pointing it out. What "separates" humans from animals -- or humans from non-humans as we are technically animals -- is our ability to choose; the fact that we are moral agents. No, we do not. You are positing the existence of free will, which does not exist. The illusion of free will exists, because we do not readily perceive the outside influences that determine our actions. See Mark Twain's What is Man? (http://www.yesselman.com/TwainSpn.htm)

[Number Six]

This is the second time you repeated that line and I'm going to call ******** on it. It's not as though only PETA engages in "equating" animals with humans. When a child mistreats a family pet, the mother is inclined to ask, "How would you like it if I [did the same to you]?" Also, virtually nobody says animals should be treated exactly like humans; instead animals warrant similar consideration. I'm not sure why Newkirk's infamous comment gets as much play as it does: "A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. They are all mammals." Darwin published ORIGIN less than 150 years ago, where he demonstrated humans are created from animals. He went on to say our differences are a matter of degree rather than kind. Now of course it's going to take people a long time to not get so hung up on species. When ORIGIN was printed the U.S. still practiced slavery, and even today most Americans reject evolution.

What are you calling BS on? Is it the fact that I didn't add "They are all mammals?" I didn't know that was part of the quote too, if it was, but I don't think it matters because I doubt she was giving a zoology lecture and I think instead she was equating animals with humans, which she's done many times. For right or wrong, people dislike that very much. And she is the head of Peta.

Also, as far as the your example of ALF firebombing the a place that tortures animals because the Feds wouldn't do anything about it, in your recent post (I don't know how to quote two posts at once), the problem is that the definition of torture from ALF or Peta differs greatly from that of the public in general. Just about everyone is in favor of not tortuing animals, but for some that means medical research on animals is okay while for others it's not. That's the whole crux of things. If there were no difference of opinion between ALF & Peta and the general public then there'd be no reason for ALF & Peta to exist.

[Number Six]

Here is Newkirk's quote we're discussing.

“There’s no rational basis for saying that a human being has special rights. A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. They’re all animals.”
— Washingtonian magazine, Aug 1986

[bigred]

Yeah, and when Deion Sanders was commentating for CBS's football coverage, I didn't enjoy him because of his eloquence. Go figure.

Calling Sanders a moron and a pathetic clown isn't simply like saying water is wet; it's like calling the Grand Canyon a pretty big hole. Love how his biggest concern is for the millions Vick is losing. Aren't apologists great?

[Cain]

Fine. Do you consider testing potentially life-saving drugs on animals to see if they are safe and effective, before testing them on humans to be "important"?

I think "important" is the wrong word here. Whether or not we consider it to be "important" depends upon our hierarchy of values. If we heavily discount the worth of non-human life then I suppose, from that perspective, animal testing is an imperative. If we expand the circle of concern, then it's considerably less important. We must also separate moral value from self-advantage. Something important to me may necessarily harm another, so my values might trump personally welfare, or vice-versa.

You haven't answered the question I asked: Where do the rights come from?

Oh, I'm so, so, so sorry for not providing a tidy answer to that easy, noncontroversial question :rolleyes: Rights come from Gort.

Do the rights to life, liberty, and property come from God, as the Enlightenment philosophers argued? If not, where do they come from? Did rights exist before the existence of homo sapiens? If not, then animals have rights because homo sapiens invented rights and elected to bestow certain of them on the other animals.

Whatever their source, by what logic does it follow that the rights that humans have necessarily extend to animals? And if they extend to animals, how far down the food chain do those rights go? Primates? Mammals? Warm-blooded animals? Vertebrates, including crustaceans and insects with exoskeletons? Before you cry, "Slippery slope!" explain why a cow has the right not to be killed by you, but the bacteria on your hand, which poses no significant threat, does not have that same right.

Unfortunately, I think you have this backwards. The real question is why do we limit these rights -- wherever they come from -- to humans and humans alone? (Again, it's worth noting that the unspoken truth is we don't. Most people arbitrarily concede obligations and concern to certain kinds of animals.) In any event, whether you know it or not, you've stumbled across a couple of the core arguments FOR the animal rights/animal liberation camp. That is, the argument from speciesism, or the arbitrary discrimination against an animal on the basis of species; and the argument from marginal differences. Why does an infant merit rights that a higher functioning chimp lacks? (Again, potentiality claims, membership of species, all of that has been talked about here ad infinitum, and I'm sure there are many FAQs available on the web). As for why bacteria lack rights, well, you can more or less find approximately the same answers everywhere: they crucially lack the capacity to feel pleasure/pain, and develop interests over time, Again, this exact sort of thing has been hashed out literally dozens of times.

You are, in effect, restating my question: Where do rights come from? From God (or "nature's God," as Jefferson called him)? Or from man? Or from somewhere else?

