If a person has the IQ of say, a pig or cow, is it wrong to eat them? Why or why not?

Zap said:
If a person has the intelligence of say, a pig or cow, or chimp or dolphin, or some other animal that humans eat, is it wrong to eat them? Why or why not?

For clarity of discussion we'll limit this to adult humans.
Click to expand...

No.
 
S.A.M. said:
Right and wrong is subjective isn't it? 20,000 children die of hunger everyday. Human value is an arbitrary phenomenon.
Click to expand...

Your confusing subjective with arbitrary. The two things are different.
 
James R said:
Your confusing subjective with arbitrary. The two things are different.
Click to expand...

Not really. The arbitrariness is because of the subjectiveness, Objectively there should be no difference

e.g. there is a subjective reason why this upset you, but this didn't. Which explains your apparently arbitrary decision to challenge one but not the other.

Pinwheel said:
Does human meat taste any good?
Click to expand...

Apparently, like pork or veal, if experts are to be believed

one of Germany's most infamous citizens, the cannibal Armin Meiwes. Having eaten an estimated 20kg of his "victim", Meiwes is something of an expert on the subject, and in an interview from his prison cell, he was more than happy to explain the taste: "The flesh tastes like pork, a little bit more bitter, stronger. It tastes quite good."

William Buehler Seabrook, a journalist with the New York Times who traveled extensively in West Africa. Fascinated with the concept of cannibalism, he persuaded a medical intern at the Sorbonne (the University of Paris) to give him a chunk of human meat from the body of a healthy man killed in an accident, which he cooked and ate, describing is as follows:

"It was like good, fully developed veal, not young, but not yet beef. It was very definitely like that, and it was not like any other meat I had ever tasted. It was so nearly like good, fully developed veal that I think no person with a palate of ordinary, normal sensitiveness could distinguish it from veal. It was mild, good meat with no other sharply defined or highly characteristic taste such as for instance, goat, high game, and pork have."
Click to expand...

http://layscience.net/node/268
 
Last edited:
James R said:
Here we go again.

*sits back and waits for n-th repetition of the same old invalid and speciesist arguments from the meat munchers*
Click to expand...


The arguments are not "invalid" just because you don't like the conclusion. Even "speciesism" is not per se invalid as a point of logic. Nor is there even anything innately "invalid" about the position "I eat humans because I like the taste of them."

The fact is that you draw an arbitrary line that allows you to eat plants and certain animals, and others draw a different arbitrary line (and because it is not based on the same nervous system-based criteria you prefer in your own line drawing, you reject their positions). (I also am sure that you dis agree with this, but it is arbitrary, in this case, because you could just as easily select any of a number of other criteria on which to base your decisions on which species are acceptable to eat and which not, rather than based on any trait which, objectively, needs to be considered in that decision.)

You may feel that your line is better in that is is a less flexible standard than many other people hold, but in the context of arbitrary standards, it is not especially clear that rigid and consistently applied arbitrary standard is better than a flexible or oft-ignored one.
 
swarm said:
Are you asking out of personal concern?
Click to expand...

Not personal concern, but interpersonal concern. I wouldn't want your mother to become the next happy meal - at least, not a literal happy meal. After all, she does seem pretty happy when people are eating her.
 
Zap said:
Not personal concern, but interpersonal concern. I wouldn't want your mother to become the next happy meal - at least, not a literal happy meal. After all, she does seem pretty happy when people are eating her.
Click to expand...

She is dead.
 
Enmos said:
I already reported him, I suggest you do the same.
Click to expand...

reported him for what? :bugeye:

If it ever came down to it, children, the elderly, and the disabled would be eaten first. In times of famine, there have been reports of cannibalism. I would imagine the mentally handicapped didn't stand much of a chance.
 
Pandaemoni:

We've done this before, haven't we?

Pandaemoni said:
The arguments are not "invalid" just because you don't like the conclusion.
Click to expand...

Correct.

Even "speciesism" is not per se invalid as a point of logic.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what you mean by that.

Nor is there even anything innately "invalid" about the position "I eat humans because I like the taste of them."
Click to expand...

Not "invalid", whatever that means, but immoral.

The fact is that you draw an arbitrary line...
Click to expand...

I don't draw an arbitrary line.
 
Why is eating these sweet wittle piglets alright:

piglet.jpg


But not eating these?

morons20copy.jpg
 
Last edited:
Why is eating an innocent cow family alright:

mother-and-baby-cow%20%2813%29.jpg


But not eating the guilty?

prison%20inmate.jpg


Unlike cows, prisoners go out of their way to put on meat while incarcerated.
 
Orleander said:
reported him for what? :bugeye:

If it ever came down to it, children, the elderly, and the disabled would be eaten first. In times of famine, there have been reports of cannibalism. I would imagine the mentally handicapped didn't stand much of a chance.
Click to expand...

I think you kind of missed his point. And it wasn't about that post alone, read the rest of his posts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top