Isn't it funny...
- Thread starter Varda
- Start date
- Status
I found it quite interesting the way you and Alphanumeric discussed probabilities . That whole thing about asking him what his level was was eye opening . His response was even more eye opening . Your a brilliant person Quad . I don't know what you do , but I know brilliance when I see it .
Tiassa:
I note that once again you are taking time out in the public forums to make personal attacks on me.
What happens?
You are not the sole component of "the staff", Tiassa, no matter how important your consider yourself to be. You do not speak for "the staff". You speak for yourself alone. And most of the time you're out on a limb.
Your claims about the supposed "administrative outlook" are worthless self-serving bullshit. So is this fantasy about a "huge policy shift".
People only want that thread closed because they are frustrated that they can't justify themselves on moral grounds. They'd much rather have the thread closed so they don't have to think about the issue. Nobody likes having it pointed out to them that they are less than moral. They shift uncomfortably. They look for an escape, or a scape goat. Confronting it is much, much harder.
I'll thank you not to tell lies about my arguments.
For the record, as if there was ever any doubt, black people are human
beings.
No more lies on this from you.
And what, pray tell, is this piece of shit post from you, if not feeding a fire?
Your continued personal attacks on me are a shameful display. I have never demanded that you agree with me on any issue. Disagreement does not justify character assassination.
I reiterate that you do not speak for "the staff". There is no majority behind you. It's just you, being a dick.
I note that once again you are taking time out in the public forums to make personal attacks on me.
What happens?
You are not the sole component of "the staff", Tiassa, no matter how important your consider yourself to be. You do not speak for "the staff". You speak for yourself alone. And most of the time you're out on a limb.
Your claims about the supposed "administrative outlook" are worthless self-serving bullshit. So is this fantasy about a "huge policy shift".
People only want that thread closed because they are frustrated that they can't justify themselves on moral grounds. They'd much rather have the thread closed so they don't have to think about the issue. Nobody likes having it pointed out to them that they are less than moral. They shift uncomfortably. They look for an escape, or a scape goat. Confronting it is much, much harder.
I'll thank you not to tell lies about my arguments.
For the record, as if there was ever any doubt, black people are human
beings.
No more lies on this from you.
And what, pray tell, is this piece of shit post from you, if not feeding a fire?
Your continued personal attacks on me are a shameful display. I have never demanded that you agree with me on any issue. Disagreement does not justify character assassination.
I reiterate that you do not speak for "the staff". There is no majority behind you. It's just you, being a dick.
Trippy:
Yes, it's biased, as is every opinion piece ever published.
It goes to great lengths not to insult, but also directly addresses the predeliction of meat eaters for avoiding the issue by claiming to be deeply insulted that anybody might dare to question their stance.
The arguments that I have proceeded with are not factually inaccurate in any way.
Yes, it's biased, as is every opinion piece ever published.
It goes to great lengths not to insult, but also directly addresses the predeliction of meat eaters for avoiding the issue by claiming to be deeply insulted that anybody might dare to question their stance.
The arguments that I have proceeded with are not factually inaccurate in any way.
Actually, James, it is possible to have a balanced opinion, and yours isn't, neither is what is expressed by the article.
As I have already pointed out, and you have (to my recollection) avoided addressing, it's use of the word 'carnivore', for example, is technically inaccurate and provocative, especially when tied in with statements such as "This is almost guaranteed to get you screamed at".
As for this part: "..the predeliction of meat eaters for avoiding the issue by claiming to be deeply insulted that anybody might dare to question their stance..."
Learn to read. It's the provocative use of language that I find insulting, not having my stance questioned. I'm quite comfortable with having my stance questioned, it's nothing I haven't done dozens of times myself.
In other words drop the "Poor little vegetarian being ganged up on by slathering googely eyed carnivores" routine, and take the time to address what is actually said. Perhaps instead of blaming those around you, you should take a moment to stop and examine your own actions (introspection is under rated, in my opinion - more people need to practice it).
For starters,
Explain to me, James, as one native anglophone to another, how, precisely this (implied) statement:
"The source you used for your OP is... ...one sided, insulting, inflammatory, and factually inaccurate to boot."