No, we do not. You are positing the existence of free will, which does not exist. The illusion of free will exists, because we do not readily perceive the outside influences that determine our actions. See Mark Twain's What is Man? (http://www.yesselman.com/TwainSpn.htm)

I know for a fact I addressed you on precisely this essay in another thread, probably one dealing with vegetarian concerns. I further recall that your vulgar psychological egoism was easily undermined. If you really, truly actually believed that we do not have the ability to choose then there's no point whatsoever arguing over anything that has a moral dimension unless there is a direct and tangible benefit to you personally. Not that you have a choice.

-----------------------

Number Six,

I've seen several different iterations of the quote, and that was one of them. People regularly cite in some vague attempt to prove something. I have never seen the full context.

Also, as far as the your example of ALF firebombing the a place that tortures animals because the Feds wouldn't do anything about it, in your recent post (I don't know how to quote two posts at once), the problem is that the definition of torture from ALF or Peta differs greatly from that of the public in general. Just about everyone is in favor of not tortuing animals, but for some that means medical research on animals is okay while for others it's not. That's the whole crux of things. If there were no difference of opinion between ALF & Peta and the general public then there'd be no reason for ALF & Peta to exist.

And the Bush administration cannot agree with John McCain and Amnesty International over what constitutes torture. I think I've seen disturbing polls where a large part of the public thinks it is OK to torture people under certain conditions. People are opposed to torture in an abstract sense, but most are not interested in learning about what's going on. It's almost always better to swallow the blue pill and go with the flow.

[MelBrooksfan]

Go figure.

Calling Sanders a moron and a pathetic clown isn't simply like saying water is wet; it's like calling the Grand Canyon a pretty big hole. Love how his biggest concern is for the millions Vick is losing. Aren't apologists great?

Evidently, he isn't the only one. Emmit Smith has also gone on record defending Vick. Though Smith's defense was more akin to: "There's no way Vick is the ringleader! He's only being arrested because he's famous."

[bigred]

Evidently, he isn't the only one. Emmit Smith has also gone on record defending Vick. Though Smith's defense was more akin to: "There's no way Vick is the ringleader! He's only being arrested because he's famous."
Well yknow gotta stick up for a "brother" - no matter what. Apologists - I swear they're breeding like cockroaches. About as appealing too.

Smith is another rocket scientist who also mostly mourns the millions Vick is losing. aw.

[BPSCG]

I think "important" is the wrong word here. Whether or not we consider it to be "important" depends upon our hierarchy of values. If we heavily discount the worth of non-human life then I suppose, from that perspective, animal testing is an imperative. If we expand the circle of concern, then it's considerably less important. We must also separate moral value from self-advantage. Something important to me may necessarily harm another, so my values might trump personally welfare, or vice-versa. So you would agree then, that if something is important to humanity as a whole - say the safety and efficacy of a drug that would cure AIDS - the need to test it on animals would trump the animals' "right" to not be killed. Is that correct?

Oh, I'm so, so, so sorry for not providing a tidy answer to that easy, noncontroversial question :rolleyes: Rights come from Gort. Be flip, if you want, but you were the one who was claiming that animals have rights. If you don't think those rights come from God, and they don't come from man, then you have the burden of proving they exist at all, or at least seriously answering where they come from.

Unfortunately, I think you have this backwards. The real question is why do we limit these rights -- wherever they come from -- to humans and humans alone? (Again, it's worth noting that the unspoken truth is we don't. Most people arbitrarily concede obligations and concern to certain kinds of animals.)Do they? Or is it that, rather than extending rights to animals, our laws limit the rights that we have with respect to what we may or may not do to animals? The law may prohibit dogfighting contests; that prohibition does not vest dogs with rights, nor does that prohibition arise out of some rights dogs already had.

I know for a fact I addressed you on precisely this essay in another thread, probably one dealing with vegetarian concerns. You may have addressed it before, but I don't think to me - at least I don't recall it.

If you really, truly actually believed that we do not have the ability to choose then there's no point whatsoever arguing over anything that has a moral dimension unless there is a direct and tangible benefit to you personally. Not that you have a choice. I long ago discovered that there is no point to arguing anything with anyone if a crucial component of his argument is the fiction that we have free will.

[BPSCG]

Evidently, he isn't the only one. Emmit Smith has also gone on record defending Vick. Though Smith's defense was more akin to: "There's no way Vick is the ringleader! He's only being arrested because he's famous."

Well yknow gotta stick up for a "brother" - no matter what. Apologists - I swear they're breeding like cockroaches. About as appealing too.
Gotta love Tank McNamara:
Sunday (http://www.gocomics.com/tankmcnamara/2007/07/29/)
Monday (http://www.gocomics.com/tankmcnamara/2007/07/30/)
Tuesday (http://www.gocomics.com/tankmcnamara/2007/07/31/)

[Cain]

So you would agree then, that if something is important to humanity as a whole - say the safety and efficacy of a drug that would cure AIDS - the need to test it on animals would trump the animals' "right" to not be killed. Is that correct?

