10000 pages

James R.

Wouldn't functionally equal mean that they can do everything we can? I mean we would call two cars functionally equal unless all their vital statistcs (MpG, Top Speed, Passengers carried, Fuel tank size, Cargo room, etc) were identical. And that is just one example. Cows share a few mental functions with huamn being but fall so short on the rest that it is luaghable? I mean even if they were up to the level of lab rats you would think that they would organize an escape from the ranch. You are looking at one similiarity and screaming that we're the same. It's sad really. Especially the way Tiassa is tearing you apart in this debate without trying. Of course the way you hand out ammunition and paint concentric red circles on your argument really help.


Let me sum up Tiassa's argument and perhaps you can finally see why you've been beaten.

Tiassa has shown (with your help) that you are only concerned with the being which have a central nervous system. You know how you feel when you are in pain, and project that onto the animal. So becuase you hate the ugliness of pain you do not eat animal flesh. Now Tiassa comes along with creddible research results that show plants may suffer as much or more than we do to pain and dying. Now sisnce you cannot wrap your mind around a plant feeling anything you say it's suffering does not matter.

Don't you see it's a matter of aesthetics. You imagine the animals pain is worse than the plants so you feel justified eating plants and scorning meat. Your moral decison is based of aesthetics. The aethetic here is that you want the world to be a beautiful painfree place and anything that violates that is ugly/immoral.

You fail to see life is pain (to quote The Princess Bride). Every part of life is pain and suffering, there is no exception. Now you might go "If there was no meat industry those animals would not exists so they would not suffer.", but that is a strawman and a bad one at that. Those animals do exists and no hypothetical situation wuill change it. Given that they exist they suffer pain whter or not we do anything. We have no cupability in that. It is just life.

So please have your moral, but remember it has no foundation that goes any deeper than "Becuase I say so."
TW Scott
View Public Profile
Send a private message to TW Scott
Find More Posts by TW Scott
Add TW Scott to Your Buddy List
James R's Avatar James R
Just this guy, you know? (10,764 posts)

Old 05-24-06, 09:10 AM
#462
Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message Quick reply to this message James R is offline Report Post
TW Scott:

I think my discussion with tiassa has gone beyond what you are capable of following. Rather than trying to keep up with tiassa, I think you ought to just bow out gracefully at this point.

I have not based my argument on "functional equivlance" between humans and other animals, so that entire paragraph of your post is irrelevant.

As for your attempt to summarise tiassa's arguments, I advise you to let him do that himself, because I'm sure he'll do a much better job.

“
Tiassa has shown (with your help) that you are only concerned with the being which have a central nervous system. You know how you feel when you are in pain, and project that onto the animal. So becuase you hate the ugliness of pain you do not eat animal flesh.
”
I have been up front from the start that having a central nervous system, or equivalent capacity which results in mental functioning, is important. I'm glad you're finally catching up.

There's no need for me to "project" my imaginings onto animals. One need only observe their behaviour to deduce that they feel pain the same way you and I do. I urge you to check this for yourself.

My argument is not based on "ugliness" or any squeamishness. I urge you to read my previous posts on this matter, where I have elaborated explicitly on that very point.

“
Now Tiassa comes along with creddible research results that show plants may suffer as much or more than we do to pain and dying. Now sisnce you cannot wrap your mind around a plant feeling anything you say it's suffering does not matter.
”
You're way out of your depth. Sorry, but it's just too much of an effort for me to go through it again just to try to get you up to speed. Go back and read my previous posts on this matter.

“
Don't you see it's a matter of aesthetics.
”
You are completely out of your depth trying to piggy-back on an argument you don't understand. And it shows.

“
You fail to see life is pain (to quote The Princess Bride). Every part of life is pain and suffering, there is no exception.
”
Except when you chow down into your juice steak, I presume.

“
So please have your moral, but remember it has no foundation that goes any deeper than "Becuase I say so."
”
There's no point in having a battle of wits concerning meta-ethics with an unarmed opponent, so I won't. I'll take it up with tiassa instead.
James R
View Public Profile
Send a private message to James R
Find More Posts by James R
Add James R to Your Buddy List
draqon's Avatar draqon
citizen of RusFed & USA (3,127 posts)

Old 05-24-06, 09:36 AM
#463
Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message Quick reply to this message draqon is offline Report Post
James R. u just killed millions of bacteria! Why is it that you choose to grant life to animals who behave just as same as the bacteria, they behave to survive. What have bacteria done to you, James R.? Why are you so evil?
draqon
View Public Profile
Send a private message to draqon
Find More Posts by draqon
Add draqon to Your Buddy List
TW Scott
Minister of Technology (1,315 posts)

Old 05-24-06, 05:24 PM
#464
Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message Quick reply to this message TW Scott is offline Report Post
“
Originally Posted by James R
I think my discussion with tiassa has gone beyond what you are capable of following. Rather than trying to keep up with tiassa, I think you ought to just bow out gracefully at this point.
”
No, I understand better than you do which is the point of my post. Of course you want me to bow out as that would leave you playing ostrich to one intelligent poster and not two.

“
I have not based my argument on "functional equivlance" between humans and other animals, so that entire paragraph of your post is irrelevant.
”
Actually you have based a good percentage of your argument on that, you are just ignoring that small fact. Of course I can see why as it basically building your house in the sand so do speak.

“
As for your attempt to summarise tiassa's arguments, I advise you to let him do that himself, because I'm sure he'll do a much better job.
”
Well I did just have a few courses in primary education, so i thought I would lend a hand. I have no doubt Tiassa could do it better.

“
I have been up front from the start that having a central nervous system, or equivalent capacity which results in mental functioning, is important. I'm glad you're finally catching up.
”
Catching up? I was to this before you wrote your first words on the subject. However suffering, is suffering, is suffering. If we have evidence that plants suffer than it supercedes hat we think we know.

“
There's no need for me to "project" my imaginings onto animals. One need only observe their behaviour to deduce that they feel pain the same way you and I do. I urge you to check this for yourself.
”
Actually, no you are projecting your imaginings. You have said before you are not quite sure how feed animals are sluaghtered. So you have this whole image in your mind of what it must be like to die. Have you died? Of course not. Have you spoken to anyone who has? Probably not. How do you know they feel any pain in the slaughter house? You don't, so you imagine what is 'must' be like.

“
My argument is not based on "ugliness" or any squeamishness. I urge you to read my previous posts on this matter, where I have elaborated explicitly on that very point.
”
You can say anything you want, James R. It does not cahnge the truth. You are basing your moral on an aesthetic. Not the worst underpinnings of a moral. DOesn't make it any less valid to you. However to the next person it is rubbish.

“
You're way out of your depth. Sorry, but it's just too much of an effort for me to go through it again just to try to get you up to speed. Go back and read my previous posts on this matter.
”
I have been up to speed before you even turned on the motor. I am trying to bring you up to speed. I am making an effort for you James R., now please return the favor and expand your mind a little bit. I think you'll find you are quite capable.

“
You are completely out of your depth trying to piggy-back on an argument you don't understand. And it shows.
”
You are hopelessly dodging a truth and it shows.


“
Except when you chow down into your juice steak, I presume.
”
You presume a lot. I have felt pain eating a juicy steak, an abcess tooth that snuck up on me. That is beside the point though. Although I am amused you that you tried to turn the tables on me with that one. Too bad it was clumsy and ultimately stupid.


“
There's no point in having a battle of wits concerning meta-ethics with an unarmed opponent, so I won't. I'll take it up with tiassa instead.
”
Cheap shot, and ultimately not true, though talking to you reminds me of my sister's saying. "I feel I have come to this battle of twits unarmed."
TW Scott
View Public Profile
Send a private message to TW Scott
Find More Posts by TW Scott
Add TW Scott to Your Buddy List
tiassa's Avatar tiassa
iMac user (12,218 posts)

Old 05-25-06, 08:42 PM
#465
Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message Quick reply to this message tiassa is offline Report Post
“
Originally Posted by JamesR

1. Plants do not suffer in any sense that we normally define "suffering". (see above).
”
How we normally define suffering is an interesting proposition, don’t you think? Or has human knowledge achieved the end-all of such definitions?

Consider that while you reconsider Huxley; we sympathize with what we understand as “normally defined” suffering. To split such hairs as whether a plant’s existence constitutes an experience is avoiding the subject. According to your expression of the Principle of Equal Consideration, I do not see human ignorance as a compelling reason to exclude plants from consideration. The plant experience, whatever it equals (a null sum, by your argument) is foreign to human recognition. While we can easily see that a black human being is, in fact, human, the lack of sympathy to a foreign experience has much to do with the now-defunct American standard that blacks were not human. Mere aesthetics in order to escape issues of conscience.

“
2. This is a moral issue, not an economic one. It might be profitable to kill animals and sell their carcasses so meat-eaters can enjoy themselves, but you need to look at the end result as well as all the intermediate steps. Why is it economical? Because the demand for meat exists? Why does the demand exist? I have addressed that question in detail, previously.
”
Economy exists whether or not there is a consciousness capable of recognizing, identifying, documenting, or theorizing about it. Such a premise as, “It might be profitable to kill animals and sell their carcasses so meat-eaters can enjoy themselves”, is absolutely vicious, utterly subjective, and ridiculously mean-spirited. The issue of how animals are treated in industrial-scale farming and ranching is economic in the more specific sense of humans and monetary-based resource allocation. Your previous address of the questions of demand seem to come down to assertions of selfish pleasure and greed. By such methods, your moral demand comes down to helping you feel better about your place in nature, which is also an issue of selfish pleasure and greed. This need not, however, be a discussion of hypocrisy, but rather one of the weakness of unfounded moral assertions. The Principle of Equal Consideration sounds nice and all, but it has no objective foundation.

