Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal! |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
A question for vegans about meat
If technology advances enough to make in vitro growing of meat
possible (that is meat grown from a cell sample), would vegans have any ethnical objections to such meat? After all, once the initial cell sample is taken, no animals would be involved in such production of meat. Dragonblaze - God? I'm no God. God has mercy. - |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
A question for vegans about meat
On Mar 18, 2:34*am, Dragonblaze > wrote:
> If technology advances enough to make in vitro growing of meat > possible (that is meat grown from a cell sample), would vegans have > any ethnical objections to such meat? After all, once the initial cell > sample is taken, no animals would be involved in such production of > meat. > > Dragonblaze > > - God? I'm no God. God has mercy. - It depends on the vegan. Here is one view. http://www.abolitionist-online.com/a...ube-meat.shtml I myself don't think there would be any serious grounds for making an objection. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
A question for vegans about meat
There's a bit more information he
http://www.innovationwatch.com/choic...2007-05-15.htm The animal rights community will eventually have to sort out its stance on this one, and it might be quite a divisive issue, but I think that's a long way off. I'm led to believe that it would currently cost several thousands of dollars to produce an in vitro steak. It will probably be a while before selling in vitro meat for human consumption becomes a serious commercial proposition, unless some major breakthrough is made. I was at a conference about Peter Singer's work once where Peter Singer briefly commented on the issue. As said in the article at the end of the above link, he thinks it's perfectly fine, though he mentions that he himself might choose not to eat it. I have to confess that I think it's a pretty silly question. Not to criticize you for wanting to find out what the "official stance" on it is, but I think it's silly that people think there's anything to argue about. I'm asked about this one all the time and my attitude is "Well, of course, but what is the relevance now? That's not going to happen in the immediate future". Anyway, won't it be nice when we have in vitro meat, and we'll no longer have to have such bitter disputes about dietary ethics. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
A question for vegans about meat
On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 07:18:07 -0700 (PDT), Rupert > wrote:
>There's a bit more information he > >http://www.innovationwatch.com/choic...2007-05-15.htm > >The animal rights community will eventually have to sort out its >stance on this one, and it might be quite a divisive issue, but I >think that's a long way off. I'm led to believe that it would >currently cost several thousands of dollars to produce an in vitro >steak. It will probably be a while before selling in vitro meat for >human consumption becomes a serious commercial proposition, unless >some major breakthrough is made. > >I was at a conference about Peter Singer's work once where Peter >Singer briefly commented on the issue. As said in the article at the >end of the above link, he thinks it's perfectly fine, though he >mentions that he himself might choose not to eat it. > >I have to confess that I think it's a pretty silly question. Not to >criticize you for wanting to find out what the "official stance" on it >is, but I think it's silly that people think there's anything to argue >about. Most likely because you don't really care about the animals themselves, other than your desire to prevent their existence. Let's try another one anyway: Do you think it would be better if the animals could be raised and grown in a comatose condition, than it is for them to be conscious and able to experience life? Do you think it may be better in some cases, but not in others? |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
A question for vegans about meat
"Rupert" > wrote
> Anyway, won't it be nice when we have in vitro meat, and we'll no > longer have to have such bitter disputes about dietary ethics. People will just find something else to have bitter disputes over, it's the nature of the human ego. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
A question for vegans about meat
On Mar 19, 3:06 am, dh@. wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 07:18:07 -0700 (PDT), Rupert > wrote: > >There's a bit more information he > > >http://www.innovationwatch.com/choic...urs-2007-05-15... > > >The animal rights community will eventually have to sort out its > >stance on this one, and it might be quite a divisive issue, but I > >think that's a long way off. I'm led to believe that it would > >currently cost several thousands of dollars to produce an in vitro > >steak. It will probably be a while before selling in vitro meat for > >human consumption becomes a serious commercial proposition, unless > >some major breakthrough is made. > > >I was at a conference about Peter Singer's work once where Peter > >Singer briefly commented on the issue. As said in the article at the > >end of the above link, he thinks it's perfectly fine, though he > >mentions that he himself might choose not to eat it. > > >I have to confess that I think it's a pretty silly question. Not to > >criticize you for wanting to find out what the "official stance" on it > >is, but I think it's silly that people think there's anything to argue > >about. > > Most likely because you don't really care about the animals > themselves, other than your desire to prevent their existence. > Let's try another one anyway: > > Do you think it would be better if the animals could be > raised and grown in a comatose condition, than it is for them > to be conscious and able to experience life? Do you think it > may be better in some cases, but not in others? Dear David Harrison, I would like very much to give you a detailed explanation of why I believe your arguments are unsatisfactory but I am currently working full-time teaching mathematics, and also aiming to re-submit my Ph.D. thesis by July 31, along with various other projects, and I may not be able to get around to it any time soon. When my thesis is finished I plan to start working on a writing project in animal ethics, exploring the question of whether speciesism can be justified. When I finish the first chapter I will post a link to it here; that will be my next attempt to move the debate forward. I may possibly have time to take up the matter with you then. I am sorry I cannot give you an answer at this stage. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
A question for vegans about meat
On Mar 19, 3:07 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote > > > Anyway, won't it be nice when we have in vitro meat, and we'll no > > longer have to have such bitter disputes about dietary ethics. > > People will just find something else to have bitter disputes over, it's the > nature of the human ego. Did you read Dawkins' "God Delusion"? And there was a response by a thelogian who also had some scientific training, called "The Dawkins Delusion". There's a dispute which will probably keep a few people busy for a while. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
A question for vegans about meat
"Rupert" > wrote
> On Mar 19, 3:07 am, "Dutch" > wrote: >> "Rupert" > wrote >> >> > Anyway, won't it be nice when we have in vitro meat, and we'll no >> > longer have to have such bitter disputes about dietary ethics. >> >> People will just find something else to have bitter disputes over, it's >> the >> nature of the human ego. > > Did you read Dawkins' "God Delusion"? And there was a response by a > thelogian who also had some scientific training, called "The Dawkins > Delusion". There's a dispute which will probably keep a few people > busy for a while. No, I've heard of it though. Generally I think of "religion" and "worship" as manifestions of the "focus on the finger" phenomenon. If you ever try to indicate something to a dog by pointing towards it the dog will simply look eagerly at your outstretched finger, not that at which you are pointing. The dog lacks the conscious awareness to grasp that your finger is indicating something beyond itself. That's essentially what people have done with the messages of awakened spiritual teachers, instead of learning from the lessons, they deify the teacher, then proceed to distrust and demonize anyone who does not make the same unconscious error. Instead of moving man towards higher consciousness, religion has taken man deeper into conflict. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
A question for vegans about meat
<dh@.> wrote
> See if you and some students can calculate how many more > animals experience life because humans eat meat, than would > if humans did not. Given all the factors involved that is impossible to determine, besides, the sheer number of animals who "experience life" is not important to anyone with half a clue. What matters to people of good faith is that animals who are raised by humans are well treated, and that our actions do not cause undue harm to the environment. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
A question for vegans about meat
On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 16:36:47 -0700 (PDT), Rupert > wrote:
>On Mar 19, 3:06 am, dh@. wrote: >> On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 07:18:07 -0700 (PDT), Rupert > wrote: >> >There's a bit more information he >> >> >http://www.innovationwatch.com/choic...urs-2007-05-15... >> >> >The animal rights community will eventually have to sort out its >> >stance on this one, and it might be quite a divisive issue, but I >> >think that's a long way off. I'm led to believe that it would >> >currently cost several thousands of dollars to produce an in vitro >> >steak. It will probably be a while before selling in vitro meat for >> >human consumption becomes a serious commercial proposition, unless >> >some major breakthrough is made. >> >> >I was at a conference about Peter Singer's work once where Peter >> >Singer briefly commented on the issue. As said in the article at the >> >end of the above link, he thinks it's perfectly fine, though he >> >mentions that he himself might choose not to eat it. >> >> >I have to confess that I think it's a pretty silly question. Not to >> >criticize you for wanting to find out what the "official stance" on it >> >is, but I think it's silly that people think there's anything to argue >> >about. >> >> Most likely because you don't really care about the animals >> themselves, other than your desire to prevent their existence. >> Let's try another one anyway: >> >> Do you think it would be better if the animals could be >> raised and grown in a comatose condition, than it is for them >> to be conscious and able to experience life? Do you think it >> may be better in some cases, but not in others? > >Dear David Harrison, > >I would like very much to give you a detailed explanation of why I >believe your arguments are unsatisfactory but I am currently working >full-time teaching mathematics, See if you and some students can calculate how many more animals experience life because humans eat meat, than would if humans did not. A very good project would be to get a group of open minded--NOT!!! elimination minded!--students to decide which livestock animals they feel have lives of positive value, and which they feel do not, and compare the numbers. Also, if they are willing to go the extra mile, let them figure any improvements they think could be made to certain situations that would give positive value to lives which they currently consider to be negative. >and also aiming to re-submit my Ph.D. >thesis by July 31, along with various other projects, and I may not be >able to get around to it any time soon. When my thesis is finished I >plan to start working on a writing project in animal ethics, exploring >the question of whether speciesism can be justified. In all animals, or only in humans? I consider all animals to be speciesists, including humans, and that as a group they must be in order to survive. If some members of that group want to try to pretend they are not, and try to perform actions proving they are not, it hopefully won't be disastrous to the group as a whole as long as the percentage of members trying to do so is not too high. For example people must continue to work harder and harder to prevent "aras" ie. eliminationists from having any more negative influence on humanity, domestic animals and wildlife than they are having. >When I finish the >first chapter I will post a link to it here; that will be my next >attempt to move the debate forward. I may possibly have time to take >up the matter with you then. I am sorry I cannot give you an answer at >this stage. It could get combined with the math project. Animals judged to have lives of negative value might in some cases be better of in a comatose condition, like battery hens. But. Other alternatives might be considered ethically superior, like if hens in cage free houses are considered to generally have decent lives of positive it would probably be better to let them experience their lives instead of never knowing anything about it. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