Says anything about your argument?
Oh wait, that's right, you can't, because it doesn't. What it does comment on is the poor quality of your source material.
wow this is getting entertaining . Isn't it funny . This feeling inside . Ah is trolling this thread about non meat eating trolling . Trolling is so complicated . I am not sure if I will ever understand it ?
James ! James ! James ! Nobody ran away from your vegut thread . The ridiculousness of it is why I throw it under the bus . We eat meat period . I kill meat and eat it and like it and have not one stitch of guilt about it . Meat is good food . Besides animals fart so we should kill more of them . How bout those farting dinosaurs. Are you glad there dead ?
I don't care if you are opinionated . I think it is a good thing . To take a stand is good as long as you don't go postal . Then ! You would be going against your anti killing ideals . I would lose faith in you at that point . Until that day comes your o.k. in my book . A little cranky at times but hey who isn't . Quad maybe .
The black jokes are getting a little out of hand here . I know you all mean well but they look like they are on the verge of being inappropriate. Slinging them back and forth like a weapon don't look good . I would feel insulted if you was hammering me like that , saying Blondy is human too . It reminds me of . Hey I got blond friends ! there not all stupid, or They make good sex slaves , Every one should own one . You get the drift
I know it is not the same and your intentions are good , yet i still think what i said is worth consideration when speaking about poeples sensitivities . I am pretty sure you don't like it when girls talk about little peckers not satisfying there sexual urges . I don't know ? speculation on my part .
James ! James ! James ! Nobody ran away from your vegut thread . The ridiculousness of it is why I throw it under the bus . We eat meat period . I kill meat and eat it and like it and have not one stitch of guilt about it . Meat is good food . Besides animals fart so we should kill more of them . How bout those farting dinosaurs. Are you glad there dead ?
I don't care if you are opinionated . I think it is a good thing . To take a stand is good as long as you don't go postal . Then ! You would be going against your anti killing ideals . I would lose faith in you at that point . Until that day comes your o.k. in my book . A little cranky at times but hey who isn't . Quad maybe .
The black jokes are getting a little out of hand here . I know you all mean well but they look like they are on the verge of being inappropriate. Slinging them back and forth like a weapon don't look good . I would feel insulted if you was hammering me like that , saying Blondy is human too . It reminds me of . Hey I got blond friends ! there not all stupid, or They make good sex slaves , Every one should own one . You get the drift
I know it is not the same and your intentions are good , yet i still think what i said is worth consideration when speaking about poeples sensitivities . I am pretty sure you don't like it when girls talk about little peckers not satisfying there sexual urges . I don't know ? speculation on my part .
Bells
Staff member
Yes. It is everyone else and not you...
Oh you poor poor thing...
/Pat..
You started with an OP that described "meat eaters" as " angry carnivores", "flesh eaters", went on to describe "meat eaters" as lacking in judgement, lacking in values and morality, not to mention it was full of lies..
That was your OP.
You then went on to use analogies to compare the argument against meat eating to racism, treatment of blacks and then slavery. You then comment that of course animals cannot be granted equal rights or 'human rights', and then went on to say the following:
"Black people have no rights because they are black and not white. White people can do whatever they like to black people, including beating them or killing them, because they are black. In addition, this is justified because black people aren't as intelligent as white people. White people are entitled to control black people - even to use them as slaves. Black people should be considered mere property of white people. They have no intrinsic value in themselves, but only as a useful tool for white exploitation. It may be a good thing for white people to treat black people humanely, but that's only because the value of the black people to the whites is diminished if they aren't treated properly."
Now, swap a few words:
"Cows have no rights because they are cows and not human beings. Human beings can do whatever they like to cows, including beating them or killing them, because they are cows. In addition, this is justified because cows aren't as intelligent as human beings. Human beings are entitled to control control - even to use them as work animals. Cows should be considered mere property of human beings. They have no intrinsic value in themselves, but only as a useful tool for human exploitation. It may be a good thing for human beings to treat cows humanely, but that's only because the value of the cows to the human beings is diminished if they aren't treated properly."