“
3. Regarding walruses, I think you're oversimplifying. I have said there are complex reasons why animals defend their young, but what they feel as they do so is a somewhat different question. Similarly, there may be many ultimate reasons for you to act one way or another in any situation, tied up in your genes, your personal history, the environment in which you find yourself, your personal goals etc. Not all of those reasons will come up in any conscious explanation you give when asked "Why did you do that?" Much is hidden in a response such as "I felt like doing that." or "I felt I had to do that.”
”
“Walrus love” as an explanation for behavior is in itself an oversimplification. Did that ever occur to you? Have you ever noticed that, whether or not we intend or even care about an evolutionary result, our actions often tread into that arena? Has it ever occurred to you that human beings are part of nature, and not separate from nature? It seems you are aware of such considerations, since you discuss genetics, personal history, and environmental considerations at least. But did it ever occur to you that “love” in humans, and walruses if you must, is an evolutionary tool on behalf of species? That some woman somewhere “wants to have a baby” for whatever reasons … do the reasons for her desire change the fact that the arrival of the baby is, quantitatively at least, a perpetuation of the human species? If a barren woman saves a child’s life, is it mere heroism? Perhaps a Christian conscience? Does any of that change the fact that a potentially-viable human’s life has been extended, so that it might contribute to the species’ perpetuation? That we don’t think, “For the species,” every time we act does not change the fact that considerations of the species are included in the outcome. Walrus love? Fine. Whatever. Nature is not extraneous, sir. If love, including its irrational manifestations, have no value to any species, then maybe we have to start thinking about the possibility that something so irrational as the God of the Bible exists. If the human species evolves to regular cybernetic enhancements such as we see in any number of anime productions, such is evolution. If the human species becomes vegetarian for any reason, moral or economic or otherwise, such is evolution. Which brings me back to my basic point: I think “morals” are a terrible reason to tailor the evolutionary outcome because so few morals have objective foundations.

“
I am puzzled as to where you think the "Equal" went in the term "Equal Consideration". If we elevated animals "above" humans, that would surely be "preferential consideration". And similarly if we elevated humans above animals (which is the current status quo).
”
You seem, for instance, unsatisfied with the possibility that human economics will eventually force species-wide vegetarianism. On the one hand, I would find this tragic: that we reduce our diet in order to keep lining various pockets with cash is even more ridiculous a proposition than the warm fuzzy of morality. But for reasons beyond diet, I find a moral imperative for economic change among humans. If we seek to solve the suffering of cows and chickens while ignoring the suffering of humans, are we not giving the animals preferential consideration? I find the fact of our humanity a very compelling reason to consider the human impacts of our actions before stopping to wring our hands over what the cows think.

“
This is a distraction. I'm working within a framework of a Western ethical tradition here. Features that are shared (or not) with other traditions don't concern me at this point.
”
This really is horsepucky, as I said before. We’ll go with the anecdotal, since I can’t seem to dig up the link: there was a BBC News report sometime in the last couple years about a guy in India who claimed to have not eaten anything in ten years; doctors were looking into the claim, and I’ve never heard the outcome. Nonetheless, should we be more like those mystics who seek to minimize our impact on nature?

“
A right is a human recognition of an interest worthy of protection by moral, and often legal, sanctions. Interests may be endowed by nature. Rights are endowed by convention.
”
Rights are, indeed, endowed by convention. However, inasmuch as human recognition of interests are concerned, are there no logical reasons for rights?

“
As I said above, I consider the absence of mental states in plants to be a morally significant dividing line to draw between plants and animals. I really can't say anything more than that on this point, and I have little interest in our going around this circle yet again.
”
We come back to the questions of “What is pain?” and “What is suffering?” The dividing line you draw is one I see as aesthetically-founded. You perceive one suffering, and not the other. You sympathize with one suffering, and not the other. You validate one suffering, and not the other. The difference between one and the other is merely a classification based on what we perceive, and what subjective value those perceptions bear. Of course you don’t have much interest in going ‘round the circle again: at the crux of your argument is a very specious claim to knowledge and difficult apathy toward ignorance.

“
Can I take it that your view is that plants suffering is morally equivalent to animal suffering, and be done with it? Or are you saying that all suffering is only an "aesthetic perception", and is therefore never morally significant? Or what?
”
Life is suffering. What I’m saying is that the line you draw is a false construct designed entirely to make those who accept it feel better about themselves, which is a petty reason for any moral assertion, and a terrible, even dangerous foundation for morality. The effects of this particular moral assertion include the eventual evolutionary limitation of the human diet. This is a difficult proposition in general, much less for assertions of morality. That your argument seems to ignore such issues does much to cast your own argument as being purely selfish, and for nothing more than pleasure and greed. I know you’re not an idiot, James. Really. Sincerely. Were you not so emotionally tied up in the morality of vegetarianism, I’m quite sure you would give better consideration to reality.

“
Like plants, bacteria do not possess mental states. Moreover, in some cases where they are killed they directly threaten our lives. If it's us or them, I vote for us. But that's not the case when it comes to eating meat - 99% of the time, anyway.
”
Is it a species bias (killing humans) or a personal bias (killing you) that serves as the compelling reason to exclude bacteria from equal consideration? When you get right down to it, life simply is.

“
I don't know what you mean by this question. What "fact"? And why should it mean something to me in the current context?
”
The fact is that we are humans, and not cows or chickens or apple trees or plague bacteria. Does the fact that you are human mean nothing to you? Your argument seems to undervalue the fact of our humanity. Certainly, if you cast human action as being about greed and selfishness, it makes it easier to argue that eating meat is about nothing more than pure selfish pleasure. But when we consider the fact that we are human, what do our actions mean in that context? Your argument refuses species as mere abstraction. Who knows? Maybe babies do make good food. Nine months’ investment in maybe two meals? Doesn’t make much sense to me. And besides, eating babies is counterintuitive according to the benefit of our species: no future generation means extinction. And to tamper with the nature and context of the fact of our humanity for moral reasons, so that you can feel better about your own place in the grand scheme of life, the Universe, and everything, really does seem silly.

“
A preference for meat over vegetables is not one of those.
”
Not as long as you insist that it’s all about greed and selfishness. You seem to be arguing that our species should have no priority over any other in our regard. Such an argument would be counter-evolutionary.

“
Yes, but I don't think many people would be willing to make that particular choice. I wouldn't, for one.
”
But there’s a moral argument to be had on behalf of making such a choice. Is it a species bias that compels you to reject such a choice, or are you just greedy?

“
Are these examples of aesthetic considerations, or moral ones?
”
I tend to think they would count reasonably as moral considerations, since they pertain to the wellbeing of the human species. Since the “right to life” is simply a human construct, what of the “obligation to exploit collective resources in order to prolong one’s own suffering”?

“
If species is an abstraction, then it is perfectly consistent to demand moral parity between humans and non-human animals, isn't it?
”
Convenient how that works out, eh? Damn those greedy walruses, and those purely selfish salmon.

“
What gave you the impression that I consider children insignificant
”
Oh, comparisons of eating meat to the rape and murder of children? The rejection of species considerations (including reproduction) as abstractions? Comparing the consumption of a live prawn or head of lettuce to a human baby? Just maybe?

“
Unless you're saying that I should elevate human children to an especially privileged moral level? If that's what you are advocating, then I will need some reasons (see Principle of Equal Consideration, again).
”
Well, since you hold species as an abstraction, there is no reason that would make sense to you, at least aside from the purely selfish greed of raising children.

“
Whether children are important in general terms, or whether my humanity is important to me seem to have no direct relation as to whether I should or should not eat meat. Maybe I'm missing your point again.
”
There is no maybe about it, sir. That you are missing the point is quite clear, and has been throughout our discussion.

(Part 2 of this response to follow.)
tiassa
View Public Profile
Send a private message to tiassa
Visit tiassa's homepage!
Find More Posts by tiassa
Add tiassa to Your Buddy List
tiassa's Avatar tiassa
iMac user (12,218 posts)

Old 05-25-06, 09:31 PM
#466
Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message Quick reply to this message tiassa is offline Report Post
“
Originally Posted by JamesR

There is often a price to be paid for acting morally. Protecting the environment is more expensive than simply exploiting it. Paying for food instead of shop lifting incurs higher costs for the individual in the short term. Similarly, if conversion to vegetarianism leads to a human incapacity to eat meat 100000 years from now, that doesn't particularly worry me.
”
Because your morals are simply that important to you. Greed? Selfish pleasure? The reason to protect the environment is because in doing so we protect our habitat. The reason for participating in society (e.g. paying for food) is that society is a better condition for the species than wandering the plains in search of our next meal. You know, what you call a species bias.

Given a choice between species bias and megalomaniacal greed, I’ll choose the species bias.

“
No. There are many wild cattle, even today.
”
Fair enough. Bison, buffalo, yes. Guernseys? Maybe not.

“
Not necessarily. But if you could save the calf AND the child, what then? Would it then be immoral NOT to save the calf, in your opinion? Or wouldn't it matter either way? Or would it only matter if the calf was of economic value to you?
”
Depends on the risk involved. Risk assessment is important. I will undertake far greater risk for the human child than the calf; that doesn’t mean the calf is SOL, but if abandoning the calf is what the conditional risk assessment demands, fine with me. (I know, our attachment to our own lives is so artificial, so greedy, isn’t it?)

“
For that matter, what if one chose not to save the child, or the calf or the rat? Would it be immoral to watch the child drown? Would it be immoral to watch the calf drown? Would one be worse than the other? Why?
”
The answer, my friend, depends on whether species is an abstraction worth dismissing or not.

“
No. I addressed Huxley's comments in detail in a later post.
”
A dishonest response. You did, after all, reject Huxley as a moral authority. Furthermore, it’s quite clear that your emotional investment in denouncing the selfish pleasures and greed of your fellow human beings limited your comprehension of what Huxley was after. That later address fell quite short. I know you’re smarter than what you came up with.

“
Nothing you have quoted from me supports your claim that I regard rape as solely about the pleasure of the rapist, so I am correct that this is a straw man. In case there is any residual confusion, my view is that rape is not solely about pleasure.
”
Is there any residual confusion that your rape comparisons are stupid?

Scream straw-man all you want while you appeal to emotion and aesthetics. I think it is your emotional demand in this topic, the quest to feel better about yourself, that pushes your argument into such dishonesty.

