What is your excuse for killing animals?

[tsig]

Absolutely. Speciesism is as silly as racism or sexism - it's judging an entity by an irrelevant criterion. Whereas judging an entity on its actual behaviour or intelligence is perfectly relevant.



This is quite ironic, because the problem is that you keep presenting terrible justifications for killing things for food, and then you complain "Waaaah! I gave you five terrible justifications and you rejected them all! Clearly this shows you are childish! A mature person would have accepted at least one of my terrible justifications!".

An adult would go away and come back with a good justification, or change their views. A child complains that the task is too hard and that it should get a gimme for trying.



Okay. Apart from shooting deer, what other concrete actions have you taken in your life to prevent animal suffering from natural events like winter?



Come back when you have some idea of what I have actually said and what philosophy is. Until then you don't merit a response.



Asked and answered, Cain and I have already presented exactly this.



Bollocks. There are mentally disabled humans permanently stuck at a mental level well below that of a smart chimpanzee or Alex the Parrot. Those humans are flat out cleaning up their own bowel movements, let alone organising protest movements.



You're not killing an animal to feed people: try to keep up. Those people would be fed anyway, and fed in a more energy-efficient manner, regardless of whether an animal died. You're killing animals to create a pleasant taste sensation when you put them in your mouth.



I've bolded the idiotic straw man that you persist in posting despite repeated correction on that exact point.



If what benefits society is what defines moral good, then killing off the elderly and the mentally ill as the Nazis did is morally good. As a moral rule that attempt falls at the first hurdle.



Yeah, I think you can see for yourself what you did there. "Prove that anyone has ever had the moral idea than animals deserve moral consideration before - but the arguments you have already posted to that effect don't count!". Sorry, but you don't get to magically exclude every philosopher from Bentham onwards by personal fiat.



I have to say I never really worried about it. If I was stuck on a desert island with nothing to eat but an equally-available supply of lizards and mice then I'd appreciate access to the relevant neurological information to try to take a stab at which I should eat first all else being equal. However since that hasn't happened yet and non-animal food sources which are adequate to human nutritional needs are available it hasn't exactly been at the top of my philosophical to-do list.

What's that got to do with criticising people for presenting arguments for meat-eating which are flat-out stupid, and which a moment's dispassionate critical reflection would reveal to be flat-out stupid?

I like how philosophy leads to a quiet dispassionate discussion.

I guess I'm lower than cows in your eyes since you declare me unworthy of even being answered.

 

[tsig]

First of all, take a little time to formulate a coherent argument. Don't formulate some ridiculous imaginary stance that you believe I have and argue against that. Ever hear of a straw man? Look at that first paragraph.

As for the second paragraph, you're gravely mistaken. My whole point is that we are all killing things when we eat. It's a necessary evil to survive. You are the one who either (a) attributes more value to animal life than vegetable life, and if so, please provide why this is a universal truth, or (b) for some strange reason don't believe vegetation is actually alive? Seriously, what is your logic in stating "You're the one killing things"? Do you actually believe plant life is not alive? Why is animal life more important? Answer this question and stop dancing about it.

So far the only answer I've gotten is "I'm a rational individual and I can read to the end of a sentence". Along with the usual "holier than thou" attitude that all True Believers have.

I predict that you too will soon be beneath his notice.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

No, it's intelligencism and behaviorism and it is just as bad as any other -ism we can make up. If we allow intelligence to be the criteria, then it seems you are one advocating killing the dumb.

Either killing them the way we kill equally dumb animals, or not killing them and not killing equally dumb animals would be consistent.

However I don't see any argument there for why discriminating between entities on irrelevant grounds like species, skin colour or astrological sign is just as good as discriminating between entities on the basis of empirically verifiable mental characteristics. Can you explain that bit to me? It seems that you just asserted that without providing any argument for it.

Of course, you get to be the judge of good and terrible arguements. Wait, that seems like an opinion too.

Hold the front page, but there are things called "logic" and "philosophy" which we use to differentiate good arguments from bad ones.

