Offensive PETA ad / Animal ethics?

[AlexG]

Let me say that the aquatic relative of the cockaroach was very tasty.

So James, where do you draw the line? And no, I'm not going to read a scribe on your version of morality and cows. Can you supply an answer without resorting to a link?

 

[wsionynw]

Let me say that the aquatic relative of the cockaroach was very tasty.

So James, where do you draw the line? And no, I'm not going to read a scribe on your version of morality and cows. Can you supply an answer without resorting to a link?

Pigs are a relative to humans, are they not? Would you consider it acceptable to eat a human because it tasted good?

 

[AlexG]

Pigs are a relative to humans, are they not?

Pigs are mammals, humans are mammals. Do you equate pigs to humans?

Would you consider it acceptable to eat a human because it tasted good

No, but that's a fine reason to eat pigs.

 

[wsionynw]

Pigs are mammals, humans are mammals. Do you equate pigs to humans?

No, but that's a fine reason to eat pigs.

My point was a simple one, but I think you missed it, or perhaps chose to ignore it.

Try this, why do you consider it ok to eat pigs and not humans? Perhaps we could feed humans to pigs and then eat the pigs?

Or consider my earlier question:
"what if an alien race wanted to purchase human infants to raise them for meat. It would no doubt be good for the economy, so how could people possibly object?"

DO you think it is ok to do whatever you want just because you enjoy it?

 

[James R]

AlexG:

Well that's an interesting point of view. What you're saying is that you do not choose consciously to eat meat. Because most people who make a conscious choice to do something can give a reason for why they do it rather than do something else.

My reason is that it tastes good.

So you're happy to eat anything that tastes good. Ok then. In principle you would have nothing against eating human beings, as long as they taste good. Correct? If not, why not?

So everything is a moral choice for you...

No. I explicitly wrote in my previous post that some actions have no moral impact. It's up to you to explain why eating meat is one of those actions - if that's your argument.

Self-rightousness is one of the ugliest facets of human behavior.

Right back at you. You haven't even made an argument yet. All you have done so far is call me some names. I don't think you can morally justify eating meat. Can you?

And you also seem to be saying that you eat meat "naturally", and therefore it is a morally good thing to do.

Again, you insert your own subjective version of morality, and judge the world by your standards. Now, while that is perfectly natural, I reject your standards. They're yours, not mine.

I'm judging you on what you write. If I am wrong, and your argument is not "meat eating = natural = good" then explain what your argument is. And if that is your argument, you need to justify why it holds.

No, anybody attempting to impose their own subjective judgments under the guise of 'good' is a zealot. Nothing sudden about it.

You missed the point in my previous post. Do you think slavery is objectively wrong, or only subjectively wrong? Is an anti-slavery campaigner a zealot, by your measure? Explain why or why not - if you can.

So, we need, as a first step, to consider whether any non-human animals are persons. If in doubt, we ought to err on the side of caution and assume that they are.

At this point, I dismiss your arguments as irrational. You wish to endow animals with the same status as people. I must say I regard that as simply wacko.

See, the thing is, Alex, that as I pointed out in my very first reply to you, name calling doesn't cut the mustard when it comes to moral justification for your actions.

Knocking down straw men doesn't work either. I have never argued that animals should be endowed with the "same status" as humans, unless by that you mean in terms of their specific interests in continuing to live, not being subjected to pain and suffering etc.

Now I know when I start using big scary words like "equal consideration" and "personhood" you know you're in too deep. So, naturally you react and say that I'm irrational.

It seems to me that the irrational person is the one who has no argument to put but who nevertheless insists that he is morally blameless.

One argument you've made is, if you eat meat, what's wrong with cannibalism? To my mind, this is the same slippery slope argument made against homosexual marriage leading to marrying goats.

There's no slippery slope about it.