Now, to me, Bells, it sounds like you'd have no problem with the second version of this statement, but that you'd have large objections to the first version. But as you can see, the arguments in both cases are exactly the same. So, if you disagree with version 1 while agreeing with version 2, then unless you can point out some relevant moral differentiating factor other than that "the first one deals with human beings while the second is 'only' concerned with animals", then you're morally inconsistent.
To be clear: the first statement is a racist statement. The second one is a speciesist statement. The bases of both racial and speciesist prejudice are both equally irrational.
Now, swap a few words:
"Cows have no rights because they are cows and not human beings. Human beings can do whatever they like to cows, including beating them or killing them, because they are cows. In addition, this is justified because cows aren't as intelligent as human beings. Human beings are entitled to control control - even to use them as work animals. Cows should be considered mere property of human beings. They have no intrinsic value in themselves, but only as a useful tool for human exploitation. It may be a good thing for human beings to treat cows humanely, but that's only because the value of the cows to the human beings is diminished if they aren't treated properly."
Now, to me, Bells, it sounds like you'd have no problem with the second version of this statement, but that you'd have large objections to the first version. But as you can see, the arguments in both cases are exactly the same. So, if you disagree with version 1 while agreeing with version 2, then unless you can point out some relevant moral differentiating factor other than that "the first one deals with human beings while the second is 'only' concerned with animals", then you're morally inconsistent.
To be clear: the first statement is a racist statement. The second one is a speciesist statement. The bases of both racial and speciesist prejudice are both equally irrational.
Because apparently, telling a woman whose grandfather was black that her considering a cow to be a cow is akin to blatant racism and bigotry against black people.. while mumbling something about how cows cannot of course be considered equal.. Just equal enough for you to switch between cows and blacks.... And I haven't even touched on your blacks and chickens analogy.. Because my saying 'because it's a chicken' is "racist". Because to you, racism against blacks is exactly the same as specieism to a chicken or a cow.. In other words, they are the same to you..
And this is after I had advised you that I found your so called reasoning offensive and racist. In fact, you got so bad that I had to threaten to write to the owners of this site to report you for racism and deeply offensive behaviour before you'd actually stop.
The funny part was that you seem offended that I took offense to your 'reasoning', went on to question my mental agility, suggested I was trolling for taking offense and basically spoke to me as if I was stupid.. You made cattle and blacks, as Tiassa pointed out to you, "interchangeable" and that is not meant to be offensive? That wasn't you 'returning fire'? Or was that you setting fire to the place?
You are not the victim here.
absolutely reprehensible conduct on the part of james
i am sorry you had to go thru that, bells
we must try and rectify the damage done
/saddened
i guess it was not enough for some that they hounded you out of sci
they want more blood
i wonder if fraggle and hercules are gloating in glee at the racist diatribe
it is absurd how james is allowed to turn this place into shit
it is always this guy instigating shit
i am sorry you had to go thru that, bells
we must try and rectify the damage done
/saddened
i guess it was not enough for some that they hounded you out of sci
they want more blood
i wonder if fraggle and hercules are gloating in glee at the racist diatribe
it is absurd how james is allowed to turn this place into shit
it is always this guy instigating shit
Trippy:
Here's a pertinent quote from the article, which has proven to be all too true:
Tick!
What would having a balanced opinion on the morality of meat eating entail, exactly, Trippy? Are you only balanced if you say meat eating is morally acceptable? It's not an option to say both that it's acceptable and unacceptable.
It might be possible to argue that its ok to eat meat under some circumstances but not others, depending on how it is produced for example. But I haven't seen any meat eater in that thread make any statement about when it is not ok to eat meat. All the meat eaters there seem to think it is always acceptable, though virtually all of them refuse to give any reason for their position.
I addressed that very early in the thread. The use of the term "carnivore" is, of course, tongue-in-cheek.
Why a meat eater would get all offended at being called a carnivore is a bit of a mystery to me, though. After all, an omnivore is just part carnivore, part herbivore.