My hunting license fees go to pay for my state's department of natural resources. They do conservation work all over the state. I pay leasing fees to maintain hundreds of acres of natural habitats for all kinds of wildlife. I even plant food plots in those areas that deer and other wildlife eat all year round. I planted certain flowers and flowering trees around my home that support local hummingbirds. I don't even eat hummingbirds. I'm thinking of installing a bat house on a tall pine in my back yard, but that's probably selfish because I want them to eat bugs.

Professionally, I work to mitigate and prevent pollution of our nations waters. I have devoted my career to engineering cleaner environments for man and beast alike. Much of what I do restores urban and suburban drainage channels to natural streams that provide habitats to a wide variety of wildlife. But that probably doesn't count because I get paid to do that.

Which bit of that relieves animal suffering due to natural events? Don't get me wrong, I've got nothing against any of the activities you just listed. However you were claiming that your motivation for killing deer was not because you enjoyed the act of going out and killing them or enjoyed eating them, but because you were preventing them from suffering due to starvation. If that was genuinely your motivation I would have thought you'd be doing things to reduce the suffering of similar entities, and looking for ways to relieve the suffering of deer other than shooting them. Since you don't list anything like that it seems like my earlier hypothesis was correct and your behaviour is consistent with wanting to kill and eat deer, and not consistent with wanting to prevent suffering.

 

[Manopolus]

If what benefits society is what defines moral good, then killing off the elderly and the mentally ill as the Nazis did is morally good. As a moral rule that attempt falls at the first hurdle.

Yup, it fails all right... because the example you have given isn't beneficial to society, not because my statement was wrong. Sure, it perhaps could help economically and functionally, but it fails in a very basic way. Society is all inclusive... it doesn't make exceptions and attack or exterminate its own membership without sufficient reason. Consider not only that the mentally ill or elderly might object to this policy, but those that care for them might, as well. To consider this morally "right" by my description of morality is patently ridiculous. This type of society immediately invites revolt by its members. Thus, it is dysfunctional.

Yeah, I think you can see for yourself what you did there. "Prove that anyone has ever had the moral idea than animals deserve moral consideration before - but the arguments you have already posted to that effect don't count!". Sorry, but you don't get to magically exclude every philosopher from Bentham onwards by personal fiat.

This is not what I was saying at all, and I think deep down you know it. My challenge was to find an ethic which we all accept which does not functionally serve the purpose of giving society greater cohesion or better function, specifically excluding "animal rights" since we don't all accept those arguments. So far, I haven't seen any. Your earlier attempt involving Nazis fails miserably. Please note that my arguments are consistent with sociology in its description of "social mores." Mores are the basically the same thing as ethics. I see absolutely no difference whatsoever between the two, functionally.

(added) Let me head off your next ojection before you voice it. It might appear at first that your Nazi example fails only becase of a previously held ethic, which would make my criticism circular, but this is not the case. A person could easily hold the Nazi POV on the overall ethic of the practices, and then object only when it applies to them, personally, or to a loved one. The objection does not depend on a previously held ethic, but on an inherant and severe conflict of interest between the individual and the larger society.

 

[cyborg]

I have to say I never really worried about it. If I was stuck on a desert island with nothing to eat but an equally-available supply of lizards and mice then I'd appreciate access to the relevant neurological information to try to take a stab at which I should eat first all else being equal. However since that hasn't happened yet and non-animal food sources which are adequate to human nutritional needs are available it hasn't exactly been at the top of my philosophical to-do list.

What's that got to do with criticising people for presenting arguments for meat-eating which are flat-out stupid, and which a moment's dispassionate critical reflection would reveal to be flat-out stupid?

I don't know Kevin. There seems to be a complete disconnect in your reasoning that cannot be penetrated: choosing different criteria for "very, very similar" changes the shape of the moral system.

