PETA asks Obama to spare the pardon on turkeys

[jj]

Originally Posted by Dessi

Even Segnosaur, jj, and the guys would call this out as a non-response. I'm not interested in harping on it, because I think you already realized how your own principle unavoidably raises animals to the status of humans, or lowers humans to the status of animals. At least of subset of them

Actually, it's a statement of perception, and as such, can't be argued to its perceived accuracy.

But perception, as any skeptic knows, does not have to be very well connected to reality.

Your own "mind reading", on the other hand, is projecting your own belief systems on to somebody who doesn't agree with you. Bad form, that.

[jj]

Originally Posted by DragonLady

??? Has anyone here suggested that it's okay to torture (or do tests on, or eat) non-rational humans?

No, it's just a propaganda attack on you, and is really nothing but an ad-hom directed more or less at you.

You must notice by now how it's ok for the PETA side to "just make things up". In that respect, they remind me of another political campaign.

[Dessi]

Originally Posted by jj

Quote:

Dessi: It take's some pretty impressive mental acrobatics to justify horrific levels of suffering to "mentally inferior" animals, then double back in revulsion at the very thought of a "mentally inferior" humans being treated in the exact same way.

DragonLady: Who here is arguing FOR horrific levels of suffering for any creature or any person? No one. There are those of us who say "USING animals in medical testing is neccesary" but even we do not -as a rule- agree that "abusing animals is okay". We -I- draw a line between "use" and "abuse". They are two different things.

Dessi: Is that a rule which applies to non-rational humans?

DragonLady: ?? Has anyone here suggested that it's okay to torture (or do tests on, or eat) non-rational humans?

Dessi: I don't know what to make that non-response. I didn't ask anything unreasonable, so let's try again with that exchange: There are those of us who say "USING animals in medical testing is neccesary" but even we do not -as a rule- agree that "abusing animals is okay". We -I- draw a line between "use" and "abuse". They are two different things. Is that a rule which applies to non-rational humans?

DragonLady: We don't tend to see ourselves as "using" humans much in any way at all. Since most of us don't eat them, or see our neighbors as a source of warm skins for the winter we draw very wide chasms between ourselves and animals.

Dessi: Even Segnosaur, jj, and the guys would call this out as a non-response. I'm not interested in harping on it, because I think you already realized how your own principle unavoidably raises animals to the status of humans, or lowers humans to the status of animals. At least of subset of them

Actually, it's a statement of perception, and as such, can't be argued to its perceived accuracy.

But perception, as any skeptic knows, does not have to be very well connected to reality.

Your own "mind reading", on the other hand, is projecting your own belief systems on to somebody who doesn't agree with you. Bad form, that.

Come on, jj, you're not a dumb guy. Either she was trying to argue that that it's acceptable to use (not abuse) animals in labs, or she was blurting out a completely irrelevant remark having nothing to do with the discussing at hand, which is whether using "mentally inferior" animals in labs generalizes to "mentally inferior" humans.

[DragonLady]

Quote:

Either she was trying to argue that that it's acceptable to use (not abuse) animals in labs,

This.
I don't think I can say it any clearer. Maybe in bold?

I find it perfectly acceptable to use -but not abuse- animals in labs for the purposes of furthering human knowledge, for finding cures for illnesses, for bettering human life, and for bettering animal and plant life.

[DragonLady]

Quote:

No one really takes potential person arguments seriously.

Okay. Why not?

A human child has the potential to grow into a person capable of building an igloo an living in the arctic. Neither an elephant nor a dolphin have that potential. Therefore, the human child is more valuable.

[MarkCorrigan]

Still nothing on the ALF-as-heroes bit then?

[mumblethrax]

Originally Posted by jj

Well, at least you admit you're a traitor to your species.

This is wonderful. Ridiculous. Hilarious. A fine example of Republican reasoning.

