John Stossel Goes After PETA Tonight...

[Ducky]

I'm eating beef right now.

I am, of course, dreaming of how evilly they slaughtered the animal and giggling.

Because meat eaters are immoral bastards.

mmmmmmmmmmmm slaughtered meat...

 

[jj]

I'm eating beef right now.

I am, of course, dreaming of how evilly they slaughtered the animal and giggling.

Because meat eaters are immoral bastards.

mmmmmmmmmmmm slaughtered meat...

Well, I did in a plate of poached salmon, etc, tonight. It was also yummy. Then again, how do they kill salmon? Or should we leave them for the bears?

 

[RandFan]

This is an interesting fabrication. I haven't explained anything?

"Fabrication"? As it pertains to this point you haven't. Please to demonstrate that you have.

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?

Assuming we believe your anecdote it demonstrates that humans capable of abusing animals. Assuming mine we know it is capable for humans to raise animals without abusing them.

Would you say these regulations are adequately enforced?

Universally? No. In many parts of the world yes. We are making progress.

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?

So you can take notes from Singer but I can't take notes from Cohen?

As to how you should respond I would hope you would respond substantively and stop with the rhetoric. It's really a waste of your time and does not advance your argument.

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.

I don't read everyone of your posts. I don't have the time. If you have an argument please make it. If you want then quote yourself.

And not only is it simple, it's wrong (see aforementioned post).

More non-argument.

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...?

You need to look closer at that rhetorical remark. No "more", no more than any other philosophy including Kantian and Utilitarian.

{snipped and ignored rhetoric}

The purpose of that comment was that if morality is merely convention...

And I have never claimed that morality is merely convention. {straw man snipped}

That no (known) moral philosophy has been able to resolve all moral conflicts is as meaningless as saying all living animals suffer.

The statement is axiomatic and explains the inherent problems of moral philosophies.

The second sentence doesn't make a great deal of sense.

There were two questions (note question mark) and you failed to answer them.

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).

"Emanates"? Rights are human constructs. We give rights to those are capable of understanding the responsibilities of moral judgment.

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.

I'm sure he is appreciative that someone was impressed with his argument.

 

[Ducky]

It is obviouos that the only way to solve this argument is at dinner.





...over a nice pot roast.

 

[Freakshow]

We interrupt this thread to annoy you, and make your life perfectly miserable...


We now return you to the thread in progress.
(I get a lot of mileage out of that picture.)

 

[jj]

It is obviouos that the only way to solve this argument is at dinner.





...over a nice pot roast.

If you're ever out Seattle way, I can manage that

 

[ImaginalDisc]

It is obviouos that the only way to solve this argument is at dinner.





...over a nice pot roast.

Dude-man, that pot so totaly suffered for that. Unrighteous in the extreme. Sometimes, when I lie awake in my bed, counting the same three spots on my ceiling a whole bunch, I can almost hear the chronic crying.

[/California surfer]

 

[Ducky]

If you're ever out Seattle way, I can manage that

I love Seattle! My sister used to live out there, and if I could find a way to move there I would.

 

[RandFan]

It is obviouos that the only way to solve this argument is at dinner.

...over a nice pot roast.

Pot Roast, Amrica's contribution to world cusine, oh and processed cheese.

 

[Cain]

"Pointed out" does not mean "proven". You have suggested, insinuated, and attempted to not-quite-claim such things, but you haven't really produced a solid claim, let alone evidence.

Once again, go read about "stressed meat". That knowledge in and of itself utterly dismisses, completley and without possible recourse, your market argument.

Heh, no it doesn't. To choose a source at random, consider the book _Reefer Madness_, a collection of essays from the _Atlantic Monthly_ writer Eric Schlossenger. He visits slaughterhouses, though his "angle" is on worker safety. The line to slaughter animals moves so fast that not all of them can be properly stunned. The fact that not all the animals are properly stunned is made up in volume.

For an indepth look see the aforementioned _Slaughterhouse_.

It's fun to see you confidently make an ass out of yourself, though. Instead of substantively engaging the argument you'd rather recite a talking point.

And, a pathetic, and in your case udoubtedly intentionally dishonest, exercise of the excluded middle.