“
But my main point in this comparison was not one about pleasure, but about selfish desires taking precedence over competing interests of other people, or animals in the case of meat eating. I don't think I really need to re-emphasize that point.
”
It would do much for our perception of both your intelligence and character if you didn’t re-emphasize the point. It’s rather a stupid assertion that doesn’t really qualify as an argumentative point. It is what the cow leaves in the field for us to step in.

“
Need I say "straw man" again?
”
Scream it to the mountains if you want. Maybe the rocks will listen. After all, they lack mental processes, and thus won’t perceive the paucity of your argument.

“
I doubt you actually believe that morality is nothing more than an individual pecadillo. ... On the other hand, given that moral relativism is the current vogue, especially in the United States, perhaps you do believe that. There's another thread running on absolute vs. relative morality, where we can discuss this if you wish. Suffice it to say that the basis of my position in this thread is not "arbitrary". To the contrary, it is based on a principle which has proven its utility in moral philosophy, as it applies to many situations.
”
I have repeated in this topic what I wrote in another topic regarding the nature of morality. Individual peccadillo? You’re not paying attention. I’m not surprised.

And yes, your position is arbitrary until you provide a rational, objective foundation for it. As it is, you might as well be telling me that your argument derives from God’s will.

“
Huxley's point is simple enough (at least, what I've seen of it). I disagree with his attempted redefinition of "suffering", which I have explained in previous posts.

Your assertion that I only regard as real things I see with the naked eye etc. is not based on anything I have said, and is essentially another straw man.
”
Since you have missed the point entirely, perhaps I should tell you to go out back and set fire to your damned straw man?

“
I don't consider it important in the present context to try to determine "the good of the species". Why? Because I don't believe it is possible to answer what is in the best long-term interests of the human species regarding meat eating. Nor do I think we have to decide. Let's suck it and see. We can always change later, if necessary. It won't be long until we can alter human physiology in any way we want - certainly we'll be able to do that long before we lose the capacity to eat meat due to evolution. But this pie-in-the-sky stuff just isn't important here and now.
”
Myopia does nothing to advance your argument.

“
Suppose vegetarianism ultimately turns out to be "bad for the species". Who knows? But I can say with certainty, here and now, that it will be good for the cattle and sheep and chicken species. It is only because you put humans on a pedestal that only the good of the human species matters to you, regardless of the evils done to other species.
”
Regardless of the evils done to other species? What a ridiculous statement. First, good and evil are human inventions; secondly, it is only that my conscience about animals does not satisfy your demand for psychological warm fuzzies that you would even say “regardless of the evils”. Additionally, species may be an abstraction to you, but all that demonstrates is that you ought to spend some time asking a few questions about why life, the Universe, and everything are the way they are. Walrus love … wait’ll they get to snap bracelets.

“
No. And just because I can't physically lay eggs doesn't mean you shouldn't defend my right to lay eggs if I want to. If I have a deeply felt belief that I should be allowed to lay eggs, then I guess that is as good as actually being able to lay eggs.

Maybe we ought to redefine "egg layers" to include male human beings.

Ok, ignore all this. It's silly, isn't it? But so is the assertion that plants feel pain.
”
Work on your condescension, James. That was pretty stupid. As long as you insist that you understand what you do not, of course such an assertion seems stupid to you. I speak English; is someone speaking Arabic “not speaking”? Is my computer “not communicating” when it manipulates electricity?

“
You're aware, of course, that you've slipped into talking about animal welfare again, as opposed to animal rights. From an animal rights perspective, even "humane killing" is wrong. In fact, "humane killing" in the context of the meat industry is an obvious oxymoron to animal liberationists. That's not to say that cruel killing isn't even worse, of course.
”
Stop overstating animal suffering in order to bolster your argument. That was the general point in that portion. I’m not surprised you missed it.

“
Let me see if I understand this argument. You're saying killing animals for meat is acceptable because it has economic benefits? I don't need to repeat again that moral acceptabity does not follow from economics, do I?
”
Nope. You do not understand yet. Human economics are responsible for a good amount of the animal suffering you’re exploiting out of context. Addressing the issue to satisfy your sentimentality toward animals is like putting a Band-Aid on a gunshot wound. Morphine only numbs the pain of the cancer, and does little to cure the disease.

“
And "discrimination"? No. We'd be ending the discrimination.
”
By making the problems of animals more important than the problems of humans, we’d be ending discrimination?

Whatever you say, since that’s all you hear.

“
We're obviously on completely different pages here. I have difficulty adjusting my mindset enough to even begin to understand how you justify this kind of reasoning to yourself.
”
Then try paying attention to what I’m actually saying instead of trying to figure out how to stoke your sense of righteousness.

“
I'm well aware of that. Failing to achieve action on animal rights, I fully support action to improve animal welfare. Any positive steps in the right direction are better than nothing.
”
Then consider the role of economics instead of confusing yourself.

“
I'm sure it isn't.

And yes, I'm well aware of oxytocin and it's role in falling in love, and so on.

Again, I'm confused as to your point in bringing these things up.
”
You’re the one who finds species such an abstraction that you would explain an organism’s actions by citing its inherent irrationality; given that you do so in order to justify your own irrationality, it’s no wonder you’re confused.

“
I have never claimed that conscious intent was the explanation of all behaviours. Where are you going with this? Is this just a subtle way of repeating your argument that "My body knows what it needs, and it needs meat!"?
”
You’re the one who offered “walrus love” as a response to the fact that species tends toward its perpetuation or else goes extinct.

Damned greedy walruses, right?

“
My position is that, at its base, people eat meat because they want to. They like the taste. They were brought up in a social environment in which meat eating was acceptable, expected, and often the only offered option. Moreover, they are, on the whole, unaware of the moral implications of their actions in this regard.

So far, so good. But what of people who become aware of the moral issues, and yet continue to eat meat? They know they are doing the wrong thing, and it is at this point that it becomes justifiable to condemn their actions on moral grounds.

Why do people continue to act immorally when they know it is wrong? There is only a limited set of reasons, and those reasons do include selfishness and greed.
”
Megalomaniacal presuppositions. When you expect people to be so horrible, that is how you will perceive them. I find such a process rather ridiculous and akin to religious fanaticism. That you assign value to a moral issue does not validate the value you assign. You already know this. Why are you so conveniently forgetting it? Stop letting sentimentality and aesthetics strangle your rational side.

“
Just as I apparently don't appreciate the "suffering" of plants, it seems you don't appreciate the intelligence of cattle, the art of sheep, and so on. I can only comment that it seems you give a greater level of consideration to beings which are more similar to you, rather than appreciating difference and recognising intrinsic value. And strangely, this seems inconsistent with your argument about plant sentience.
”
The “art” of sheep? This I gotta see.

And, by the way, you still don’t understand the argument about plants. I must consider the terms of your comprehension and reformulate my expression of the concept. It is clear that you are either unable or unwilling to understand; I suspect the latter.

“
Do you consider pet ownership as akin to slave ownership? Or could it be that pet ownership is more akin to the guardianship of a human child?
”
Yes, I will weep tears of joy when my cat gets her PhD and takes up a job teaching literature at Harvard.

Pet ownership can be very much like slavery. To the other, though, I recognize that my cat also chooses me, inasmuch as she has had plenty of opportunity to strike out for other environs. Depends on how you feel about animals. Of course, is it cruel for people to try to hold my cat and be nice to her? After all, she freaks out about most people. Her secure relationships are fewer than most cats I’ve known.

“
Can you see any differences between owning a pet and owning a cow you intend to sell to the butcher? I can. There are some very obvious ones.
”
The cow sent to the butcher was specifically intended to be sent to the butcher. My current cat was conceived against the intentions of her mother’s guardian, and for the most part my family’s cats have been strays that chose to hang around. Can’t say many cows have come a-knockin’ on our door.

“
Fine.

Cows are functionally equal to humans in their capacity to feel pain and to wish their lives to continue and in their desire not to be eaten.

So, will you now regard them as equal in that respect? Or must we wait until they start playing chess, too?
”
Cows don’t desire much. You anthropomorphize bovines far too much. Plants are functionally equal to humans inasmuch as they respond to injurious data and do not simply surrender to death. I doubt the cow or the salad are aware that they will be eaten. It’s more about life, and specifically, I think the cow is more readily objecting to its immediate conditions. Presuming that the cow, like Koestler’s unfortunate Rubashov, understands that it is walking to its execution is a persuasive notion, but one that inclines greater reflection on the mysteries of life in general, and not the misfortune of an animal that would not exist were it not for its utility as food.

Sentiment and psychological comfort are no good reasons for a moral assertion that so fundamentally affects the course of human evolution.
tiassa
View Public Profile
Send a private message to tiassa
Visit tiassa's homepage!
Find More Posts by tiassa
Add tiassa to Your Buddy List
James R's Avatar James R
Just this guy, you know? (10,764 posts)

Old 05-28-06, 08:46 AM
#467
Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message Quick reply to this message James R is offline Report Post
TW Scott:

You latest post is a mix of petulant childishness and contentless strutting, which seems to be how you are now choosing to conduct yourself as a matter of course in discussion with me. I see little point in descending to your level, so I will restrict myself to responding only to your substantive points. Being few and far between, that will take less of my valuable time.

Let's see...

“
You have said before you are not quite sure how feed animals are sluaghtered.
”
This is a false claim.

“
So you have this whole image in your mind of what it must be like to die. Have you died? Of course not. Have you spoken to anyone who has? Probably not. How do you know they feel any pain in the slaughter house? You don't, so you imagine what is 'must' be like.
”
Have you ever been President of the United States? Does that disqualify you from commenting on the President's decisions?

Have you ever had an abortion? Does that prevent you from commenting on the issue of abortion?

Done.
James R
View Public Profile
Send a private message to James R
Find More Posts by James R
Add James R to Your Buddy List
James R's Avatar James R
Just this guy, you know? (10,764 posts)

Old 05-28-06, 09:41 AM
#468
Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message Quick reply to this message James R is offline Report Post
tiassa:

I wish to return to my assessment of your line of argument, and your responses.

