What is your excuse for killing animals?

[Kevin_Lowe]

My post:

"Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe
Sorry, it's still word salad to me."

tsig
By your own standards that's entirely your fault."

I posted this answer because upthread KL said it wasn't his fault if he was misunderstood.

Maybe a subtle parody? or a miscommunication?

Well hell Tsig, if you understand what point he's trying to make then explain it to the rest of us.

 

[BenBurch]

If you had addressed my point I wouldn't have asked again.

Now, to extend, say we have 500 head of cattle cattle who are raised on a range, and that range is not tilled or mowed in any way.

At the end we slaughter the cattle. and there are 500 animals killed to feed one meal to each of one million people.

We instead farm 120 acres of corn, providing one meal to each of one million people. in the process of doing that 200 baby bunnies, 100 moles, 60 snakes, and about a million earthworms are killed.

So about a million more deaths for cultivating that corn.

Which is less ethical?

 

[David Henson]

This has got to be the biggest waste of bandwidth ever. A monument to your petty ********. That is the argument, not the thinker.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

If you had addressed my point I wouldn't have asked again.

Now, to extend, say we have 500 head of cattle cattle who are raised on a range, and that range is not tilled or mowed in any way.

At the end we slaughter the cattle. and there are 500 animals killed to feed one meal to each of one million people.

We instead farm 120 acres of corn, providing one meal to each of one million people. in the process of doing that 200 baby bunnies, 100 moles, 60 snakes, and about a million earthworms are killed.

So about a million more deaths for cultivating that corn.

Which is less ethical?

This is really quite tiresome. If you don't start making posts that demonstrate you've read and understood the thread thus far, I'm going to cease replying to you.

Since invertebrates don't count for much in my view, as I've already discussed in detail, in the scenario you present growing corn is still preferable.

However if we ever got to the stage where your scenario was approaching reality we would already have come a very, very long way. A more realistic scenario would be choosing between killing the bunnies and the moles and eating the grain, or killing the bunnies and the moles to provide a million meals to cows, which then are killed to provide ten thousand meals to people who are already obese.

If the choice between range-farming cattle and farming corn is where you think the moral debate gets interesting, then we're on the same side as far as factory farming is concerned, so we're on the same side politically for the foreseeable future.

If not, you're just another troll trying to pick irrelevant fights at the borders of the vegetarian position, to distract attention from the problems in the heartland of the carnivorous position.

 

[stilicho]

It seems much more likely that your nutritional choices involve putting bacon in your shopping trolley, or pushing it to the next aisle over to put tofu in it.

Or putting both in the trolley. Why hasn't it occurred to you that people make rational choices about their diets (where it's possible) on the basis of simple preference? And that these foods are produced through rational economic choices?

You might be more interested in why we eat the meat of cattle rather than horses, or pig meat rather than rat meat. We kill each of these animals for various reasons but we don't eat all of them. You're reducing the OP to a question of taste and wrapping that up in a banner of morality. You've even specifically excluded the killing of certain animals because it doesn't fit your personal opinions.

I want to know what your excuse is for omitting some animals from your moral code. (Hint: Because it isn't really a moral code at all.)

 

[cienaños]

*snipple*

Since invertebrates don't count for much in my view, as I've already discussed in detail, in the scenario you present growing corn is still preferable.

You can experience "in my view" and find things "preferable" because you are self-aware. Animals are not self-aware. Plants are not self-aware. No self-aware, no morality. Where's the confusion?

It is your preference to feel empathy for certain mammals cause you find them similar to you. Also living? Plants. Here, it is your preference to not feel the same empathy. Why is this? This question has been posed to you 57 times and has gone evaded and unanswered. I suspect it will go as such - again.

Nature in and of itself does not posses the human invention called morality. In nature there is only survival without introspection. Again, animals are not self-aware. Please provide evidence that suggests otherwise. Until then, all you are offering are your opinions, backed by nothing other than emotion.

from wiki:
Jaynes draws a sharp distinction between consciousness ('introspectable mind-space') and other mental processes such as cognition, learning, and sense and perception — which occur in all animals. This distinction is frequently not recognized by those offering critiques of Jaynes' theory.

This is critical for you to understand.

 

[Trent Wray]

from wiki:
Jaynes draws a sharp distinction between consciousness ('introspectable mind-space') and other mental processes such as cognition, learning, and sense and perception — which occur in all animals. This distinction is frequently not recognized by those offering critiques of Jaynes' theory.

This is critical for you to understand.

Look at you still goin' at it! I'm headed to the biblioteca on the morrow to find some good reading on the bicameral mind

 

[BenBurch]

No, I am saying, Kevin, that any idiot who thinks that some animal lives matter more than other animal lives has no basis for saying that that bears scrutiny.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

No, I am saying, Kevin, that any idiot who thinks that some animal lives matter more than other animal lives has no basis for saying that that bears scrutiny.

You really think Alex the Parrot or a dolphin does not matter more than an earthworm or a cockroach? We're just going to have to agree to differ then, since I disagree with your position and see no prospect of changing your position using reason.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

You can experience "in my view" and find things "preferable" because you are self-aware. Animals are not self-aware.

Well, I understood that bit at least. What's your evidence for the claim that animals are not self-aware?