You haven't changed a bit, you're still an arrogant, totalitarian git who can't stand being controverted.[/QUOTE]

Heh, remember how a moment ago you accused me of ad hominem. I shed a little bit of light on the matter. Here you accuse me of the excluded middle for asking a series of questions? Yes, they were very, very dishonest questions that used phrases like "You seem to be implying..."

This is fun. Please continue.

______________________________

Randfan:

"Fabrication"? As it pertains to this point you haven't. Please to demonstrate that you have.

Which point? The one where you said something like species is "factually substantive"? And then contradicted this in a later post where you agreed that an alien species' rights crucially hinges upon on moral agency.

Assuming we believe your anecdote it demonstrates that humans capable of abusing animals. Assuming mine we know it is capable for humans to raise animals without abusing them.

And what a banal exercise that is. However, I thought my anecdote -- perhaps it was lost on you -- contained a larger point: that the people who raised these animals were unaware of their abuse. Some slave owners were surprised -- shocked -- when their slaves began rebelling

Would you say these regulations are adequately enforced?
Universally? No. In many parts of the world yes. We are making progress.

You are aware, I assume, that regulations are much stricter in Europe. JJ may be surprised to learn that the meat industry tends to oppose regulations for some bizarre reason.

This is worth quoting in full:

Cain:
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?
RanFan:
So you can take notes from Singer but I can't take notes from Cohen?

Shall I take from this partial response that you now agree that I generated numerous arguments and you will stop with your fan fiction?

My remark pertains to the earlier comment that I made about the argument being ad hoc. It seems grafted on; last minute; inconsistent with your belief system. When was the first time you read anything by Cohen?

[posturing snipped]

Again this worth quoting in full if only to realize the parts RandFan chooses to selectively disregard:
Cain:
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.
I don't read everyone of your posts. I don't have the time. If you have an argument please make it. If you want then quote yourself.

And not only is it simple, it's wrong (see aforementioned post).

RandFan:
More non-argument.

I'm afraid there's a reference to a series of arguments. I'm glad you could be so straightforward in your intellectual dishonesty, though.

Once again worth quoting in full for context:

Cain:
This is an interesting kind of rhetorical remark [i.e., RandFan's claim that social convention is at work in his philosophy no more than any other]. So if it was convention to torture animals, then that would be OK? And if it was convention to torture traditionally oppressed humans...?

You need to look closer at that rhetorical remark. No "more", no more than any other philosophy including Kantian and Utilitarian.

Quick note on the failure to answer my two questions. Another all-too selective non-response. As for Kantian and Utilitarian philosophies becoming convention, that may or may not be true. In one sense it surely is: both notions of morality have penetrated the public consciousness. However, on a normative level Kantianism is not a matter of social convention, which is precisely why answering the above questions would have clarified matters.

A Kantian could argue that it doesn't matter what most people think -- torturing humans is wrong. This is why I characterized your (apparent) belief system as a kind of clusmsy moral relativism. If that is true, then you cannot possibly generate free-standing arguments against odious behavior.

[another non-comment snipped]

And I have never claimed that morality is merely convention. {straw man snipped} [This alleged straw man involved a straight forward consequence of the views articulated]

Randfan from earlier:

Humans are moral agents. We are offended by unnecessary suffering. Anti-cruelty laws are human constructs to reduce unnecessary suffering because of our ability to empathize.

Shorter Randfan: "Being inconsistent is cool!"

OK, so morality is in some cases social convention, but in others it is not social convention...? Morality is not to be confused with etiquette.

If no one knows you're torturing animals in your basement, then no one will be offended. It's the kind of behavior that will not make anyone "feel bad" or inspire empathy. The question is whether or not it's wrong, and why it's wrong. In other words, you're suggesting that if torturing animals made us feel good, then it would be good to torture animals.

[snip]

The second sentence doesn't make a great deal of sense.
There were two questions (note question mark) and you failed to answer them.

I like it when you try to make a snarky comment and then look like an ass. Reading is fundamental. One answer came directly in your quote. The second I could not answer BECAUSE IT DID NOT MAKE SENSE.

I'll quote my quote yet again:

What laws [the laws against animal cruelty]? Who are you suggesting that I provide this argument to?

.