A question for vegans about meat
Thank you for sharing your thoughts about how to proceed. I might
include a discussion of R. M. Hare's views, in particular his essay "Why I am Only a Demi-Vegetarian". That might do something by way of addressing your points. Your question about whether speciesism can be "justified" in nonhuman animals strikes me as ill-posed. There will probably be some discussion of this point in the project as well. I do not currently have any preconceptions about what conclusion I will arrive at. It is probably best to let me finish my thesis and write up the first chapter before we discuss the matter further. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
A question for vegans about meat
On 18 Mar, 23:36, Rupert > wrote:
> When my thesis is finished I > plan to start working on a writing project in animal ethics, exploring > the question of whether speciesism can be justified. Rudy Canoza recently made the interesting point that AR is speciesist assuming that you would lock up a human who harmed other humans but had a brain condition whereby he was incapable of making moral judgements and therefore should be considered a moral patient. If you are willing to lock him up yet unwilling to lock a predator animal up to prevent him from doing harm to non-human animals then you are guilty of speciesm. Can you refute that premise? |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
A question for vegans about meat
Buxqi wrote:
> On 18 Mar, 23:36, Rupert > wrote: > >> When my thesis is finished I >> plan to start working on a writing project in animal ethics, exploring >> the question of whether speciesism can be justified. > > Rudy Canoza recently made the interesting point that AR is > speciesist assuming that you would lock up a human who > harmed other humans but had a brain condition whereby he > was incapable of making moral judgements and therefore should > be considered a moral patient. > > If you are willing to lock him up yet unwilling to lock a predator > animal up to prevent him from doing harm to non-human animals > then you are guilty of speciesm. Can you refute that premise? My specific point that "ar" is speciesist is not really based on what we require of human moral patients, although that certainly reinforces my claim. My point is that "ar" demands a behavior of moral actors - humans - based on the fact that humans are uniquely viewed by most, at least until recently, as moral actors. It's sort of like requiring your seven-foot tall neighbor to assist you in getting things down from or up onto the top shelves of your kitchen cabinets merely because he is tall. An interesting development is that some ethnologists or ethno-biologists now think humans may not be the only moral actors; there is some scant evidence that chimpanzees may have some rudimentary moral sense. If that is the case, and if it eventually comes to pass that chimps have a limited but identifiable capacity for moral agency, then are we required to prevent them from killing colubus monkeys and other animals? |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
A question for vegans about meat
On Mar 21, 2:35 am, Buxqi > wrote:
> On 18 Mar, 23:36, Rupert > wrote: > > > When my thesis is finished I > > plan to start working on a writing project in animal ethics, exploring > > the question of whether speciesism can be justified. > > Rudy Canoza recently made the interesting point that AR is > speciesist assuming that you would lock up a human who > harmed other humans but had a brain condition whereby he > was incapable of making moral judgements and therefore should > be considered a moral patient. > > If you are willing to lock him up yet unwilling to lock a predator > animal up to prevent him from doing harm to non-human animals > then you are guilty of speciesm. Can you refute that premise? Okay, here's what I'm going to do, in outline. We're going to look at two hypothetical cases, involving a scientific research project which harms individuals in order to attempt to gain knowledge about Parkinson's disease. This is based on an example which Peter Singer recently said was an example of "justifiable research". We'll have two hypothetical cases, one involving doing the research on cognitively impaired humans, the other on chimpanzees. I'll attempt to do a survey of everything in the literature which tries to provide some support for the view that it's morally permissible to do the project on the chimpanzees but not the humans. We'll also explore the objection that rejecting speciesism would have untenable consequences, which has been made by Carl Cohen and is frequently made on this newsgroup. This particular point you are talking about at the moment, I'm not currently convinced that it's worth addressing. We do confine nonhuman animals to prevent them from doing harm. We do take the view that some humans do not have legal responsibility for their actions. More needs to be done before I see an argument here that needs some discussion. As to Jonathan Ball's points in his more recent post, well, we might talk about them later. Sometime soon I'll write the first chapter, giving a more precise version of the two hypothetical cases above and stating the aims and scope of the project. In particular, I'll specify which writers and arguments I'm going to examine. Then you can give me feedback about whether the writers and arguments I've chosen are a good selection. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
A question for vegans about meat
On Mar 21, 7:57 am, dh@. wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 15:56:27 -0700 (PDT), Rupert > wrote: > >Thank you for sharing your thoughts about how to proceed. I might > >include a discussion of R. M. Hare's views, in particular his essay > >"Why I am Only a Demi-Vegetarian". That might do something by way of > >addressing your points. > > You could consider the lives of everything. You could compare > the lives of broiler chickens of 6-8 weeks, with those of any wild > birds who live for that period of time or less. You could do the same > with battery hens and cage-free egg producers. If you do it open > mindedly I don't see how you could come to the conclusion that > no livestock animals' lives are or could be worth living, especially > comparing them with equivalent length lives of wildlife. > > >Your question about whether speciesism can be > >"justified" in nonhuman animals strikes me as ill-posed. > > Saying that only humans need worry about the "rights" of > other creatures and whether or not we are speciesist, seems > very speciesist to me. Even in trying to avoid it you still end up > doing it anyway. > > >There will > >probably be some discussion of this point in the project as well. > > Will you include that fact that if we didn't remain speciesist > we would eventually be overtaken by animals who are, or > haven't you thought it through to the point of accepting that > fact? > > >I do not currently have any preconceptions about what conclusion I > >will arrive at. > > My guess is that you want to support the elimination > objective. > > >It is probably best to let me finish my thesis and write up the first > >chapter before we discuss the matter further. > > That would depend on how open minded you want to be. > If you just want to support the elimination objective then you're > probably ready to go, but if you're actually going to consider > any alternatives to be ethically equivalent or superior then I > get the feeling you haven't even begun the first inch of real > thought in that direction so you should discuss it with people > who have a good bit before you attempt writing about it. Do > AW minded people write anything, or is it only elimination > minded people? Come to think of it, there is tons of propaganda > to support elimination, but damn little to support decent lives. We've already mentioned R. M. Hare. There's also Carl Cohen. When I have written the first chapter I will specify which writers and arguments I'm going to examine and you can give me feedback on how open-minded you feel I am being. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
A question for vegans about meat
On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 15:56:27 -0700 (PDT), Rupert > wrote:
>Thank you for sharing your thoughts about how to proceed. I might >include a discussion of R. M. Hare's views, in particular his essay >"Why I am Only a Demi-Vegetarian". That might do something by way of >addressing your points. You could consider the lives of everything. You could compare the lives of broiler chickens of 6-8 weeks, with those of any wild birds who live for that period of time or less. You could do the same with battery hens and cage-free egg producers. If you do it open mindedly I don't see how you could come to the conclusion that no livestock animals' lives are or could be worth living, especially comparing them with equivalent length lives of wildlife. >Your question about whether speciesism can be >"justified" in nonhuman animals strikes me as ill-posed. Saying that only humans need worry about the "rights" of other creatures and whether or not we are speciesist, seems very speciesist to me. Even in trying to avoid it you still end up doing it anyway. >There will >probably be some discussion of this point in the project as well. Will you include that fact that if we didn't remain speciesist we would eventually be overtaken by animals who are, or haven't you thought it through to the point of accepting that fact? >I do not currently have any preconceptions about what conclusion I >will arrive at. My guess is that you want to support the elimination objective. >It is probably best to let me finish my thesis and write up the first >chapter before we discuss the matter further. That would depend on how open minded you want to be. If you just want to support the elimination objective then you're probably ready to go, but if you're actually going to consider any alternatives to be ethically equivalent or superior then I get the feeling you haven't even begun the first inch of real thought in that direction so you should discuss it with people who have a good bit before you attempt writing about it. Do AW minded people write anything, or is it only elimination minded people? Come to think of it, there is tons of propaganda to support elimination, but damn little to support decent lives. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
