I think the juxtaposition of dog-kicking is entirely appropriate.
To expose how silly the comparison is there should be a simple and stark difference that can be demonstrated. I haven't seen one in this thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4X4
Is kicking something necessary for human survival nowadays?
This, and other counter arguments, do not address DA's argument.
It inflicts unnecessary suffering to elicit enjoyment.
The reason I think the dog-kicking juxtaposition has legs is because it is not based on the fear or injuries the dog may sustain; the moral judgement being made is of the human committing the act.
Similarly the argument is not based on how sad cows are, or how terrified lobsters are.
The comparison is whether or not a judgement can be made of the actions of the human. Of whether or not a moral judgment can be made regarding a vegetarian vs. omnivorous diet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jammies
Any morality that includes hypocrisy as a consequence is poorly thought out and ultimately self-falsifying.
I disagree with this.
Morality that lacks sufficient nuance to risk hypocrisy is not inherently superior.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jammies
You can't prove that eating cows leads to eating humans because it doesn't happen. Billions of people have eaten cows without subsequently becoming cannibals. This is called "evidence", you might want to look into it. On the other hand, cruelty to animals does correlate to anti-social behaviour and cruelty to other humans. Again, this "evidence" is what normal people use to prove an assertion.
I agree with this argument; it is evident that when an individual inflicts needless suffering on an animal it is deleterious to the moral health of the individual.
But I generally disagree with your conclusion. I actually agree more broadly with the point being presented by hippies like PETA.
It is uncertain that when a society inflicts needless suffering on an animal it is deleterious to the moral health of the society.
DA has presented an argument that a carnivorous diet inflicts needless suffering of animals (and plants) and also inflicts needless suffering of humans.
My personal opinion is similar to most posters, we're at the top of the chain and I don't care how much pain a lobster or cow feels when dying to feed me.
But I don't consider that stance to be morally equivalent to someone that does care.
I don't eat elephants or dolphins. And those scientists are making a logical leap from "exhibiting intentional behaviour" and "possessing substrates" neither of which equate to consciousness. I don't even think all humans are conscious, so the idea that cow is self-aware because it can make a choice to eat clover instead of grass is laughable.
You have a very strange, narrow definition of "consciousness". But in your narrow definition, if a human is so badly brain damaged that they will never attain your level of consciousness, will you eat them?
If Jane Goodall tells me that animals are self-aware, that's good enough for me.
Quote:
You can't prove that eating cows leads to eating humans because it doesn't happen. Billions of people have eaten cows without subsequently becoming cannibals. This is called "evidence", you might want to look into it. On the other hand, cruelty to animals does correlate to anti-social behaviour and cruelty to other humans. Again, this "evidence" is what normal people use to prove an assertion.
This so-called-"evidence".... you have some that says that anyone that cruel to animals automatically becomes cruel towards humans? If I kick my dog, there is a 100% correlation and that I am destined to kick a human? Firemen are also the most likely arsonists... I'm not going to say that becoming a fireman is evil.
Quote:
Also, nowhere did I claim I enjoy animal suffering, I claimed that I was willing to countenance a minimum of it in order to provide me with meat to eat. This does not imply I enjoy this suffering, only that I recognize its necessity.
THERE IS NO NECESSITY!!! I'll wager $100 that your doctor will not say that it is impossible for you to live without eating meat.
Quote:
BTW, I'm being especially condescending because that is the default attitude of all animal rights zealots and vegans I've ever met. Isn't it annoying when someone presumes to know all the myriad ways that they are better than you?
Like I said, we all think our morals are better than everyone else's. You think yours are better than mine, so I expect no different in terms of attitude.
There are a lot of people who are personally opposed to abortion, but would never try to impose that view on others. Why is it so rare to find a vegetarian who is similarly restrained?
There are a lot of people who are personally opposed to abortion, but would never try to impose that view on others. Why is it so rare to find a vegetarian who is similarly restrained?
Huh? Arguing their view isn't imposing it. Banning the sale and comsumption of meat products would be imposing their view.