There's a great bad-movie moment in Avatar, where the gung ho guy in the power suit accuses the hero of being a race traitor. Inaccurate, because there's no sense in which the Na'vi are a race of humans, but "species traitor" would have been defensible. (I would also accept biosphere traitor.) To the speciesist, this makes everything the humans do in that movie defensible, despite all indications to the contrary.

Quote:

I agree entirely with the point various people have made about not doing unnecessary harm, but the whole excuse of "nothing is necessary" based on what amounts to a religious belief is just unacceptable, and further untestable.

You're just stringing words together.

[Cain]

Originally Posted by DragonLady

Okay. Why not?

A human child has the potential to grow into a person capable of building an igloo an living in the arctic. Neither an elephant nor a dolphin have that potential. Therefore, the human child is more valuable.

And what about a handicapped child, such as one with Down's Syndrome? In all likelihood she'll never be able to build an igloo, much less live in the arctic.

It's odd how "skeptics" on this forum understand this basic distinction when it comes to the topic of abortion, but suddenly become right-to-human-lifers when we get onto the topic of animal rights. An embryo has the potential to build igloos. George W. Bush surrounded himself with "snowflake" babies when he made an announcement not to fund stem cell research.

But whatever, if a fertility clinic is on fire and I can save a freezer filled with embryos or a dog, I'm gonna go ahead and save myself.

[DragonLady]

Quote:

And what about a handicapped child, such as one with Down's Syndrome?

What about him? He's still fully human, therefore he should still more valuable to other humans than animals.

Quote:

but suddenly become right-to-human-lifers when we get onto the topic of animal rights

I'm pro-choice, so I assume that's directed at me. Did you notice that I used the word "infant" several times, but never once said "embryo"?

Quote:

An embryo has the potential to build igloos.

No; an embryo has the potential to become an infant of its species. Only a human infant has the potential to become an adult human who can build igloos.

Quote:

But whatever, if a fertility clinic is on fire and I can save a freezer filled with embryos or a dog, I'm gonna go ahead and save myself.

??? Inserting the third choice -yourself- into the equation you created makes me think you're just joking, or you're high on something, or you're only learning to think critically. Either way, comments like that make it very hard to take the things you say seriously enough to want to respond at all.

[Cain]

Originally Posted by DragonLady

What about him? He's still fully human, therefore he should still more valuable to other humans than animals.

I don't see how that conclusion follows. Charles Manson is fully human, so should he be "more valuable to other humans" -- whatever that means -- than animals? You're also setting up a premise that could lead to an awkward conclusion: if it can be shown that animals are more valuable -- and economists have calculated pest/plague control from having cats, the contributions of canines, etc., then you might be forced to conclude people with Down's Syndrome are of relatively little value.

Quote:

I'm pro-choice, so I assume that's directed at me. Did you notice that I used the word "infant" several times, but never once said "embryo"?

I must confess that I did not. Perhaps you're referring to an earlier post, one that I probably did not read. In any event, if potentiality is so critical, what's the difference between an infant and an embryo?

Quote:

No; an embryo has the potential to become an infant of its species. Only a human infant has the potential to become an adult human who can build igloos.

I'm sorry, but this does not quite work, as any precious 12 year-old, and potential philosophy major, will point out. Neither infants nor embryos, human or non-human, can construct an igloo, but each has the potential to build an igloo one day (barring disability). So, I ask again, what's the difference? And I think it's unnecessary for me to make clear that we're talking about a human embryo versus a human infant.

[Sledge]

I've eaten two turkey sandwiches this week. Take THAT, PETA.

[DragonLady]

Quote:

Charles Manson is fully human, so should he be "more valuable to other humans" -- whatever that means -- than animals?

Yes. And as far as I know (I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong) no one has ever performed experiements on him.

Quote:

In any event, if potentiality is so critical, what's the difference between an infant and an embryo?

Quote:

Neither infants nor embryos, human or non-human, can construct an igloo, but each has the potential to build an igloo one day (barring disability). So, I ask again, what's the difference? And I think it's unnecessary for me to make clear that we're talking about a human embryo versus a human infant.