A question for vegans about meat
On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 20:27:56 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
><dh@.> wrote > >> See if you and some students can calculate how many more >> animals experience life because humans eat meat, than would >> if humans did not. > >Given all the factors involved that is impossible to determine, Close enough would be close enough. >besides, the >sheer number of animals who "experience life" is not important to anyone >with half a clue. Maybe billions makes no difference than hundreds to people with half a clue, but it does to people with more than half. >What matters to people of good faith Good faith in what? >is that animals who are raised by humans are well treated, Some of us can consider that as well as how many experience decent lives of possitive value. >and that our actions do not cause undue harm to the environment. Some people can consider all that stuff. Others of you apparently can't. As always: If you think your lack of consideration makes you somehow ethically superior, just try explaining how. Instead of trying to sneak out if it like you always do, why won't you just try explaining how you think you're superior? I know you can't--none of you ever could--but it sure would be fun to watch you try. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
A question for vegans about meat
On 20 Mar, 19:25, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Buxqi wrote: > > On 18 Mar, 23:36, Rupert > wrote: > > >> When my thesis is finished I > >> plan to start working on a writing project in animal ethics, exploring > >> the question of whether speciesism can be justified. > > > Rudy Canoza recently made the interesting point that AR is > > speciesist assuming that you would lock up a human who > > harmed other humans but had a brain condition whereby he > > was incapable of making moral judgements and therefore should > > be considered a moral patient. > > > If you are willing to lock him up yet unwilling to lock a predator > > animal up to prevent him from doing harm to non-human animals > > then you are guilty of speciesm. Can you refute that premise? > > My specific point that "ar" is speciesist is not really > based on what we require of human moral patients, > although that certainly reinforces my claim. I think the example of moral patients is actually necessary for your charge of speciesm to stick. Sure, you can argue that if it is wrong for humans to do something than it must also be wrong for any other species but asking a lion not to hunt or an ant not to farm aphids or a cuckoo not to steal eggs from other birds is a bit like asking volcanos not to erupt or hurricanes to not damage anything. >*My point > is that "ar" demands a behavior of moral actors - > humans - based on the fact that humans are uniquely > viewed by most, at least until recently, as moral > actors. *It's sort of like requiring your seven-foot > tall neighbor to assist you in getting things down from > or up onto the top shelves of your kitchen cabinets > merely because he is tall. The analogy does not convince me. You can only expect an entity to act based on what it knows. We have a conception of "right" and "wrong". The crocodile doesn't know any better. > > An interesting development is that some ethnologists or > ethno-biologists now think humans may not be the only > moral actors; there is some scant evidence that > chimpanzees may have some rudimentary moral sense. *If > that is the case, and if it eventually comes to pass > that chimps have a limited but identifiable capacity > for moral agency, then are we required to prevent them > from killing colubus monkeys and other animals?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
A question for vegans about meat
On 20 Mar, 23:22, Rupert > wrote:
> On Mar 21, 2:35 am, Buxqi > wrote: > > > On 18 Mar, 23:36, Rupert > wrote: > > > > When my thesis is finished I > > > plan to start working on a writing project in animal ethics, exploring > > > the question of whether speciesism can be justified. > > > Rudy Canoza recently made the interesting point that AR is > > speciesist assuming that you would lock up a human who > > harmed other humans but had a brain condition whereby he > > was incapable of making moral judgements and therefore should > > be considered a moral patient. > > > If you are willing to lock him up yet unwilling to lock a predator > > animal up to prevent him from doing harm to non-human animals > > then you are guilty of speciesm. Can you refute that premise? > > Okay, here's what I'm going to do, in outline. > > We're going to look at two hypothetical cases, involving a scientific > research project which harms individuals in order to attempt to gain > knowledge about Parkinson's disease. This is based on an example which > Peter Singer recently said was an example of "justifiable research". > We'll have two hypothetical cases, one involving doing the research on > cognitively impaired humans, the other on chimpanzees. I'll attempt to > do a survey of everything in the literature which tries to provide > some support for the view that it's morally permissible to do the > project on the chimpanzees but not the humans. > > We'll also explore the objection that rejecting speciesism would have > untenable consequences, which has been made by Carl Cohen and is > frequently made on this newsgroup. > > This particular point you are talking about at the moment, I'm not > currently convinced that it's worth addressing. We do confine nonhuman > animals to prevent them from doing harm. We do take the view that some > humans do not have legal responsibility for their actions. More needs > to be done before I see an argument here that needs some discussion. Personally I think the argument is worth looking at, if only because any position that is demonstratably guilty of the quality (eg speciesm) that it explicitly rejects must be viewed with a certain scepticism. > > As to Jonathan Ball's points in his more recent post, well, we might > talk about them later. Sometime soon I'll write the first chapter, > giving a more precise version of the two hypothetical cases above and > stating the aims and scope of the project. In particular, I'll specify > which writers and arguments I'm going to examine. Then you can give me > feedback about whether the writers and arguments I've chosen are a > good selection. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
A question for vegans about meat
On 20 Mar, 23:25, Rupert > wrote:
> On Mar 21, 7:57 am, dh@. wrote: > > > > > > > On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 15:56:27 -0700 (PDT), Rupert > wrote: > > >Thank you for sharing your thoughts about how to proceed. I might > > >include a discussion of R. M. Hare's views, in particular his essay > > >"Why I am Only a Demi-Vegetarian". That might do something by way of > > >addressing your points. > > > * * You could consider the lives of everything. You could compare > > the lives of broiler chickens of 6-8 weeks, with those of any wild > > birds who live for that period of time or less. You could do the same > > with battery hens and cage-free egg producers. If you do it open > > mindedly I don't see how you could come to the conclusion that > > no livestock animals' lives are or could be worth living, especially > > comparing them with equivalent length lives of wildlife. > > > >Your question about whether speciesism can be > > >"justified" in nonhuman animals strikes me as ill-posed. > > > * * Saying that only humans need worry about the "rights" of > > other creatures and whether or not we are speciesist, seems > > very speciesist to me. Even in trying to avoid it you still end up > > doing it anyway. > > > >There will > > >probably be some discussion of this point in the project as well. > > > * * Will you include that fact that if we didn't remain speciesist > > we would eventually be overtaken by animals who are, or > > haven't you thought it through to the point of accepting that > > fact? > > > >I do not currently have any preconceptions about what conclusion I > > >will arrive at. > > > * * My guess is that you want to support the elimination > > objective. > > > >It is probably best to let me finish my thesis and write up the first > > >chapter before we discuss the matter further. > > > * * That would depend on how open minded you want to be. > > If you just want to support the elimination objective then you're > > probably ready to go, but if you're actually going to consider > > any alternatives to be ethically equivalent or superior then I > > get the feeling you haven't even begun the first inch of real > > thought in that direction so you should discuss it with people > > who have a good bit before you attempt writing about it. Do > > AW minded people write anything, or is it only elimination > > minded people? Come to think of it, there is tons of propaganda > > to support elimination, but damn little to support decent lives. > > We've already mentioned R. M. Hare. There's also Carl Cohen. When I > have written the first chapter I will specify which writers and > arguments I'm going to examine and you can give me feedback on how > open-minded you feel I am being. In my experience when people say things like "you are so closed minded" what they really mean is "Why can't you accept that I am right". I'm sure your essay will be well thought out, addressing most of the important points and provide a good discussion point. >- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
A question for vegans about meat
<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 20:27:56 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote: > >><dh@.> wrote >> >>> See if you and some students can calculate how many more >>> animals experience life because humans eat meat, than would >>> if humans did not. >> >>Given all the factors involved that is impossible to determine, > > Close enough would be close enough. No, impossible to even come close. In the zero-sum world that is nature, one tonne of feed harvested and fed to a single steer might eliminate the food resource support for 100,000 field mice, but who knows? The good thing is that it doesn't matter. I don't care if millions of field mice never exist, I don't care if steers never exist, nobody does. The only reason to care about them is UTILITY. You're barking mad, plain and simple. Thus the rest of your response, like everything you say, is irrelevant. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
A question for vegans about meat
On Mar 20, 6:14*pm, Buxqi > wrote:
> On 20 Mar, 23:22, Rupert > wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 21, 2:35 am, Buxqi > wrote: > > > > On 18 Mar, 23:36, Rupert > wrote: > > > > > When my thesis is finished I > > > > plan to start working on a writing project in animal ethics, exploring > > > > the question of whether speciesism can be justified. > > > > Rudy Canoza recently made the interesting point that AR is > > > speciesist assuming that you would lock up a human who > > > harmed other humans but had a brain condition whereby he > > > was incapable of making moral judgements and therefore should > > > be considered a moral patient. > > > > If you are willing to lock him up yet unwilling to lock a predator > > > animal up to prevent him from doing harm to non-human animals > > > then you are guilty of speciesm. Can you refute that premise? > > > Okay, here's what I'm going to do, in outline. > > > We're going to look at two hypothetical cases, involving a scientific > > research project which harms individuals in order to attempt to gain > > knowledge about Parkinson's disease. This is based on an example which > > Peter Singer recently said was an example of "justifiable research". > > We'll have two hypothetical cases, one involving doing the research on > > cognitively impaired humans, the other on chimpanzees. I'll attempt to > > do a survey of everything in the literature which tries to provide > > some support for the view that it's morally permissible to do the > > project on the chimpanzees but not the humans. > > > We'll also explore the objection that rejecting speciesism would have > > untenable consequences, which has been made by Carl Cohen and is > > frequently made on this newsgroup. > > > This particular point you are talking about at the moment, I'm not > > currently convinced that it's worth addressing. We do confine nonhuman > > animals to prevent them from doing harm. We do take the view that some > > humans do not have legal responsibility for their actions. More needs > > to be done before I see an argument here that needs some discussion. > > Personally I think the argument is worth looking at, if only because > any position that is demonstratably guilty of the quality (eg > speciesm) > that it explicitly rejects must be viewed with a certain scepticism. > If I take the stance "I think an acceptable moral theory must be non- speciesist" and you can then demonstrate to me that I hold moral views which are speciesist, then you have shown that I am being inconsistent and this is certainly a ground for saying that my position as it stands is not satisfactory. In my writing project, I intend to explore objections to the effect that nobody sincerely believes in and acts accordance with a moral theory that is non-speciesist. Carl Cohen has made objections along these lines, and objections along these lines are frequently made on this newsgroup. Various facts can be cited in support of arguments along this line, which are frequently discussed on this newsgroup. To take just two examples, plant-based agriculture causes serious harm, in various ways, to large numbers of nonhuman animals, and it is estimated that electrical power stations in the United States cause the death of approximately one trillion fish per year. Gary Francione has attempted some discussion of the significance of facts like these for his position, but it does not seem to be very satisfactory. I intend to explore objections like these and try to form a considered view about what they achieve, and where we should go from there. You seem to believe that the argument that you have outlined is another example of an argument which could be plausibly held to show that certain moral views accepted by those who identify themselves as animal rights advocates are speciesist. For me to become convinced of this I would need further elaboration. First of all, you speak of being unwilling to lock up a predator animal in order to prevent that animal from doing harm. Let us suppose that a lion had escaped from the zoo and was roaming through a densely populated city. One reading of what you are saying is that you are suggesting that many who identify themselves as animal rights advocates would be unwilling to take measures to prevent the lion from doing harm, which may involve confining the lion (at least temporarily). If this it what you are suggesting, I would be interested in seeing any citations you can provide in support of this view. On the other hand, you may be alluding to the fact that we are unwilling to intervene in predator- prey relationships among nonhuman animals living free in the wild. This is indeed an important point which will require some discussion. It is mentioned by Carl Cohen, it is mentioned by Jonathan Ball sometimes on this newsgroups, and it has received some discussion in the literature. I will certainly do some discussion of that. On the other hand, perhaps I am still confused about what your main point is here. Maybe you could give some more specific real-world examples of people being willing to confine a human who is a moral patient, but not willing to confine a nonhuman animal who has the potential to do harm, just to make clear which examples you had in mind. You must realize the following: (1) I am attempting to embark on this project without any preconceptions about what conclusions I will arrive at (2) It is indeed quite possible that I will come to the conclusion that I have identified some serious deficiencies in certain views widely accepted by those who identify themselves as animal rights advocates. However, there is also some possibility that I will come to a similar conclusion about those who identify themselves as "welfarists". We will have to see. (3) Dutch complains that DeGrazia's concept of "equal consideration" is vague, and that no coherent definition of "speciesism" has been offered except definitions which would imply that there is simply no such thing as a non-speciesist ethical theory which anyone would find acceptable. In response to this complaint I would like to attempt a clearer statement of what a non-speciesist ethical theory is, and investigate the question of whether it is possible to formulate a non- speciesist ethical theory which anyone would find acceptable. If I come to the conclusion that that is not possible, then it seems to me, for reasons I'll elaborate on in my project, that this raises a puzzle in the methodology of ethics which needs to be explored further, and I will want to see if I can say anything about that. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
A question for vegans about meat
On Mar 21, 6:44*am, Rupert > wrote:
> On Mar 20, 6:14*pm, Buxqi > wrote: > > > > > > > On 20 Mar, 23:22, Rupert > wrote: > > > > On Mar 21, 2:35 am, Buxqi > wrote: > > > > > On 18 Mar, 23:36, Rupert > wrote: > > > > > > When my thesis is finished I > > > > > plan to start working on a writing project in animal ethics, exploring > > > > > the question of whether speciesism can be justified. > > > > > Rudy Canoza recently made the interesting point that AR is > > > > speciesist assuming that you would lock up a human who > > > > harmed other humans but had a brain condition whereby he > > > > was incapable of making moral judgements and therefore should > > > > be considered a moral patient. > > > > > If you are willing to lock him up yet unwilling to lock a predator > > > > animal up to prevent him from doing harm to non-human animals > > > > then you are guilty of speciesm. Can you refute that premise? > > > > Okay, here's what I'm going to do, in outline. > > > > We're going to look at two hypothetical cases, involving a scientific > > > research project which harms individuals in order to attempt to gain > > > knowledge about Parkinson's disease. This is based on an example which > > > Peter Singer recently said was an example of "justifiable research". > > > We'll have two hypothetical cases, one involving doing the research on > > > cognitively impaired humans, the other on chimpanzees. I'll attempt to > > > do a survey of everything in the literature which tries to provide > > > some support for the view that it's morally permissible to do the > > > project on the chimpanzees but not the humans. > > > > We'll also explore the objection that rejecting speciesism would have > > > untenable consequences, which has been made by Carl Cohen and is > > > frequently made on this newsgroup. > > > > This particular point you are talking about at the moment, I'm not > > > currently convinced that it's worth addressing. We do confine nonhuman > > > animals to prevent them from doing harm. We do take the view that some > > > humans do not have legal responsibility for their actions. More needs > > > to be done before I see an argument here that needs some discussion. > > > Personally I think the argument is worth looking at, if only because > > any position that is demonstratably guilty of the quality (eg > > speciesm) > > that it explicitly rejects must be viewed with a certain scepticism. > > If I take the stance "I think an acceptable moral theory must be non- > speciesist" and you can then demonstrate to me that I hold moral views > which are speciesist, then you have shown that I am being inconsistent > and this is certainly a ground for saying that my position as it > stands is not satisfactory. In my writing project, I intend to explore > objections to the effect that nobody sincerely believes in and acts > accordance with a moral theory that is non-speciesist. Carl Cohen has > made objections along these lines, and objections along these lines > are frequently made on this newsgroup. Various facts can be cited in > support of arguments along this line, which are frequently discussed > on this newsgroup. To take just two examples, plant-based agriculture > causes serious harm, in various ways, to large numbers of nonhuman > animals, and it is estimated that electrical power stations in the > United States cause the death of approximately one trillion fish per > year. Gary Francione has attempted some discussion of the significance > of facts like these for his position, but it does not seem to be very > satisfactory. I intend to explore objections like these and try to > form a considered view about what they achieve, and where we should go > from there. > > You seem to believe that the argument that you have outlined is > another example of an argument which could be plausibly held to show > that certain moral views accepted by those who identify themselves as > animal rights advocates are speciesist. For me to become convinced of > this I would need further elaboration. First of all, you speak of > being unwilling to lock up a predator animal in order to prevent that > animal from doing harm. Let us suppose that a lion had escaped from > the zoo and was roaming through a densely populated city. One reading > of what you are saying is that you are suggesting that many who > identify themselves as animal rights advocates would be unwilling to > take measures to prevent the lion from doing harm, which may involve > confining the lion (at least temporarily). If this it what you are > suggesting, I would be interested in seeing any citations you can > provide in support of this view. On the other hand, you may be > alluding to the fact that we are unwilling to intervene in predator- > prey relationships among nonhuman animals living free in the wild. > This is indeed an important point which will require some discussion. Yes. That's the fact I was alluding to. > It is mentioned by Carl Cohen, it is mentioned by Jonathan Ball > sometimes on this newsgroups, and it has received some discussion in > the literature. I will certainly do some discussion of that. On the > other hand, perhaps I am still confused about what your main point is > here. Maybe you could give some more specific real-world examples of > people being willing to confine a human who is a moral patient, but > not willing to confine a nonhuman animal who has the potential to do > harm, just to make clear which examples you had in mind. > > You must realize the following: > > (1) I am attempting to embark on this project without any > preconceptions about what conclusions I will arrive at > (2) It is indeed quite possible that I will come to the conclusion > that I have identified some serious deficiencies in certain views > widely accepted by those who identify themselves as animal rights > advocates. However, there is also some possibility that I will come to > a similar conclusion about those who identify themselves as > "welfarists". We will have to see. > (3) Dutch complains that DeGrazia's concept of "equal consideration" > is vague, and that no coherent definition of "speciesism" has been > offered except definitions which would imply that there is simply no > such thing as a non-speciesist ethical theory which anyone would find > acceptable. In response to this complaint I would like to attempt a > clearer statement of what a non-speciesist ethical theory is, and > investigate the question of whether it is possible to formulate a non- > speciesist ethical theory which anyone would find acceptable. If I > come to the conclusion that that is not possible, then it seems to me, > for reasons I'll elaborate on in my project, that this raises a puzzle > in the methodology of ethics which needs to be explored further, and I > will want to see if I can say anything about that.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