“

“
1. The choice of whether or not to eat meat is not a moral decision, but an aesthetic one. Whether to eat meat or not to eat meat is not a moral question, but merely one of aesthetics.
”
An interesting way of putting it. I would say that the question of the morality of eating meat is an aesthetic one.

Whether or not to eat meat, as a general question could literally be a health issue, a conscience issue, or any question that seems normal or strange. There are a number of animal products I don't eat for textural reasons. I don't eat chorizo for aesthetic reasons.
”
It seems to me that it is you, and not me, who is blurring the line between aethetic considerations and moral ones. To me, issues of health and "texture" related to food, are not moral issues at all. Being healthy or unhealthy has no moral implications. Desiring a certain texture or not has no moral implications. Conscience, on the other hand, is inextricably bound with morality.

More on this later.

“

“
2. If eating meat is a moral question after all, then the "human endeavor" ought to take precedence over any potential animal rights, whenever there is a conflict.
”
The human endeavor takes precedence, period.
”
Well, you can't get much clearer than that.

My argument is that this view is a logically unsustainable double-standard, since it ignores basic rights. More on that later, too.

“
"According to the Principle of Equal Consideration ...." You might as well tell me it's according to God.
”
I plan to discuss the Principle of Equal Consideration as a basic right below. My position on this is that, without the principle, virtually ALL other so-called rights become meaningless. Since you accept that human beings have a set of complex rights, then if you are to be consistent in your moral views you are forced to accept the Principle of Equal Consideration. And once that is established, you are logically forced to accept that animal rights follow.

But more on that later.

“

“
3. Making moral decisions to alter human behaviour interferes with "nature's plan" (whatever that is), and therefore should never be done.
”
I'm sorry, but that's just stupid.
...
"Interfering with nature's plan," as you put it, should only be done for very good reasons.
”
Your first response is "that's stupid", but only slightly later you basically affirm that this is your argument. Here's what you said in between:

“
Look, it's real simple: morals are shaky assertions to begin with. So few are anchored to any objective reality. It is my opinion that morals without foundations in objective reality are invalid. Remember that bit I've repeated a few times from the topic about whether having morals is moral?

“
The morality of having morals, aside from being a paradoxical question, can be determined by the objective foundation, the functional result, and the fundamental simplicity of the morals asserted.
”

”
For interest, could you list some of the morals (if any) that you consider to have "foundations in objective reality"? Because it seems to me that your view leaves little leeway for the existence of ANY valid ethical precepts.

Returning to the passage you keep requoting, I repeat that the Principle of Equal Consideration has an objective foundation, functional results if it is applied as it should be, and it has fundamental simplicity in that it is a prerequisite to any logically consistent system of workable morals. But more on that later...

“

“
4. Plants suffer just as much as animals, so an argument for animal rights is equally an argument for plant rights, and therefore vegetarians hold a double standard in that they eat plants but not animals, despite the fact that plants suffer.
”
It's not that there's no moral issue to be discussed here. I find the notion of species-wide moral vegetarianism morally problematic. Have you any idea how many cows and pigs and ducks and fish and dogs and cats and snails and rats have died so that humanity could reach such heights that we could sit here talking about the Principle of Equal Consideration vs. the human species? There are so many ways to improve humanity in general and help the animals if we look at this according to the nearest facts of objective foundation: either you believe the Universe exists or maybe you don't. Life is. Okay? Life. "Life." As in, "Everything that lives". Life, the universal miracle or symptom, take your choice, simply is.

We humans can dwell on that fact. We can wonder and inquire as to why we're here, and whether good and evil actually exist. We invent religions and wars to define things. Why are we here? Does that make the salmon better than us because they've already figured out the answer to that question, and live and die by it?

"Morals" are generally shaky assertions for lack of objective root.

Not only do you identify the issue wrongly (perhaps you didn't read that part; after all, it was in a post to Zion), but your conclusion is skewed even if your assessment of the issue was correct in the first place.
”
Here, you say that there is no moral issue to be discussed at all. I presume this is tied up with your views on "the aethetics or morals". But to me, it just looks like you're dodging the question. Or returning to your meta-ethical point about the lack of objective roots for any kind of morality. As I said before, I will address this question in a later post.

What follows from this point is a response to the remainder of the particular post which contains the material quoted from you above. Excuse me if I do not address the central points you make in detail here, since I wish to postpone that for a later post, as noted above. That will allow me to structure my response in a way that is somewhat less haphazard-looking, which hopefully will mean my main points are not submerged by side issues.

“
Life is suffering. Did that ever occur to you? It's as valid as God or the Principle of Equal Consideration.
”
In ethics, we talk about what ought to be, and that does not automatically follow from what is.

“
Plants are alive and respond to stimuli. When damaged, they respond. An apple wasn't made for us to eat, was it?
”
It is interesting that you raise this point. In fact, apples are made for us to eat.

Fruit-bearing trees bear fruit in order to propagate their seeds. An apple is made to be attractive to birds and insects, which the tree uses to disperse its seeds far and wide. It is no accident that humans like the taste of apples. They are "meant" to be tasty.

Also, it is interesting to note that apple trees freely sacrifice their apples. They suffer no long-term harm in creating apples. Pluck and apple from a tree and a new one will grow. Compare killing a cow. The cow does not lay down its life willingly, and new cows don't grow when they are "plucked".

“
You overstate the suffering of animals: we agree that certain techniques for raising and harvesting livestock are barbaric, but at least the poor animal is unconscious when it is killed. Giving animals proper consideration as your Principle asserts, most animals would live hard and be afraid, anyway. That I won't allow one of my friends to be killed in my presence without making some effort on their behalf: does this mean I ought go out and interfere in nature? You know, take the ant from the chimpanzee? What about those loving walruses? Ought we not protect them? Offer them birth control and resource-management systems? Fight for their every birth? What is the compelling reason not to?
”
The fact of killing our meat animals is wrong. The question of suffering, as I have said before, is a separate one.

As for interfering in nature, taking the ant from the chimp and so on, the Principle of Equal Consideration does not demand that we interfere in interactions in which humans play no role. We are concerned with how we, as human beings, act towards other creatures, not how other creatures act amongst themselves. Let's order our own house first.

“
You are an animal. You can sympathize with the cow. You do not sympathize with the plant. The cow's suffering must be horrible, you believe. The plant, or so it seems of your assertion, is a numb and null existence. That last is the aesthetic issue.
”
There is no evidence that plants are conscious in any way. That makes all the difference in the current context.

“
Your lack of sympathy with life's diversity is an artificial construction of your own. Mere abstraction.
”
I have covered this before. If I am supposed to assign consciousness to a plant, then I am forced, by your argument, to also assign it to rocks and thermostats. The absurdity of such a view is plain, is it not?

“
Ah, yes. Disquailfy the plant because it operates differently than what you can sympathize with.
”
It's not a matter of sympathy. It is an objective fact that plants are not conscious. If you wish to assert otherwise, then at least try to provide some scientific evidence to support your assertion.

“
You know, you're so worried about your morality. It's not that you're immoral for conscience-vegetarianism. Rather, it's that you're human. The fact of plants responding to stimuli does not make a vegetarian immoral. Rather, it reminds that moral assertions are extremely delicate, problematic, and limited notions.
”
I wonder: can you, tiassa, separate meta-ethical issues from ethical issues?

If you truly see all morality as "problematic and limited" then it seems to me that there's nothing to discuss in the current forum until you have sorted out for yourself whether you think any moral precept at all is legitimate. Perhaps we need to confront that more directly in a separate thread, and only then return to the issue of this thread. What do you think?
James R
View Public Profile
Send a private message to James R
Find More Posts by James R
Add James R to Your Buddy List
James R's Avatar James R
Just this guy, you know? (10,764 posts)

Old 05-29-06, 03:47 AM
#469
Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message Quick reply to this message James R is offline Report Post
The Principle of Equal Consideration: Basic rights and equal inherent value

A right is the recognition of an interest. To say that an interest is protected by a right is to say that the interest cannot legitimately be abrogated merely to benefit somebody else.

The fundamental consequence of any recognition of rights is that we recognise a basic right not to be treated exclusively as the means to the end of another person. This is a basic right, and a prerequisite to any legal system of rights. If we don't have this right, then all other supposed rights become completely meaningless.

Another way of stating the right not to be treated as means to an end is to say that there is a right not to be considered solely as a resource for somebody else to use as they see fit. Without this right, no human being can be a legal or moral person within society. Without the right, the human being is not a person, but a thing.

If the value of a human being is only as a resource for others, then by definition the Principle of Equal Consideration (treat like things alike) is not applied. Thus, any logically defensible moral system must incorporate the Principle of Equal Consideration as part of its set of basic principles.

This concept of basic rights is well established in philosophy. For example, Immanuel Kant maintained that there is one innate, pre-legal right - the right of innate equality or "a human being's quality of being his own master". Kant said that this right "grounds our right to have other rights". Innate equality in turn demands that we apply the Principle of Equal Consideration.

The difference between a basic right and other rights is that non-basic rights may be sacrificed in order to secure basic rights, but not vice-versa. Sacrificing a basic right to secure other rights would be a self-defeating process, since no other rights can be truly enjoyed in the absence of the basic right. Those other rights would in fact be illusory.

To give another example, one commonly-cited example of a basic right is the right to physical security - the right not to be subject to murder, torture, rape or assault. It would make no sense to suggest that we sacrifice this right for a non-basic right, such as the right to vote. What use is being able to vote if you can't guarantee you won't be murdered?

The basic right not to be treated solely as a resource for others guarantees that humans cannot be bought and sold, used for biological experiments without their consent, killed and used to make clothing, hunted for sport, or killed and eaten.

An equivalent formulation of the idea that humans cannot be treated solely as the resources of others is to say that we recognise that all human beings, regardless of their personal characteristics, have inherent value beyond their value as a resource for other people. This is sometimes called the inherent or intrinsic value concept. Recognition of intrinsic value means we have a right not to be treated as a thing, but as a person. Things, as opposed to persons, only have extrinsic value - they are only valuable in so far as somebody else regards them as a valuable resource. Persons have intrinsic value.