Huh? Arguing their view isn't imposing it. Banning the sale and comsumption of meat products would be imposing their view.
I mean they don't go around trying to make women who have gotten or are considering getting an abortion feel guilty about that decision. Unlike so many vegetarians who love to preach to meat eaters.
I mean they don't go around trying to make women who have gotten or are considering getting an abortion feel guilty about that decision. Unlike so many vegetarians who love to preach to meat eaters.
I don't follow. Among people who are personally against abortion (meaning that they would never get an abortion themselves), there seems to be a fairly even split among those who try to convince others to share their viewpoint and those who keep those views to themselves. The non-self-righteous vegetarian seems to be more of a rarity.
Of course, I have no statistics to back that up, so maybe there are a lot of non-preachy vegetarians out there that I don't know about.
The same people who are against lobster cooking / meat eating due to paining the animals are likely the same as the rest of us to swat a fly, kill a wasp or step on an aunt without thinking twice.
I would never step on my aunt...she'd be really pissed at me if I did...ants on the other hand best be watching out!
Being vegetarian is a luxury for the western world, and hell not even for all of it as its expensive and impractical in Iceland for example which vegetables are expensive and we are surrounded by fish and sheep, mmmm delicious sheep.
Just to be clear this is false. The vast majority of vegetarians do not live in the western world.
I don't follow. Among people who are personally against abortion (meaning that they would never get an abortion themselves), there seems to be a fairly even split among those who try to convince others to share their viewpoint and those who keep those views to themselves. The non-self-righteous vegetarian seems to be more of a rarity.
Of course, I have no statistics to back that up, so maybe there are a lot of non-preachy vegetarians out there that I don't know about.
Well there are vegetarians who made the choice because of health reasons. They wouldn't preach. I have been a vegan for 15 years. When I was younger I was very preachy as I felt I was trying to save lives and while I still believe meat is murder, now I believe there is a time and place for such discussion. On this board I generally try to clear up some misnomers and myths about Veganism and don't try to argue that everyone shouldn't eat meat as I don't think it would progress the cause any.
The Following User Says Thank You to FlamingLonghorn For This Useful Post:
We also don't have to continue acting like a-holes about what other people eat, but you're still doing that.
See, I am not getting this ... Or the whole preachy thing. I didn't bring the subject up. This thread was ABOUT animals, even some of the least complicated animals, suffering pain for the sake of human enjoyment. Really, were you coming into the thread looking for 100% agreement that animal suffering is oikily-dokily? Were the vegetarians supposed to see this thread and censor themselves? I thought this was a discussion forum where all points of view were welcomed. I stand corrected.
See, I am not getting this ... Or the whole preachy thing. I didn't bring the subject up. This thread was ABOUT animals, even some of the least complicated animals, suffering pain for the sake of human enjoyment. Really, were you coming into the thread looking for 100% agreement that animal suffering is oikily-dokily? Were the vegetarians supposed to see this thread and censor themselves? I thought this was a discussion forum where all points of view were welcomed. I stand corrected.
It's not about your viewpoint, it's about your presentation.
Location: In a land without pants, or war, or want. But mostly we care about the pants.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate
You have a very strange, narrow definition of "consciousness". But in your narrow definition, if a human is so badly brain damaged that they will never attain your level of consciousness, will you eat them?
No, since my definition is that consciousness includes self-awareness, it is neither all that strange, nor narrow. It is the proponents of lobster consciousness who are in the decided minority among scientists, although not, I suppose, among the ideologically driven. And someone who is irreversibly brain-dead is theoretically all good for the bbq, I suppose, but cannibalism is taboo besides it being (in general) immoral to kill others for their meat, so I guess you're safe from any of my snack attacks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate
If Jane Goodall tells me that animals are self-aware, that's good enough for me.
I personally am more inclined to believe Gordon Gallup Jr., since he actually proposes experiments to determine a level of self-awareness, rather than using subjective experience about one's time with the apes as a guide.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate
This so-called-"evidence".... you have some that says that anyone that cruel to animals automatically becomes cruel towards humans? If I kick my dog, there is a 100% correlation and that I am destined to kick a human? Firemen are also the most likely arsonists... I'm not going to say that becoming a fireman is evil.
