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 Search this Thread Display Modes
  #16 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 13-01-2005, 07:36 AM
Rubystars
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Ron" wrote in message
snip
My experience of psychology offers very differing ideas on pain and
cognitive aspects of pain. Thanks for the clarification of your point.

snip

You're welcome. Although psychological experiments have at times involved
animals, (Pavlov's dogs salivating, pigeons trained to hit a button for a
food reward, etc.) psychology is mainly focused on human beings. To
understand animals it's best to look at what abilities and limitations they
have, what needs they have in life, and what brings the animals optimal
health.

I remember taking a psychology course in which they told us that psychology
teaches that humans have no animal instincts. The example they gave us was
asking whether a human mother had "maternal instincts." The "correct" answer
was no, because supposedly humans don't have instincts at all. I completely
and totally disagree with this. We are animals and we share a lot of
instinctive urges with animals, and many things are driven by animalistic
things rather than a logical thinking mind. For example tests have been done
showing various subconcious things affecting mate selection (one example
being that apparently people pick up information on each other's immune
systems through smell, and this affects how attractive they find a person,
even though they never think about this consciously), and cross cultural
studies showing similarities between different human beings in how they deal
with certain problems, and even similarities in social structure and
behaviors with the other great apes, and to a lesser degree, other primates
and other mammals.

I think that pain is a physical process rather than a psychological
response, although how each human being deals with pain may depend on their
psychology. Some individuals have a higher threshold than others as to what
they, personally, can tolerate. For example, an adult usually doesn't scream
and cry when they get a shot at the doctor's office, and therefore can
tolerate it much better psychologically than a baby or young child, but they
still feel pain. When it comes to animals who can not speak for themselves,
I think it's safest morally to assume that most animals can feel pain and to
avoid causing it if it's at all practical to do so.

-Rubystars



  #17 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 13-01-2005, 07:37 AM
Rubystars
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"usual suspect" wrote in message
...
Rubystars wrote:
"usual suspect" wrote in message
news
An unemployed, self-crippled ex-greasemonkey and a reflexologist who
infect these newsgroups with their ignorance of science and the
scientific method claim on the basis of a study by Sneddon, et al, that
fish experience pain. These two misinformed charlatans have refused to
accept any other study, suggesting that the study of Sneddon, et al,
trumps every other one in the history of scientific research.



Fish are vertebrates and have a vertebrate nervous system. They don't
feel much pain in their mouths, this is true, but if they didn't feel
pain at all, they wouldn't live very long.


Lifespans are pretty relative, but most fish don't live very long. Their
own mothers prey upon them.


I guess mom fish love fry-ed food.

-Rubystars


  #18 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 13-01-2005, 09:22 AM
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
"Rubystars" wrote:

"Ron" wrote in message
snip
My experience of psychology offers very differing ideas on pain and
cognitive aspects of pain. Thanks for the clarification of your point.

snip

You're welcome. Although psychological experiments have at times involved
animals, (Pavlov's dogs salivating, pigeons trained to hit a button for a
food reward, etc.) psychology is mainly focused on human beings. To
understand animals it's best to look at what abilities and limitations they
have, what needs they have in life, and what brings the animals optimal
health.

I remember taking a psychology course in which they told us that psychology
teaches that humans have no animal instincts. The example they gave us was
asking whether a human mother had "maternal instincts." The "correct" answer
was no, because supposedly humans don't have instincts at all. I completely
and totally disagree with this. We are animals and we share a lot of
instinctive urges with animals, and many things are driven by animalistic
things rather than a logical thinking mind. For example tests have been done
showing various subconcious things affecting mate selection (one example
being that apparently people pick up information on each other's immune
systems through smell, and this affects how attractive they find a person,
even though they never think about this consciously), and cross cultural
studies showing similarities between different human beings in how they deal
with certain problems, and even similarities in social structure and
behaviors with the other great apes, and to a lesser degree, other primates
and other mammals.

I think that pain is a physical process rather than a psychological
response, although how each human being deals with pain may depend on their
psychology. Some individuals have a higher threshold than others as to what
they, personally, can tolerate. For example, an adult usually doesn't scream
and cry when they get a shot at the doctor's office, and therefore can
tolerate it much better psychologically than a baby or young child, but they
still feel pain. When it comes to animals who can not speak for themselves,
I think it's safest morally to assume that most animals can feel pain and to
avoid causing it if it's at all practical to do so.