Consider slavery. Slave owners were often advised to treat their slaves "humanely". Why? Not because of any rights of the slaves, but only due to the charity of the slave owners. Slaves are accorded no intrinsic value; their only value is as a resource for exploitation by their owners. An owner might treat his slaves humanely to protect his economic investment, but this is not a recognition of intrinsic value or rights of the slaves.

For example, in one slavery case in the US, a court ruled that it had no jurisdiction to try a slave owner who beat his slaves with "rods, whips and sticks", even if the beatings were administered "wilfully and maliciously, violently, cruelly, immoderately and excessively". The slaves had no rights; they were the resources of the owner, to do with as he pleased. The only exception to this was if the beatings were administered in public rather than in private "not because it was a slave who was beaten, nor because the act was unprovoked or cruel; but because ipso facto it disturbed the harmony of society; was offensive to public decency, and directly tended to breach the peace. The same would be the law, if a horse had been so beaten." In other words, the court would consider the sensibilities of people who had rights not to be offended by witnessing a beating, but would not accord any rights to the subjects of the beatings themselves.

Now, consider animal rights. The Principle of Equal Consideration says that if we are going to take animal interests seriously and give any real content to prohibitions on inflicting unnecessary suffering, then we must extend the same protections to animal interests in not suffering as we extend to human interests, unless there is a good reason not to do so. Note that there is no middle ground. Either animal interests are morally significant, or animals are merely things which have no moral status. It might be economically "better" to not to treat animals cruelly, just as it might have been economically "better" to beat slaves only twice a week instead of five times a week, but this notion of "better" did not remove slaves from the category of "things".

Much of the argument in this thread has been concerned with potential excuses for not recognising the equal inherent value of animals in not suffering, and therefore denying that the basic right of equal consideration applies to animals. Examples: "Animals aren't as smart as humans", "Animals haven't claimed their rights in the way humans have". These are given as reasons to deny equal consideration to animals. In the following posts I may discuss these objections in more detail. There is a lot of territory to cover here, so I am approaching this bit by bit.
James R
View Public Profile
Send a private message to James R
Find More Posts by James R
Add James R to Your Buddy List
TW Scott
Minister of Technology (1,315 posts)

Old 05-29-06, 04:14 AM
#470
Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message Quick reply to this message TW Scott is offline Report Post
“
Originally Posted by James R
Have you ever been President of the United States? Does that disqualify you from commenting on the President's decisions?
”
It disqualifies me form say I can do better as there is no proof. It disqualifies my comments from being anything more than assumptions. However I have made decisions and ones as the president are undoubtable tougher. You have yet to die so you can know nothing about dying.

“
Have you ever had an abortion? Does that prevent you from commenting on the issue of abortion?
”
No and No it doesn't but since i have not had an abortion my comments should be considered as n0thing more than a breeze on the wind.

Last edited by TW Scott : 05-29-06 at 04:23 AM.
TW Scott
View Public Profile
Send a private message to TW Scott
Find More Posts by TW Scott
Add TW Scott to Your Buddy List
James R's Avatar James R
Just this guy, you know? (10,764 posts)

Old 05-29-06, 04:45 AM
#471
Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message Quick reply to this message James R is offline Report Post
Plants vs. animals

The Principle of Equal Consideration tells us that we ought to accord equal intrinsic value to all sentient creatures. Sentience in this context means having the ability to consciously experience pain and suffering.

Do animals consciously experience pain? Perhaps there are some of them that don't, but it is difficult to draw the line.

Does a dog feel pain the same way that a human feels pain? Again, it is difficult to know. But then again, we have the same problem with human beings. Do you feel pain the same way I feel pain? There's no way to tell for sure. And yet, we say all humans are sentient.

We know for our common meat animals that they have all the apparatus necessary to feel pain - a brain, a central nervous system etc. And they certainly act in ways that suggest they feel pain in the same way humans feel pain. So, if I am going to recognise that your pain, as another human being, is similar to mine, then I can't see any reason for imagining that a dog's pain is different in kind.

To be sentient is not the same as being alive. Sentience requires that you are the sort of being who has the capacity to be conscious of pain and pleasure. Consciousness, in turn, requires an "I" to have the subjective experience of pain.

Plants are alive but not sentient. They do not behave in ways that indicate they feel pain. They lack the neurological and physiological apparatus that is associated with pain in humans and animals. Moreover, they lack the need for pain as a survival mechanism.

The Principle of Equal Consideration would demand that we accord equal intrinsic value to plants and to humans in the matter of pain, unless there are compelling reasons not to do so. And there are. There is simply no evidence that a plant experiences pain at all. In fact, there's no evidence that plants have ANY conscious experience. There is no evidence that plants are an "I" which is conscious of itself as an ongoing entity.
James R
View Public Profile
Send a private message to James R
Find More Posts by James R
Add James R to Your Buddy List
Sgal
Principessa (157 posts)

Old 05-29-06, 04:57 AM
#472
Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message Quick reply to this message Sgal is offline Report Post
I think eating meat isnot morally wrong because it is part of nature. That is how most animals survive, however if you eat too much that is not good for you and is a waste because the animal was killed for nothing.
Sgal
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Sgal
Find More Posts by Sgal
Add Sgal to Your Buddy List
James R's Avatar James R
Just this guy, you know? (10,764 posts)

Old 05-29-06, 05:02 AM
#473
Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message Quick reply to this message James R is offline Report Post
"Claiming our rights"

It has been argued in this thread that animals have no rights or intrinsic value because they have not "claimed their rights". This is one suggested reason for not applying the principle of equal consideration to animals, and therefore giving humans the right to treat animals as things, or as the sole means to ends of human beings.

This fails as a viable reason for denying equal consideration to animals because it sets up a double standard. Many human beings have never "claimed their rights". We recognise the rights of human children, disabled human beings and so on, not to be treated as things, but as beings who have intrinsic value. Yet a baby cannot fight to assert its rights. On the other hand, animals fight as best they can to assert their right not to be killed, for example. So, why regard animals as commodities yet regard babies as beings of intrinsic worth?

It has been asserted that membership of the human species is enough to give human babies basic rights. Human babies, even though they do not possess the special characteristic that is supposed to give rights (i.e. that they have "claimed their rights"), supposedly should still be treated as though they possess the required characteristic.

But this is simply begging the question. The issue here is to name a characteristic that ALL humans possess but which animals do not, which justifies us giving rights to all humans but to no animals. Pretending that all humans have a particular characteristic when some in fact do not, and when some animals may in fact possess the characteristic, doesn't overcome the inconsistencies of this argument.

The fact is, there is no special quality that all humans possess and that no animals possess, such as to justify the treatment of all animals as things, while all humans have intrinsic worth.

Some people argue that humans can talk, or do calculus, or write books, and that that makes the difference. Yet there are many humans who cannot talk, cannot do calculus, cannot write books. Should we therefore exclude those human beings who cannot talk or do calculus from the moral community? Clearly, we do not do that.
James R
View Public Profile
Send a private message to James R
Find More Posts by James R
Add James R to Your Buddy List
James R's Avatar James R
Just this guy, you know? (10,764 posts)

Old 05-29-06, 05:13 AM
#474
Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message Quick reply to this message James R is offline Report Post
“
I think eating meat is not morally wrong because it is part of nature.
”
"t is the order or nature and of God, that the being of superior faculties and knowledge, and therefore of superior power, should control and dispose of those who are inferior. It is as much in the order of nature, that men should enslave each other, as that other animals should prey upon each other."

Do you agree with this defence of human slavery?
James R
View Public Profile
Send a private message to James R
Find More Posts by James R
Add James R to Your Buddy List
James R's Avatar James R
Just this guy, you know? (10,764 posts)

Old 05-29-06, 06:11 AM
#475
Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message Quick reply to this message James R is offline Report Post
tiassa:

With the above ground-work done, I can now address your most recent posts.

“
How we normally define suffering is an interesting proposition, don’t you think? Or has human knowledge achieved the end-all of such definitions?
”
The question of whether plants suffer is one that I have addressed in detail. However, it is ultimately irrelevant to the issues in this thread. We can say unequivocally that the animals we kill for meat suffer, feel pain etc. Therefore, we ought to treat them as beings of intrinsic worth, regardless of how we decide to treat plants.

On this matter, though, I still find it hard to believe that you would truly regard my eating your tomato as raising the same set of moral concerns as my eating your cat, say.

“
The issue of how animals are treated in industrial-scale farming and ranching is economic in the more specific sense of humans and monetary-based resource allocation. Your previous address of the questions of demand seem to come down to assertions of selfish pleasure and greed.
”
I hope that in light of my posts above, you understand the issues a little better now. The point here is that treating animals solely as an economic resource is a denial of the most fundamental of rights, and has no ethical justification.

“
“Walrus love” as an explanation for behavior is in itself an oversimplification. Did that ever occur to you? Have you ever noticed that, whether or not we intend or even care about an evolutionary result, our actions often tread into that arena? Has it ever occurred to you that human beings are part of nature, and not separate from nature? It seems you are aware of such considerations, since you discuss genetics, personal history, and environmental considerations at least. But did it ever occur to you that “love” in humans, and walruses if you must, is an evolutionary tool on behalf of species? That some woman somewhere “wants to have a baby” for whatever reasons … do the reasons for her desire change the fact that the arrival of the baby is, quantitatively at least, a perpetuation of the human species? If a barren woman saves a child’s life, is it mere heroism? Perhaps a Christian conscience? Does any of that change the fact that a potentially-viable human’s life has been extended, so that it might contribute to the species’ perpetuation?
”
I am very well aware that humans are part of nature. I am aware of the facts of evolution to the extent that I realise, as Darwin did, that no characteristic of a human being is fundamentally different in kind or quality compared to the characteristics of animals, but that only differences in quantity of particular traits exist. No quality of human beings suggested as a justification for treating all animals as mere things while humans are persons stands up to any kind of close scrutiny.