I'm glad you're one step up on most of the participants in that thread, who apparently can't bear to have their stance questioned and feel obliged to paint anybody who dares as some kind of insane zealot.
That's a bit rich.
I have spent hours addressing what has been actually said in that thread, point by point. I have written thousands of words on what has actually been said.
As for the ganging up, count the vegetarians in that thread. Then count the meat eaters. Then work out how many meaties there are lined up against poor little me. I'm not complaining, by the way. Most of the arguments put by the meat eaters are so riddled with double standards or flat-out non sequiturs that they are easily defeated.
Me-Ki-Gal
See what I mean, Trippy?
Bells:
It isn't full of lies. Go back to the OP, click on the link and read the entire article.
As for the anger, I'm certainly seeing a lot of that from the carnivores. Eating meat does involve eating flesh, no matter how much you try to sanitise it by using euphemistic language.
As for you, personally, Bells, I think you're a very moral person, but you have a mental block on the moral question of eating meat. I don't know why that is, but the lengths to which you've gone to avoid facing the issue are right at the extreme end.
For example...
I have a proud 10-year record on this forum of fighting racism in all its forms. I have made many passionate arguments in favour of racial tolerance and understanding. Look at the Ban List and search for the word "racist". See how many racists I have banned from sciforums permanently.
I am perfectly happy to stand on my unblemished record regarding the topic of race. I invite any interested poster to search for the term "race" in any of my posts and review my contributions on such topics.
I find your mischaracterisation of my comparison of speciesism to racism offensive and dishonest. It is a fair comparison. You have not directly addressed it. Instead, you get up on your high horse and say, in effect, "I refuse to even try to understand the actual point you're making because I'm so terribly offended by what I have assumed you're saying. I'd rather call for you to be censored or banned than engage with you in an honest and mature manner."
I feel I need to take your comments point by point, lest there be further misunderstanding:
I made no such statement.
My argument is that saying it is morally acceptable to kill and eat a cow "because a cow is a cow" is directly comparable to saying that it is ok to enslave a black person "because a black person is a black person".
This argument has been repeatedly ignored by you, and twisted into something it is not over and over again. That's dishonest.
Once again, you (deliberately?) misrepresent my argument. I didn't mumble anything, by the way. My explanation, given to you three or four times in slightly different ways, was clear and unambiguous. Only wilful deafness could have heard a mumble.
Here is it again: I do not say that cows should have ALL of the same rights that human beings (black or white or yellow or green) should have. I said that where cows have equivalent interests to human beings they should be given equal consideration in deciding how we should treat them.
In the context that I have now explained to you three or four times - see directly above for the most recent - yes. Here it is one more time:
My argument is that saying it is morally acceptable to kill and eat a cow "because a cow is a cow" is directly comparable to saying that it is ok to enslave a black person "because a black person is a black person".
Go ahead and write your heart out, Bells. I stand on a proud record of anti-racism on this forum. It is ludicrous of you to try to paint me as some kind of racist bigot.
I don't think you're stupid, Bells. And that is why I find it so disappointing that you apparently dissemble so much on this issue. You seem to have gone out of your way to invent a straw-man version of what I've said, then to get all offended by what you've made up. The more charitable analysis that I can make is that you really haven't understood what I've said after all, despite your general intelligence. At this point, I'm not sure which explanation is true.
In terms of their interest in not been arbitrarily killed and eaten, they are interchangable. If the word "blacks" offends you specifically, then replace "blacks" in the quote here with "human beings".
Here's another idea: go back to my original comparison of racism with speciesism, replace "black people" with "homosexual people" and white people with "heterosexual people" and references to "racism" with "prejudice against homosexuals" and you'll get yet another version of the same comparison.
The point, to labour it one more time, is that speciesism is a prejudice akin to racism or homophobia or anti-semitism or virtually any other bigoted view you care to examine.
I have told you in the past that I don't consider myself a victim or claim victimhood. Nothing has changed since then.
Here's a pertinent quote from the article, which has proven to be all too true:
article said:
Tick!