 

[cienaños]

My hunting license fees go to pay for my state's department of natural resources. They do conservation work all over the state. I pay leasing fees to maintain hundreds of acres of natural habitats for all kinds of wildlife. I even plant food plots in those areas that deer and other wildlife eat all year round. I planted certain flowers and flowering trees around my home that support local hummingbirds. I don't even eat hummingbirds. I'm thinking of installing a bat house on a tall pine in my back yard, but that's probably selfish because I want them to eat bugs.

Medium well...


No, wait. Well done. The joke, not the - you know.

 

[RenaissanceBiker]

Either killing them the way we kill equally dumb animals, or not killing them and not killing equally dumb animals would be consistent.

However I don't see any argument there for why discriminating between entities on irrelevant grounds like species, skin colour or astrological sign is just as good as discriminating between entities on the basis of empirically verifiable mental characteristics. Can you explain that bit to me? It seems that you just asserted that without providing any argument for it.

We both draw a behavioral line. I didn't say where I draw the line is better than where you do. I said where you draw the line is no better than where I do. I'm not telling you to redraw your line. If you like it there it's fine with me. You are telling me you don't like where I draw my line. I told you why I draw my line where I do, and you said that's not good enough. I don't see that it's my arguement to make.

Hold the front page, but there are things called "logic" and "philosophy" which we use to differentiate good arguments from bad ones.

Then you should consider using it in your arguement against my line placement.

Which bit of that relieves animal suffering due to natural events? Don't get me wrong, I've got nothing against any of the activities you just listed. However you were claiming that your motivation for killing deer was not because you enjoyed the act of going out and killing them or enjoyed eating them, but because you were preventing them from suffering due to starvation. If that was genuinely your motivation I would have thought you'd be doing things to reduce the suffering of similar entities, and looking for ways to relieve the suffering of deer other than shooting them. Since you don't list anything like that it seems like my earlier hypothesis was correct and your behaviour is consistent with wanting to kill and eat deer, and not consistent with wanting to prevent suffering.

It's always either/or with you. I kill deer because I enjoy the hunt. I kill deer because I enjoy eating them. I kill deer to prevent some of them from suffering. I kill deer to reduce property damage they do. This year I will also kill deer because it pisses you off. Can I have more than one reason to hunt deer or must I pick one and disregard the others?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=18394

 

[Drudgewire]

This year I will also kill deer because it pisses you off.

 

[cienaños]

Can someone ask Kevin Lowe to take me off ignore please?

I've submitted an argument that approaches the issue at hand from a different angle - an angle that might put an end to all this confusion and insult hurling.

I have next to no hope this will happen, but I thought I'd ask anyway on the off chance the purpose of this forum might be to share ideas open-mindedly.

Thanks in advance.

 

[RenaissanceBiker]

Can someone ask Kevin Lowe to take me off ignore please?

I've submitted an argument that approaches the issue at hand from a different angle - an angle that might put an end to all this confusion and insult hurling.

I have next to no hope this will happen, but I thought I'd ask anyway on the off chance the purpose of this forum might be to share ideas open-mindedly.

Thanks in advance.

Kevin_Lowe, cienanos would like you to take him off your ignore list because he has "submitted an argument that approaches the issue at hand from a different angle - an angle that might put an end to all this confusion and insult hurling." I doubt it will do that, but he asked nicely.

/hopes cienanos is a "he."

 

[cienaños]

I am a dude, yes. I just have a high-pitched type.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I am a dude, yes. I just have a high-pitched type.

The real question is: are you actually one hundred years old?

 

[cienaños]

The real question is: are you actually one hundred years old?

In planet X years I am eleven months. My beard is graying and I suspect my balls might drop soon.

 

[Morrigan]

In circumstances such as most of us on this thread find ourselves, where a varied, nutritionally-complete vegan diet is as readily available as an omnivorous one

No, it's not. Special effort must be taken to make sure you don't suffer from certain deficiencies.

You don't need to eat meat - that vegans exist and live long, healthy lives is testament to that. So why is killing animals for food not gratuitous, by your criteria?