“
Which brings me back to my basic point: I think “morals” are a terrible reason to tailor the evolutionary outcome because so few morals have objective foundations.
”
You keep coming back to this meta-ethical question. Let's be clear: this is off-topic for this thread. If you want to discuss objective vs. subjective morality or the basis for morality as a grounded philosophical discipline, I think it would be better to do so in a thread dedicated to that purpose. In the current thread, we ought to assume that ethical systems and moral reasoning exist as valid enterprises, and see where that leads us.

“
You seem, for instance, unsatisfied with the possibility that human economics will eventually force species-wide vegetarianism.
”
I admit that is a possibility. Already, there are signs of movement in the attitudes of the general public to consumption of meats such as veal, and the laws of supply and demand may well respond to that. But economics do not operate in a moral vacuum.

“
If we seek to solve the suffering of cows and chickens while ignoring the suffering of humans, are we not giving the animals preferential consideration? I find the fact of our humanity a very compelling reason to consider the human impacts of our actions before stopping to wring our hands over what the cows think.
”
The obvious answer to your question here is: yes, we would be giving preferential treatment to the animals if we ignored the suffering of humans. But it is a given that we currently do not ignore the suffering of humans. Humans are clearly inside our moral circle of consideration, while animals are excluded from that circle for no logical reason.

“
This really is horsepucky, as I said before. We’ll go with the anecdotal, since I can’t seem to dig up the link: there was a BBC News report sometime in the last couple years about a guy in India who claimed to have not eaten anything in ten years; doctors were looking into the claim, and I’ve never heard the outcome. Nonetheless, should we be more like those mystics who seek to minimize our impact on nature?
”
This is a much wider question than the one I wish to address in this thread.

“
Rights are, indeed, endowed by convention. However, inasmuch as human recognition of interests are concerned, are there no logical reasons for rights?
”
Yes. Rights are based in interests, and interests exist due to objective factors. But this is meta-ethics again, and I don't want to discuss that here.

“
We come back to the questions of “What is pain?” and “What is suffering?” The dividing line you draw is one I see as aesthetically-founded.
”
It is a fact that plants do not have nervous systems. It is a fact that plants do not have brains. It is a fact that plants are not conscious. Since consciousness is a prerequisite for experiencing anything, pain included, it follows as a fact that plants do not experience pain.

“
Life is suffering. What I’m saying is that the line you draw is a false construct designed entirely to make those who accept it feel better about themselves, which is a petty reason for any moral assertion, and a terrible, even dangerous foundation for morality. The effects of this particular moral assertion include the eventual evolutionary limitation of the human diet. This is a difficult proposition in general, much less for assertions of morality. That your argument seems to ignore such issues does much to cast your own argument as being purely selfish, and for nothing more than pleasure and greed.
”
Given my explanatory posts prior to this one, you will need to elaborate on your own claims before I dignify this with a further response.

“
I know you’re not an idiot, James. Really. Sincerely. Were you not so emotionally tied up in the morality of vegetarianism, I’m quite sure you would give better consideration to reality.
”
Back at you, tiassa. I think you're emotionally tied to meat eating, and more importantly you are emotionally tied up in your own importance and the importance of your "species" above that of any other being, which is why you can't draw the obvious conclusions about widening the human moral circle based on the recognition of intrinsic value.

“
Is it a species bias (killing humans) or a personal bias (killing you) that serves as the compelling reason to exclude bacteria from equal consideration?
”
Bacteria do not experience pain. They are not conscious. etc. etc.

Actually, I should point out that just because I do not regard plants or bacteria as moral persons, it does not follow that I feel free to run around and kill plants and bacteria willy-nilly. So, don't get the wrong idea.

“
The fact is that we are humans, and not cows or chickens or apple trees or plague bacteria. Does the fact that you are human mean nothing to you? Your argument seems to undervalue the fact of our humanity.
”
The default historical position, which you are defending, is based on religious considerations and natural human hubris. It greatly overvalues the fact of our humanity, at the expense of everything non-human, and for no justifiable reason.

“
Since the “right to life” is simply a human construct, what of the “obligation to exploit collective resources in order to prolong one’s own suffering”?
”
What is the moral basis of your suggested "obligation to exploit collective resources"?

“

“
What gave you the impression that I consider children insignificant?
”
Oh, comparisons of eating meat to the rape and murder of children? The rejection of species considerations (including reproduction) as abstractions? Comparing the consumption of a live prawn or head of lettuce to a human baby? Just maybe?
”
Note that drawing parallels between things does not mean you consider them equivalent in all respects. In fact, I have been very careful to make myself clear where I have drawn comparisons. The above paragraph is constructed so as to give people a completely false impression of my previous points. I don't feel the need to go over them again. You know and I know what I actually wrote on these matters. If you have any actual questions, feel free to ask.

“
Because your morals are simply that important to you. Greed? Selfish pleasure? The reason to protect the environment is because in doing so we protect our habitat. The reason for participating in society (e.g. paying for food) is that society is a better condition for the species than wandering the plains in search of our next meal. You know, what you call a species bias.
”
You're consistent in your number one assumption that humans are the most important thing in the universe. Did it occur to you that protecting our environment protects not only the human habitat, but that of countless other species as well? Does that matter to you? Probably not, because animals are at best things for humans to exploit. Protecting the environment might give you a warm fuzzy feeling inside, but mainly because it will benefit you, either directly or indirectly, and not for any other reason.

“
Given a choice between species bias and megalomaniacal greed, I’ll choose the species bias.
”
Can you not see that species bias for one's own species is a form of megalomaniacal greed?

“
Is there any residual confusion that your rape comparisons are stupid?

Scream straw-man all you want while you appeal to emotion and aesthetics. I think it is your emotional demand in this topic, the quest to feel better about yourself, that pushes your argument into such dishonesty.
”
Why is rape wrong? Answer: because it involves treating another human being solely as a means to an end of another person. The end may be the selfish pleasure of the rapist, or the feeling of power and domination the rapist gets, or a combination of these and other factors.

Why is eating meat wrong? Answer: because it involves treating animals solely as the means to an end of a human being. That end may be the selfish pleasure of the human being, satisfying the "urge" of the human for the taste of the meat, or whatever. But the fact remains that the act denies any intrinsic value to the animal, just as rape denies any intrinsic value to the victim.

This is not a "stupid" comparison, but a pertinent and telling one. Your dismissal of it as stupidity is what is stupid.

“
And yes, your position is arbitrary until you provide a rational, objective foundation for it. As it is, you might as well be telling me that your argument derives from God’s will.
”
This is the meta-ethical point again. I would like to move this issue to a more appropriate thread.

“
What a ridiculous statement. First, good and evil are human inventions; secondly, it is only that my conscience about animals does not satisfy your demand for psychological warm fuzzies that you would even say “regardless of the evils”. Additionally, species may be an abstraction to you, but all that demonstrates is that you ought to spend some time asking a few questions about why life, the Universe, and everything are the way they are. Walrus love … wait’ll they get to snap bracelets.
”
Good and evil may well be human inventions, but most people recognise their existence. Do you? (Actually, I'd prefer we use the terms "right" and "wrong" here, to drop the religious overtones.)

Your point about life, the universe and everything is unclear at this stage.

“
Work on your condescension, James. That was pretty stupid.
”
There's irony here, is there not?

“
Stop overstating animal suffering in order to bolster your argument.
”
There's no need to overstate it. The fact of suffering ought to be sufficient.

“

“
And "discrimination"? No. We'd be ending the discrimination.
”
By making the problems of animals more important than the problems of humans, we’d be ending discrimination?
”
Who suggested making the problems of animals more important than the problems of humans? Another "straw man" stamp for you.

“
You’re the one who offered “walrus love” as a response to the fact that species tends toward its perpetuation or else goes extinct.

Damned greedy walruses, right?
”
This is either another misrepresentation or misunderstanding of an issue - I'm not sure which.

“
Pet ownership can be very much like slavery. To the other, though, I recognize that my cat also chooses me, inasmuch as she has had plenty of opportunity to strike out for other environs. Depends on how you feel about animals.
...
The cow sent to the butcher was specifically intended to be sent to the butcher. My current cat was conceived against the intentions of her mother’s guardian, and for the most part my family’s cats have been strays that chose to hang around. Can’t say many cows have come a-knockin’ on our door.
”
So, it appears there can be differences between caring for a pet and owning an animal you intend to sell for meat. Could this have something to do with intrinsic value and a double-standard, do you think?

“
Cows don’t desire much. You anthropomorphize bovines far too much.
”
Back at you. I think you don't appreciate what cows are actually like. I doubt you've spent much, if any, time with cows. You probably think they are like grass-munching automatons.
James R
View Public Profile
Send a private message to James R
Find More Posts by James R
Add James R to Your Buddy List
QuarkMoon
I <3 Happeh (771 posts)

Old 05-29-06, 06:41 AM
#476
Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message Quick reply to this message QuarkMoon is offline Report Post
“
Originally Posted by James R
"t is the order or nature and of God, that the being of superior faculties and knowledge, and therefore of superior power, should control and dispose of those who are inferior. It is as much in the order of nature, that men should enslave each other, as that other animals should prey upon each other."