Did I claim there was 100% correlation? No, I did not. You are arguing a straw man - I said there is correlation between cruelty to animals and aberrant behaviour. See this study , especially the conclusion
Cruelty to animals is associated with elevated rates observed in young, poor, men with family histories of antisocial behavior and personal histories of conduct disorder in childhood, and antisocial, obsessive-compulsive and histrionic personality disorders, and pathological gambling in adulthood. Given these associations, and the widespread ownership of pets and animals, effective screening of children, adolescents and adults for animal cruelty and appropriate mental health interventions should be deployed.
and
The prevalence of all antisocial behaviors was higher among persons with a lifetime history of animal cruelty compared to persons without a lifetime history of animal cruelty.
It is simply not arguable that animal cruelty is not immoral for the reasons I have stated: it increases the likelihood that the perpetrator will commit immoral acts against beings that do have consciousness, namely people. On the other hand, there is zero evidence that eating meat causes similar anti-social behaviour, which is why your original comparison of dog-kicking and meat-eating falls down: despite being superficially plausible, if it was the same thing, it would have the same effects, which it simply does not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate
THERE IS NO NECESSITY!!! I'll wager $100 that your doctor will not say that it is impossible for you to live without eating meat.
You are, perhaps deliberately, again misreading what I said. The necessity of animal suffering to provide meat is not the same as the necessity to eat meat. I'm not arguing its "necessary" to eat meat, I'm saying it's not *immoral* to eat meat. It's not "necessary" for me to have sex, either, but arguing the morality of how I obtain sex, and with whom I should have it, does not become irrelevant simply because it isn't "necessary".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate
Like I said, we all think our morals are better than everyone else's. You think yours are better than mine, so I expect no different in terms of attitude.
I don't think, I know. Your morals include an element of hypocrisy, and mine don't. Unless you want to argue that hypocrisy is a positive moral attribute, you'll have to find some inconsistency in my moral code, or else it's objectively better than yours.
The argument that morality is subjective, that it relies upon unprovable postulates, and that therefore all moral codes are equally valid is pernicious and vacuous nonsense. If a code is not internally self-consistent, then it is at least partially invalid: two conflicting statements cannot both be true, subjective or not, and thus the totality necessarily is objectively somewhat in error. Similarly, moralities that conflict with reality (eg - a morality based upon a 6000 year old earth, for example) are also flawed and inferior, not least because there is a difference between an unprovable postulate and a demonstrably false one.
__________________
Better educated sadness than oblivious joy.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to jammies For This Useful Post:
Just to be clear this is false. The vast majority of vegetarians do not live in the western world.
Pretty sure he meant that being a vegetarian in the West is a luxury, as in most people in Western countries don't have easy cheap access to the fresh fruits vegetables etc. required for a vegan diet so it becomes a luxury. Most Westerners eat meat derived products because it is what is cheap and available. To actually eat Vegan you have to avoid almost all mass produced processed foods, since they usually contain ingredients that would be objectionable to a vegan.
That's what follows from Thor's actual post.
__________________
onetwo and threefour... Together no more. The end of an era. Let's rebuild...
Pretty sure he meant that being a vegetarian in the West is a luxury, as in most people in Western countries don't have easy cheap access to the fresh fruits vegetables etc. required for a vegan diet so it becomes a luxury. Most Westerners eat meat derived products because it is what is cheap and available. To actually eat Vegan you have to avoid almost all mass produced processed foods, since they usually contain ingredients that would be objectionable to a vegan.
That's what follows from Thor's actual post.
I disagree. I think he was stating vegetarianism is something only the Western world can do because of our resources and is unattainable in poorer nations. Either way both interpretations are false as being a Vegan/Vegetarian is nowhere near as expensive as you are making it out to be (although in Iceland it may be true). Hence the 400 million plus people who are vegetarian in poorer nations. Somehow they can afford it, but we can't?
Last edited by FlamingLonghorn; 01-24-2013 at 10:39 AM.