What would having a balanced opinion on the morality of meat eating entail, exactly, Trippy? Are you only balanced if you say meat eating is morally acceptable? It's not an option to say both that it's acceptable and unacceptable.
It might be possible to argue that its ok to eat meat under some circumstances but not others, depending on how it is produced for example. But I haven't seen any meat eater in that thread make any statement about when it is not ok to eat meat. All the meat eaters there seem to think it is always acceptable, though virtually all of them refuse to give any reason for their position.
I addressed that very early in the thread. The use of the term "carnivore" is, of course, tongue-in-cheek.
Why a meat eater would get all offended at being called a carnivore is a bit of a mystery to me, though. After all, an omnivore is just part carnivore, part herbivore.
I'm glad you're one step up on most of the participants in that thread, who apparently can't bear to have their stance questioned and feel obliged to paint anybody who dares as some kind of insane zealot.
That's a bit rich.
I have spent hours addressing what has been actually said in that thread, point by point. I have written thousands of words on what has actually been said.
As for the ganging up, count the vegetarians in that thread. Then count the meat eaters. Then work out how many meaties there are lined up against poor little me. I'm not complaining, by the way. Most of the arguments put by the meat eaters are so riddled with double standards or flat-out non sequiturs that they are easily defeated.
Me-Ki-Gal
See what I mean, Trippy?
Bells:
It isn't full of lies. Go back to the OP, click on the link and read the entire article.
As for the anger, I'm certainly seeing a lot of that from the carnivores. Eating meat does involve eating flesh, no matter how much you try to sanitise it by using euphemistic language.
As for you, personally, Bells, I think you're a very moral person, but you have a mental block on the moral question of eating meat. I don't know why that is, but the lengths to which you've gone to avoid facing the issue are right at the extreme end.
For example...
I have a proud 10-year record on this forum of fighting racism in all its forms. I have made many passionate arguments in favour of racial tolerance and understanding. Look at the Ban List and search for the word "racist". See how many racists I have banned from sciforums permanently.
I am perfectly happy to stand on my unblemished record regarding the topic of race. I invite any interested poster to search for the term "race" in any of my posts and review my contributions on such topics.
I find your mischaracterisation of my comparison of speciesism to racism offensive and dishonest. It is a fair comparison. You have not directly addressed it. Instead, you get up on your high horse and say, in effect, "I refuse to even try to understand the actual point you're making because I'm so terribly offended by what I have assumed you're saying. I'd rather call for you to be censored or banned than engage with you in an honest and mature manner."
I feel I need to take your comments point by point, lest there be further misunderstanding:
I made no such statement.
My argument is that saying it is morally acceptable to kill and eat a cow "because a cow is a cow" is directly comparable to saying that it is ok to enslave a black person "because a black person is a black person".
This argument has been repeatedly ignored by you, and twisted into something it is not over and over again. That's dishonest.
Once again, you (deliberately?) misrepresent my argument. I didn't mumble anything, by the way. My explanation, given to you three or four times in slightly different ways, was clear and unambiguous. Only wilful deafness could have heard a mumble.
Here is it again: I do not say that cows should have ALL of the same rights that human beings (black or white or yellow or green) should have. I said that where cows have equivalent interests to human beings they should be given equal consideration in deciding how we should treat them.
In the context that I have now explained to you three or four times - see directly above for the most recent - yes. Here it is one more time:
My argument is that saying it is morally acceptable to kill and eat a cow "because a cow is a cow" is directly comparable to saying that it is ok to enslave a black person "because a black person is a black person".
Go ahead and write your heart out, Bells. I stand on a proud record of anti-racism on this forum. It is ludicrous of you to try to paint me as some kind of racist bigot.
I don't think you're stupid, Bells. And that is why I find it so disappointing that you apparently dissemble so much on this issue. You seem to have gone out of your way to invent a straw-man version of what I've said, then to get all offended by what you've made up. The more charitable analysis that I can make is that you really haven't understood what I've said after all, despite your general intelligence. At this point, I'm not sure which explanation is true.