You answered your own question. An embryo has a lot further to go than an infant. An infant has already proven they have components to survive with proper care. Many embryos never make it that far.

[Cain]

Originally Posted by DragonLady

Yes. And as far as I know (I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong) no one has ever performed experiements on him.

Try to stay on point, dear.

Quote:

You answered your own question. An embryo has a lot further to go than an infant. An infant has already proven they have components to survive with proper care. Many embryos never make it that far.

An embryo also has the components to "survive with proper care." While many embryos never make it to infancy, many infants never make it to adulthood. Compared to today, infant mortality historically is quite high. But this is beside the point.

The standard argument -- standard because it's powerful -- is that an embryo is not a morally significant being. It's not morally significant being despite species membership, and despite its potential to one day build igloos and take up residence in the arctic.

[DragonLady]

Charles Manson is fully human, so should he be "more valuable to other humans" -- whatever that means -- than animals?

Yes. And as far as I know (I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong) no one has ever performed experiements on him.

Try to stay on point, dear.

Clearly we don't communicate very well.

Quote:

The standard argument -- standard because it's powerful -- is that an embryo is not a morally significant being. It's not morally significant being despite species membership, and despite its potential to one day build igloos and take up residence in the arctic.

Yes.

So we're in agreement, then? Human infants, not embryos, are more important than animals.

(edited because I posted it before I was ready)

[Cain]

Originally Posted by DragonLady

Clearly we don't communicate very well.

One of the most important parts in communication is the ability to listen...

Quote:

Yes.

So we're in agreement, then? Human infants, not embryos, are more important than animals.

I don't think you see how your own argument self-destructed. A human infant is a morally significant being unirregardless of its ability to construct an igloo.

Also, it's unnecessary at this stage to create a hierarchy of "more important" versus "less important." Given the (highly questionable) criteria you've laid down, you would have to conclude that severely autistic children are less "important" (and/or "valuable") than non-autistic children. That might very well be the case, but it misses the point.

[DragonLady]

Quote:

One of the most important parts in communication is the ability to listen...

Really? I thought this place was more about reading comprehension. Silly me.

Quote:

Also, it's unnecessary at this stage to create a hierarchy of "more important" versus "less important." Given the (highly questionable) criteria you've laid down, you would have to conclude that severely autistic children are less "important" (and/or "valuable") than non-autistic children. That might very well be the case, but it misses the point.

No; I don't. The whole point is that people -any people- are more important than animals. But even if every being on the planet was exactly equal, people would still be more important to me than animals.

Just because I think a human with more potential is more important than animals, doesn't mean I think a human with less potential is less important. There is no cosmic rule that says one must follow the other.

Not to mention that even the most profoundly retarded human -provided they are not literally brain dead- is still more intelligent and has more potential than plankton.

But...I think...I'm bowing out of this topic now. I'll probably continue to read the responses, and maybe I'll be willing to wander back into the fray at another time, but for now I need to take a break.

[jj]

Originally Posted by mumblethrax

This is wonderful. Ridiculous. Hilarious. A fine example of Republican reasoning.

There's a great bad-movie moment in Avatar, where the gung ho guy in the power suit accuses the hero of being a race traitor. Inaccurate, because there's no sense in which the Na'vi are a race of humans, but "species traitor" would have been defensible. (I would also accept biosphere traitor.) To the speciesist, this makes everything the humans do in that movie defensible, despite all indications to the contrary.


You're just stringing words together.

It's interesting how you haven't put a bit of thinking into this reply, rather you confuse science fiction with reality, blither about "republican reasoning" in a purely ad-hominem spitefest, and then fail to read common english.

I take it you have no argument beyond hate and malice.

[jj]

Originally Posted by DragonLady

Charles Manson is fully human, so should he be "more valuable to other humans" -- whatever that means -- than animals?

Yes. And as far as I know (I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong) no one has ever performed experiements on him.

Try to stay on point, dear.