"Emanates"? Rights are human constructs. We give rights to those are capable of understanding the responsibilities of moral judgment.

*sigh* Which kind of makes me wonder about rights for children, infants, toddlers, the fetus, the mentally handicapped, etc. Again, see the post you've convienently ignored at least twice (the one to Fowlsound).

I'm sure he is appreciative that someone was impressed with his argument.

Yes. In any case, do you have answer. I thought not.

 

[Darat]

Several posts by several people have been reported by several people. Please remember it is appropriate to attack/challenge/dispute the claims (relevant to this section) it is not appropriate to attack the person making those claims. If someone makes a personal attack toward you that does not excuse you if you decide to breach your membership agreement and retaliate in kind.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat

 

[armageddonman]

And talk about "speciesist" (IS there such a word??) - what about FORCING animals to have "rights" when we don't even know if they want them. Did anyone think to get their written permission first? "Rights", it seems to me, is one of those weird human concepts that do not really apply to animals.

This is why the term "animal rights" is incorret. Animal rights are actually human obligations.

 

[mumblethrax]

Cows are sacred in the Hindu religion. It falls under the concept of Ahimsa. You could make a parallell to Orthodox Jews rioting because the "non-dairy" cheese they used on their cheeseburger actually contained dairy. Religious outrage is a bit more strong than moral outrage.

I wonder why you think that matters, given what I was responding to.

The assertion was that only people in well-fed nations protest certain types of food. This is demonstrably untrue.

And I think that Ahimsa follows from a religious tradition does not make the reaction any less an expression of moral outrage.

 

[RandFan]

Which point? The one where you said something like species is "factually substantive"?

Please to show where I said "species is factually substantive"?

And what a banal exercise that is.

It's called falsification.

However, I thought my anecdote -- perhaps it was lost on you -- contained a larger point: that the people who raised these animals were unaware of their abuse.

Then educate them or take their animals away.

Shall I take from this partial response that you now agree that I generated numerous arguments and you will stop with your fan fiction?

I never said that you never make arguments only that your posts are full of invective and rhetoric. You didn't answer my question.

My remark pertains to the earlier comment that I made about the argument being ad hoc. It seems grafted on; last minute; inconsistent with your belief system. When was the first time you read anything by Cohen?

How and why does it seem? What is my belief system?

I'm afraid there's a reference to a series of arguments. I'm glad you could be so straightforward in your intellectual dishonesty, though.

? So, now I have to prove a negative? What "series of arguments"? Why can't you just make your argument to me? So, please note that so far you are straying far afield. Could you make an argument?

Quick note on the failure to answer my two questions. Another all-too selective non-response. As for Kantian and Utilitarian philosophies becoming convention, that may or may not be true. In one sense it surely is: both notions of morality have penetrated the public consciousness. However, on a normative level Kantianism is not a matter of social convention, which is precisely why answering the above questions would have clarified matters.

People can choose to make any philosophy a social convention. I do not make mine so.

Kantian could argue that it doesn't matter what most people think -- torturing humans is wrong. This is why I characterized your (apparent) belief system as a kind of clusmsy moral relativism. If that is true, then you cannot possibly generate free-standing arguments against odious behavior.

The second statement doesn't follow from the first. I don't speak to Kantian philosophy only to state that people can choose to make any philosophy a social convention.

Shorter Randfan: "Being inconsistent is cool!"

Non-sequitur and dishonest. It does not represent my point of view.

OK, so morality is in some cases social convention, but in others it is not social convention...? Morality is not to be confused with etiquette.

No, my point is that humans can be inconsistent and apply morality inconsistent and change moral philosophies. It is certainly possible to consistently follow my moral philosophy but not without a degree of moral conflicts.

If no one knows you're torturing animals in your basement, then no one will be offended.

That would not make it right by my philosophy.

The question is whether or not it's wrong, and why it's wrong.

Yes, and there is nothing axiomatic to determine that it is wright or wrong. There are no absolute morals.

In other words, you're suggesting that if torturing animals made us feel good, then it would be good to torture animals.

If it made ALL of us feel good? Why not? What is right and what is wrong? And spare me the rhetoric. Just answer the question.