A question for vegans about meat
<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 04:56:04 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote: > >><dh@.> wrote in message ... >>> On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 20:27:56 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote: >>> >>>><dh@.> wrote >>>> >>>>> See if you and some students can calculate how many more >>>>> animals experience life because humans eat meat, than would >>>>> if humans did not. >>>> >>>>Given all the factors involved that is impossible to determine, >>> >>> Close enough would be close enough. >> >>No, > > Yes, it sure would. > >>impossible to even come close. In the zero-sum world that is nature, one >>tonne of feed harvested and fed to a single steer might eliminate the food >>resource support for 100,000 field mice, > > Now many farm mice does it support along with the steer? Impossible to know, and nobody with any sense cares. > >>but who knows? The good thing is >>that it doesn't matter. I don't care if millions of field mice never >>exist, >>I don't care if steers never exist, nobody does. The only reason to care >>about them is UTILITY. > > As I continually explain: You are so completely consumed by > your own selfishness that you are unable to consider the animals > themselves, and therefore unable to even try to consider which > practices are and are not cruel TO THEM. That's a lie and a diversion, selfishness is not an issue. I don't care if cattle are born or if the natural resources are left to support wildlife like mice, or any combination of the two, except inasmuch as I want the small amount of organic beef I occasionally consume. Causing cattle to be born to consume grass and grain and water is not *good* or *better* in any objective sense, apart from our desire to use those animals to produce meat and other products. You're wasting your breath with this fool's argument. The only allies you have are a couple of AR clods who share a common foe. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
A question for vegans about meat
On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 04:56:04 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
><dh@.> wrote in message ... >> On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 20:27:56 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >>><dh@.> wrote >>> >>>> See if you and some students can calculate how many more >>>> animals experience life because humans eat meat, than would >>>> if humans did not. >>> >>>Given all the factors involved that is impossible to determine, >> >> Close enough would be close enough. > >No, Yes, it sure would. >impossible to even come close. In the zero-sum world that is nature, one >tonne of feed harvested and fed to a single steer might eliminate the food >resource support for 100,000 field mice, Now many farm mice does it support along with the steer? >but who knows? The good thing is >that it doesn't matter. I don't care if millions of field mice never exist, >I don't care if steers never exist, nobody does. The only reason to care >about them is UTILITY. As I continually explain: You are so completely consumed by your own selfishness that you are unable to consider the animals themselves, and therefore unable to even try to consider which practices are and are not cruel TO THEM. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
A question for vegans about meat
On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 16:25:21 -0700 (PDT), Rupert > wrote:
>On Mar 21, 7:57 am, dh@. wrote: >> On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 15:56:27 -0700 (PDT), Rupert > wrote: >> >Thank you for sharing your thoughts about how to proceed. I might >> >include a discussion of R. M. Hare's views, in particular his essay >> >"Why I am Only a Demi-Vegetarian". That might do something by way of >> >addressing your points. >> >> You could consider the lives of everything. You could compare >> the lives of broiler chickens of 6-8 weeks, with those of any wild >> birds who live for that period of time or less. You could do the same >> with battery hens and cage-free egg producers. If you do it open >> mindedly I don't see how you could come to the conclusion that >> no livestock animals' lives are or could be worth living, especially >> comparing them with equivalent length lives of wildlife. >> >> >Your question about whether speciesism can be >> >"justified" in nonhuman animals strikes me as ill-posed. >> >> Saying that only humans need worry about the "rights" of >> other creatures and whether or not we are speciesist, seems >> very speciesist to me. Even in trying to avoid it you still end up >> doing it anyway. >> >> >There will >> >probably be some discussion of this point in the project as well. >> >> Will you include that fact that if we didn't remain speciesist >> we would eventually be overtaken by animals who are, or >> haven't you thought it through to the point of accepting that >> fact? >> >> >I do not currently have any preconceptions about what conclusion I >> >will arrive at. >> >> My guess is that you want to support the elimination >> objective. >> >> >It is probably best to let me finish my thesis and write up the first >> >chapter before we discuss the matter further. >> >> That would depend on how open minded you want to be. >> If you just want to support the elimination objective then you're >> probably ready to go, but if you're actually going to consider >> any alternatives to be ethically equivalent or superior then I >> get the feeling you haven't even begun the first inch of real >> thought in that direction so you should discuss it with people >> who have a good bit before you attempt writing about it. Do >> AW minded people write anything, or is it only elimination >> minded people? Come to think of it, there is tons of propaganda >> to support elimination, but damn little to support decent lives. > >We've already mentioned R. M. Hare. There's also Carl Cohen. Wow. Have there really been two other people who can appreciate billions of livestock experiencing decent lives of possitive value? >When I >have written the first chapter I will specify which writers and >arguments I'm going to examine and you can give me feedback on how >open-minded you feel I am being. Please include what you consider to be significant quotes if you're going to use some. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
A question for vegans about meat
On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 19:17:46 -0700 (PDT), Buxqi > wrote:
>On 20 Mar, 23:25, Rupert > wrote: >> On Mar 21, 7:57 am, dh@. wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 15:56:27 -0700 (PDT), Rupert > wrote: >> > >Thank you for sharing your thoughts about how to proceed. I might >> > >include a discussion of R. M. Hare's views, in particular his essay >> > >"Why I am Only a Demi-Vegetarian". That might do something by way of >> > >addressing your points. >> >> > * * You could consider the lives of everything. You could compare >> > the lives of broiler chickens of 6-8 weeks, with those of any wild >> > birds who live for that period of time or less. You could do the same >> > with battery hens and cage-free egg producers. If you do it open >> > mindedly I don't see how you could come to the conclusion that >> > no livestock animals' lives are or could be worth living, especially >> > comparing them with equivalent length lives of wildlife. >> >> > >Your question about whether speciesism can be >> > >"justified" in nonhuman animals strikes me as ill-posed. >> >> > * * Saying that only humans need worry about the "rights" of >> > other creatures and whether or not we are speciesist, seems >> > very speciesist to me. Even in trying to avoid it you still end up >> > doing it anyway. >> >> > >There will >> > >probably be some discussion of this point in the project as well. >> >> > * * Will you include that fact that if we didn't remain speciesist >> > we would eventually be overtaken by animals who are, or >> > haven't you thought it through to the point of accepting that >> > fact? >> >> > >I do not currently have any preconceptions about what conclusion I >> > >will arrive at. >> >> > * * My guess is that you want to support the elimination >> > objective. >> >> > >It is probably best to let me finish my thesis and write up the first >> > >chapter before we discuss the matter further. >> >> > * * That would depend on how open minded you want to be. >> > If you just want to support the elimination objective then you're >> > probably ready to go, but if you're actually going to consider >> > any alternatives to be ethically equivalent or superior then I >> > get the feeling you haven't even begun the first inch of real >> > thought in that direction so you should discuss it with people >> > who have a good bit before you attempt writing about it. Do >> > AW minded people write anything, or is it only elimination >> > minded people? Come to think of it, there is tons of propaganda >> > to support elimination, but damn little to support decent lives. >> >> We've already mentioned R. M. Hare. There's also Carl Cohen. When I >> have written the first chapter I will specify which writers and >> arguments I'm going to examine and you can give me feedback on how >> open-minded you feel I am being. > >In my experience when people say things like >"you are so closed minded" what they really mean >is "Why can't you accept that I am right". Probably because people say that to you when you're wrong and they don't want to hurt your feelings too much by saying it directly. >I'm sure your essay will be well thought out, Why? "Well" for what? >addressing most >of the important points and provide a good discussion point. May be. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
A question for vegans about meat
On Mar 23, 1:13*pm, dh@. wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 16:25:21 -0700 (PDT), Rupert > wrote: > >On Mar 21, 7:57 am, dh@. wrote: > >> On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 15:56:27 -0700 (PDT), Rupert > wrote: > >> >Thank you for sharing your thoughts about how to proceed. I might > >> >include a discussion of R. M. Hare's views, in particular his essay > >> >"Why I am Only a Demi-Vegetarian". That might do something by way of > >> >addressing your points. > > >> * * You could consider the lives of everything. You could compare > >> the lives of broiler chickens of 6-8 weeks, with those of any wild > >> birds who live for that period of time or less. You could do the same > >> with battery hens and cage-free egg producers. If you do it open > >> mindedly I don't see how you could come to the conclusion that > >> no livestock animals' lives are or could be worth living, especially > >> comparing them with equivalent length lives of wildlife. > > >> >Your question about whether speciesism can be > >> >"justified" in nonhuman animals strikes me as ill-posed. > > >> * * Saying that only humans need worry about the "rights" of > >> other creatures and whether or not we are speciesist, seems > >> very speciesist to me. Even in trying to avoid it you still end up > >> doing it anyway. > > >> >There will > >> >probably be some discussion of this point in the project as well. > > >> * * Will you include that fact that if we didn't remain speciesist > >> we would eventually be overtaken by animals who are, or > >> haven't you thought it through to the point of accepting that > >> fact? > > >> >I do not currently have any preconceptions about what conclusion I > >> >will arrive at. > > >> * * My guess is that you want to support the elimination > >> objective. > > >> >It is probably best to let me finish my thesis and write up the first > >> >chapter before we discuss the matter further. > > >> * * That would depend on how open minded you want to be. > >> If you just want to support the elimination objective then you're > >> probably ready to go, but if you're actually going to consider > >> any alternatives to be ethically equivalent or superior then I > >> get the feeling you haven't even begun the first inch of real > >> thought in that direction so you should discuss it with people > >> who have a good bit before you attempt writing about it. Do > >> AW minded people write anything, or is it only elimination > >> minded people? Come to think of it, there is tons of propaganda > >> to support elimination, but damn little to support decent lives. > > >We've already mentioned R. M. Hare. There's also Carl Cohen. > > * * Wow. Have there really been two other people who can > appreciate billions of livestock experiencing decent lives of > possitive value? > Carl Cohen has not commented on the issue of whether it is a "good thing" to bring animals into existence so that they can have lives of "positive value". In his essay "Why I am Only a Demi-Vegetarian", R. M. Hare takes a position similar to yours. You might like to have a look. The essay appears in the anthology "Singer and his Critics". I can find the original reference for you one of these days. > >When I > >have written the first chapter I will specify which writers and > >arguments I'm going to examine and you can give me feedback on how > >open-minded you feel I am being. > > * * Please include what you consider to be significant quotes > if you're going to use some.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