Do you agree with this defence of human slavery?
”
Non sequitur, that passage's correlation between slavery and carnivorous animals is a fallacious argument. Animals do not prey on other animals solely because of superiority.
QuarkMoon
View Public Profile
Send a private message to QuarkMoon
Find More Posts by QuarkMoon
Add QuarkMoon to Your Buddy List
TW Scott
Minister of Technology (1,315 posts)

Old 05-29-06, 06:57 AM
#477
Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message Quick reply to this message TW Scott is offline Report Post
“
I think you don't appreciate what cows are actually like. I doubt you've spent much, if any, time with cows. You probably think they are like grass-munching automatons.
”
Well, you don't think much of anything actually, but I am not here about your pessimism. You assume much and betray your own ignorance. Of course we do not see cows as grass munching automatons. We also do not see them as being anything approaching equal. When have you had a meaning conversation with a cow? Have you ever seen one read a book? Sell milkshakes and McDonald? Petition for 'Equal Consideration'?
TW Scott
View Public Profile
Send a private message to TW Scott
Find More Posts by TW Scott
Add TW Scott to Your Buddy List
QuarkMoon
I <3 Happeh (771 posts)

Old 05-29-06, 07:09 AM
#478
Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message Quick reply to this message QuarkMoon is offline Report Post
“
Originally Posted by James R
It is a fact that plants are not conscious. Since consciousness is a prerequisite for experiencing anything, pain included, it follows as a fact that plants do not experience pain.
”
How do you know? What are the prerequisites for consciousness, if any?
QuarkMoon
View Public Profile
Send a private message to QuarkMoon
Find More Posts by QuarkMoon
Add QuarkMoon to Your Buddy List
TW Scott
Minister of Technology (1,315 posts)

Old 05-29-06, 07:35 AM
#479
Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message Quick reply to this message TW Scott is offline Report Post

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

you're* fucking retard.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

well keep trying to get this thread locked im off to bed

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

well at least your literate enough to spell...thats one thing i guess

 

Too bad you're not...

 

Until humanity resolves it.

Fact is, many of us like being what we are and don't want to become The Grey Race as our globalist leaders seem to intend.

I'm not a big fan of racism, or hatin' on blacks or Mexicans, but I'm equally not fond of multiculturalism, which is insane and doesn't work.

Why doesn't the race topic die at Sciforums? Because it won't die in life. Because the races aren't equal, much as individuals aren't, and we don't want to go along with our moron leaders in being fodder for industry.

We want life, a healthy natural life, and that includes pride in our ethnic group (a subset of race).

People tell us race doesn't exist, yet then more evidence comes out affirming it, and those "scientists" who argue against it are looking for a "race gene" which is not how we understand race. Race is grouped traits, not a gene! Their argument is disingenuous. Why would someone knowingly make a false argument, except to manipulate us for political ends?

Personally, I've only found two groups that understand the kind of pride in race without hate or endorsement of multiculturalism that I believe in:


“ Although we believe in the separation of ethnic groups, we do not do this from a belief that other groups are "superior" or "inferior," but from one that each population must govern itself in order to work organically. After all, culture arises when people of a similar heritage come together, and as culture determines those who rise or descend according to local standards, it breeds people who find harmony in its ideals with their own. We are thus opposed to racism because it not only corrupts a sensible concept, but turns a logical decision into a paranoiac and violent emotional one, ensuring future suffering for people of all races. As such, it is our belief that nationalism is simultaneously opposed to both racism and patriotism, which would include all races who swear allegiance to an abstract and unrealistic common political principle. ”

Anti-Racist Nationalists

And:

Nationalist Planet forums

infoterror
View Public Profile
Send a private message to infoterror
Find More Posts by infoterror
Add infoterror to Your Buddy List

Theoryofrelativity
Welcome to the house of fun (5,511 posts)
Yesterday, 12:16 PM #2

oh look a race thread

how original

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Theoryofrelativity
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Theoryofrelativity
Visit Theoryofrelativity's homepage!
Find More Posts by Theoryofrelativity
Add Theoryofrelativity to Your Buddy List

Baron Max
Registered User (7,822 posts)
Yesterday, 12:21 PM #3

People who can live together peacefully should be permitted to do so ...regardless of their culture, race, beliefs or anything else.

Those people who can not live together peacefully should not be forced to do so ...it can only lead to more hatred, more violence and more deaths.

Segragation into groups of like-minded people should not only be encouraged, it should be made easier and simpler.

Blacks n' whites who love each other should be permitted to live together if they wish. Blacks n' whites who hate each other should be segragated from each other.

Forcing anyone to do something that they don't want to do, or that they hate, shouldn't be permitted in any nation that considers itself free and democratic.

Baron Max

Baron Max
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Baron Max
Find More Posts by Baron Max
Add Baron Max to Your Buddy List

Theoryofrelativity
Welcome to the house of fun (5,511 posts)
Yesterday, 12:24 PM #4

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Theoryofrelativity
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Theoryofrelativity
Visit Theoryofrelativity's homepage!
Find More Posts by Theoryofrelativity
Add Theoryofrelativity to Your Buddy List

infoterror
Registered User (110 posts)
Yesterday, 12:26 PM #5

“ Originally Posted by Baron Max
People who can live together peacefully should be permitted to do so ...regardless of their culture, race, beliefs or anything else. ”

How many examples are there of this happening via multiculturalism in history?

None.

It's a terrible idea, multiculturalism.

infoterror
View Public Profile
Send a private message to infoterror
Find More Posts by infoterror
Add infoterror to Your Buddy List

Baron Max
Registered User (7,822 posts)
Yesterday, 12:31 PM #6

“ Originally Posted by infoterror
How many examples are there of this happening via multiculturalism in history? None. It's a terrible idea, multiculturalism. ”

Oh, I agree 100% ...maybe even more! Nowhere on Earth, at any time in all of human history, has integration or multiculturalism ever worked peacefully.

But there are those ignorant dreamers who still think that it's possible and they claim, CLAIM, that they're all for the ideals of multi-culturalism and peaceful integration. My comment was for those foolish few, not for people like you or me.

I sometimes think it would be cute and fun to take all those idealistic people and put them together in a big compound ...then stand back and watch the shit hit the fan!

Baron Max

Baron Max
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Baron Max
Find More Posts by Baron Max
Add Baron Max to Your Buddy List

guthrie
paradox generator (3,431 posts)
Yesterday, 03:23 PM #7

Never? HHmm, I seem to rcall that Islamic spain did quite well for a few generations. So did bits and pieces of Europe. Not to mention the USa.
Its only when things blow up that actually hear about them.

Besodes, multiculturalism, is, depending on how you view it, either impossible, or such a part of daily life anyway that your objections are irrelevant. Say for example- you dont go to church, your neighbour does, and is fully involved in churchy social stuff. Your other neighbour goes along to football matches and drinks lager. You yourself spend lots of itme on your computer, arguing with like minded idiots online. Does this mean they are all one culture? Depends how you look at it.
I've never seen what it is these anti-multiculturalism people are on about anyway. You used to get different cultures in this country just by going from the countryside to the towns.

guthrie
View Public Profile
Send a private message to guthrie
Find More Posts by guthrie
Add guthrie to Your Buddy List

Oniw17
Socrates is God (1,127 posts)
Yesterday, 03:55 PM #8

“ Originally Posted by infoterror
Fact is, many of us like being what we are and don't want to become The Grey Race as our globalist leaders seem to intend. ”

I agree with you, we should preserve racial features, but what's that have to do with multiculturalism?

“ I'm not a big fan of racism, or hatin' on blacks or Mexicans, but I'm equally not fond of multiculturalism, which is insane and doesn't work. ”

How do you define multiculturalism? Why doesn't it work?

“ Why doesn't the race topic die at Sciforums? ”

Because it is worth being discussed.

“ We want life, a healthy natural life, and that includes pride in our ethnic group (a subset of race). ”

Is that not possible with other ethnic groups around or something?

“ People tell us race doesn't exist, yet then more evidence comes out affirming it, and those "scientists" who argue against it are looking for a "race gene" which is not how we understand race. Race is grouped traits, not a gene! Their argument is disingenuous. Why would someone knowingly make a false argument, except to manipulate us for political ends? ”

This doesn't sound like an argument against multiculturalism, more like an argument against people who say race doesn't exist. Elaborate.

“ Personally, I've only found two groups that understand the kind of pride in race without hate or endorsement of multiculturalism that I believe in:
Anti-Racist Nationalists

And:

Nationalist Planet forums ”

Haven't looked through the second one yet, but I can't say I disagree with the first link from what I read of it. I didn't see any argument against multiculturalism there though.

Oniw17
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Oniw17
Find More Posts by Oniw17
Add Oniw17 to Your Buddy List

s0meguy
Registered User (431 posts)
Yesterday, 05:48 PM #9

“ Originally Posted by Oniw17
I agree with you, we should preserve racial features, ”

What the hell is the reasoning behind this?

s0meguy
View Public Profile
Send a private message to s0meguy
Find More Posts by s0meguy
Add s0meguy to Your Buddy List

Oniw17
Socrates is God (1,127 posts)
Yesterday, 06:10 PM #10

“ Originally Posted by s0meguy
What the hell is the reasoning behind this? ”

To make sure that there are always different kinds of people.

Oniw17
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Oniw17
Find More Posts by Oniw17
Add Oniw17 to Your Buddy List

Prince_James
Plutarch (Mickey's Dog) (3,711 posts)
Yesterday, 08:31 PM #11

It is very rare that even in a "multicultural society" that people of different ethnicities and mindsets live together. For instance, though I live in New York, which is considered an intensely "diverse" city, we live mostly segregated into ethnic communities.

Prince_James
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Prince_James
Find More Posts by Prince_James
Add Prince_James to Your Buddy List

Bells
Registered User (2,938 posts)
Yesterday, 09:12 PM #12

“ Originally Posted by Prince_James
It is very rare that even in a "multicultural society" that people of different ethnicities and mindsets live together. For instance, though I live in New York, which is considered an intensely "diverse" city, we live mostly segregated into ethnic communities. ”

Really? Well I have African, French and Dutch ancestry (I am by definition a creole with curly black hair and olive tanned skin with dark brown eyes), was not born in an english speaking country but migrated to Australia as a child, had to learn a new language and a new way of life basically. My husband was born from an English mother and a Dutch father (is blonde, very fair with green eyes), in the then English Hong Kong before living the life of an expat until he migrated to Australia with his parents as a child, but continued to travel and live overseas due to his father's work commitments throughout his childhood.

We are from completely different ethnicities, mindsets and backgrounds, but we're happily married with one child, another on the way and I couldn't imagine spending my life with anyone else. We are both intensely diverse in our origins and ethnicity, but we live together and quite happily so. Funny that huh?

Multiculturalism is about respecting that not everyone is exactly the same as you are and basically letting everyone be who they are and want to be. Of course people from the same cultural background will tend to live together in the same community, but if they do not and wish to live in a more diverse community, they should be free to do so without harrassment or abuse because they might be different to the rest.