I like it when you try to make a snarky comment and then look like an ass. Reading is fundamental. One answer came directly in your quote. The second I could not answer BECAUSE IT DID NOT MAKE SENSE.

How could it NOT make sense? You ask me what argument I would make in a given circumstance. The argument would change based on the audience. So I will ask again, to whom am I making this argument to. It is YOUR hypothetical. So still have not answered the two questions. Assuming the second

*sigh* Which kind of makes me wonder about rights for children, infants, toddlers, the fetus, the mentally handicapped, etc. Again, see the post you've convienently ignored at least twice (the one to Fowlsound).

Again, I've not the time to chase after your arguments. If you want to quote something then fine. We extend those rights to all members of the human species.

Yes. In any case, do you have answer.

Answer to what? I'm not digging through the thread looking for posts. Link it or quote it.

 

[mumblethrax]

If you take a human mother, and a human father, and look at their offspring, the DNA markers in the offspring will match that of the parents. The same is true of a pair of goats. If you test the DNA of one of their kids, the kid's DNA will have markers that match it up to the sire and dam. The goat's DNA will never show that a human was the parent. (And if it did, talk about rights!! Book rights, movie rights...... )

This reduces to the definition of species, so DNA really has little to do with it.

I am not aware of animals that produce human beings as offspring.

However we define 'human beings,' you will face the problem that if we go back far enough in our evolution, we will be confronted with ancestors who are not obviously human (and if we go back even further, with ancestors who are obviously not human). In this sense, at least, there are non-human animals that have produced human beings as offspring.

I feel fully confident that I can tell the difference between a human and a cow, at dusk from across the corral.

I am fully confident that I can tell the difference between baby and an adult in similar circumstances. That I can differentiate between them according to a handful of visual clues does not justify greater consideration of one over the other.

The question here is why you think it's valid to introduce a biological construct (and why this particular biological construct) into a question about morality. What if, as an accident of history, two species of Homo had survived to the present day, and that the other species were incapable of mating with the rest of us and producing fertile offspring? If they were just as 'human' as we were, would we then be justified in enslaving them, using them for food animals, or whatever else it is we might decide to do?

 

[bob_kark]

I wonder why you think that matters, given what I was responding to.

The assertion was that only people in well-fed nations protest certain types of food. This is demonstrably untrue.

And I think that Ahimsa follows from a religious tradition does not make the reaction any less an expression of moral outrage.

Rik was referring to activists. The rioters in India were not objecting to McDonalds using beef products. They're objecting to McDonalds not clarifying that beef fat was used instead of vegetable oil because if they were to consume food cooked in beef fat, they would violate one of the tennants of their religion. Therefore, it is not an ethical objection, it is a religious objection.

 

[mumblethrax]

Rik was referring to activists. The rioters in India were not objecting to McDonalds using beef products. They're objecting to McDonalds not clarifying that beef fat was used instead of vegetable oil because if they were to consume food cooked in beef fat, they would violate one of the tennants of their religion. Therefore, it is not an ethical objection, it is a religious objection.

It's an objection from an ethical tradition that does not exist independent of religion (although the concept of ahimsa does occur in at least several religions). The Hindus (mostly Hindu nationalists) who protested were no less 'activists' than the animal rights activists here are. This is a distinction without difference.

I do realize what rik was insinuating, of course, and it is essentially the same claim Nietzsche made about morality being the exclusive domain of the nobility. It's historically inaccurate.

 

[Mycroft]

Well-fed nations like India, where there were riots after McDonald's acknowledged their french-fries contained beef by-products?

Not eating cow for religious reasons is not the same thing at all.

 

[mumblethrax]

Not eating cow for religious reasons is not the same thing at all.

Religion is the donkey on which we have traditionally pinned the tail of morality. Ahimsa is an ethical tradition closely associated with Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism. Why this should matter for the purpose of identifying who is expressing 'moral outrage,' I have no idea.

Is a scientist who does science because he believe God compels him to not really a scientist? This is a very strange objection.

 

[jj]

Heh, no it doesn't. To choose a source at random, consider the book _Reefer Madness_, a collection of essays from the _Atlantic Monthly_ writer Eric Schlossenger. He visits slaughterhouses, though his "angle" is on worker safety.

You're citing this as an authoritive rerference?

There's no dialog to have here.