Let me clarify and restate. There are cases where my morality may conflict with my material welfare, and the latter overwhelms the former because of a weak will, doubts, instinct for preservation, or whatever. I'm not saying that is correct, quite the opposite. Also, because it seems as though you're now arguing from within a utilitarian framework I should point the issues of drug research and animals-for-food are separate and distinct. The argument here for drug research seems to be that we MUST test on animals as there is no other viable alternative. OK, fine. However, this is much, much less important to me than raising animals for food, as that process claims tens of billions of lives per year.

Be flip, if you want, but you were the one who was claiming that animals have rights. If you don't think those rights come from God, and they don't come from man, then you have the burden of proving they exist at all, or at least seriously answering where they come from.

It's a silly, pointless exercise, as I've learned from experience. Where morality "comes from" is a controversial issue. It's almost always better to highlight possible internal inconsistencies common to most world views, which is exactly why the argument from marginal cases is so compelling. The fact of the matter is there many different approaches to animal rights/animal welfare/animal liberation that it would be a mistake to confuse or lump together those perspectives.

Personally I'm not enamored with all this rights talk. It's an American thing: we're always claiming special rights, minority rights, abortion rights, disability rights, natural rights, children's rights, women's rights, parent's rights, human rights, etc. We also like to declare wars on things, like drugs, poverty, terrorism. The most important and influential animal "rights" advocate is Peter Singer, and he's a utilitarian opposed to a lot of the rights talk that characterizes modern American discourse.

Do they? Or is it that, rather than extending rights to animals, our laws limit the rights that we have with respect to what we may or may not do to animals? The law may prohibit dogfighting contests; that prohibition does not vest dogs with rights, nor does that prohibition arise out of some rights dogs already had.

This is clumsy semantic maneuvering. Why on earth should you then tolerate having your rights restricted with respect to what you may or may not do animals? Could it perhaps be because animals merit moral concern?

I assume you would be against a law prohibiting people from desecrating religious or national symbols from within the privacy of their own home (and probably -- especially -- out in public as well). Who cares if certain groups are offended? Tough luck, right? Now on what rational grounds would it be OK to prohibit me from torturing a dog that I purchased with my own money? Why should I be restricted from disposing of my property in a manner I see fit? Except for the dog, nobody else is being harmed. If you say it's because of prevailing social norms, then you must accept that it would be permissible if people believed otherwise, which not only opens you up against charges of moral relativism, but provides a rationale for the state to restrict you from tearing up copies of the Qu'ran. Alternatively, you might argue on strictly anthropocentric grounds that cruelty to animals leads to cruelty to humans, but that's an empirical argument. It also (crucially) concedes what people are just not generally willing to accept: that there's nothing directly wrong with torturing animals. It means that what Michael Vick has (allegedly) done is not in itself wrong, but could lead to real wrongs. Who knows, maybe that will make you more open to regulating movies, violent video games and religion. Please, don't limit yourself to these suggested arguments. Try to be inventive when it comes to evading this most basic point.

You may have addressed it before, but I don't think to me - at least I don't recall it.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=56431&page=3&highlight=psychological+egoism

I long ago discovered that there is no point to arguing anything with anyone if a crucial component of his argument is the fiction that we have free will.

I've gotta say (no really, I got to) that that ostrich-like response has served you well over the years.

[BPSCG]

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=56431&page=3&highlight=psychological+egoismAh, okay - thanks, I'd forgotten that discussion.

I've gotta say (no really, I got to) that that ostrich-like response has served you well over the years.

What I had particularly forgotten was that you abandoned the field after the following exchange:
I recognize outside influences ("free will" is yet another word I try to avoid).
Do you recognize any influences that are not outside influences?
Twain's psychological egoism suffers from the same deficit most God-theories do (by God-theory I mean something that explains everyting, like Freudianism or Marxism): it's unfalsifiable.

Not at all. If you can show one single human action that was not motivated by the person's belief that he would secure his inner contentment, that would prove the hypothesis false.
At which point, you bailed on me. Ostrich-like, indeed. :biggrin:

[Cain]

Ah, okay - thanks, I'd forgotten that discussion.


What I had particularly forgotten was that you abandoned the field after the following exchange:

At which point, you bailed on me. Ostrich-like, indeed. :biggrin:

I realize that I sometimes I do overlook replies, or just plain forget, but in this case you're mistaken. See post #95, which came after what you're calling here the final comments (your post #92). If anyone "bailed" it was you. Ostrich-like, indeed.

[Lonewulf]

Now, now, children, play nice.

[BPSCG]

I realize that I sometimes I do overlook replies, or just plain forget, but in this case you're mistaken. See post #95, which came after what you're calling here the final comments (your post #92). So you did. Of course, if you had hadn't childishly disguised who you were replying to, I might not have skipped past it.