Clearly we don't communicate very well.

DL-Some people have made it clear over a very long time that their intent is to create misery, no more. I think we're seeing more of that from the kind of spite obvious you're being treated to.

[mumblethrax]

Originally Posted by jj

It's interesting how you haven't put a bit of thinking into this reply, rather you confuse science fiction with reality, blither about "republican reasoning" in a purely ad-hominem spitefest, and then fail to read common english.

I'd apologize for failing to elevate the discourse after being accused of being a species traitor, but then none of this is true. Characterizing your with-us-or-against us reasoning is not an ad hominem--you're doing little more than drawing a circle around one group of people and saying "Hey, look at those traitors who aren't in the circle!" It's playground stuff, unbecoming of a skeptic. Bringing in an example from fiction is not to confuse it with reality--the point there is that your speciesism makes exterminating an entire species, even an intelligent species, justifiable. Fiction has an important moral aspect, and science fiction is useful here because it is, more than any other genre, dedicated to the exploration of ideas. That's not to defend Avatar--I thought it suffered from obviousness, but it's not, apparently, obvious enough for everyone. And I didn't contest that you were writing English, I only claim that it bears no meaningful relationship to the conversation. I mean, who argued that "nothing is necessary" (the quotes are yours, so you should be able to track this down)?

Quote:

I take it you have no argument beyond hate and malice.

Or, I dunno, the argument that I'm making.

[jj]

Originally Posted by mumblethrax

Or, I dunno, the argument that I'm making.

You haven't made any.

[mumblethrax]

Originally Posted by jj

You haven't made any.

I've made it twice now. I'll make it again.

Suppose that we discovered that a far-flung population of human beings had speciated--they are no longer Homo sapiens. They are, in most aspects, still essentially like us. They have language, culture, art, they are capable of reasoning, etc. They just can't produce fertile offspring with us.

Is it your position that we would be doing nothing wrong in, say, conducting involuntary experiments on them?

Is it your position that people objecting to such practices would be species traitors?

[jj]

Originally Posted by mumblethrax

I've made it twice now. I'll make it again.

Suppose that we discovered that a far-flung population of human beings had speciated--they are no longer Homo sapiens. They are, in most aspects, still essentially like us. They have language, culture, art, they are capable of reasoning, etc. They just can't produce fertile offspring with us.

Is it your position that we would be doing nothing wrong in, say, conducting involuntary experiments on them?

Is it your position that people objecting to such practices would be species traitors?

Your argument is straw man, through and through. You still want to compare a human being to a rat, and you're still not making a case for that.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by mumblethrax

I've made it twice now. I'll make it again.

Suppose that we discovered that a far-flung population of human beings had speciated--they are no longer Homo sapiens. They are, in most aspects, still essentially like us. They have language, culture, art, they are capable of reasoning, etc. They just can't produce fertile offspring with us.

Is it your position that we would be doing nothing wrong in, say, conducting involuntary experiments on them?

Is it your position that people objecting to such practices would be species traitors?

By then we would have evolved beyond the need to do any experiments.

[mumblethrax]

Originally Posted by jj

Your argument is straw man, through and through.

I described a scenario and asked you two questions to suss out whether you are truly committed to the idea that people who oppose research that would save human lives on ethical grounds are species traitors. You clumsily avoided the questions by aping the language of critical thinkers with typical inattention to what it means.

Originally Posted by tsig

By then we would have evolved beyond the need to do any experiments.

Assume that we discover this population today. Yes, I understand that this is implausible.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by mumblethrax

I described a scenario and asked you two questions to suss out whether you are truly committed to the idea that people who oppose research that would save human lives on ethical grounds are species traitors. You clumsily avoided the questions by aping the language of critical thinkers with typical inattention to what it means.


Assume that we discover this population today. Yes, I understand that this is implausible.

Assume that the discovery of this population causes Mankind to achieve satori and we grok all knowledge.

