I see you have elected to flood the board with vacuous one-word or one sentence replies fused with embarrasing theatrics.
#define SING_LIKE_NEIL_YOUNG
Dont' bring me down,
It's only straw men burnin'
#undef SING_LIKE_NEIL_YOUNG
You know, given this kind of diatribe, the kind that presumes so much about the other side, it's really hard to communicate. One wonders if it's worth it.
However, you might as well be a useful idiot. Let's start at the top:
You request evidence for farming abuses? If you're genuinely serious about the issue then you might be interested in reading Matthew Scully's book _Dominion_. He's not a typical animal rights activist by any means. He's a Christian conservative (and in fact a former editor for _The National Review_). In terms of slaughterhouses and "distressed meat", see Gail Eisnitz's book _Slaughterhouse_.
As I've pointed out in umpteen previous threads there's a prima facie case against how the market would treat animals for one rather simple reason: animal welfare is subject to the profit considerations of cost-benefit calculus; their well-being is instrumental, not final. When transporting pigs to slaughter, for example, it might more worthwhile to overcrowd and risk death for a few, then to finance more humane accomodations. The comparison to slavery is again quite apropos.
Good thing you never pass out the ad-homs, eh?
Here again we have my two favorite accusations, neither of them on the mark (or anywhere) First there's the oblique reference to a straw man (in the lyrics above). Of course, in that instance (my quote) I was making an observation that still seems lost on the stubbornly stupid. Then we get the rather standard invocation of "ad hominem". Unfortunately, an ad hominem, as I constantly remind you imbeciles, is a personal in attack in the absence of an argument. That you cannot be bothered to engage the argument is as invigorating as it is wearisome. OK, in the long run perhaps it is a bit more wearisome.
So, then, you support the idea that domesticated meat animals should be extinct? That's what you're implying when you say "domesticated animals do not need to suffer". Anything that lives, suffers.
Your second case was substantially missing.
It's difficult to know if you're being serious; after all, you have a history of saying such colossally stupid things. Here you seem to be implying that since anything that lives suffers, this particular suffering (regardless of scale, apparently), is not relevant...? Is that right? So then do you disagree with the idea of "putting an animal out of its misery" as a moral position?
In addition to several other assorted mischaracteriziations I think you compared me to an "Ion". I don't know who that is, so I can't comment. I'm also not going to bother saying anything about you accusing me of moralizing.
Finally, may I suggest you put a sticker on your forehead that says "substantially missing"? I would like to see that kind of refreshing honesty once and awhile.
JJ, I don't mind if you decide to send more unsolicited praise to my private message box
Let's return to RandFan:
Originally Posted by Cain View Original:
As it so happens those "facts" -- if that's what we want to pretend to call them for a moment -- are highly questionable.
RandFan:
You see, all you have done is declared why I have only made claims and you haven't explained anything.
This is an interesting fabrication. I haven't explained anything? Or do you mean I haven't gone down the garden path of explaining what is irrelevant? Do you issue form replies? This always seem to be the same generic mess.
Some do, some don't. I grew up on a farm and my own anecdotal evidence suggests that the vast majority of our animals lived largely free of stress. The roamed freely, had plenty of food and water and were treated for any illness.
It sounds like an idyllic paradise. Even if I did trust your judgement -- which I don't -- a rather large portion of the animals we eat today are raised on factory farms. As far as my own anecdotal evidence goes, I stayed on a family farm briefly (friends of my father), long before my vegan days. I rather distinctly remember the children abusing the animals. When I expressed concern they said the animals really don't mind. Since I'm from the suburbs I had to rely on their expert judgement. Note to self: Why am I not surprised RandFan was raised on a farm?
Because laws, regulations and the interests of the farmer often work to the best interest of the animal. Not always and there are unquestionably some horror stories.
Would you say these regulations are adequately enforced?
Why not, that is pretty much all you have done. I see litte argument in your posts. They are simply filled with invective and superfluous nonsense. You state I'm wrong and make claims without explaining anything.
I see we've fallen on redundancy, and the standby non-argument argument in your bag of non-argument tricks. How should I respond to this? By reciting everything above and herein? Argument from marginal cases, rebuttal to the notes you cribbed from Professor Cohen, the incoherence of speciesism... shall I continue on?
Real simple answer. If they are capable of making moral judgments and comprehending moral duty then they should have rights. We should be granted rights because we are capable of making moral judgments and comprehending moral duty.
Using moral agency as the standard encounters all of the problems I cited in response to an earlier poster, I think his name was fowlsound. In any case it's right up there. It does indeed contain these things called arguments.
See, it really is quite simple.
And not only is it simple, it's wrong (see aforementioned post).
So you're saying that it's just a convention?
No more than any other philosophy?
This is an interesting kind of rhetorical remark. So if it was convention to torture animals, then that would be OK? And if it was convention to torture traditionally oppressed humans...?
What about the people who contend that this human empathy is misplaced.
What about them?
1.) Logical reasoning is not an absolute law which governs the universe (Logic and Fallacies).
2.) Logic is not a set of rules which govern human behavior. Humans may have logically conflicting goals (Logic and Fallacies).
3) No moral philosophy can resolve all moral conflicts.
This is without question your very best non-reply reply. It's almost virtuosic. I need not say that you're missing the point.
The purpose of that comment was that if morality is merely convention (with evolving standards), then you're not in much of a position to condemn the person who tortures cats in his basement. Your stance easily breaks down into a clumsy kind of moral relativism.
That no (known) moral philosophy has been able to resolve all moral conflicts is as meaningless as saying all living animals suffer.
It's an unthinking warm-fuzzy.
This is just rhetoric.
You see, when you balkanize my posts -- remove a sentence from context -- two things happen. 1) You miss the meaning. 2) My replies are exacerbated by your poorly structured non-responses.
Mental masturbation. Great for philosophical discussion but it won't resolve the issues of whether or not animals are moral agents or are entitled to rights.
What laws [the laws against animal cruelty)? Who are you suggesting that I provide this argument to?
The second sentence doesn't make a great deal of sense.
To the people (whoever and however many they might be) who decide that eating meat imposes unnecessary suffering I would say they have that right. I would say to those who live in a democracy that they have the right to seek to change the laws so that society will conform to their way of living. Should society change and prohibit the consumption of meat I would likely follow the law. I would argue that eating meat does not need to impose any significant suffering. Of course, what is significant and what is necessary is in the eye of the beholder. Some believe that the mere fact that humans exist causes needless suffering because of the impact of humans on our environment.
Well, thank you for that cogent answer (seriously).
Unfortunately you never really got to the meat of the matter. That is, how exactly the moral agency of some humans emanates rights to other humans (but not other animals). I thought mumblethrax had a devastating reply in this regard. I was thinking along the lines of his(?) clever response but could not for some reason articulate the absurdity. I now resent him for posting it first.
The philosopher that RandFan cited above, Carl Cohen, argues that all humans have rights because some humans have moral agency, and all humans are of the same kind. Leaving aside definitions here and assuming this is valid, can't I say then that some animals have moral agency, and therefore all animals have rights? We can use this method to identify any number of categories into which people fit, and then claim that all such things have rights.
)