A question for vegans about meat
On Mar 23, 6:15*pm, Rupert > wrote:
> On Mar 23, 1:13*pm, dh@. wrote: > > > > > > > On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 16:25:21 -0700 (PDT), Rupert > wrote: > > >On Mar 21, 7:57 am, dh@. wrote: > > >> On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 15:56:27 -0700 (PDT), Rupert > wrote: > > >> >Thank you for sharing your thoughts about how to proceed. I might > > >> >include a discussion of R. M. Hare's views, in particular his essay > > >> >"Why I am Only a Demi-Vegetarian". That might do something by way of > > >> >addressing your points. > > > >> * * You could consider the lives of everything. You could compare > > >> the lives of broiler chickens of 6-8 weeks, with those of any wild > > >> birds who live for that period of time or less. You could do the same > > >> with battery hens and cage-free egg producers. If you do it open > > >> mindedly I don't see how you could come to the conclusion that > > >> no livestock animals' lives are or could be worth living, especially > > >> comparing them with equivalent length lives of wildlife. > > > >> >Your question about whether speciesism can be > > >> >"justified" in nonhuman animals strikes me as ill-posed. > > > >> * * Saying that only humans need worry about the "rights" of > > >> other creatures and whether or not we are speciesist, seems > > >> very speciesist to me. Even in trying to avoid it you still end up > > >> doing it anyway. > > > >> >There will > > >> >probably be some discussion of this point in the project as well. > > > >> * * Will you include that fact that if we didn't remain speciesist > > >> we would eventually be overtaken by animals who are, or > > >> haven't you thought it through to the point of accepting that > > >> fact? > > > >> >I do not currently have any preconceptions about what conclusion I > > >> >will arrive at. > > > >> * * My guess is that you want to support the elimination > > >> objective. > > > >> >It is probably best to let me finish my thesis and write up the first > > >> >chapter before we discuss the matter further. > > > >> * * That would depend on how open minded you want to be. > > >> If you just want to support the elimination objective then you're > > >> probably ready to go, but if you're actually going to consider > > >> any alternatives to be ethically equivalent or superior then I > > >> get the feeling you haven't even begun the first inch of real > > >> thought in that direction so you should discuss it with people > > >> who have a good bit before you attempt writing about it. Do > > >> AW minded people write anything, or is it only elimination > > >> minded people? Come to think of it, there is tons of propaganda > > >> to support elimination, but damn little to support decent lives. > > > >We've already mentioned R. M. Hare. There's also Carl Cohen. > > > * * Wow. Have there really been two other people who can > > appreciate billions of livestock experiencing decent lives of > > possitive value? > > Carl Cohen has not commented on the issue of whether it is a "good > thing" to bring animals into existence so that they can have lives of > "positive value". In his essay "Why I am Only a Demi-Vegetarian", R. > M. Hare takes a position similar to yours. You might like to have a > look. The essay appears in the anthology "Singer and his Critics". I > can find the original reference for you one of these days. > You might find it profitable to look at Part IV of Derek Parfit's "Reasons and Persons". That is an exploration of some issues about the ethics of decisions which involve bringing individuals into existence who would not otherwise have existed. Parfit explores theses issues and discusses some paradoxes which he does not know how to solve. Also of interest might be Appendix G to that book, "Whether Causing Someone to Exist Can Benefit This Person". That might give you ammunition in your debate with Jonathan Ball. I would suggest that reading these parts of Parfit's book, and maybe some of the literature which that part of the book has generated, would help you to think more clearly about these issues and strengthen your arguments for your views (assuming you still retain them, another possibility is that exploring the literature might lead you to change your views). The objection I usually raise against your views is "Do you distinguish between the human and nonhuman cases, and if so on what grounds?" I have never really managed to get clear on what your answer to this one is. I think you need to do more to clarify this issue. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
A question for vegans about meat
On Sun, 23 Mar 2008, Goo wrote:
><dh@.> wrote in message ... >> On Fri, 21 Mar 2008, Goo wrote: >> >>><dh@.> wrote in message ... >>>> On Wed, 19 Mar 2008, Goo wrote: >>>> >>>>><dh@.> wrote >>>>> >>>>>> See if you and some students can calculate how many more >>>>>> animals experience life because humans eat meat, than would >>>>>> if humans did not. >>>>> >>>>>Given all the factors involved that is impossible to determine, >>>> >>>> Close enough would be close enough. >>> >>>No, >> >> Yes, it sure would. >> >>>impossible to even come close. In the zero-sum world that is nature, one >>>tonne of feed harvested and fed to a single steer might eliminate the food >>>resource support for 100,000 field mice, >> >> Now many farm mice does it support along with the steer? > >Impossible to know, and nobody with any sense cares. Why do you pretend to care about field mice provided they are not living among cattle, do you have any idea Goo? >>>but who knows? The good thing is >>>that it doesn't matter. I don't care if millions of field mice never >>>exist, >>>I don't care if steers never exist, nobody does. The only reason to care >>>about them is UTILITY. >> >> As I continually explain: You are so completely consumed by >> your own selfishness that you are unable to consider the animals >> themselves, and therefore unable to even try to consider which >> practices are and are not cruel TO THEM. > >That's a lie .. . . >I don't care if cattle are born or if the natural resources are left >to support wildlife . . . except inasmuch as I want the small amount >of organic beef I occasionally consume. LOL!!! First you said I lied, and then you proved me right. Goo, you suck at this no matter who you're pretending to be. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
A question for vegans about meat
<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Sun, 23 Mar 2008, Goo wrote: > >><dh@.> wrote in message ... >>> On Fri, 21 Mar 2008, Goo wrote: >>> >>>><dh@.> wrote in message m... >>>>> On Wed, 19 Mar 2008, Goo wrote: >>>>> >>>>>><dh@.> wrote >>>>>> >>>>>>> See if you and some students can calculate how many more >>>>>>> animals experience life because humans eat meat, than would >>>>>>> if humans did not. >>>>>> >>>>>>Given all the factors involved that is impossible to determine, >>>>> >>>>> Close enough would be close enough. >>>> >>>>No, >>> >>> Yes, it sure would. >>> >>>>impossible to even come close. In the zero-sum world that is nature, one >>>>tonne of feed harvested and fed to a single steer might eliminate the >>>>food >>>>resource support for 100,000 field mice, >>> >>> Now many farm mice does it support along with the steer? >> >>Impossible to know, and nobody with any sense cares. > > Why do you pretend to care about field mice provided they are > not living among cattle, do you have any idea Goo? > >>>>but who knows? The good thing is >>>>that it doesn't matter. I don't care if millions of field mice never >>>>exist, >>>>I don't care if steers never exist, nobody does. The only reason to care >>>>about them is UTILITY. >>> >>> As I continually explain: You are so completely consumed by >>> your own selfishness that you are unable to consider the animals >>> themselves, and therefore unable to even try to consider which >>> practices are and are not cruel TO THEM. >> >>That's a lie > . . . >>I don't care if cattle are born or if the natural resources are left >>to support wildlife . . . except inasmuch as I want the small amount >>of organic beef I occasionally consume. > > LOL!!! First you said I lied, and then you proved me right. > Goo, you suck at this no matter who you're pretending to be. You need to face up to your inability to answer this basic challenge to your position. There is no objective reason to care if cattle exist or they don't. Your claim that you "like them" or "give consideration" to them is an obvious pretense, there's no reason to prefer them to mice unless you're actually thinking about your own appetite. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
A question for vegans about meat
On Mar 25, 6:34*pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> <dh@.> wrote in messagenews:f58gu318g3e83lht0immee2o890f6u1ptu@4ax .com... > > On Sun, 23 Mar 2008, Goo wrote: > > >><dh@.> wrote in messagenews:hfhdu31tqqpmtapvt41jbd2aov729suc2s@4ax .com.... > >>> On Fri, 21 Mar 2008, Goo wrote: > > >>>><dh@.> wrote in message > m... > >>>>> On Wed, 19 Mar 2008, Goo wrote: > > >>>>>><dh@.> wrote > > >>>>>>> * *See if you and some students can calculate how many more > >>>>>>> animals experience life because humans eat meat, than would > >>>>>>> if humans did not. > > >>>>>>Given all the factors involved that is impossible to determine, > > >>>>> * *Close enough would be close enough. > > >>>>No, > > >>> * *Yes, it sure would. > > >>>>impossible to even come close. In the zero-sum world that is nature, one > >>>>tonne of feed harvested and fed to a single steer might eliminate the > >>>>food > >>>>resource support for 100,000 field mice, > > >>> * *Now many farm mice does it support along with the steer? > > >>Impossible to know, and nobody with any sense cares. > > > * *Why do you pretend to care about field mice provided they are > > not living among cattle, do you have any idea Goo? > > >>>>but who knows? The good thing is > >>>>that it doesn't matter. I don't care if millions of field mice never > >>>>exist, > >>>>I don't care if steers never exist, nobody does. The only reason to care > >>>>about them is UTILITY. > > >>> * *As I continually explain: You are so completely consumed by > >>> your own selfishness that you are unable to consider the animals > >>> themselves, and therefore unable to even try to consider which > >>> practices are and are not cruel TO THEM. > > >>That's a lie > > . . . > >>I don't care if cattle are born or if the natural resources are left > >>to support wildlife . . . except inasmuch as I want the small amount > >>of organic beef I occasionally consume. > > > * *LOL!!! First you said I lied, and then you proved me right. > > Goo, you suck at this no matter who you're pretending to be. > > You need to face up to your inability to answer this basic challenge to your > position. There is no objective reason to care if cattle exist or they > don't. Your claim that you "like them" or "give consideration" to them is an > obvious pretense, there's no reason to prefer them to mice unless you're > actually thinking about your own appetite.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Saying people need to face up to the deficiencies in their arguments is sometimes not a very realistic assumption on usenet. They clearly get by well enough for many months or years without ever doing it. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