You invented a scenario in order to drive the answer in the way you wanted. Why should anyone want to play that game?

[Cain]

Originally Posted by DragonLady

Really? I thought this place was more about reading comprehension. Silly me.

I almost wrote the ability to read for comprehension, but that's probably never been listed as most the important communication skill. I thought you could make the inference. Then again, maybe there's another lesson here: do not assume. For this exchange, maybe I was wrong to assume average intelligence.

Quote:

No; I don't. The whole point is that people -any people- are more important than animals. But even if every being on the planet was exactly equal, people would still be more important to me than animals.

Just because I think a human with more potential is more important than animals, doesn't mean I think a human with less potential is less important. There is no cosmic rule that says one must follow the other.

You're skirting around the issue. The potentiality confusion your argument is critically based upon means you're forced to value zygotes and embryos.

Quote:

Not to mention that even the most profoundly retarded human -provided they are not literally brain dead- is still more intelligent and has more potential than plankton.

Which is all well and good if we're comparing humans to plankton... but we're not.

Quote:

But...I think...I'm bowing out of this topic now. I'll probably continue to read the responses, and maybe I'll be willing to wander back into the fray at another time, but for now I need to take a break.

Please come back when you and reality are on speaking terms.

[mumblethrax]

Originally Posted by tsig

Assume that the discovery of this population causes Mankind to achieve satori and we grok all knowledge.

Why? Which fundamental moral principles do you believe that would tease out? I mean, there's not even a thought experiment here--just a thought.

Quote:

You invented a scenario in order to drive the answer in the way you wanted.

No, I devised that scenario in order to test whether jj would hold to his implicitly stated speciesism. If he wouldn't condone involuntary experimentation on such a population, it suggests that something other than membership in a species is at play in his own moral reasoning.

Instead, there was much grousing about how very unfair it is to ask someone whether they actually believe the things they purport to.

Quote:

Why should anyone want to play that game?

I dunno. Maybe they're interested in examining their own values and beliefs in a critical light? Is there a name for that?

[tsig]

Originally Posted by mumblethrax

Why? Which fundamental moral principles do you believe that would tease out? I mean, there's not even a thought experiment here--just a thought.


No, I devised that scenario in order to test whether jj would hold to his implicitly stated speciesism. If he wouldn't condone involuntary experimentation on such a population, it suggests that something other than membership in a species is at play in his own moral reasoning.

Instead, there was much grousing about how very unfair it is to ask someone whether they actually believe the things they purport to.


I dunno. Maybe they're interested in examining their own values and beliefs in a critical light? Is there a name for that?

Iow you constructed what you thought was a neat little trap.

Are you interested in examining your own values and beliefs in a critical light or are you more interested in insulting those who don't agree with you?

[Cain]

Originally Posted by tsig

Iow you constructed what you thought was a neat little trap.

What do you expect from a species-traitor? It only makes sense he's also a trapist. A serial trapist.

[mumblethrax]

Originally Posted by tsig

Iow you constructed what you thought was a neat little trap.

"In other words" is one of those interesting sentential modifiers in English that most often indicates precisely the opposite of what it seems to, like an orange stripe on a non-poisonous snake. See also, "Translation: ", "Obviously..." and "No offense, but..."

If jj did genuinely believe the membership in a species was a sufficient criterion, there would be no reluctance to answer. If you want to regard this as a trap, it's a trap that could only possibly work if he doesn't actually believe the things he says he does. This is the belief that I'm currently interested in testing, so all the whining about traps and straw men is only confirming to me that jj probably doesn't actually believe this, or that he holds two contradictory beliefs.

So, you see, by complaining about traps, you have fallen for my real trap, Mr. Bond.

Quote:

Are you interested in examining your own values and beliefs in a critical light or are you more interested in insulting those who don't agree with you?

I'm interested in examining my own values and beliefs, yes. I did this about ten years ago, after all, and came to the conclusion that many of the things we do to animals are unjustifiable. I have yet to see any good evidence or argument that has compelled me to adopt a major change in stance again. It still seems like irrational prejudice to me, and re-asserting the irrational prejudice is hardly going to change my mind.