In any case, you still did not really answer the question, "Do you recognize any influences that are not outside influences?" Your reply was a non-answer, a dodge:
You're the person who originally used the term. By "outside influences" I merely meant the concept of the self is not this mystical entity residing in a vacuum. Outside events, social forces, influence our behavior (and so do evolutionary forces, predisposing toward certain things), but we're still capable of making choices. "Outside events, social forces, influence our behavior (and so do evolutionary forces, predisposing toward certain things), but we're still capable of making choices."

Yes, outside events, social forces, influence our behavior, and so do evolutionary forces, predisposing toward certain things. Does anything other than outside forces influence our behavior? If so, what?

"...but we're still capable of making choices." No. If our behavior is controlled by outside forces, we do not make choices, any more than your car chooses to stop at a red light. This post you are reading at this very moment is controlling your behavior - along with a thousand other outside influences. You may or may not reply to it, but what you do will be the confluence of all those outside forces.

[Cain]

So you did. Of course, if you had hadn't childishly disguised who you were replying to, I might not have skipped past it.

The nerve of me to "disguise" who I was replying to, and in plain sight! I see how it works. If I don't reply, then I bailed. If you don't reply, then it must be because I had childishly and contemptuously put my reply on double-secret background. And now you want to start this up again over a year later. Give me a second, my face hurts from grinning.

In any case, you still did not really answer the question, "Do you recognize any influences that are not outside influences?" Your reply was a non-answer, a dodge:
"Outside events, social forces, influence our behavior (and so do evolutionary forces, predisposing toward certain things), but we're still capable of making choices."

Yes, outside events, social forces, influence our behavior, and so do evolutionary forces, predisposing toward certain things. Does anything other than outside forces influence our behavior? If so, what?

Although I wrote it over a year ago, and I have not re-read the exchange in its entirety, from the snippets I have skimmed it seems sufficiently clear I used evolutionary psychology as an example of something that is not an "outside" influence, so this stuff about a non-answer is, well, nonsense (Unless, of course, you consider a person's own biology to be an "outside influence" (not simply the product of outside influences) and that's not something I would put past you).

"...but we're still capable of making choices." No. If our behavior is controlled by outside forces, we do not make choices, any more than your car chooses to stop at a red light. This post you are reading at this very moment is controlling your behavior - along with a thousand other outside influences. You may or may not reply to it, but what you do will be the confluence of all those outside forces.

Yes, yes, I've heard all of this stuff before. Free-will is an illusion, we're all basically machines, and, oh yeah, you can't prove any of it. Also, please note the subtle transition from mere influences toward determinism. As I said, it's B.S. because it's unfalsifiable, and that's one reason why, unlike you, I think the interminable free will debate is almost completely worthless. What's annoying is when people put on this knowing, Morpheus-like pose and say, "If you respond to this then aha, and if you don't then AHA" and they think it's sooooooo clever when really it's barely one step above grandpa's "got your nose" trick. Let's just flip for it: heads, I win; tails, you lose. :rolleyes:

[BPSCG]

Although I wrote it over a year ago, and I have not re-read the exchange in its entirety, from the snippets I have skimmed it seems sufficiently clear I used evolutionary psychology as an example of something that is not an "outside" influence,
Evolutionary psychology (abbreviated ev-psych or EP) is a theoretical approach to psychology that attempts to explain mental and psychological traits—such as memory, perception, or language—as adaptations, i.e., as the functional products of natural selection.So are you saying free will is a product of natural selection? Please. You haven't even demonstrated free will exists, let alone where it comes from or the mechanism by which it functions.

so this stuff about a non-answer is, well, nonsense (Unless, of course, you consider a person's own biology to be an "outside influence" (not simply the product of outside influences) and that's not something I would put past you). So you don't think a person's biology influences his behavior? And you don't think a person's biology is influenced by outside sources? Try eating a tablespoon of drain opener, then use your free will to stop the biological and chemical reactions. Or do you think that, as humans, we are somehow exmpt from the laws of biology, chemistry, and physics that rule the rest of the natural world?

Yes, yes, I've heard all of this stuff before. Free-will is an illusion, we're all basically machines, Show me an example of free will at work. Never mind your blather about evolutionary psychology and other theories and speculations. Show me a real-world example of something you have done that was not compelled by your desire for inner satisfaction.

As I said, it's B.S. because it's unfalsifiable, And as I said, it's not - all you have to produce is one example of the unicorn free will in action - in essence, all you have to do is show one example of an effect without a prior cause.

What's annoying is when people put on this knowing, Morpheus-like pose and say, "If you respond to this then aha, and if you don't then AHA" and they think it's sooooooo clever when really it's barely one step above grandpa's "got your nose" trick. I think what you really find annoying is that you have no suitable answer. You might as well be annoyed with me when I show you that 1+1=2 by taking one apple out of one pocket and one apple out of another and showing you two apples. 1+1 still equals 2, and always will, whether you're annoyed or not.