A question for vegans about meat
"Rupert" > wrote in message
... On Mar 25, 6:34 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: > <dh@.> wrote in messagenews:f58gu318g3e83lht0immee2o890f6u1ptu@4ax .com... > > On Sun, 23 Mar 2008, Goo wrote: > > >><dh@.> wrote in > >>messagenews:hfhdu31tqqpmtapvt41jbd2aov729suc2s@4 ax.com... > >>> On Fri, 21 Mar 2008, Goo wrote: > > >>>><dh@.> wrote in message > m... > >>>>> On Wed, 19 Mar 2008, Goo wrote: > > >>>>>><dh@.> wrote > > >>>>>>> See if you and some students can calculate how many more > >>>>>>> animals experience life because humans eat meat, than would > >>>>>>> if humans did not. > > >>>>>>Given all the factors involved that is impossible to determine, > > >>>>> Close enough would be close enough. > > >>>>No, > > >>> Yes, it sure would. > > >>>>impossible to even come close. In the zero-sum world that is nature, > >>>>one > >>>>tonne of feed harvested and fed to a single steer might eliminate the > >>>>food > >>>>resource support for 100,000 field mice, > > >>> Now many farm mice does it support along with the steer? > > >>Impossible to know, and nobody with any sense cares. > > > Why do you pretend to care about field mice provided they are > > not living among cattle, do you have any idea Goo? > > >>>>but who knows? The good thing is > >>>>that it doesn't matter. I don't care if millions of field mice never > >>>>exist, > >>>>I don't care if steers never exist, nobody does. The only reason to > >>>>care > >>>>about them is UTILITY. > > >>> As I continually explain: You are so completely consumed by > >>> your own selfishness that you are unable to consider the animals > >>> themselves, and therefore unable to even try to consider which > >>> practices are and are not cruel TO THEM. > > >>That's a lie > > . . . > >>I don't care if cattle are born or if the natural resources are left > >>to support wildlife . . . except inasmuch as I want the small amount > >>of organic beef I occasionally consume. > > > LOL!!! First you said I lied, and then you proved me right. > > Goo, you suck at this no matter who you're pretending to be. > > You need to face up to your inability to answer this basic challenge to > your > position. There is no objective reason to care if cattle exist or they > don't. Your claim that you "like them" or "give consideration" to them is > an > obvious pretense, there's no reason to prefer them to mice unless you're > actually thinking about your own appetite.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Saying people need to face up to the deficiencies in their arguments is sometimes not a very realistic assumption on usenet. They clearly get by well enough for many months or years without ever doing it. It wasn't an assumption, it was a directive. It is true however that it was largely rhetorical, I know he can't or won't do it. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,alt.satanism
|
|||
|
|||
Condemning meat (was: A question for vegans about meat)
who cares... stop crossposting this crap to alt.satanism...
On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 12:31:22 -1100, dh@. wrote: >On Tue, 25 Mar 2008, the Goober lied: > >>Goo****wit places *no* value on animals' "getting to >>experience life". > > We know that's a lie Goo. We also know and >have proof that YOU are guilty of what you so >dishonestly accused me of: > >"The opportunity for potential livestock to "get to >experience life" deserves *NO* moral consideration >whatever" - Goo > >"It is completely UNIMPORTANT, morally, that "billions >of animals" at any point "get to experience life." >ZERO importance to it." - Goo > >"There is nothing to "appreciate" about the livestock >"getting to experience life" - Goo > >"The meaningless fact-lette that farm animals "get to >experience life" deserves no consideration" - Goo > >"the "getting to experience life" deserves NO moral >consideration, and is given none; the deliberate killing >of animals for use by humans DOES deserve moral >consideration, and gets it." - Goo > >""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of >their deaths" - Goo > >"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing >of the animals erases all of it." - Goo > >It is morally wrong, in an absolute sense - unjust, in >other words - if humans kill animals they don't need >to kill, i.e. not in self defense. > >"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude >than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo > >"the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to kill an animal >ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude than . . . the >moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all" - Goo > >"logically one MUST conclude that not raising them in the first place >is the ethically superior choice." - Goo -- `We come now to the idea of the Gaeia Universe, where the whole of the Universe would be a single living entity of which all mankind is barely an organelle. But unlike the organisms of Earth, the elements of the Universe, energy and matter, are not connected by the bloody and battering interaction of consumption that we experience on Earth, but by the same forces of physics and mechanics which govern the aforementioned astronomical principles. The concept of pantheism proposes an additional connection, one of an overarching divine presence. In this divinity, mind and matter are one, and all things in the Universe are evenly connected'' --B.D. Abramson |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
A question for vegans about meat
On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 20:52:40 -0700 (PDT), Rupert > wrote:
>On Mar 23, 6:15*pm, Rupert > wrote: >> On Mar 23, 1:13*pm, dh@. wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 16:25:21 -0700 (PDT), Rupert > wrote: >> > >On Mar 21, 7:57 am, dh@. wrote: >> > >> On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 15:56:27 -0700 (PDT), Rupert > wrote: >> > >> >Thank you for sharing your thoughts about how to proceed. I might >> > >> >include a discussion of R. M. Hare's views, in particular his essay >> > >> >"Why I am Only a Demi-Vegetarian". That might do something by way of >> > >> >addressing your points. >> >> > >> * * You could consider the lives of everything. You could compare >> > >> the lives of broiler chickens of 6-8 weeks, with those of any wild >> > >> birds who live for that period of time or less. You could do the same >> > >> with battery hens and cage-free egg producers. If you do it open >> > >> mindedly I don't see how you could come to the conclusion that >> > >> no livestock animals' lives are or could be worth living, especially >> > >> comparing them with equivalent length lives of wildlife. >> >> > >> >Your question about whether speciesism can be >> > >> >"justified" in nonhuman animals strikes me as ill-posed. >> >> > >> * * Saying that only humans need worry about the "rights" of >> > >> other creatures and whether or not we are speciesist, seems >> > >> very speciesist to me. Even in trying to avoid it you still end up >> > >> doing it anyway. >> >> > >> >There will >> > >> >probably be some discussion of this point in the project as well. >> >> > >> * * Will you include that fact that if we didn't remain speciesist >> > >> we would eventually be overtaken by animals who are, or >> > >> haven't you thought it through to the point of accepting that >> > >> fact? >> >> > >> >I do not currently have any preconceptions about what conclusion I >> > >> >will arrive at. >> >> > >> * * My guess is that you want to support the elimination >> > >> objective. >> >> > >> >It is probably best to let me finish my thesis and write up the first >> > >> >chapter before we discuss the matter further. >> >> > >> * * That would depend on how open minded you want to be. >> > >> If you just want to support the elimination objective then you're >> > >> probably ready to go, but if you're actually going to consider >> > >> any alternatives to be ethically equivalent or superior then I >> > >> get the feeling you haven't even begun the first inch of real >> > >> thought in that direction so you should discuss it with people >> > >> who have a good bit before you attempt writing about it. Do >> > >> AW minded people write anything, or is it only elimination >> > >> minded people? Come to think of it, there is tons of propaganda >> > >> to support elimination, but damn little to support decent lives. >> >> > >We've already mentioned R. M. Hare. There's also Carl Cohen. >> >> > * * Wow. Have there really been two other people who can >> > appreciate billions of livestock experiencing decent lives of >> > possitive value? >> >> Carl Cohen has not commented on the issue of whether it is a "good >> thing" to bring animals into existence so that they can have lives of >> "positive value". In his essay "Why I am Only a Demi-Vegetarian", R. >> M. Hare takes a position similar to yours. You might like to have a >> look. The essay appears in the anthology "Singer and his Critics". I >> can find the original reference for you one of these days. >> > >You might find it profitable to look at Part IV of Derek Parfit's >"Reasons and Persons". That is an exploration of some issues about the >ethics of decisions which involve bringing individuals into existence >who would not otherwise have existed. Parfit explores theses issues >and discusses some paradoxes which he does not know how to solve. Also >of interest might be Appendix G to that book, "Whether Causing Someone >to Exist Can Benefit This Person". That might give you ammunition in >your debate with Jonathan Ball. For the most part Goo's side of the debate is no more than lying about things. The only thing about it I'm aware of that may not be a lie is his claim that things don't benefit by actually coming into existence, but even if they don't the Goober still can't explain how that could prevent them from benefitting from lives of positive value after they do. In other words: Goo has nothing. >I would suggest that reading these parts of Parfit's book, and maybe >some of the literature which that part of the book has generated, >would help you to think more clearly about these issues and strengthen >your arguments for your views (assuming you still retain them, another >possibility is that exploring the literature might lead you to change >your views). My views are based on what I've learned from life itself. If there are some in that book that you feel are particularly significant then I'd be interested in reading them if you want to present them, but it's not worth the effort for me to hunt down and obtain the book and then try to figure out what you find significant myself. >The objection I usually raise Right. You need to find it and present it, not suggest that I try to do it. You could probably find enough of whatever you have in mind already