If you condone eating whatever meat "tastes good", like TW Scott does and like you do at the top of your reply to me, above, and that is the only justification you can come up with, then it follows that you approve of eating all meat that tastes good. Ergo, if human meat tastes good, you ought to have no problems with eating it.

Let me ask you directly: do you think there are any moral issues with eating a human being (i.e. not health issues, which seem to be TW Scott's only objection to cannibalism)? If not, then you're probably morally consistent in your meat-eating ways. But if you do, then you need to explain to me why eating cows is just fine but eating humans is evil.

And please: no beating around the bush. I'm not talking about eating somebody else in a plane crash where you'll die if you don't. I'm talking in the ordinary course of your day-to-day life. Why not have human meat at the supermarket? What's wrong with that? Any moral issue to be addressed there, or do you agree with TW Scott that there's only a health issue? Or something else?

So James, where do you draw the line? And no, I'm not going to read a scribe on your version of morality and cows. Can you supply an answer without resorting to a link?

Which part of my previous answer to the same question did you not understand? I'm happy to lead you through it slowly. Just ask some questions.

 

[James R]

Here are a few questions for the meat-eaters here. I'm interested in your answers and, more importantly, in the reasoning that leads you to your answers, so don't forget to explain them.

1. Suppose your dog gets old and dies a natural death. Would you then eat it? Why, or why not? (For this and the following questions, assume the meat is healthy and you will not get sick from eating it. I'm interested in your moral qualms, if any.)
2. Suppose a complete stranger's dog died. Would you eat it? Why or why not?
3. Suppose somebody else offered to pay you a reasonable sum of money in order to kill and eat your dog. Would you accept the offer? If not, why not? If so, at what price do you think would be reasonable?
4. Suppose somebody else offered to pay you to arrange to get your dog pregnant and for them to take possession of the puppies after they are born. They tell you they intend to eat the puppies. Would you accept the offer? If not, why not? If so, what price do you think would be reasonable?
5. Suppose you owned a cow and somebody offered to pay you to get the cow pregnant and for them to take possession of the calves after they are born. They tell you they intend to eat the veal. Would you accept the offer? If not, why not? If so, what price do you think would be reasonable?
6. If your answers to questions 4 and 5 are different, please explain what makes the difference for you.
7. Suppose somebody offered you a sample of human meat from a person who died a natural death. Would you have any moral qualms about eating it? If so, what are the relevant moral issues you would take into account?
8. Suppose somebody offered you a sample of human meat from a person whom they had murdered. Would you have any moral qualms about eating it? If so, what are the relevant moral issues you would take into account? (Note: for the purposes of this question, assume you would not be jailed as an accessory to murder or suffer any other legal penalty. Suppose nobody else would know you ever ate the meat, for example.)
9. Suppose somebody offered to pay you to have a (human) child and for them to take possession of your child after they were born, with intent to eat the child. Would you accept the offer? If not, why not? If so, what price do you think would be reasonable?
10. If your answer to 9 differs from your answer to 4 or 5, please explain what makes the difference to you.

---

Now, I expect people who have never thought about their meat eating to react with anger to some of these questions, and refuse to answer them on the grounds that I'm a monster for even asking them. Those people will feign outrage, but will not answer the questions. Why? Because they don't have the answers. They know their answers will be inconsistent. Far easier to call me crazy and to claim that they don't have to respond to a crazy person. But we'll see through that act, won't we, dear reader?

 

[John99]

Part 1:

...

Its the "ick factor". In your examples you could have added oysters. An example of which is "if you walk along the ocean and bend over to pluck an oyster out of the sea, crack it open on a rock and slurp out the living creature inside."

Is that possible? Yes, it is possible and people actually do just that. OTOH, many people do not. Why? The "ick factor". Even in nature, animals dont hunt and eat their counterparts. So eating humans can fall in that category because a brown bear does not eat another brown bear or cougar eat another cougar etc. Plus eating another human causes bongovina disease (sp) so it goes even deeper than "ick factor" there. In some countries people do eat dogs, cats and rats and not out of necessity. People dont eat hamsters either.