[Lonewulf]

*Scratches his head*

Has the discussion changed? I thought you were all debating the morality of eating meat, which came from the morality of using dogs in dogfights. Now apparently it's onto evolutionary whatchamacallits and a Free Will/Determinism thread.

[BPSCG]

*Scratches his head*

Has the discussion changed? I thought you were all debating the morality of eating meat, which came from the morality of using dogs in dogfights. Now apparently it's onto evolutionary whatchamacallits and a Free Will/Determinism thread.Yeah. Try to keep up. :p

[quixotecoyote]

How about suicide BPSCG? That or any other act that runs obviously counter to one's best interest?

[mumblethrax]

It's astonishing to me that someone is always, always, always willing to race down the path to moral skepticism to avoid confronting the idea that inflicting suffering and death on animals for food might not be the best we can do. Even precisely the same people urging us to write to Nike in order to demonstrate opposition to torturing dogs to death! It's so transparently self-serving:

"Torturing animals for entertainment is wrong!"
"I agree!"

"Torturing animals for food is wrong!"
"Whoa, hold on. Just where does morality come from, anyway?"

[Number Six]

I think you'll find few people that will say they don't mind animals being tortured for humans to have food. But the problem is that something that is considered non-torture to one person is considered torture to another.

[mumblethrax]

No, I haven't really found that. Most people are happy to characterize treatment of dogs in cases like this as torture, but hesitant to do so when confronted with similar treatment of animals in agriculture, for no particularly good reason. That's not a problem of definition, it's a problem of consistent application.

That's not really what I'm getting at, though--substitute a different word if you prefer. The point is that this moral skepticism is a fallacy of distraction. Why do I have to spell out what the ultimate source of morality is in this debate but in virtually no other? It reminds me of the religionist who harps on cognitive relativism to direct attention away from the problem that his beliefs are an incoherent mess. If you're attacking the underpinnings of truth or inconsistently questioning whether morality exists, it might be an indication that your argument has gone off the rails.

[BPSCG]

How about suicide BPSCG? No, I'm happy in my life. Why would I want to do that?




Oh, you mean as regards free will. Well, let's start with an example Twain gives in his imaginary discussion between and Old Man and a Young man:

Y.M. When a man sacrifices his life to save a little child from a burning building, what do you call that?

O.M. When he does it, it is the law of HIS make.HE can't bear to see the child in that peril (a man of a different make COULD), and so he tries to save the child, and loses his life.

That or any other act that runs obviously counter to one's best interest?Keep in mind what motivates man is not necessarily what is in his best interest, or even what he perceives is in his best interest. It is what he perceives will give him his own approval, his own inner satisfaction.

Note the man's motivation: He could not bear to see the child die. He decided (perhaps in a matter of a split second) that he would rather risk death, even almost certain death, than continue to live knowing the child died and he did not at least try to save it. The thought of living with that knowledge was unbearable, and he would achieve his own approval only by risking his life to save the child. Any other alternative would be too painful to live with.

Okay, that's not suicide. But it's only one step removed. I'm assuming that suicide is a step generally taken only when one sees nothing but unbearable unhappiness before him for the rest of his days. This is someone who can only secure his own approval, his own inner satisfaction in the one act that will end his misery.

I keep telling people to read this commentary on Twain's What Is Man? (http://www.yesselman.com/TwainSpn.htm) but nobody does. Damned shame.

[bigred]

Gotta love Tank McNamara:
Sunday (http://www.gocomics.com/tankmcnamara/2007/07/29/)
Monday (http://www.gocomics.com/tankmcnamara/2007/07/30/)
Tuesday (http://www.gocomics.com/tankmcnamara/2007/07/31/)
The last 2 were kinda weak but LOL @ that first one. Funny and makes a good point. Too bad guys like that golfer almost never speak out against the losers though.

Oh and btw if you atheists will excuse the expression: GOD BLESS BILL COSBY

[bigred]

It's astonishing to me that someone is always, always, always willing to race down the path to moral skepticism to avoid confronting the idea that inflicting suffering and death on animals for food might not be the best we can do. Even precisely the same people urging us to write to Nike in order to demonstrate opposition to torturing dogs to death! It's so transparently self-serving:

"Torturing animals for entertainment is wrong!"
"I agree!"

"Torturing animals for food is wrong!"
"Whoa, hold on. Just where does morality come from, anyway?"
Good comparison :rolleyes:

[quixotecoyote]

No, I'm happy in my life. Why would I want to do that?




Oh, you mean as regards free will. Well, let's start with an example Twain gives in his imaginary discussion between and Old Man and a Young man:

Y.M. When a man sacrifices his life to save a little child from a burning building, what do you call that?

O.M. When he does it, it is the law of HIS make.HE can't bear to see the child in that peril (a man of a different make COULD), and so he tries to save the child, and loses his life.