In terms of their interest in not been arbitrarily killed and eaten, they are interchangable. If the word "blacks" offends you specifically, then replace "blacks" in the quote here with "human beings".
Here's another idea: go back to my original comparison of racism with speciesism, replace "black people" with "homosexual people" and white people with "heterosexual people" and references to "racism" with "prejudice against homosexuals" and you'll get yet another version of the same comparison.
The point, to labour it one more time, is that speciesism is a prejudice akin to racism or homophobia or anti-semitism or virtually any other bigoted view you care to examine.
I have told you in the past that I don't consider myself a victim or claim victimhood. Nothing has changed since then.
Bells didn't have to "go through that". She chose to post in the thread that I started on vegetarianism. Nobody forced her to "go through" anything. In fact, she has steadfastly avoided "going through" the arguments right from the start.
Bells was not "hounded out" of sciforums. Bells resigned as a moderator, and she is still here. Nobody, least of all me, wants to hound her out.
There was no racist diatribe.
Says the little man who only ever posts shit like this to stir up trouble.
Pull your head in and mind your own business.
Self-fulfilling prophecy on Wiki
The reaction you have experienced in that thread is to me no more surprising than the Church's reaction to being characterized as 'simplicio'.
What's that saying? Live by the sword, die by the comfy cushion? No, that's not right...
Generally speaking, when you predict that certain people will react in certain ways to certain things in certain ways, and then proceed to dismiss things said by those people as being those reactions, you generally only get one kind of response - that which you predict.
Using neutral language is a good start. I've seen plenty of well balanced, neutral discussions on the ethics and morality of eating meat that did not resort to that sort of language. I mean, take a moment to think about it. Replace 'Vegterianism' with 'Islam', 'Carnivore' with 'Kaffir', and 'James R' with 'S.A.M' and see where it gets you.
Why should any justification have to be any more than 'I choose to'.
Why do I eat Sheep, and not Cat? I understand Cat to be as greasey as mutton, and I detest mutton because I dislike how greasey and fatty it is, so, even though I have not actually tried eating cat meat, I do not intend to try it, because on the grounds of how greasey it is I would not expect to enjoy it. Likewise, there are a number of foods that I do not intend to try because I understand them to be like foods that I have tried that I dislike.
And that's without getting into issues such as availability - cat is not freely available to purchase for consumption at any of the markets I have thus far frequented. In any event, there can be no single answer to that question, as I said in the thread, one mans pest is another mans food supply, well, as it turns out One mans pet is another mans BBQ - note that the individuals involved did not face charges because it was determined that the dog had been killed humanely. I would suggest then that it is a western foible, but even then that's not neccessarily the case eg:Times are tuff People in Georgia have turned to eating dog
Are you suggesting that something that is offered tongue in cheek is incapable of causing offense, or being offensive?
I'm glad you're one step up on most of the participants in that thread, who apparently can't bear to have their stance questioned and feel obliged to paint anybody who dares as some kind of insane zealot.
And yet this:
But hang on, let's re-examine what I actually said, shall we James?
So, I point out to you that in some regards, whether or not you intend to you come across as complaining about being ganged up on by carnivores, and your defense is to what again? Point out that you're outnumbered by meat eaters?
Bells
Staff member
I am sorry, you are offended?
You?
So they are not equal to humans in that they cannot have the same rights as a human.. However..
You are demanding that I apply human standards that I would apply to a black person because they are a human being, to a cow and you are attempting to again use the argument that a cow and a black person can somehow be interchangeable or are the same in your line of reasoning.
You do not even consider a cow to be equal to a human being, yet you seem to be of the assumption that cows can be comparable to blacks because blacks suffer racism and cows are part of the food chain..
And you have the audacity to be offended?
This is laughable.
I don't consider a cow to be of the moral equivalent of a human being, yes, even a black person James, because it is a cow. I also do not apply human standards to cows, because they are cows. Now, if you feel that my refusing to give the moral equivalent to cows, because it is a cow to be akin to a white person denying basic human and equal rights rights to a human because of his or her colour, then yes, you are being offensive and racist. You don't even consider cows to have equal rights to humans yet you seem to believe that denying human rights to humans based on their colour is the same as not giving equal consideration to a cow because it's a cow.. It is nowhere near the same.