I am a vegetarian and have been so for a few years but i can switch back at any time.

As an aside, is it even possible to fees the worlds populations with vegetables alone?

Part 2:

Speaking of which, now we are encroaching on questioning the very fundamentals existing in nature. If i observed a mountain lion chase down a deer and eat the deer (or even hunting and killing a human) can i determine the mountain lion to be morally wrong? otoh, if a human hunts down said mountain lion is the human morally wrong? I do tend to look towards nature for these issues.

Can the mountain lion survive on eating vegetables? I am not sure, but i dont think they can. By the same token, can a herbivore live on a striclty carnivorous diet?

The question then becomes: To where did nature place the human?

A:Herbivore
Bmnivore
C:Carnivore

Seems to me the answer is B. If the human were to eat striclty vegetarian with no supplements is that sufficient?

Then the question becomes: Well what if the poor person does not have supplements. Is it wrong for him to eat a chicken?

Part 3:

My reason is that it tastes good.

I wonder if the human race would have even made it (survived) were it not for the simple fact that they ate meat.

I honestly think it could have been completely wiped. Question is: how long before they made fire?

Well surely they saw a lightening strike and resulted in a fire. So they came upon some carcasses and figured..."the animals are dead....lets eat them and see what happens...holy shit, this is better than eating them uncooked"

I surmise that prior to this they took the meat and dried it in the sun, which, incidentally, is something like cooking. Is it not?

 

[birch]

i think the meat-eating issue is a consequence of our human ability to be more aware. this awareness realizes that we are a product of a predatorial universe and we are it's victims as much as we are the predators. it's kind of like being taken for a ride or having been duped but here we are. we are a product(victims as well) of this (in some ways) monstrosity.

we can survey our surroundings and what is going on much better. we are awake and what we notice is that some part of us is a victim or betrayed by this system. that's why we can understand that on principle meat eating is disgusting or is wrong (we don't want to be eaten) but that we've been conditioned that way.

 

[Kennyc]

Here are a few questions for the meat-eaters here. I'm interested in your answers and, more importantly, in the reasoning that leads you to your answers, so don't forget to explain them.

1. Suppose your dog gets old and dies a natural death. Would you then eat it? Why, or why not? (For this and the following questions, assume the meat is healthy and you will not get sick from eating it. I'm interested in your moral qualms, if any.)
2. Suppose a complete stranger's dog died. Would you eat it? Why or why not?
3. Suppose somebody else offered to pay you a reasonable sum of money in order to kill and eat your dog. Would you accept the offer? If not, why not? If so, at what price do you think would be reasonable?
4. Suppose somebody else offered to pay you to arrange to get your dog pregnant and for them to take possession of the puppies after they are born. They tell you they intend to eat the puppies. Would you accept the offer? If not, why not? If so, what price do you think would be reasonable?
5. Suppose you owned a cow and somebody offered to pay you to get the cow pregnant and for them to take possession of the calves after they are born. They tell you they intend to eat the veal. Would you accept the offer? If not, why not? If so, what price do you think would be reasonable?
6. If your answers to questions 4 and 5 are different, please explain what makes the difference for you.
7. Suppose somebody offered you a sample of human meat from a person who died a natural death. Would you have any moral qualms about eating it? If so, what are the relevant moral issues you would take into account?
8. Suppose somebody offered you a sample of human meat from a person whom they had murdered. Would you have any moral qualms about eating it? If so, what are the relevant moral issues you would take into account? (Note: for the purposes of this question, assume you would not be jailed as an accessory to murder or suffer any other legal penalty. Suppose nobody else would know you ever ate the meat, for example.)
9. Suppose somebody offered to pay you to have a (human) child and for them to take possession of your child after they were born, with intent to eat the child. Would you accept the offer? If not, why not? If so, what price do you think would be reasonable?
10. If your answer to 9 differs from your answer to 4 or 5, please explain what makes the difference to you.

