John Stossel Goes After PETA Tonight...

[Freakshow]

Accusing somebody of having a strawman arguement all the time because you aren't smart enough to actually come up with an arguement of your own or make a point is a strawman arguement as well.

I actually agree with you on this issue. I was just suggesting that the "taking that to its logical conclusion" approach isn't usually a good technique.

Of course, you can always try the "argument by skank" technique.

 

[Vagabond]

I actually agree with you on this issue. I was just suggesting that the "taking that to its logical conclusion" approach isn't usually a good technique.

Of course, you can always try the "argument by skank" technique.

And you could try the offer an arguement method of debate vs the one you use which is the be an irritating troll technique.

 

[Amapola]

This idea that animals have to suffer horribly in order for people to eat meat is not really true. Take a look at a story about Temple Grandin and her innovations in slaughterhouses. She has also made huge changes in how animal handling facilities are built.

And even though the poster Josh feels that a lot of people do not raise and butcher their own meat (or hunt it), if people would consider that this is a big world and does not just consist of the United States they would see that this also is not true. For example if you go the highlands of the Andes, these people raise and butcher their own meat. There are a lot of people right here in the US that raise and butcher their own meat. In fact nearly everyone I know in my county does this.

A lot of this protein is raised on very sparse vegetation. People can not eat grass. They can not eat brush. However animals like goats and llamas can. In some parts of the world this is the only way to survive - to allow your lambs to turn scrub into lambchops.

My farm is not suitable for growing typical food crops. The elevation is a little too high, there is not enough precipitation and the ground is pretty rough. I can grow some dandy native grasses and forbs, though, so it just makes sense to me to turn that into hay or pasturage for cows, goats, sheep etc. since I can't eat it.

I am very happy for people who want to be vegetarian. I have no issue with that. I DO have an issue with PETA, who seem to me to be so completely uneducated about animals it just amazes me. And even this would not bother me, if those same people were not trying to dictate to me how I should live.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

Standard BS non-argument from self-interest. What if someone wanted to eat Thai children? Oh, well of course that's a different issue entirely because they're HUMAN and humans have rights -- like the right to eat animals -- so you would presumably be opposed to a homo sapien diet, right?

Animals <> Thai Children. I will fully admit that I value the lives of humans over those of animals. If you or Josh or anyone else wants to value them equally, that's fine with me (though it leads to a whole bunch of questions that are probably more properly discussed in their ownt hread), I don't care. If you want to try to convince me that your point of view is correct, that's also fine. It's if you want to FORCE me to adopt your point of view, like PETA does, that it ceases to be fine.

 

[luchog]

Good point. The alternative to raising these animals for food/medicine is the genocide of these animals.

That would end their suffering.?

That would be perfectly fine with the PETA folks.

 

[Snide]

Can't say I've seen everything he's ever done, but I certainly haven't found this to be the case. Can you be more specific?

I won't address the biased part, but you can't seriously watch even one of his reports...pick any one you want...and NOT say he's sensationalizing. His faked concern/melodramatic reporting makes me gag. Worse than Baba Wawa trying to get someone to cry.

 

[RandFan]

Me too.

That's why I only feast on live flesh. It's a lot more work, and a lot more messy, but it's worth it!

 

[RandFan]

Before you all jump on me for how ridiculous and stupid I apparently am for making a moral decison and sticking with it, you should know that I side with Einstein on this.

Appeal to authority.

We should just jump on you for the fallacy.

 

[RandFan]

Which leads to a rather basic point as I browsed over this older thread: the disproportionate level of outrage is astonishing. A man torched some SUVs and the people herein go crazy, characterizing him as a violent maniac. Meanwhile, animals are systematically slaughtered and abused -- billions of them -- and we get the same tired jokes that are supposed to be irreverent and funny. Har har har, People Eating Tasty Animals! I only feed on the flesh of live animals, har har har har.

Oh shoot, did we offend someone?

Bad, bad, naughty skeptics. Go to your rooms.

 

[RandFan]

This idea that animals have to suffer horribly in order for people to eat meat is not really true.

The vast majority of animals in the wild die from predation or the elements. Most animals are killed or eaten shortly after birth. Most of those that survive won't make it to maturity. Life in the wild is survival. Kill or be killed. Eat or be eaten. If an animal gets sick it is likely that it will die painfully. Many of those that don't get sick will face the fear of predators many times in their lives.

Animals raised in captivity can be protected from the elements and from predation. When they get sick they can be treated by veterinarians. Facing death happens but once and long after they have had an opportunity to experience life.

Removing humans from the food chain won't statistically alter the life of non-humans for the better. But hey, if you don't want to be the source of an animal's demise that is fine. But don't fool yourself into thinking that you are substantively changing anything.

On the other hand, if you want to improve conditions at farms and the lives of animals who are in captivity and are mistreated by humans then I'm on your side.

 

[Cain]

Obligatory US bashing noted.

Please also note that I am not just a self-hating American, but a self-hating human.

It seems to me that life on earth results in "unnecessary suffering" on an almost "unimaginable scale". What we should do is get rid of "nature", turn the earth into a park after euthanizing all predators, and devote the energies of the human species to veterinary medicine and animal husbandry so we can care for whatever animal life is left over.

This is not just simple nonsense, but foolish nonsense. Moral agents have choices: we can choose not to treat animals like biological machines. This is precisely why the word "unnecessary" is crucial: we can fashion a more enlightened society. Let us put the truly grand ambitions -- such as preventing lions from killing antelopes -- on the backburner. Call this a lesson in humility.

And what if you could go back in time and kill Hitler as a baby? How trite.