I'm not interested in insulting anyone, that's just something that sometimes happens as a natural by-product of people attempting very bad arguments. The manner of disagreement is relevant: reasonable people can disagree, but it does not follow that all disagreement is reasonable.

[jj]

Originally Posted by mumblethrax

I described a scenario and asked you two questions to suss out whether you are truly committed to the idea that people who oppose research that would save human lives on ethical grounds are species traitors. You clumsily avoided the questions by aping the language of critical thinkers with typical inattention to what it means..

Look, your exercise of the fallacy of the excluded middle, which is all that your nonsensical would-be trap amounts to, is merely annoying and shows that you are making a completely illogical, rhetorically misleading, and logically mistaken argument.

That's all we see here, you've made a basic rhetorical mistake by assuming that there is no middle ground.

Do you really thing that "aping" and other such abusive ad hominem insults are going to convince anyone of anything beyond the fact that you're being preposterously rude on top of failing logic 101?

[jj]

Originally Posted by Dessi

Either she was trying to argue that that it's acceptable to use (not abuse) animals in labs, or she was blurting out a completely irrelevant remark having nothing to do with the discussing at hand, which is whether using "mentally inferior" animals in labs generalizes to "mentally inferior" humans.

Hey, another exercise of the excluded middle.

[jj]

Originally Posted by mumblethrax

"If jj did genuinely believe the membership in a species was a sufficient criterion, there would be no reluctance to answer.

Stop trying to read my mind, you are utterly unsuccessful at the task, and doing nothing more than insulting me while saying foolish things.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by mumblethrax

"In other words" is one of those interesting sentential modifiers in English that most often indicates precisely the opposite of what it seems to, like an orange stripe on a non-poisonous snake. See also, "Translation: ", "Obviously..." and "No offense, but..."

If jj did genuinely believe the membership in a species was a sufficient criterion, there would be no reluctance to answer. If you want to regard this as a trap, it's a trap that could only possibly work if he doesn't actually believe the things he says he does. This is the belief that I'm currently interested in testing, so all the whining about traps and straw men is only confirming to me that jj probably doesn't actually believe this, or that he holds two contradictory beliefs.

So, you see, by complaining about traps, you have fallen for my real trap, Mr. Bond.


I'm interested in examining my own values and beliefs, yes. I did this about ten years ago, after all, and came to the conclusion that many of the things we do to animals are unjustifiable. I have yet to see any good evidence or argument that has compelled me to adopt a major change in stance again. It still seems like irrational prejudice to me, and re-asserting the irrational prejudice is hardly going to change my mind.

I'm not interested in insulting anyone, that's just something that sometimes happens as a natural by-product of people attempting very bad arguments. The manner of disagreement is relevant: reasonable people can disagree, but it does not follow that all disagreement is reasonable.

So you did it once ten years ago and this decision has made you so self righteous that you feel free to insult others when their arguments are bad as determined by you? you might want to revisit that decision once in a while.

ETA: it sounds more like a religious conversion than a reasoned decision.

[tsig]

delete

wrong quote

[mumblethrax]

Originally Posted by jj

Look, your exercise of the fallacy of the excluded middle, which is all that your nonsensical would-be trap amounts to, is merely annoying and shows that you are making a completely illogical, rhetorically misleading, and logically mistaken argument.

Feel free to identify the middle ground between "justified according to your criteria" and "not justified according to your criteria".

And my argument is completely illogical and logically mistaken? I thought I wasn't making an argument? Or that it was a straw man. Why do I get the impression that you're just throwing **** at the wall, and hoping some of it will stick?

Quote:

Do you really thing that "aping" and other such abusive ad hominem insults are going to convince anyone of anything beyond the fact that you're being preposterously rude on top of failing logic 101?