You may hold up your record of fighting against racism on this forum, but that just came tumbling down the hill and you are tumbling after it like Jill following Jack.
One last try, Bells:
You're putting the cart before the horse.
Equal consideration is the starting point in this argument. It says that equivalent interests should be treated the same way.
The next question to ask is: do cows and human beings have equivalent interests? The answer, in some instances is "no". For example, cows do not have any (direct) interest in choosing the Prime Minister of Australia - they cannot understand the relevant issues and they cannot express a preference in this regard. In other instances, the answer is "yes". For example, cows have a direct interest in living out their lives without being arbitrarily killed and eaten.
What follows from this? We give human beings the vote, and also have laws against the arbitrary killing of human beings. Since cows do not share the interests of humans in voting, it is not morally necessary to give cows the vote. However, cows do share the interests of humans in not being arbitrarily killed. Therefore, it logically follows that we ought not to allow the arbitrary killing of cows while forbidding the arbitrary killing of human beings. To do that is to have a clear double-standard and not to give equal consideration to equivalent interests.
I am saying that if you decide your moral stance about a cow purely on the basis of its membership of a particular species and non-membership of some other species, rather than on the presence or absence of morally-significant interests that it has, then you are acting on a meaningless prejudice. Further, this prejudice is equivalent to the one in which black people, say, are denied the vote simply because they aren't white.
I consider a cow's interest in continuing its life to be equal (or "equivalent" in a moral sense) to that of a human being. Regarding other interests that cows may have, I haven't really commented at length.
Regarding slavery, the treatment of cattle as mere property rather than as persons is certainly comparable to the treatment of slaves (of any colour) as property rather than as persons. Don't get hung up on the "black" thing - that's just an excuse not to consider the issue being put to you.
So, it is not about how a cow looks, or the capacities of the cow, or the physical or mental differences between the cow and the human that are morally signficant to you? It's all about whether they are members of the species Homo sapiens or not, and that's all that counts when you're making moral decisions regarding them?
In fact, I suspect that you do apply at least some human standards to cows, in practice. Probably you're against pointless physical cruelty to cows, for example (I'm assuming, of course). Probably you don't think people should be allowed to mutilate cows for fun and leave them alive to suffer a long, agonising death, for example. And you apply that same "human standard" to humans, of course. But assuming you have such a standard, then it can't be "because it's a cow". There must be something else going on in your moral brain, surely? That is, I can't really believe that you have a list of moral prohibitions that are species-specific: "You mustn't hurt cows, because they are cows. You mustn't hurt dogs, because they are dogs. You mustn't hurt koalas, because they are koalas. You mustn't..." Yet, you would have me believe that you have the rule: "You mustn't kill and eat a human being, because it's a human being", combined with "You can kill and eat any non-human animal, because it's not a human being", or rather "You can kill and eat a cow, because it's a cow. You can kill and eat a dog, because it's a dog. You can kill and eat..."
That's for others to judge.
Bells said:
You're putting the cart before the horse.
Equal consideration is the starting point in this argument. It says that equivalent interests should be treated the same way.
The next question to ask is: do cows and human beings have equivalent interests? The answer, in some instances is "no". For example, cows do not have any (direct) interest in choosing the Prime Minister of Australia - they cannot understand the relevant issues and they cannot express a preference in this regard. In other instances, the answer is "yes". For example, cows have a direct interest in living out their lives without being arbitrarily killed and eaten.
What follows from this? We give human beings the vote, and also have laws against the arbitrary killing of human beings. Since cows do not share the interests of humans in voting, it is not morally necessary to give cows the vote. However, cows do share the interests of humans in not being arbitrarily killed. Therefore, it logically follows that we ought not to allow the arbitrary killing of cows while forbidding the arbitrary killing of human beings. To do that is to have a clear double-standard and not to give equal consideration to equivalent interests.