Keep in mind what motivates man is not necessarily what is in his best interest, or even what he perceives is in his best interest. It is what he perceives will give him his own approval, his own inner satisfaction.

Note the man's motivation: He could not bear to see the child die. He decided (perhaps in a matter of a split second) that he would rather risk death, even almost certain death, than continue to live knowing the child died and he did not at least try to save it. The thought of living with that knowledge was unbearable, and he would achieve his own approval only by risking his life to save the child. Any other alternative would be too painful to live with.

Okay, that's not suicide. But it's only one step removed. I'm assuming that suicide is a step generally taken only when one sees nothing but unbearable unhappiness before him for the rest of his days. This is someone who can only secure his own approval, his own inner satisfaction in the one act that will end his misery.

I keep telling people to read this commentary on Twain's What Is Man? (http://www.yesselman.com/TwainSpn.htm) but nobody does. Damned shame.


Ok, so what definition of free will are we using then? Acting on one's own motivation seems to fit pretty well to me.

[bigred]

Why do I have to spell out what the ultimate source of morality is in this debate but in virtually no other?
:boggled: good grief

Why do we have to spell out how blatantly wrong murdering/torturing dogs for entertainment is? Is this some goofy trolling expedition?

[Number Six]

No, I haven't really found that. Most people are happy to characterize treatment of dogs in cases like this as torture, but hesitant to do so when confronted with similar treatment of animals in agriculture, for no particularly good reason. That's not a problem of definition, it's a problem of consistent application.

That's not really what I'm getting at, though--substitute a different word if you prefer. The point is that this moral skepticism is a fallacy of distraction. Why do I have to spell out what the ultimate source of morality is in this debate but in virtually no other? It reminds me of the religionist who harps on cognitive relativism to direct attention away from the problem that his beliefs are an incoherent mess. If you're attacking the underpinnings of truth or inconsistently questioning whether morality exists, it might be an indication that your argument has gone off the rails.

I'm not going to answer your second paragraph because I'm not really following that part of the debate and I haven't really thought about it, but your first paragraph is not true. People fighting dogs for entertainment and people doing whatever they do to raise and then slaughter animals to sell for food are doing very different things. Some would say that both of those things constitute torture and others wouldn't but the point is that the things involved are different

Even if they were the same...and they're not...some people might say that doing X for entertainment is wrong but doing X for food is okay.

[Cain]

So are you saying free will is a product of natural selection? Please. You haven't even demonstrated free will exists, let alone where it comes from or the mechanism by which it functions.

I should think that if we do possess free will, then it is must be the product of evolutionary forces. Also, I have no intention of proving free will exists. To repeat, not only do I think the argument is worthless and off-topic, but it's too ambitious a controversy to follow through on, especially when the position you're taking is non-falsifiable.

So you don't think a person's biology influences his behavior? And you don't think a person's biology is influenced by outside sources? Try eating a tablespoon of drain opener, then use your free will to stop the biological and chemical reactions. Or do you think that, as humans, we are somehow exmpt from the laws of biology, chemistry, and physics that rule the rest of the natural world?

Do you actively strive to misunderstand? You asked me one year ago to cite something that is "not" an "outside influence" and the answer I returned was biology, at which you bailed on the conversation. Few people, I gather, would consider an innate disposition toward violence (for example) to be an "outside" influence. A person conditioned toward violence is another matter.

Show me an example of free will at work. Never mind your blather about evolutionary psychology and other theories and speculations. Show me a real-world example of something you have done that was not compelled by your desire for inner satisfaction.

As I explained to you over a year ago -- at which you promptly bailed out of the discussion -- there's nothing I can say to satisfy you. It's more or less the same story with Freudians. The irrefutability of a hypothesis purporting to elegantly explain almost everything is also its critical weakness.

And as I said, it's not - all you have to produce is one example of the unicorn free will in action - in essence, all you have to do is show one example of an effect without a prior cause.

I think what you really find annoying is that you have no suitable answer. You might as well be annoyed with me when I show you that 1+1=2 by taking one apple out of one pocket and one apple out of another and showing you two apples. 1+1 still equals 2, and always will, whether you're annoyed or not.

No, you're engaging in simple topic avoidance. Apart from the pursuit of "inner contentment," which state of affairs is morally superior, one where a humans satisfy their inner most desires torturing animals, or one in which animals are treated with dignity and respect?

Number Six:

Even if they were the same...and they're not...some people might say that doing X for entertainment is wrong but doing X for food is okay.

You keep going on in this vein. Yeah, some people do say this and some people do say that, big deal. Some people are right and some people are wrong.

People fighting dogs for entertainment and people doing whatever they do to raise and then slaughter animals to sell for food are doing very different things.