 

[Meed]

No, I am saying, Kevin, that any idiot who thinks that some animal lives matter more than other animal lives has no basis for saying that that bears scrutiny.

As was pointed out, even if you conclude that all animal lives matter equally (which I doubt you'd really believe if you scrutinized your own position), if farming crops is to be considered bad then farming animals must be considered worse because it requires farming even more crops for the same amount of food.

 

[Morrigan]

You really think Alex the Parrot or a dolphin does not matter more than an earthworm or a cockroach?

They do. And a cow matters less than a dolphin or a chimp. Geez, that was easy.

 

[BenBurch]

As was pointed out, even if you conclude that all animal lives matter equally (which I doubt you'd really believe if you scrutinized your own position), if farming crops is to be considered bad then farming animals must be considered worse because it requires farming even more crops for the same amount of food.

Only if you run a feedlot, not a range.

 

[bruto]

Well, I understood that bit at least. What's your evidence for the claim that animals are not self-aware?

What is the evidence for your claim that worms don't count for much? Is the suffering of a worm on a hook less because it lacks the consciousness to put it in context or to articulate it? Might we not consider that insofar as it lacks these things its suffering is greater, since that suffering is all it has?

Every argument you present here seems to come back down to interpretation, assumption and the drawing of arbitrary distinctions. Even if your interpretation is correct, your assumptions dead on and your distinctions brilliant, you're still doing it while suggesting that those who do it a little differently are the utterest of fools.

You may think it's morally vacuous to eat a chicken sandwich and then spend ten minutes trying to shunt a wasp out the door, but I think if you concentrate only on the boundaries rather than the qualities of actions you will miss what it really means to be humane.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

The other day a mosquito was resting on my arm, sucking up my blood, so I killed him.

Is that an acceptable excuse, oh Grand Master, Speaker of the Rights of Mother Nature?

Oh wait... insects don't count? *Phew*! I'll be back. Gotta kill some more pests.

 

[cyborg]

Lizards don't either so either so I'm sure the many people who eat them across the world will be happy to know that.

 

[Cain]

And you provided me with absolutely nothing that suggests it is terrible other than ridicule.

Nothing, really? What about the fact it's a false dichotomy?

And exactly what else would we do with the creatures if we don't eat them? Should we simply continue to feed thim with no expectation of a return on such a huge investment? This would not be economically possible.

Perhaps this is the "practical question" you posed earlier...? Even though it's common to these threads, I'm almost always astonished when someone brings this up, which explains why I mocked it earlier (referenced Kevin above because you apparently had to ask him as well).

Call me pessimistic but I don't think veganism will ever become an overnight sensation. If you have a modicum of faith in a market system, then you should expect consumers to send signals to producers, eventually drawing down the number of animals raised for food. Now, maybe in Fantasy World everyone does suddenly become vegan, but we're dealing with practical questions, right? Right.

It actually wasn't a huge part of my argument, anyway. I was mostly saying that if the avoidance of pain is a reason not to eat animals... it doesn't add up. The amount of pain/suffering/discomfort/whatever that animals experience on the farm is not greater than the alternatives.

I like how you disown the argument and then immediately repeat it. Yes... something doesn't add up. It's also curious how meat-eaters use amoral nature as a baseline, and then congratulate themselves for furnishing improved conditions. "Nature's a cold-hearted bitch, and we're better than Her." Well then, this calls for TWO ****in' parades!

 

[tsig]

They do. And a cow matters less than a dolphin or a chimp. Geez, that was easy.

Well KL has convinced me that some cows are more aware than most vegans.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IJBbtkBMMs

 

[154]

Last night, it was pork chops.

 

[cienaños]

Well, I understood that bit at least. What's your evidence for the claim that animals are not self-aware?

How about we take turns? I'll go first. Here's one piece of evidence that supports the position animals are not self-aware.

(Keeping in mind that we've established "self-aware" precludes "morality.")

Hominid Dietary Selection Before Fire by Ann Brower Stahl :

Control of fire was apparently acquired rather late in the course of hominid evolution. It is therefore necessary, in the study of dietary selection by early hominids, to consider the range of plants that would have proven inedible without cooking. Some plants contain toxins or digestibility-reducing compounds, and some plant constituents are indigestible. Cooking mitigates the impact of toxins and renders complex carbohydrates more digestible. Plant foods high in cellulose and/or starch are not readily digestible uncooked, and these constituents reduce the digestibility of other nutrients. Since nutrient intake is limited by the amount of food that can be processed per unit time, non-fire-using hominids should have attempted to increase nutrient intake by minimizing intake of these carbohydrates. Unlike animal sources of protein, plant materials generally lack a full complement of amino acids, and a variety of such materials must be ingested to obtain a balance of essential amino acids. Leaves and legumes, both possible sources of essential amino acids, may be ruled out as major suppliers of them for non-fire-using hominids-leaves because of their cellulose content and legumes because of their high frequency of toxic compounds. The limitations on the availability of plant protein strengthen the inference that some animal protein was ingested by early hominids on a regular basis. A ranking of plant parts as potential foodstuffs for non-fire-using hominids is proposed. When considered in conjunction with ecological factors, such a ranking should be helpful in generating models of hominid dietary selection before fire.

This behavior, is it moral-based, or survival-based?

What's your evidence for the claim that animals are self-aware?