-Rubystars


Sorry for being rude, but can we clarify the issue that you want to
discuss with me here. Based on your comments above, there are a dozen or
so routes that I can pursue.

From your final paragraph, I interpret your statements to mean that when
others (in this case animals) are vulnerable harm that you feel an
obligation to protect them. If you've been following my conversation
with Dutch, this can also be argued as the golden rule operationalized
in that humans fear being unable to defend themselves and treat others
(animals in this case) as they would like to be treated.
  #19 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 13-01-2005, 09:22 AM
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
"Rubystars" wrote:

"Ron" wrote in message
snip
My experience of psychology offers very differing ideas on pain and
cognitive aspects of pain. Thanks for the clarification of your point.

snip

You're welcome. Although psychological experiments have at times involved
animals, (Pavlov's dogs salivating, pigeons trained to hit a button for a
food reward, etc.) psychology is mainly focused on human beings. To
understand animals it's best to look at what abilities and limitations they
have, what needs they have in life, and what brings the animals optimal
health.

I remember taking a psychology course in which they told us that psychology
teaches that humans have no animal instincts. The example they gave us was
asking whether a human mother had "maternal instincts." The "correct" answer
was no, because supposedly humans don't have instincts at all. I completely
and totally disagree with this. We are animals and we share a lot of
instinctive urges with animals, and many things are driven by animalistic
things rather than a logical thinking mind. For example tests have been done
showing various subconcious things affecting mate selection (one example
being that apparently people pick up information on each other's immune
systems through smell, and this affects how attractive they find a person,
even though they never think about this consciously), and cross cultural
studies showing similarities between different human beings in how they deal
with certain problems, and even similarities in social structure and
behaviors with the other great apes, and to a lesser degree, other primates
and other mammals.

I think that pain is a physical process rather than a psychological
response, although how each human being deals with pain may depend on their
psychology. Some individuals have a higher threshold than others as to what
they, personally, can tolerate. For example, an adult usually doesn't scream
and cry when they get a shot at the doctor's office, and therefore can
tolerate it much better psychologically than a baby or young child, but they
still feel pain. When it comes to animals who can not speak for themselves,
I think it's safest morally to assume that most animals can feel pain and to
avoid causing it if it's at all practical to do so.

-Rubystars


Sorry for being rude, but can we clarify the issue that you want to
discuss with me here. Based on your comments above, there are a dozen or
so routes that I can pursue.

From your final paragraph, I interpret your statements to mean that when
others (in this case animals) are vulnerable harm that you feel an
obligation to protect them. If you've been following my conversation
with Dutch, this can also be argued as the golden rule operationalized
in that humans fear being unable to defend themselves and treat others
(animals in this case) as they would like to be treated.
  #20 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 13-01-2005, 03:38 PM
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Rubystars wrote:
An unemployed, self-crippled ex-greasemonkey and a reflexologist who
infect these newsgroups with their ignorance of science and the
scientific method claim on the basis of a study by Sneddon, et al, that
fish experience pain. These two misinformed charlatans have refused to
accept any other study, suggesting that the study of Sneddon, et al,
trumps every other one in the history of scientific research.

Fish are vertebrates and have a vertebrate nervous system. They don't
feel much pain in their mouths, this is true, but if they didn't feel
pain at all, they wouldn't live very long.


Lifespans are pretty relative, but most fish don't live very long. Their
own mothers prey upon them.


I guess mom fish love fry-ed food.


That's finny.


  #21 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 13-01-2005, 03:38 PM
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Rubystars wrote:
An unemployed, self-crippled ex-greasemonkey and a reflexologist who
infect these newsgroups with their ignorance of science and the
scientific method claim on the basis of a study by Sneddon, et al, that
fish experience pain. These two misinformed charlatans have refused to
accept any other study, suggesting that the study of Sneddon, et al,
trumps every other one in the history of scientific research.

Fish are vertebrates and have a vertebrate nervous system. They don't
feel much pain in their mouths, this is true, but if they didn't feel
pain at all, they wouldn't live very long.


Lifespans are pretty relative, but most fish don't live very long. Their
own mothers prey upon them.


I guess mom fish love fry-ed food.


That's finny.
  #22 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 13-01-2005, 03:38 PM
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Rubystars wrote:
An unemployed, self-crippled ex-greasemonkey and a reflexologist who
infect these newsgroups with their ignorance of science and the
scientific method claim on the basis of a study by Sneddon, et al, that
fish experience pain. These two misinformed charlatans have refused to
accept any other study, suggesting that the study of Sneddon, et al,
trumps every other one in the history of scientific research.