Uh-huh. People doing whatever they do, you don't know, you just know that it's completely different. :rolleyes:

[MelBrooksfan]

Well yknow gotta stick up for a "brother" - no matter what. Apologists - I swear they're breeding like cockroaches. About as appealing too.

Smith is another rocket scientist who also mostly mourns the millions Vick is losing. aw.

If that's the politics at work, when can we expect Al Sharpton to enter the scene?

[bigred]

If that's the politics at work, when can we expect Al Sharpton to enter the scene?
I am frankly surprised his overbearing dumbass hasn't chimed in yet. Might this be territory even he dares not tread? gasp

[Number Six]

Number Six:

You keep going on in this vein. Yeah, some people do say this and some people do say that, big deal. Some people are right and some people are wrong.

Uh-huh. People doing whatever they do, you don't know, you just know that it's completely different. :rolleyes:

He was denying something that was obviously true and I was just pointing it out. If you don't like it then I think you should complain to him for saying the blatant falsehood, not me for pointing it out.

And I know some of what they do to raise animals to sell for food but the point is I'm 100% certain the way they do it isn't by fighting dogs. The point I was making didn't have anything to do with what they do to raise animals for food _except_ to say that it is different from dog fighting. Therefore, I just said "whatever they do" instead of trying to detail it all.

Honestly, I think you need to be a little more careful in your reading and writing.

[Cain]

He was denying something that was obviously true and I was just pointing it out. If you don't like it then I think you should complain to him for saying the blatant falsehood, not me for pointing it out.

And I know some of what they do to raise animals to sell for food but the point is I'm 100% certain the way they do it isn't by fighting dogs. The point I was making didn't have anything to do with what they do to raise animals for food _except_ to say that it is different from dog fighting. Therefore, I just said "whatever they do" instead of trying to detail it all.

Honestly, I think you need to be a little more careful in your reading and writing.

Someone needs to be more careful when it comes to generating and expressing her views. Yes, however "livestock" is raised it differs from dog fighting if only because we're talking about different animals having different things done to them -- a morally superficial difference. The point is that people such as yourself (effectively) say that it's OK for animals to suffer provided they're going to end up in your tummy, but it's not OK for animals to suffer in service of entertaining the Michael Vicks of the world, and that's an arbitrary distinction. If a person believes animal suffering is morally relevant -- and who doesn't? (other than BPSCG) -- then he should ask himself under what conditions, toward what ends, animal suffering is justified.

[Lonewulf]

:boggled: good grief

Why do we have to spell out how blatantly wrong murdering/torturing dogs for entertainment is? Is this some goofy trolling expedition?

I do believe that the point has gone right over your head.

So, you DON'T have to explain why murdering/torturing dogs for entertainment is. I guess it's true a priori? Self-evident, therefore no evidence is needed?

But, a vegetarian/vegan HAS to explain why they view killing animals as wrong from some ultimate morality show of some sort. It's NOT true a priori, evidence is needed, and unless they can adequately express their viewpoints, they are "idiots" (as BPSGC would call them so eloquently).

Consistent!

Let's have another demonstration of consistency!

If I torture dogs in my back yard for entertainment, then I am wrong, and need to be punished. You lord over how I'm wrong, and if I try to explain away my actions in whatever way, you'd probably react in pure disgust, right? When the man is arrested and put in prison, you cheer. It's GOOD that he was punished for his actions.

Now, I look at a slaughterhouse and go, "blech". I show disgust. I say to you that it's disgusting, and then I turn vegan and encourage you to do the same. Suddenly, I'm lording over my morality over you, I'm acting "holier than thou". YOU weren't acting "holier than thou" to the guy who had dogs tortured, but I'M acting holier than thou. I don't ask or demand for you to go to prison, but you don't like me encouraging you to give up meat. You don't like the perception that I think of myself as "more moral" than you are.

If none of the above actually applies to you, Bigred, then feel free to ignore it. However, I see a lot of people act indignant at the supposed "holier than thou" attitude of the vegetarian.

Apparently, if someone disagrees with you over an issue of morality, they're either "holier than thou", or immoral evil sons of *****es that need to be punished. And, of course, you'd be the moderate one... while the guy that was "less moral" can't call you "holier than thou" for whatever reason.

Consistency!

[mumblethrax]

I'm not going to answer your second paragraph because I'm not really following that part of the debate and I haven't really thought about it, but your first paragraph is not true. People fighting dogs for entertainment and people doing whatever they do to raise and then slaughter animals to sell for food are doing very different things. Some would say that both of those things constitute torture and others wouldn't but the point is that the things involved are different
I don't know where you're going with this. Are you saying that some people think inflicting pain and death upon dogs is torture, but inflicting pain and death upon pigs is not? Yes, I know they do--that's why I say that they don't have a coherent definition of torture. It's not controversial that both of these things happen, but it doesn't become torture in one case and not the other simply because we've conferred Most Favored Animal status upon dogs.