My parents went from living in an area where they were surrounded by many from our birth country, but moved several years ago into what was virtually a white anglo-saxon Australian suburb. And they fitted in as individuals and they are loved by their neighbours because they are different and apparently exotic. They haven't conformed to what everyone else is in the street, they remain the individuals they always were and they are accepted and liked as they are. Should they now be forced to move into an area with others who are 'just like them'?

Bells
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Bells
Find More Posts by Bells
Add Bells to Your Buddy List

Baron Max
Registered User (7,822 posts)
Yesterday, 09:28 PM #13

“ Originally Posted by Bells
Really? Well I have African, French and Dutch ancestry (I am by definition a creole with curly black hair and olive tanned skin with dark brown eyes),...... ”

C'mon, Bells, one lousy, stinkin' example ain't nothing to prove nothin' and you know it! Get off it, okay? Besides, you could be lyin' through ye're fuckin' teeth and makin' it all up ...there's no way any of us could ever know.


“ Originally Posted by Bells
Multiculturalism is about respecting that not everyone is exactly the same as you are and basically letting everyone be who they are and want to be. ”

Yeah, and just where in the world has that ever, EVER, been successful ....without the force of arms making people behave ..if even that way! Where, Bells, give me a good example of a city or nation or any large group of people ...anywhere in the world!

Birds of a feather fuck together ....and they always will!

Baron Max

Baron Max
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Baron Max
Find More Posts by Baron Max
Add Baron Max to Your Buddy List

Baron Max
Registered User (7,822 posts)
Yesterday, 09:31 PM #14

“ Originally Posted by Prince_James
It is very rare that even in a "multicultural society" that people of different ethnicities and mindsets live together. For instance, though I live in New York, which is considered an intensely "diverse" city, we live mostly segregated into ethnic communities. ”

Yep, and trouble and problems erupt in NYC whenever those boundaries are not recognized and respected ....like a bunch of blacks movin' into Little Italy or something like that.

I've never had a problem with voluntary segragation and I think it's the only way the world is ever gonna' see peace. Oop, I take that back ....the world will never see peace until humans are all gone.

Baron Max

Baron Max
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Baron Max
Find More Posts by Baron Max
Add Baron Max to Your Buddy List

infoterror
Registered User (110 posts)
Yesterday, 09:39 PM #15

“ Originally Posted by s0meguy
What the hell is the reasoning behind this? ”

Because uniqueness sure beats uniformity!

infoterror
View Public Profile
Send a private message to infoterror
Find More Posts by infoterror
Add infoterror to Your Buddy List

infoterror
Registered User (110 posts)
Yesterday, 09:40 PM #16

“ Originally Posted by Bells
We are from completely different ethnicities, mindsets and backgrounds, but we're happily married with one child, another on the way and I couldn't imagine spending my life with anyone else. We are both intensely diverse in our origins and ethnicity, but we live together and quite happily so. ”

And what are the long-term consequences? You'd have to observe this situation for two generations to know what its consequences are, at a bare minimum. If your argumentative skills are designed to prove the acceptability of multiculturalism, you've just failed!

infoterror
View Public Profile
Send a private message to infoterror
Find More Posts by infoterror
Add infoterror to Your Buddy List

infoterror
Registered User (110 posts)
Yesterday, 09:40 PM #17

“ Originally Posted by guthrie
Never? HHmm, I seem to rcall that Islamic spain did quite well for a few generations. So did bits and pieces of Europe. Not to mention the USa. ”

These are not convincing examples. Spain lags behind most of the world and the USA is decaying. These random "bits and pieces of Europe": what ethnicities, when, and how well did they fare?

infoterror
View Public Profile
Send a private message to infoterror
Find More Posts by infoterror
Add infoterror to Your Buddy List

Bells
Registered User (2,938 posts)
Yesterday, 10:48 PM #18

“ Originally Posted by Baron Max
C'mon, Bells, one lousy, stinkin' example ain't nothing to prove nothin' and you know it! Get off it, okay? ”

Why? Does it make you uncomfortable that not everyone is racist or judges others based solely on their race or colour? That example works for me and it proves to me that it can work. But if you disagree with it because you prefer to have segregation, then no amount of examples will allow you to view things differently.


“ Besides, you could be lyin' through ye're fuckin' teeth and makin' it all up ...there's no way any of us could ever know. ”

Why would I lie? But then again I could be a white supremacist and you could be a black woman who's a pacifist and does not believe in the right to bare arms.


“ Yeah, and just where in the world has that ever, EVER, been successful ....without the force of arms making people behave ”

My home for one. My parents street and suburb for another. No one took up arms to force the neighbourhood to allow them to live there in peace. No one picked up a gun and used force to ensure peace when my husband and I married.

Or is that the problem for you? You are such a violent individual that you need to see force to prove a point. Well Baron, most people don't mind if their neighbour is another race or colour. You might take out your shotgun and start taking pot shots at the darkies over the fence, but most educated people don't behave that way. If you wish to live in a segregated society then do so. I believe some of them still exist. And in a way it's good because then the rest of us know where the inbreds live.

You are free to be what you want to be, but do not expect that others must be forced to believe as you do. Your country based its history on driving some off their land and then forcing others from another race, colour and culture to work the land for you. Do not now expect that the descendants of those slaves who are American, by force against their ancestors, to be forced to live elsewhere because you no longer want them there. You reap what you sow.


“ Where, Bells, give me a good example of a city or nation or any large group of people ...anywhere in the world! ”

As I said, my home for one. My parents suburb and most other suburbs in Australia. I'd imagine that there are many areas of the US where people of different races live together in peace. Or are you one of those who prefers to try to drive off anyone who doesn't fit into your racial profile with torchs and pitchforks? You know, like the witch hunts you accuse everyone else of taking part in?

You wish to force others into living in a segregated society when others do not wish it. If you want to, then do so for yourself and those who think like you. As I said before, in a way it might be good for racists to 'fuck together' as it gives the rest of us an indication of who and where the inbreds are in society and leave you to breed amongst yourselves. But don't think that you can force your ideals on those who disagree with you. You rebel that you're being forced to live in a multicultural society? So why are you trying to force those who are happy and at peace in such a society to live in a segregated one?

Bells
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Bells
Find More Posts by Bells
Add Bells to Your Buddy List

TimeTraveler
Registered User (1,602 posts)
Yesterday, 10:52 PM #19

“ People tell us race doesn't exist, yet then more evidence comes out affirming it, and those "scientists" who argue against it are looking for a "race gene" which is not how we understand race. Race is grouped traits, not a gene! Their argument is disingenuous. Why would someone knowingly make a false argument, except to manipulate us for political ends? ”

What Evidence? Racism is a religion, it's never been a science. Genes exist, race does not.

TimeTraveler
View Public Profile
Send a private message to TimeTraveler
Find More Posts by TimeTraveler
Add TimeTraveler to Your Buddy List

TimeTraveler
Registered User (1,602 posts)
Yesterday, 10:55 PM #20

“ Originally Posted by Baron Max
C'mon, Bells, one lousy, stinkin' example ain't nothing to prove nothin' and you know it! Get off it, okay? Besides, you could be lyin' through ye're fuckin' teeth and makin' it all up ...there's no way any of us could ever know.



Yeah, and just where in the world has that ever, EVER, been successful ....without the force of arms making people behave ..if even that way! Where, Bells, give me a good example of a city or nation or any large group of people ...anywhere in the world!

Birds of a feather fuck together ....and they always will!

Baron Max ”


I'm not for multiculturalism. I'm for open culture. Meaning open source culture. Multiculturalism is an old failed theory, where seperate but equal cultures are supposed to learn from one another.

First, not all cultures are equal, this much is something we can all agree on. Second, what we need is to open our cultures, and share our cultures.

Multiculturalism encourages cultural exclusivity and exclusion. Open Culture means anyone can become a part of any culture at any time, or be a part of multiple cultures at a time, just like anyone can post on this forum or be a member of many forums on the web.

 

I think penises should be inserted into vaginas

 

Ok....from now on this is the official race thread, Discuss.

 

Discuss

 

Well...I'll discuss it unto myself... ass holes. Let's see...
-White people score slightly on IQ tests than black peopl on average
-Orientals score slightly higher than white on IQ tests on average
-Black people seem to have a good take on music and rhythm, ect.
Let's use skull types rather than skin deep definitions.
-Negroids seem to be better at boxing and basketball
-Mongoloids, if I'm not mistaken seem more intelligent
-Caucasoids seem to be more creative?
-Russians are loyal
-Chinese are elitist sadists
-English people have no culture
-American people aren't weel cultured, they're idiots, and fat
-Muslims and Arabs and Persians are crazy bombers
-Christians are CRAZY!!
-et cetera

Can anyone prove any of these things?

 

i see we have 3 pages os far guys XD
9997 more to go

see total anarchy of a topic has caused 3 pages to go by so far!

 

Anarchy. Anarchy. Anarchy.

 

>.>><>>>>>>>>>><>>>>>>>><>>>>>>>>>>>><>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><>>>>>>>>>>

 

We all came from the eight who survived the Deluge, Shemites in the Middle East, Japhethites in western and eastern Europe, and into western China, and India, and Hamites in Africa, across to the Americas, in India, across Indo-China, Microsnesia, and on to the Americas.

These groups were sailing the oceans, with the "Celtic Cross" as the navigating device which allowed them to triangulate their positions to within 0.5% accuracy by the stars, as they appear to move along the horizon at the rate of 72 years per degree, because of precession, the slow wobble of the Earth's axis.

So check your ancient legends and architectures from these seemingly disparate people groups, and you will see the precession numbers such as 12, 24, 36, 54, 60, 72, 108, and 432, consistently appearing there, so we all came from the eight, and so, are merely all variants of the human syngameon, not much difference, unless, of course, you think some came from apes!

 

4, 8, 15, 16, 23, 42

 

0mg u 5P@mz0rs!!111111

 

F-ing lock this thread.

 

Stop.

 

Go.

 

Don't.