---

Now, I expect people who have never thought about their meat eating to react with anger to some of these questions, and refuse to answer them on the grounds that I'm a monster for even asking them. Those people will feign outrage, but will not answer the questions. Why? Because they don't have the answers. They know their answers will be inconsistent. Far easier to call me crazy and to claim that they don't have to respond to a crazy person. But we'll see through that act, won't we, dear reader?

:shrug:

 

[woowoo]

Now, I expect people who have never thought about their meat eating to react with anger to some of these questions, and refuse to answer them on the grounds that I'm a monster for even asking them. Those people will feign outrage, but will not answer the questions. Why? Because they don't have the answers. They know their answers will be inconsistent. Far easier to call me crazy and to claim that they don't have to respond to a crazy person. But we'll see through that act, won't we, dear reader?

maybe we can have a new thread for those with nothing to say.

 

[Kennyc]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6d1fMmFrhAc&feature=related

 

[Raithere]

I don't have a problem with that position, except to say that the life saving scenario, in the developed world, would be relatively uncommon, while the gluttonous side appears to be the norm.

I don't completely agree. I was just establishing some boundary values, I'll get to the heart of the discussion shortly.

~Raithere

 

[Raithere]

James:

I'm happy to. I don't see much value in merely throwing around value judgments and ethics is always an interesting topic.

Having said that, it is important to remember that in the real world it is hardly ever, if ever, a question of "the cow dies or I die". If we restrict our consideration to affluent, western societies, then every person ordinarily has a choice of what they consume to sustain their own life. Choosing to consume another sentient being instead of, say, a plate of vegetables then requires further justification than "I need to eat to or I'll die".

Yes, I intended to get to this eventually because I think it's central to the debate. Until very recent times it has been primarily a question of starvation and pure survival.

I know this is rather obvious, but it bears stating that animals have the ability to convert materials such as grass that humans cannot digest into meat, fat, milk, and eggs which we can subsist on. Animals may also be kept and slaughtered in deep winter when little is available in the way of fruits and vegetables. This allowed us to inhabit areas and climates that would have otherwise been impossible to live in. Even today there are many areas of the world where humanity finds it difficult, if not impossible, to sustain its population without the addition of meat. That human morality evolved with a rather low intrinsic value assigned to animals is not arbitrary, it's based upon survival.

Subsequently, I think it is fair to note that we are talking about changing what has historically been a valid moral point of view. The question becomes, if it can be reasonably supported that a human does not have to eat meat in order to survive is it immoral?

At some point we're going to have to address ethics in general, where values originate and the legitimacy of their arguments (is "natural" behavior ethical, is killing immoral, etc.) but I'm going to skip this more difficult problem for the moment to address a salient point.

One of the main assumptions of what I'll call the vegetarian side of the argument is that between the two only meat eaters are responsible for killing animals for food. But while there is a direct and obvious link between eating animals and killing them there is a less obvious but none the less causal link between vegetarianism and the death of animals. Vast swaths of natural ecosystems have been utterly destroyed in order to provide grains, fruits, and vegetables for humans. Chemical and biological warfare is committed against "pest" species in order to ensure the human food supply. Runoff from horticultural activity as well as things like the depletion of the water table, pollution from machines, and other unintended consequences of growing crops.

All of these things cause, directly or indirectly, the death of animals in the preferential interest of humans. Even a vegetarian living in the wild, eating nuts, roots, and berries is competing with other animals for food. There is really no escaping the fact that at some level, deliberately or not, we will cause the death of other animals.

Often the response to this is, "modern agriculture is also immoral" or "we should reduce the human population". To which my reply is, "okay, but you go first" which usually reveals the hypocrisy of the position of asserting that others should make sacrifices you are not willing to make yourself. It's easy to assert a moral position when you do not have to concern yourself with consequences other people would have to face, but it's no less hypocritical than a meat eater proclaiming they do not kill any animals themselves.