It's certainly more convenient, so it can't be gratuitous. Torturing a cat serves no purpose whatsoever except to satisfy extreme cruelty (ergo, wanton), which is undesirable for a stable society. Eating animal products is not cruel, since it serves the purpose of convenient nutrition (e.g. without having to resort to complex diet planning). Also, it does serve a purpose of pleasure, but it's not one that relishes in cruelty (unlike torturing pets) ; therefore, it is not a threat to a stable society.

Absolutely. Speciesism is as silly as racism or sexism - it's judging an entity by an irrelevant criterion. Whereas judging an entity on its actual behaviour or intelligence is perfectly relevant.

Says the one who has no problem killing certain types of animals. Oh, but they "probably" don't have consciousness, therefore your line is standing on rock-solid moral foundation: of course, the meat-eater's line is arbitrary, stupid, incoherent, immoral, blah blah blah more insults. Right.

This is quite ironic, because the problem is that you keep presenting terrible justifications for killing things for food

That's your opinion, not a fact.

Bollocks. There are mentally disabled humans permanently stuck at a mental level well below that of a smart chimpanzee or Alex the Parrot. Those humans are flat out cleaning up their own bowel movements, let alone organising protest movements.

Did you mean "are not"?
Are you talking about humans in a persistent vegetative state à la Terri Schiavo? If so, I have no problem euthanising such people. If you are just talking about severely mentally handicapped folks, well, I'm not sure these people are still dumber than a chimp or a parrot; but even if they were, they do have other people standing up for their rights, and killing them would be undesirable for a peaceful and stable society.
The moment one single supersmart cow starts standing up for the rights of her fellow cows (regardless of whether they're dumber than her), we'll start revising the morality of killing cows for food. Deal?

You're not killing an animal to feed people: try to keep up. Those people would be fed anyway, and fed in a more energy-efficient manner, regardless of whether an animal died. You're killing animals to create a pleasant taste sensation when you put them in your mouth.

BS. See above. Besides, what do you have to say about the fact that harvesting grain kills tons of animals?

flat-out stupid

*yawn* More insults.

apart for those slavishly addicted to the habitual taste of flesh

Could you be more over-the-top?
But it's true. Really. We are like slaves to the flesh, helplessly drooling like dogs mental patients at the mere smell stench of sizzling bovine juice, so hooked on it that we must beg for more, MOAR! from our masters.



I wonder, is there ONE single herbivore on this forum who isn't full of holier-than-thou sanctimony? I know not all vegetarians are so self-righteous, so there has to be some here.

 

[Drudgewire]

Could you be more over-the-top? But it's true. Really. We are like slaves to the flesh, helplessly drooling like dogs mental patients at the mere smell stench of sizzling bovine juice, so hooked on it that we must beg for more, MOAR! from our masters.

It's scary how accurately that describes me at a cookout.

 

[JimBenArm]

Really, isn't the real excuse for killing animals is so they won't crawl off the grill?

 

[tsig]

In planet X years I am eleven months. My beard is graying and I suspect my balls might drop soon.

But a day on planet X is as a thousand years so you be very, very old to us.

 

[tsig]

Really, isn't the real excuse for killing animals is so they won't crawl off the grill?

It also makes it easier to get the skin off. A 500 lb steer is quite a handful.

 

[stilicho]

Which as Kevin says is a naturalistic fallacy - that what other animals do isn't relevant to whether or not we should do it. But it is perfectly relevant as to why one shouldn't feel guilty that other organisms die for your survival: that is an inevitability.

Something nebulous about cruelty that isn't fully explained.

Does this apply to draining or spraying of marshes leading to the senseless slaughter of millions billions of mosquitoes too?

 

[stilicho]

I have an excuse.

Animals (other than human) taste better than humans because human meat would not be approved by the FDA because of all the chemical preservitives we feed ourselves.

That is my excuse for eating the animals. It is because they are approved by the FDA and human meat would not be approved.

Oh, yes, one more thing. Animals don't make as much as a comotion and don't threaten legal action when you take them to the slaughterhouse like people do.

They also come conveniently wrapped, labelled, and priced.