I am saying that if you decide your moral stance about a cow purely on the basis of its membership of a particular species and non-membership of some other species, rather than on the presence or absence of morally-significant interests that it has, then you are acting on a meaningless prejudice. Further, this prejudice is equivalent to the one in which black people, say, are denied the vote simply because they aren't white.
I consider a cow's interest in continuing its life to be equal (or "equivalent" in a moral sense) to that of a human being. Regarding other interests that cows may have, I haven't really commented at length.
Regarding slavery, the treatment of cattle as mere property rather than as persons is certainly comparable to the treatment of slaves (of any colour) as property rather than as persons. Don't get hung up on the "black" thing - that's just an excuse not to consider the issue being put to you.
So, it is not about how a cow looks, or the capacities of the cow, or the physical or mental differences between the cow and the human that are morally signficant to you? It's all about whether they are members of the species Homo sapiens or not, and that's all that counts when you're making moral decisions regarding them?
In fact, I suspect that you do apply at least some human standards to cows, in practice. Probably you're against pointless physical cruelty to cows, for example (I'm assuming, of course). Probably you don't think people should be allowed to mutilate cows for fun and leave them alive to suffer a long, agonising death, for example. And you apply that same "human standard" to humans, of course. But assuming you have such a standard, then it can't be "because it's a cow". There must be something else going on in your moral brain, surely? That is, I can't really believe that you have a list of moral prohibitions that are species-specific: "You mustn't hurt cows, because they are cows. You mustn't hurt dogs, because they are dogs. You mustn't hurt koalas, because they are koalas. You mustn't..." Yet, you would have me believe that you have the rule: "You mustn't kill and eat a human being, because it's a human being", combined with "You can kill and eat any non-human animal, because it's not a human being", or rather "You can kill and eat a cow, because it's a cow. You can kill and eat a dog, because it's a dog. You can kill and eat..."
That's for others to judge.
I think only by one another...
Cannibalism is common to societal collapse...Africa is prone to periodic long-term drought...
People have historically eaten each other for various reasons.
A cow does not have reason...but it has the same primal drive as a human to survive, and can feel the same emotions that we feel, albeit in a more basic format. We can look at their brain and tell that they can emote to some degree.
Severely brain damaged or retarded people may have only that basic desire to survive left.
Sadly, maybe not even that.
We take care of them, of course.
Since the vegetarian thread has started...I try to visualize all the steps and people my food had to have happen to it before it reached me... and mentally thank those people. It's an attempt at more conscious eating.
When you eat the meal, do you ever thank the chicken or the cow for giving up its' life? The meat processors for doing a very dangerous and nasty job? The people who shipped it, stuck it in the supermarket cooler?
Thoughts...
Last edited:
Rats also share the the interest in not being arbitrarily killed. So do grasshoppers and moskitoes.
Therefore, it logically follows that we ought not to allow the arbitrary killing of rats, grashoppers and moskitoes while forbidding the arbitrary killing of human beings.
Therefore, it logically follows that we ought not to allow the arbitrary killing of rats, grashoppers and moskitoes while forbidding the arbitrary killing of human beings.
Heh, I splat roaches, snap-trap mice in my house, kill mosquitoes.
All those things are directly detrimental to my health-allergies to mice and roaches, mice are carriers of hantavirus, and mosquitoes have killed more people than any other animal through the pathogens they carry.
I could live-trap the mice, but I understand most relocated animals die, because the place you relocate them to already has animals. The snaptraps seem to be a very quick kill, it smashes their head in, although if I hear the trap go off, I make sure.
If there's a physical need to eat meat I will certainly not tell you you should not do so, although factory farming is a practice that really needs to be put an end to.
All those things are directly detrimental to my health-allergies to mice and roaches, mice are carriers of hantavirus, and mosquitoes have killed more people than any other animal through the pathogens they carry.
I could live-trap the mice, but I understand most relocated animals die, because the place you relocate them to already has animals. The snaptraps seem to be a very quick kill, it smashes their head in, although if I hear the trap go off, I make sure.
If there's a physical need to eat meat I will certainly not tell you you should not do so, although factory farming is a practice that really needs to be put an end to.
- Status