When you start comparing what you call the intrinsic value of an animal to its value as food for a human being, then you need to make sure you're being ethically consistent. How do you rank the intrinsic value of a human being compared to his or her intrinsic value as food for another human being or for an animal? Would it be permissible to breed human beings solely to be eaten by other human beings? If not, why not? And if not, what is the morally significant difference between the cow and the human that makes such behavior acceptable in the case of the cow?

Here we start getting deeper into ethics. I'll try to avoid needless complications and address the questions as directly as I can.

As to why a human is more valuable than a cow, I find there are several arguments. One is that generally speaking, a human has a vastly greater potential to contribute to the overall good of every living thing. A human may fight for the benign treatment of cows, invent an antibiotic, rescue a puppy, or stop a forest fire. No cow has or ever will be able to do such a thing. The most universally beneficent act a cow has ever done on its own is protect another cow from a predator. Of course this is a general evaluation, specific individuals may differ greatly and I'm not opposed to the notion that a specific human life may be less valuable than a cow's depending on the circumstance. But as a principle of general value, I believe it withstands scrutiny.

A second argument I draw from the Social Contract theory of ethics, which I personally give a lot of weight to. From this perspective morality is (in the present reality) almost exclusively a human concern with perhaps some consideration due towards certain companion animals. A cow has no direct placement in such a scenario, it's value cannot be assessed aside from human interests.

As to why it is unacceptable for a human to kill another human for food, the same principles apply. From a general evaluative standpoint they are equal and engaged in a social contract with one another. Part of that contract is that humans are not supposed to kill one another.

More broadly, we have a tendency to provide the same status to every human whether they are specifically able to live up to the all the standards of a social contract. Here is where I find your question of personhood comes into consideration. Since animals are obviously not literally people I find the onus of the argument lies upon you. Towards that end I will state that I find significant differences between various species, but to merit the case in one instance does not provide sufficient argument across the board. In other words, you'll have to show me why I should consider a cow to be a person even though I might be willing to grant that status to a mountain gorilla (I don't eat mountain gorillas). You may also be able to provide reason under the Social Contract theory as to why I shouldn't eat dogs, but that does not apply to fish.

The moral question then becomes: does your personal pleasure in consuming an animal (which is not in any way necessary other than to satify a desire you have) outweigh the animal's interest in continuing its existence? If you think it does, you really need to justify that.

I don't find it merely an issue of personal pleasure, I was just establishing a boundary at that end.

While it is possible to sustain a healthy vegan diet in a modern industrialized country it needs to be rather intensively planned, it is costly, it is dependent upon supplements, and is generally unavailable locally. Along with any current environmental issues due to agricultural development and transport much more farmland would be needed to offset the difference.

In my opinion the impact to human life and the overall environment offsets most of the negative moral implications. Need is still a primary factor. Certainly consumption in some modern countries goes quite beyond mere dietary considerations but in much of the world nutrition is still a very serious problem and removing meat from people's diets would make things even worse.

As to if these issues were resolved and eating meat was only an issue of pleasure, I'm not quite sure. I believe I would still find it acceptable to eat some animals, though I think I would want to reduce my consumption even further than I already have. In this instance, ongoing advances in making vegetable products more satisfying would probably go a long way towards eliminating meat consumption.

Going back a step, it's important to realise that some people don't believe that non-human animals actually have any interests at all, and so no moral considerations apply in respect of them. The question of eating them is then a non-issue. Killing an animal is no worse in a moral sense than breaking a stone in half. Neither has any moral weight.

I find this problematic too. Everything has some intrinsic value, even if it is outweighed by mere whim. I have not the slightest ripple of moral consideration when removing a smooth pebble from the beach but I am still dumbstruck when I consider how it came to be there. Certainly every life has some measure of value.

~Raithere

 

[AlexG]

AlexG:



So you're happy to eat anything that tastes good. Ok then. In principle you would have nothing against eating human beings, as long as they taste good. Correct? If not, why not?