Fish are vertebrates and have a vertebrate nervous system. They don't
feel much pain in their mouths, this is true, but if they didn't feel
pain at all, they wouldn't live very long.


Lifespans are pretty relative, but most fish don't live very long. Their
own mothers prey upon them.


I guess mom fish love fry-ed food.


That's finny.
  #23 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-01-2005, 11:31 AM
Rubystars
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Ron" wrote in message
snip
From your final paragraph, I interpret your statements to mean that when
others (in this case animals) are vulnerable harm that you feel an
obligation to protect them.


It's best to avoid causing as much pain and suffering as is practical.

If you've been following my conversation
with Dutch, this can also be argued as the golden rule operationalized
in that humans fear being unable to defend themselves and treat others
(animals in this case) as they would like to be treated.


I think it's part of being civilized not to cause a lot of pain to animals
for no good reason.

-Rubystars


  #24 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-01-2005, 11:31 AM
Rubystars
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Ron" wrote in message
snip
From your final paragraph, I interpret your statements to mean that when
others (in this case animals) are vulnerable harm that you feel an
obligation to protect them.


It's best to avoid causing as much pain and suffering as is practical.

If you've been following my conversation
with Dutch, this can also be argued as the golden rule operationalized
in that humans fear being unable to defend themselves and treat others
(animals in this case) as they would like to be treated.


I think it's part of being civilized not to cause a lot of pain to animals
for no good reason.

-Rubystars


  #25 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-01-2005, 01:42 PM
pearl
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Rubystars" wrote in message om...

"Ron" wrote in message
snip
From your final paragraph, I interpret your statements to mean that when
others (in this case animals) are vulnerable harm that you feel an
obligation to protect them.


It's best to avoid causing as much pain and suffering as is practical.


So why do you continue to eat meat?

If you've been following my conversation
with Dutch, this can also be argued as the golden rule operationalized
in that humans fear being unable to defend themselves and treat others
(animals in this case) as they would like to be treated.


I think it's part of being civilized not to cause a lot of pain to animals
for no good reason.


So why do you continue to eat meat?





  #26 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-01-2005, 01:42 PM
pearl
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Rubystars" wrote in message om...

"Ron" wrote in message
snip
From your final paragraph, I interpret your statements to mean that when
others (in this case animals) are vulnerable harm that you feel an
obligation to protect them.


It's best to avoid causing as much pain and suffering as is practical.


So why do you continue to eat meat?

If you've been following my conversation
with Dutch, this can also be argued as the golden rule operationalized
in that humans fear being unable to defend themselves and treat others
(animals in this case) as they would like to be treated.


I think it's part of being civilized not to cause a lot of pain to animals
for no good reason.


So why do you continue to eat meat?



  #27 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-01-2005, 01:59 PM
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
"Rubystars" wrote:

"Ron" wrote in message
snip
From your final paragraph, I interpret your statements to mean that when
others (in this case animals) are vulnerable harm that you feel an
obligation to protect them.


It's best to avoid causing as much pain and suffering as is practical.

If you've been following my conversation
with Dutch, this can also be argued as the golden rule operationalized
in that humans fear being unable to defend themselves and treat others
(animals in this case) as they would like to be treated.


I think it's part of being civilized not to cause a lot of pain to animals
for no good reason.


This is typically the crux of the matter in any dispute between two or
more parties -- what is deemed as a good reason to do X. The second
condition of your position is a requirement for less pain, not no pain.

The lack of logic emerges when the inconsistencies emerge. If it is
acceptable to inflict suffering on a cow as a food source then it ought
to be okay to inflict suffering on any animal as a food source. That
would be consistent. Clearly we don't do that so, I tend to view this
argument as being an excuse and not the 'true' reason or motivation for
the behaviour.

My question of you would be what is "a lot of pain"? Your statement is
very subjective and that can be interpreted in many ways. for example,
if we were to be more humane in the killing of animals (read some
animals that are used) as a food source does this satisfy your
requirement for less or minimal infliction of pain?
  #28 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-01-2005, 01:59 PM
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
"Rubystars" wrote:

"Ron" wrote in message
snip
From your final paragraph, I interpret your statements to mean that when
others (in this case animals) are vulnerable harm that you feel an
obligation to protect them.