online that you could just copy some of it and present it that way, if you don't feel like trying to hammer it out yourself. >against your views is "Do you >distinguish between the human and nonhuman cases, and if so on what >grounds?" I have never really managed to get clear on what your answer >to this one is. I think you need to do more to clarify this issue. There are a number of ways to think about it. Maybe we can sort of chart it out or something. Consideration for the potential humans: - Would they rather be raised by other humans than have no life at all? I've never heard of human slaves refusing to have children. Even if they sometimes did, it obviously was not the general way to feel. I've never heard of mass suicides among slaves. Even if there sometimes were, it obviously was not the general thing to do. So, even though the people suffered from the knowledge that they were slaves, it appears that they would rather be slaves than have no life at all at least in the vast majority of cases. From there we can see that not raising humans as slaves is not necessarily always out of consideration for the potential slaves. Consideration of livestock in comparison: - They don't know they are being raised by humans and therefore don't suffer from the knowledge as human slaves do. From their position it's easy for some people to feel that it would be in the animals' best interest to provide livestock with decent lives of positive value. Consideration of our own interests: - Most of us have grown up believing human slavery is wrong and we accept that as being the case regardless of whether the slaves would have lives of positive or negative value. That means even if we think the slaves would rather exist if given the choice, we would still be opposed to it because we personally don't like the idea. That part has nothing to do with consideration for the potential slaves. The same is true for people who are opposed to raising animals for food, etc. - The slaves would cause such competition with working free people that it would change our society completely. I saw a documentary about modern slavery in which men were trying to *become* slaves because the slaves lived better than the free laborers could. That doesn't mean they lived well, it just means that they weren't dying of starvation. Practicality - It would be much more impractical to raise humans than it is to raise the animals we are raising. It would also be much harder to provide humans with an environment that would give them lives of positive value, than it is to do so for the livestock we raise. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
A question for vegans about meat
On Wed, 26 Mar 2008, Boo wrote:
><dh@.> wrote in message ... >> On Sun, 23 Mar 2008, Goo wrote: >> >>><dh@.> wrote in message ... >>>> On Fri, 21 Mar 2008, Goo wrote: >>>> >>>>><dh@.> wrote in message om... >>>>>> On Wed, 19 Mar 2008, Goo wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>><dh@.> wrote >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> See if you and some students can calculate how many more >>>>>>>> animals experience life because humans eat meat, than would >>>>>>>> if humans did not. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Given all the factors involved that is impossible to determine, >>>>>> >>>>>> Close enough would be close enough. >>>>> >>>>>No, >>>> >>>> Yes, it sure would. >>>> >>>>>impossible to even come close. In the zero-sum world that is nature, one >>>>>tonne of feed harvested and fed to a single steer might eliminate the >>>>>food >>>>>resource support for 100,000 field mice, >>>> >>>> Now many farm mice does it support along with the steer? >>> >>>Impossible to know, and nobody with any sense cares. >> >> Why do you pretend to care about field mice provided they are >> not living among cattle, do you have any idea Goo? > >> >>>>>but who knows? The good thing is >>>>>that it doesn't matter. I don't care if millions of field mice never >>>>>exist, >>>>>I don't care if steers never exist, nobody does. The only reason to care >>>>>about them is UTILITY. >>>> >>>> As I continually explain: You are so completely consumed by >>>> your own selfishness that you are unable to consider the animals >>>> themselves, and therefore unable to even try to consider which >>>> practices are and are not cruel TO THEM. >>> >>>That's a lie >> . . . >>>I don't care if cattle are born or if the natural resources are left >>>to support wildlife . . . except inasmuch as I want the small amount >>>of organic beef I occasionally consume. >> >> LOL!!! First you said I lied, and then you proved me right. >> Goo, you suck at this no matter who you're pretending to be. > >You need to face up to your inability to answer this basic challenge to your >position. There is no objective reason to care if cattle exist That's true ONLY if you are incredibly inconsiderate of others, like you continually prove yourself to be. >or they >don't. Your claim that you "like them" or "give consideration" to them is an >obvious pretense, there's no reason to prefer them to mice unless you're >actually thinking about your own appetite. The purity of your selfishness prevents you from having any consideration for the lives of billions of animals. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
A question for vegans about meat
On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 08:00:44 GMT, Boo wrote:
>"Rupert" > wrote in message ... >On Mar 25, 6:34 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: >> <dh@.> wrote in messagenews:f58gu318g3e83lht0immee2o890f6u1ptu@4ax .com... >> > On Sun, 23 Mar 2008, Goo wrote: >> >> >><dh@.> wrote in >> >>messagenews:hfhdu31tqqpmtapvt41jbd2aov729suc2s@4 ax.com... >> >>> On Fri, 21 Mar 2008, Goo wrote: >> >> >>>><dh@.> wrote in message >> m... >> >>>>> On Wed, 19 Mar 2008, Goo wrote: >> >> >>>>>><dh@.> wrote >> >> >>>>>>> See if you and some students can calculate how many more >> >>>>>>> animals experience life because humans eat meat, than would >> >>>>>>> if humans did not. >> >> >>>>>>Given all the factors involved that is impossible to determine, >> >> >>>>> Close enough would be close enough. >> >> >>>>No, >> >> >>> Yes, it sure would. >> >> >>>>impossible to even come close. In the zero-sum world that is nature, >> >>>>one >> >>>>tonne of feed harvested and fed to a single steer might eliminate the >> >>>>food >> >>>>resource support for 100,000 field mice, >> >> >>> Now many farm mice does it support along with the steer? >> >> >>Impossible to know, and nobody with any sense cares. >> >> > Why do you pretend to care about field mice provided they are >> > not living among cattle, do you have any idea Goo? >> >> >>>>but who knows? The good thing is >> >>>>that it doesn't matter. I don't care if millions of field mice never >> >>>>exist, >> >>>>I don't care if steers never exist, nobody does. The only reason to >> >>>>care >> >>>>about them is UTILITY. >> >> >>> As I continually explain: You are so completely consumed by >> >>> your own selfishness that you are unable to consider the animals >> >>> themselves, and therefore unable to even try to consider which >> >>> practices are and are not cruel TO THEM. >> >> >>That's a lie >> > . . . >> >>I don't care if cattle are born or if the natural resources are left >> >>to support wildlife . . . except inasmuch as I want the small amount >> >>of organic beef I occasionally consume. >> >> > LOL!!! First you said I lied, and then you proved me right. >> > Goo, you suck at this no matter who you're pretending to be. >> >> You need to face up to your inability to answer this basic challenge to >> your >> position. There is no objective reason to care if cattle exist or they >> don't. Your claim that you "like them" or "give consideration" to them is >> an >> obvious pretense, there's no reason to prefer them to mice unless you're >> actually thinking about your own appetite.- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > >Saying people need to face up to the deficiencies in their arguments >is sometimes not a very realistic assumption on usenet. They clearly >get by well enough for many months or years without ever doing it. > > >It wasn't an assumption, it was a directive. It is true however that it was >largely rhetorical, I know he can't or won't do it. The "it" you're referring to is to stop being considerate of livestock. The "it" you're completely incapable of is providing a decent reason why anyone would, other than to support the elimination objective. You suck so bad at this that you openly support consideration for the lives of mice, at the same time that you oppose consideration for the lives of cattle. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,alt.satanism
|
|||
|
|||
Condemning meat (was: A question for vegans about meat)
On Tue, 25 Mar 2008, the Goober lied:
>Goo****wit places *no* value on animals' "getting to >experience life". We know that's a lie Goo. We also know and have proof that YOU are guilty of what you so dishonestly accused me of: "The opportunity for potential livestock to "get to experience life" deserves *NO* moral consideration whatever" - Goo "It is completely UNIMPORTANT, morally, that "billions of animals" at any point "get to experience life." ZERO importance to it." - Goo "There is nothing to "appreciate" about the livestock "getting to experience life" - Goo "The meaningless fact-lette that farm animals "get to experience life" deserves no consideration" - Goo "the "getting to experience life" deserves NO moral consideration, and is given none; the deliberate killing of animals for use by humans DOES deserve moral consideration, and gets it." - Goo ""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of their deaths" - Goo "no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing of the animals erases all of it." - Goo It is morally wrong, in an absolute sense - unjust, in other words - if humans kill animals they don't need to kill, i.e. not in self defense. "the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo "the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to kill an animal ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude than . . . the moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all" - Goo "logically one MUST conclude that not raising them in the first place is the ethically superior choice." - Goo |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
A question for vegans about meat
<dh@.> wrote
> The "it" you're referring to is to stop being considerate of > livestock. Can you give a good reason to prefer that livestock exist over mice except that they are more useful? They're bigger, but that's not a good reason, that just means there will be fewer of them, fewer animal to "experience life". |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
|
|||
|
|||
A question for vegans about meat
On Fri, 28 Mar 2008, Boo wrote:
><dh@.> wrote >> The "it" you're referring to is to stop being considerate of >> livestock. > >Can you give a good reason to prefer that livestock exist over mice except >that they are more useful? I would prefer mice in the house than livestock, but I kill mice when they come in even so. >They're bigger, but that's not a good reason, >that just means there will be fewer of them, fewer animal to "experience >life". Can you in any way appreciate the fact that mice experience life? If not, then why do you keep bringing it up? If so, then try explaining why you think that same consideration should not be applied to all animals. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
If Meat Eaters Acted Like Vegans | Vegan | |||
84% of vegetarians and "vegans" resume eating a normal(meat-including) diet | Vegan | |||
If Meat Eaters Acted Like Vegans - Ultra Spiritual Life episode 35 | General Cooking | |||
Scott Fiore has a question about vegans and weight training | Vegan | |||
Scott Fiore has a question about vegans and weight training | Vegan |