No. I explicitly wrote in my previous post that some actions have no moral impact. It's up to you to explain why eating meat is one of those actions - if that's your argument.



Right back at you. You haven't even made an argument yet. All you have done so far is call me some names. I don't think you can morally justify eating meat. Can you?



I'm judging you on what you write. If I am wrong, and your argument is not "meat eating = natural = good" then explain what your argument is. And if that is your argument, you need to justify why it holds.



You missed the point in my previous post. Do you think slavery is objectively wrong, or only subjectively wrong? Is an anti-slavery campaigner a zealot, by your measure? Explain why or why not - if you can.



See, the thing is, Alex, that as I pointed out in my very first reply to you, name calling doesn't cut the mustard when it comes to moral justification for your actions.

Knocking down straw men doesn't work either. I have never argued that animals should be endowed with the "same status" as humans, unless by that you mean in terms of their specific interests in continuing to live, not being subjected to pain and suffering etc.

Now I know when I start using big scary words like "equal consideration" and "personhood" you know you're in too deep. So, naturally you react and say that I'm irrational.

It seems to me that the irrational person is the one who has no argument to put but who nevertheless insists that he is morally blameless.



There's no slippery slope about it.

If you condone eating whatever meat "tastes good", like TW Scott does and like you do at the top of your reply to me, above, and that is the only justification you can come up with, then it follows that you approve of eating all meat that tastes good. Ergo, if human meat tastes good, you ought to have no problems with eating it.

Let me ask you directly: do you think there are any moral issues with eating a human being (i.e. not health issues, which seem to be TW Scott's only objection to cannibalism)? If not, then you're probably morally consistent in your meat-eating ways. But if you do, then you need to explain to me why eating cows is just fine but eating humans is evil.

And please: no beating around the bush. I'm not talking about eating somebody else in a plane crash where you'll die if you don't. I'm talking in the ordinary course of your day-to-day life. Why not have human meat at the supermarket? What's wrong with that? Any moral issue to be addressed there, or do you agree with TW Scott that there's only a health issue? Or something else?



Which part of my previous answer to the same question did you not understand? I'm happy to lead you through it slowly. Just ask some questions.

Rather than trying to reply point by tedious point, I'll simply say that all issues of morality and 'good' are being raised by you, not by me. I don't consider eating meat a moral issue. I don't conflate people and animals. I say I eat pigs because I like the taste and you jump from that to eating people, in an attempt to make a moral point. But again, the moral judgement is subjective. You wish to insist that everyone obey your personal moral precepts. That's zealotry.

Arguing anything with a zealot is a waste of time. You can't change a zealot's mind. And I'll point out that I'm not trying to. What you eat is your own decision. You just want to impose your beliefs on everyone else.

 

[The Esotericist]

Or what if an alien race wanted to purchase human infants to raise them for meat. It would no doubt be good for the economy, so how could people possibly object?

You're a reptilian, aren't you?:jawdrop:

 

[wsionynw]

Rather than trying to reply point by tedious point, I'll simply say that all issues of morality and 'good' are being raised by you, not by me. I don't consider eating meat a moral issue. I don't conflate people and animals. I say I eat pigs because I like the taste and you jump from that to eating people, in an attempt to make a moral point. But again, the moral judgement is subjective. You wish to insist that everyone obey your personal moral precepts. That's zealotry.

Arguing anything with a zealot is a waste of time. You can't change a zealot's mind. And I'll point out that I'm not trying to. What you eat is your own decision. You just want to impose your beliefs on everyone else.

It is quite normal, even useful to consider the moral implications of ones actions. You say you like the taste of pig, well that's nice for you but what about the pig? Am I zealot for insisting that the actions of Jeffery Dahmer were morally wrong?