It's best to avoid causing as much pain and suffering as is practical.

If you've been following my conversation
with Dutch, this can also be argued as the golden rule operationalized
in that humans fear being unable to defend themselves and treat others
(animals in this case) as they would like to be treated.


I think it's part of being civilized not to cause a lot of pain to animals
for no good reason.


This is typically the crux of the matter in any dispute between two or
more parties -- what is deemed as a good reason to do X. The second
condition of your position is a requirement for less pain, not no pain.

The lack of logic emerges when the inconsistencies emerge. If it is
acceptable to inflict suffering on a cow as a food source then it ought
to be okay to inflict suffering on any animal as a food source. That
would be consistent. Clearly we don't do that so, I tend to view this
argument as being an excuse and not the 'true' reason or motivation for
the behaviour.

My question of you would be what is "a lot of pain"? Your statement is
very subjective and that can be interpreted in many ways. for example,
if we were to be more humane in the killing of animals (read some
animals that are used) as a food source does this satisfy your
requirement for less or minimal infliction of pain?
  #29 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-01-2005, 06:28 PM
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Ron" wrote
"Rubystars" wrote:


snip
From your final paragraph, I interpret your statements to mean that

when
others (in this case animals) are vulnerable harm that you feel an
obligation to protect them.


It's best to avoid causing as much pain and suffering as is practical.

If you've been following my conversation
with Dutch, this can also be argued as the golden rule operationalized
in that humans fear being unable to defend themselves and treat others
(animals in this case) as they would like to be treated.


I think it's part of being civilized not to cause a lot of pain to

animals
for no good reason.


This is typically the crux of the matter in any dispute between two or
more parties -- what is deemed as a good reason to do X. The second
condition of your position is a requirement for less pain, not no pain.

The lack of logic emerges when the inconsistencies emerge. If it is
acceptable to inflict suffering on a cow as a food source then it ought
to be okay to inflict suffering on any animal as a food source. That
would be consistent. Clearly we don't do that so, I tend to view this
argument as being an excuse and not the 'true' reason or motivation for
the behaviour.


That does not show a lack of logic. The moralistic approach is to avoid
killing or causing pain to animals *unless* there is an arguably valid
self-sustaining reason to do so, such as to obtain food. The taboos against
using dogs, cats, dolphins, chimps, etc as food are culturally based, not
universal.

My question of you would be what is "a lot of pain"? Your statement is
very subjective and that can be interpreted in many ways. for example,
if we were to be more humane in the killing of animals (read some
animals that are used) as a food source does this satisfy your
requirement for less or minimal infliction of pain?


Animal suffering (stress) is measurable and steps can be taken to avert it,
see www.grandin.com


  #30 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 15-01-2005, 12:04 AM
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , "Dutch"
wrote:

"Ron" wrote
"Rubystars" wrote:


snip
From your final paragraph, I interpret your statements to mean that

when
others (in this case animals) are vulnerable harm that you feel an
obligation to protect them.

It's best to avoid causing as much pain and suffering as is practical.

If you've been following my conversation
with Dutch, this can also be argued as the golden rule operationalized
in that humans fear being unable to defend themselves and treat others
(animals in this case) as they would like to be treated.

I think it's part of being civilized not to cause a lot of pain to

animals
for no good reason.


This is typically the crux of the matter in any dispute between two or
more parties -- what is deemed as a good reason to do X. The second
condition of your position is a requirement for less pain, not no pain.

The lack of logic emerges when the inconsistencies emerge. If it is
acceptable to inflict suffering on a cow as a food source then it ought
to be okay to inflict suffering on any animal as a food source. That
would be consistent. Clearly we don't do that so, I tend to view this
argument as being an excuse and not the 'true' reason or motivation for
the behaviour.


That does not show a lack of logic. The moralistic approach is to avoid
killing or causing pain to animals *unless* there is an arguably valid
self-sustaining reason to do so, such as to obtain food. The taboos against
using dogs, cats, dolphins, chimps, etc as food are culturally based, not
universal.


Subjective morals. Finally, we are in agreement.

My question of you would be what is "a lot of pain"? Your statement is
very subjective and that can be interpreted in many ways. for example,
if we were to be more humane in the killing of animals (read some
animals that are used) as a food source does this satisfy your
requirement for less or minimal infliction of pain?


Animal suffering (stress) is measurable and steps can be taken to avert it,
see www.grandin.com



Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017