While I'm sure you feel insulted and embarrassed when I point out that you don't understand how to use the tools in the critical thinker's toolbox, and that your invocations of Latin are purely imitative, this is not abusive or an ad hominem.

But I certainly don't hope to persuade you of anything.

Quote:

Stop trying to read my mind, you are utterly unsuccessful at the task, and doing nothing more than insulting me while saying foolish things.

No mind reading is necessary. Abductive reasoning will suffice.

Originally Posted by tsig

So you did it once ten years ago and this decision has made you so self righteous that you feel free to insult others when their arguments are bad as determined by you? you might want to revisit that decision once in a while.

I mentioned it because you asked me whether I ever examine my own beliefs. People tend to forget that very few of us are born with a respect for animal rights, very few of us arrive at this position due to unexamined received values.

I do revisit it, every time I'm involved in a thread like this one. And every time, the counter arguments are overwhelmingly terrible. Not "bad according to me", bad for the reasons that have been laid out over and over again in this thread, and every thread like it. I await the day when someone makes a persuasive argument that torturing animals for relatively trivial reasons is justifiable. Seriously--I miss eating meat.

Quote:

ETA: it sounds more like a religious conversion than a reasoned decision.

I love that you edited your post to include this lazy charge, as if it was an important insight that you'd be remiss to leave out.

Go ahead--tell me why it sounds more like a religious conversion than a reasoned decision.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by mumblethrax

Feel free to identify the middle ground between "justified according to your criteria" and "not justified according to your criteria".

And my argument is completely illogical and logically mistaken? I thought I wasn't making an argument? Or that it was a straw man. Why do I get the impression that you're just throwing **** at the wall, and hoping some of it will stick?


While I'm sure you feel insulted and embarrassed when I point out that you don't understand how to use the tools in the critical thinker's toolbox, and that your invocations of Latin are purely imitative, this is not abusive or an ad hominem.

But I certainly don't hope to persuade you of anything.


No mind reading is necessary. Abductive reasoning will suffice.


I mentioned it because you asked me whether I ever examine my own beliefs. People tend to forget that very few of us are born with a respect for animal rights, very few of us arrive at this position due to unexamined received values.

I do revisit it, every time I'm involved in a thread like this one. And every time, the counter arguments are overwhelmingly terrible. Not "bad according to me", bad for the reasons that have been laid out over and over again in this thread, and every thread like it. I await the day when someone makes a persuasive argument that torturing animals for relatively trivial reasons is justifiable. Seriously--I miss eating meat.


I love that you edited your post to include this lazy charge, as if it was an important insight that you'd be remiss to leave out.

Go ahead--tell me why it sounds more like a religious conversion than a reasoned decision.

I have butchered cows, pigs and goats and there was no torture involved just a quick death. Is having food for your family trivial?

ETA: the religious part is the "holier than thou" attitude.

[mumblethrax]

Originally Posted by tsig

I have butchered cows, pigs and goats and there was no torture involved just a quick death. Is having food for your family trivial?

I wasn't referring to their deaths, but their lives.

And no, having food is not a trivial concern. Having meat (and eggs and dairy) is. There's plenty of other food you can eat, so this argument doesn't fly. Having money for your family is also a serious matter, but that doesn't mean you should take a job selling crack when you could be working at a grocery store.

Quote:

ETA: the religious part is the "holier than thou" attitude.

Uh huh. Unsurprisingly, this doesn't make sense of the charge that I had a religious conversion.

[jj]

Originally Posted by mumblethrax

I wasn't referring to their deaths, but their lives.

So living a safe life, with no predators, lots of food, and a dry place to hang out, is WHAT, now?

[jj]

Originally Posted by mumblethrax

Feel free to identify the middle ground between "justified according to your criteria" and "not justified according to your criteria".

This time you try to shift context in order to avoid your rhetorical misconduct.

I'm not going to address ANYTHING you say directly until you stop playing cheap rhetorical games.

Get it? When you start an honest discussion, maybe I'll bother. While you're playing dodgeball, not a chance.