Perhaps you could simply admit your speciesism. It really is that simple, you are happy to persecute animals because they are not human like you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciesism

 

[AlexG]

You say you like the taste of pig, well that's nice for you but what about the pig? Am I zealot for insisting that the actions of Jeffery Dahmer were morally wrong?

No, you're a zealot for insisting that the actions of Jeffery Dahmer are morally equivalent to eating bacon.

It really is that simple, you are happy to persecute animals because they are not human like you.

No, its really that simple, I am happy to eat animals because they are not human like me. That's the way nature does it.

 

[Kennyc]

.


No, its really that simple, I am happy to eat animals because they are not human like me. That's the way nature does it.

Yes, carnivores rarely eat their own kind (for a number of evolutionary reasons) but certainly all other life is fair game.

The thing I don't get about vegetarians is why they think it's okay to eat plants -- even alive sometimes -- but not animals. Both are living things not really that different.

Life feeds on itself.

 

[quadraphonics]

Ah, quadraphonics, my friendly stalker. Always a pleasure to hear more from you.

Fuck you, too.

You think it's an honour to be bred solely for the purpose of consumption by another animal?

That's what I said, isn't it? Not as honorable as being hunted by one, but still: the food chain is a Good Thing.

Or should this just be another "fuck you, too?"

I guess you imagine that your rightful place in the rich tapestry of life is to have all cows and chickens bow down and thank you every time you have one of them slaughtered to satisfy your appetites. quadraphonics: King of the Beasts. Master of all he surveys! And oh so moral and righteous!
Praise him. Praise him!

Fuck you, too.

Do your views apply equally to breeding other humans for your consumption, too? I assume not.

Why assume? Didn't I just say that explicitly?

Because humans are special and "above" the cows and chickens. Is that correct? If so, tell me why. Why are you King of the Beasts, and Entitled, quadraphonics?

Same reason the lion is King of the Jungle - power and will.

What do you think their position would be on the matter, if they could tell you?

Not worth speculating - we haven't even established that they can comprehend the matter to begin with, so communication isn't even worth worrying about.

Or do you think that the fact that they cannot tell you justifies your position?

In a sense, yes. If they had the power of speech, they're presumably be more valuable as something besides food, and not in such a position to begin with.

If the roles were reversed, would you be happy with the status quo? If not, why not?

The fact of being killed for food, sure. In fact, I'd prefer being killed for food by a predator to many of the ways that I'm more likely to die in. As it is, I'll have to content myself with returning to the food chain in form of plant food, in all likelihood.

The cruel practices associated with factory farming, not so much (either now, or in the hypothetical).

How much do you know about factory farming? Do you think it's all hunky dory for the animals?

No, and I avoid such products where it is practical to do so, and support measures to address it.

Again, your obtuse avoidance of animal welfare - which is a totally mainstream concern amongst omnivotes - in favor of dichotomized animal-rights rhetoric leads you badly astray. You'll have to search pretty damned hard to find someone who isn't bothered by animal cruelty - but why bother, when you can just accuse anyone who eats meat of not caring about animal welfare, and so ignite a flame-war?

What is the salient difference?

Power and self-interest.

Are you aware that humans are animals? I'm sure a smart guy like you knows that.

Fuck you, too.

So, what is this salient difference you speak of that justifies treating non-human animals as mere property, while giving human beings rights such as a right not to be arbitrarily bred and killed for consumption?

Not "mere" property - highly prized property. Although you seem to be avoiding the issue of wild meat throughout. To the question, again: power and self-interest.

Are "we"? Maybe if you want to know what I'm countenancing, then rather than setting up more straw men you could ... like ... ask me.

I was being charitable - the suggestion that we continue to breed food animals but don't kill them is so laughably inane that I figured it was a safe assumption. In the real world, an end to meat consumption would mean that nobody would breed, house or feed food animals any more, and that would mean that they'd largely cease to exist. Where would they live? What would they eat?