Even if they were the same...and they're not...some people might say that doing X for entertainment is wrong but doing X for food is okay.
The morally arbitrary nature of this distinction is exactly what I'm critical of--you can't therefore defend it by simply restating it.

[Number Six]

I don't know where you're going with this. Are you saying that some people think inflicting pain and death upon dogs is torture, but inflicting pain and death upon pigs is not? Yes, I know they do--that's why I say that they don't have a coherent definition of torture. It's not controversial that both of these things happen, but it doesn't become torture in one case and not the other simply because we've conferred Most Favored Animal status upon dogs.


The morally arbitrary nature of this distinction is exactly what I'm critical of--you can't therefore defend it by simply restating it.

Yes, some people (most probably) think both that dog fighting is immoral and raising animals to eat isn't. I'm not saying it's either right or wrong, I'm just saying it is.

You can say they don't have a coherent defintion of torture but they would disagree and in fact might say that it's you that doesn't have a coherent definition of torture. And neither is right because it is subjective. You may see the distinction between dog fighting and raising animals for food as arbitrary but some others do not. And it's not a mathematical or scientific thing that can be proven one way or the other in the end.

You can have your own morality and others can have theirs and you can try to persuade others to come to your point of view. That's fine. People naturally believe their morality is the best morality. But remember that defining your views as the morally correct ones doesn't automatically make it so and also it makes persuading others to come to your view harder because it essentially tells them "You should agree with me because I'm right and you're wrong" instead of telling them why they should agree with you.

[mumblethrax]

You can say they don't have a coherent definition of torture but they would disagree and in fact might say that it's you that doesn't have a coherent definition of torture. And neither is right because it is subjective. You may see no distinction between dog fighting and raising animals for food as arbitrary but some others do see a distinction. And it's not a mathematical or scientific thing that can be proven one way or the other in the end.
What is and is not coherent is not a subjective matter. Whether or not it's important to be coherent might be. Suffice it to say that I think it is, and so will most other rational people. Yes, I can say that the other's beliefs are incoherent, and he can say the same about mine...but I can actually tell him why his beliefs are incoherent, whereas he will be parroting the language of critical thought.

No, morality is not math or science. It is, however, possible to speak about morality rationally.

You can have your own morality and others can have theirs and you can try to persuade others to come to your point of view. That's fine. People naturally believe their morality is the best morality. But remember that defining your views as the morally correct ones doesn't automatically make it so and also it makes persuading others to come to your view harder because it essentially tells them "You should agree with me because I'm right and you're wrong" instead of telling them why they should agree with you.
We can't do that if there is no basis for rational discourse--we'd just be talking at each other. I'm not saying that my views are true by virtue of the fact that I hold them--I'm saying that some moral systems are incoherent, and some are not. This is not a matter of opinion. The view that 'killing black people is wrong, but killing white people is not,' for example, is irrational (and not just different) because the distinction between white people and black people is arbitrary, and the beliefs incoherent. That doesn't mean you can't hold this view, of course--just that you'd be wrong to do so.

[Number Six]

What is and is not coherent is not a subjective matter. Whether or not it's important to be coherent might be. Suffice it to say that I think it is, and so will most other rational people. Yes, I can say that the other's beliefs are incoherent, and he can say the same about mine...but I can actually tell him why his beliefs are incoherent, whereas he will be parroting the language of critical thought.

No, morality is not math or science. It is, however, possible to speak about morality rationally.


We can't do that if there is no basis for rational discourse--we'd just be talking at each other. I'm not saying that my views are true by virtue of the fact that I hold them--I'm saying that some moral systems are incoherent, and some are not. This is not a matter of opinion. The view that 'killing black people is wrong, but killing white people is not,' for example, is irrational (and not just different) because the distinction between white people and black people is arbitrary, and the beliefs incoherent. That doesn't mean you can't hold this view, of course--just that you'd be wrong to do so.

You're simply defining your views as rational and the views of those that disagree with you as irrational. You can tell others why you think their beliefs are incoherent and they can tell you why they think yours is, but naturally you think you're right and they're wrong, but they think they're right and you're wrong. What makes you the one that is right and them wrong? Just because you have reasons for your views that you agree with and they have reasons for their views that you don't agree with doesn't make you rational and them irrational. After all, they'd say that they're the rational ones and you're the irrational one. It is subjective.

Morality is subjective. I know that's scary because it opens the door for all kinds of bad moralities in the name of "Hey, it's my opinion, who are you to tell me it's wrong?" But just because it's scary doesn't make it not true.

[quixotecoyote]

It is illogical to say that inflicting pain on dogs is wrong but inflicting pain of pigs is alright without being able to substantiate a moral difference in kind or circumstance. That is true regardless of your personal morals.

[mumblethrax]

You're simply defining your views as rational and the views of those that disagree with you as irrational. You can tell others why you think their beliefs are incoherent an