If the degree of suffering is you measure, as you implied earlier, the choices in these scenarios are a no-brainer.

I'm afraid this last sentence does not make a great deal of sense.

Vagabond:

Taken to it's logical conclusion, what exactly do you think would happen to the cows, pigs, chickens tomorrow if you could wave a magic wand and make everybody stop eating them?

You're presenting this not as a thought experiment to tease out fundamentals but as a practical problem that requires a feasible solution. But of course this scenario has no connection to the "reality" you mentioned earlier. I think Mycroft once made a similarly silly suggestion. Most likely the number of animals produced for slaughter would slowly recede until enough people are able to introduce legislation on behalf of animals.

You think all the farmers would just let them graze on their farmland out of the goodness of their hearts? You would see the biggest mass slaughter of animals imaginable. Tens of millions of animals would be bull dozed alive into trenches. In a year the only place a cow would exist is in a zoo. Cow's are not wild animals, they can't exist in the wild, they have no habitat to return them to. They exist only because people eat them.

Even assuming this is true, it is better in the long run.

Taking the same arguement anti-abortionists take all the time, that ANY life is better than no life at all. Wouldn't the animals be worse off not to exist at all?

This is another Mycroft suggested in an earlier thread. Should we also get rid of contraception? Reducing the animal population would be a really, really good idea.


Nyarlathotep:

Animals <> Thai Children. I will fully admit that I value the lives of humans over those of animals. If you or Josh or anyone else wants to value them equally, that's fine with me (though it leads to a whole bunch of questions that are probably more properly discussed in their ownt hread), I don't care. If you want to try to convince me that your point of view is correct, that's also fine. It's if you want to FORCE me to adopt your point of view, like PETA does, that it ceases to be fine.

It's not a matter of quantifying the life of human A against the life of non-human B. Consuming animals is a lifestyle choice -- one for which there are plenty of alternatives. You again seem to understand the element of FORCE that this choice entails. The more militant animal rights activists want to prevent your initiation of force against a morally significant creature.

 

[Vagabond]

I hate the hypocrisy. In the recent penquin movie the sea lions and vultures are portrayed as cruel. What do you think Penguins eat? They are carnivores too. It's bad to eat "cute" animals but fine to chow down on ugly ones like fish.

 

[Mycroft]

Please also note that I am not just a self-hating American, but a self-hating human.

Yes, that is plain for all to see.

This is not just simple nonsense, but foolish nonsense. Moral agents have choices: we can choose not to treat animals like biological machines. This is precisely why the word "unnecessary" is crucial: we can fashion a more enlightened society. Let us put the truly grand ambitions -- such as preventing lions from killing antelopes -- on the backburner. Call this a lesson in humility.

So, as moral agents, we should collectively choose to take all the misery out of nature by turning the Earth into one great park, euthanizing all the predators and devoting our energies to caring for the rest of the animals.

I'm afraid this last sentence does not make a great deal of sense.

Really? It's pretty straightforward. If the elimination of needless suffering is a valid goal, then one should experiment on the tribe of human, one should experiment on the animal, and if one gets the opportunity, to go back in time and kill the baby Hitler. It’s a no-brainer.

 

[Vagabond]

Vagabond:
You're presenting this not as a thought experiment to tease out fundamentals but as a practical problem that requires a feasible solution. But of course this scenario has no connection to the "reality" you mentioned earlier. I think Mycroft once made a similarly silly suggestion. Most likely the number of animals produced for slaughter would slowly recede until enough people are able to introduce legislation on behalf of animals.

Even assuming this is true, it is better in the long run

Ah, but that is not silly. You have have a strange sense of what "silly" entails. I think it more likely your use of silly is an attempt be less insulting. This isn't possible you are either insulting or you aren't making me wonder about the "reality" you are living in.

Better how? Better for who?

 

[armageddonman]

Yeah these PETA folks really chap my ass (pun intended).
But now they have gone waaaaay off of the deep end. Oh no, don’t eat meat. Those canine teeth in your head are by accident. Right.

Unless you suffer from heavy atavism you have no canine teeth in your head.

Simple experiment: try to eat a cow only using your teeth.

 

[armageddonman]

It always astonishes me how aggressive meat-eaters become when disucssing these topics. Do they feel threatened? Can't they discuss the topic without resorting to ridicule and rudeness?

There are a lot more reasons than the well being of animals not to eat meat (or at least to eat very little meat) e.g your own health and the fact that raising animals for human consumption is a gross waste of resources and a major contributor to environmental damage.

 

[armageddonman]

You think all the farmers would just let them graze on their farmland out of the goodness of their hearts? You would see the biggest mass slaughter of animals imaginable. Tens of millions of animals would be bull dozed alive into trenches

1. Millions of animals are bulldozed live into trenches right now due to the bird flue which only spreads because poulrty is being raised for human consumption.
2. Every year billions of animals are used up by the the bioindustry.

Even if your scenario would become true, those animals would not suffer more than they would anyway and no more animals would suffer after them.

 

[armageddonman]

I hate the hypocrisy. In the recent penquin movie the sea lions and vultures are portrayed as cruel. What do you think Penguins eat? They are carnivores too. It's bad to eat "cute" animals but fine to chow down on ugly ones like fish.

Sea lions and penguins can not choose to change their diet.

Humans can. Humans are not carnivores, sea lions and penguins are.

I'm sooooo tired of this argument. When will somebody bring up a good argument in favour of eating meat?

 

[Freakshow]

Humans are not carnivores...

We are omnivores. Not herbivores. Omnivores.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

I'm sooooo tired of this argument. When will somebody bring up a good argument in favour of eating meat?

It's tasty.