But I'm not seeing any actual disagreement from you, just complaints about ascribing you a position. Do you actually hold a different position, or are you just siezing onto a pretext to avoid addressing the actual issue in favor of haranguing me? Wouldn't exactly be out of character for you.

Are you always this disingenous? I believe I have discussed this very point with you before, yet here you are ascribing to me a position that I have never expressed.
In other words, you have erected another straw man. You've knocked it down, and off you go with a smug smile congratulating yourself on a job well done.
Are you consciously aware of your alteration of my position, or is this how you remember it from our previous conversations?

Also, it's one thing to push this distortion onto others in the hope that they'll buy it as the argument that I actually put to you, but it's quite another for you to imagine that I'm dumb enough not to notice, or not to pull you up on it. I was there during our previous discussion, remember?

I have no recollection of discussing the particular subject of what would become of food animals absent meat consumption with you before. And, as noted above, I did not alter your position (you never stated one), but rather impute what is, by deduction, the only reasonable position. You're free to disclaim it - in fact I'd welcome such, and I notice how much effort you go to badger me about it without ever actually stating any contrary position. So, by all means, clarify: what is to become of food animals absent meat production?

Please precis your memory of the point about nervous systems, because here again I sense that you either didn't grasp the actual argument, or have retrospectively edited your memory of it so that it has become a straw-man that is easy for you to demolish in your own mind.

Hint: you don't do it on the basis of the type of nervous system (or lack on one).

Would you like me to explain it to you again? Or you could go back and read the last time I told you. But let me know if you need help.?

I've read through your SciForums Encyclopedia link, and fail to see where the razor that separates plants from animals is anything other than the presence of a nervous system. And, again, I notice that you're going out of your way to insist that I'm totally wrong without any attempt to correct me. So that's a lot of wind spent on bitching, in direct avoidance of substance - if I'm so far off, it should be a simple matter to bat me down on the actual substance of the issue, no? In which case, why spend paragraph after paragraph trying to paint your refusal to do so as some failing of mine? Seems like ignoring me would actually be the best course, if we're to go in for your characterizations.

Then why make the kind of silly statement that I responded to with my comment? You're a strange one, quadraphonics.

Fuck you, too.

Well, in part you are. But then again you've misrepresented and/or mentally revised at least two of those arguments already in this single response.

My position is that your arguments don't actually add up to what you think they add up to. That's not a revision, that's my own critical position. You can argue it or not, but mere insistence that it doesn't represent your views is obtuse. My entire contention is that there's a gap between your position and your rhetoric.

I don't think you've grasped the Principle of Equal Consideration yet.

I understand it fine - my contention is that it doesn't relate to all of these other principles and categories in the way that you think it does. If you think I'm wrong, it shouldn't be so difficult to point out where, no? Why not do that, rather than waste page space with so much aloof vacuity?

I can explain it again to you if you like. Just let me know.

Fuck you, too.

Now I know you don't understand the principle.

Fuck you, too.

They have. I have.

You've pointedly stopped doing so here (although you barely started), in favor of haranguing me for disagreeing. You're practically a case study in counterproductive approaches to fringe rhetoric. By all means, though, keep making this point for me - it's a reliably strong suit of yours. Indeed, it's starting to look like a necessary element of a psychodrama - why argue effectively when trolling reliably produces enemies for you to savage, thereby demonstrating your superiority and morality (to yourself, of course - it just makes you look like an ass to most everyone else)?

It's not my fault if you want to keep rationalising to yourself and knocking down your straw men. At least I tried. Some people are too set in their ways. Some people just aren't that moral, or are morally inconsistent. Some people are wilfully blind. And some just don't grasp the relevant arguments. And so it goes.

Fuck you, too.

 

[James R]

Rather than trying to reply point by tedious point, I'll simply say that all issues of morality and 'good' are being raised by you, not by me. I don't consider eating meat a moral issue.

Yeah, that's what I thought.

You have no answers to the "tedious" points.

Toddle off then AlexG. Why you entered this thread in the first place is a mystery.