Should we allow the eating of dog and cat meat?

[RelativeSpace]

That's not an objective morality though.

Yes, it is. And it's a semantic argument that demonstrates that- that is, that "objective morality" is a justifiable word to use to describe it, and that this concept is the closest to fulfilling the implicit meaning of "objective morality".

A pipe is not a "pipe", because "pipe" has no real meaning- until we attach one by connecting it to a concept. We do that through usage, and a series of estimations for the best fit for what the word seems to imply due to its connection to other concepts.

Both "objective" and "morality" have sets of meanings which correlate strongly with the concept I'm presenting. Moreover, when we cross common usage with forced consistency and logic to yield the objective side of things, it turns out that (through process of elimination- which is a lengthy proof) this is the only concept which actually fits the bill.

All supernatural claims to objective morality ultimately fail to be objective at all- they're usually just relative to the whims of a deity.

See the Euthyphro dilemma to understand how this works.


Again, this is a potentially lengthy and involved semantic argument- one I can make (and have made before, many times).

However, I asked you to just accept it because I'd rather you fully understand the concept before (if ever- because I'd rather not, as I don't like semantics) we go traipsing off in that direction.

If we assime that morality is a real thing that can be measured then its a real thing that can be measured. That's your assertion. You haven't shown it yet.

*Epic facepalm*

It's a concept- it doesn't need to be shown to exist, because by virtue of being a concept it already exists-- as a concept.

If I had, at any time, asserted that it had any more substance than as a concept- THEN- I would need to show that such is valid.

Jumping from showing (tautologically) that a concept exists to the assumption that a substantial entity that concept describes exists in reality is a logical fallacy that is made in apologetics, known as the Ontological argument.

Here I'm making an Ontological argument of sorts- but I stop at the concept itself, and I don't posit that morality exists as any kind of substance or force beyond that. No fallacy.

If apologists stopped at "A god concept exists as a concept, and it's only a concept" they wouldn't be making any kind of logical fallacy in the presentation either.


Do you understand the distinction?



The only thing that needs to be shown is that "morality" is the correct word to use to describe it (or, more aptly, objective morality). That's a tedious semantic argument- I gave you a small crumb of it earlier in this post. The entirety could fill a small book.


Your summary is not precise to my position, but it's close enough that we can (to make this discussion easier) pretend that my position is Utilitarianism.

Point 1 is addressed in length in many books and articles on Utilitarianism that you may read at your leisure.

Point 2 is addressed by cognitive neuroscience- and is a developing field. It's something we can only estimate now based on limited research- but with estimations we can expect to become more accurate over time (deferring to the rate of progress of scientific research on the topic). I have explained the necessary uncertainty (error bars) and provisional nature of this information (being a product of ongoing empirical research).

Point 3 is the most interesting for me to address.

3. That we can logically move from 1 and 2 in order to justifiably legislate correct morality in an objective and rational way.

Justification implies moral justification. Legislating to produce more moral outcomes (given that you will at least accept the appropriateness of using the word 'morality' for the concept at hand) is inherently justified by that morality in accordance with its own standards.

That's like asking if morality approved of morality, or if logic is logical.

Following from that- which it a tautology- and point one; yes, yes we can.


A better question is: Is it socially prudent? What kinds of resources would this cost? Would people accept it?

Would you accept it?


If so, and if you agree with this:

it might be a useful way to think about ethical issues to help us come to some agreement on what rules and regulations we can compromise on accepting for the general benefit of society as a whole

-then the remainder of the disagreement on the matter may be merely semantic.

 

[asydhouse]

You're new here. 90% of his posts are like that, just TM being TM

Hi Dessi, thanx for helping me out there.... I tend to take things a little too seriously sometimes... I suspectd he was just enjoying his provocative language without a real agenda, but several possibilities half-rose in my mind... wasn't willing to engage with them though, and wrote that instead... then sort of worried about what he might say!

Glad to hear I can just move along and leave that now.

By the way, I like what I've seen you doing in this thread, and what you wrote in the one about hallucinogens http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=237123

Nice photo too.... good to get a positive little jolt when a post from you pops up!

Cheers, I'm off to get some sleep, goodnight.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Sorry, that's how they hit me, and I just don't know why you posted it or what you meant by it.

My aim was to expose that people who are overly passionate about meat-eatery, or lack of meat-eatery, tend to lack a sense of humor. I believe I succeeded!

 

[BabyLion]

What's one vote compared to the rest of the crowd drowning out your influence? What does it matter if you do eat or don't eat that pig? Everyone else is eating it, you might as well just not make a stand on your principles/enlightened understanding of the distressing suffering of sentient creatures to satisfy the market demand.... should you ever come to that realisation of their sentience and what it means, you will be already defeated and refuse to stand up and be counted.

Just saying.

Trust that the point you are making is not lost on me. I am aware that as a young adult of 27 years I have allot of maturing and learning to do. This is part of the reason I joined these forums. So far i see a good number of clearly educated people with a huge range of beliefs and thought patterns. For now though i maintain the opinion that my vote wont change an election and choosing not to eat meat will save no animals. Maybe that will change with time but for now this is how i feel.

 

[mike3]

All I've seen are your assertions that your explanations are the right ones because you know what morals are legitimate and what aren't and how we can measure these things with made up numbers with no basis in anything at all.

Your cost benefit analysis is nothing more than a cover for trying to impose your value judgements onto others - and it has to be so because the costs and benefits are each assessed by a value judgement. You failed to show your working in any of the examples given.

You seem to have a real need to cling onto the idea that there is right and wrong and good and evil in the world and reject the idea that 2 perfectly rational human beings can disagree on an issue and/or that even if 2 people agree on something that doesn't mean their judgement is right.

And that in disagreeing, neither of them need be any more or less right than the other.

Someone once said: "when two sides disagree, the truth may not necessarily lie partway between them: it's possible for one side to simply be wrong". It's also true that the issue may be entirely subjective.

And in that case, if someone wants to eat dog and someone else doesn't, then why can't they each be allowed their own?

 

[asydhouse]

My aim was to expose that people who are overly passionate about meat-eatery, or lack of meat-eatery, tend to lack a sense of humor. I believe I succeeded!

I disagree. Your pseudo-poetry had no humour in it. I'm all for wacky humour... I love Monty Python for instance... I am always waxing silly.... so your assertion that you have "exposed" a lack of humour on my part through posting an objectionable sounding rant with no discernible point is simply delusional on your part. You have failed to do anything but suggest that you are an unpleasant-minded person.

And what's "overly passionate" about pointing out that pigs are sentient creatures, and that eating them just because they "taste good" is a rather shallow position for a human to take. Make jokes about the holocaust if you will, but don't expect me to share your sick sense of humour. And don't think you are superior because you are callous enough to simply dismiss my feelings as a lack of a sense of humour. That's doubly offensive.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

Yes, it is. And it's a semantic argument that demonstrates that- that is, that "objective morality" is a justifiable word to use to describe it, and that this concept is the closest to fulfilling the implicit meaning of "objective morality".

A pipe is not a "pipe", because "pipe" has no real meaning- until we attach one by connecting it to a concept. We do that through usage, and a series of estimations for the best fit for what the word seems to imply due to its connection to other concepts.

Both "objective" and "morality" have sets of meanings which correlate strongly with the concept I'm presenting. Moreover, when we cross common usage with forced consistency and logic to yield the objective side of things, it turns out that (through process of elimination- which is a lengthy proof) this is the only concept which actually fits the bill.

All supernatural claims to objective morality ultimately fail to be objective at all- they're usually just relative to the whims of a deity.

See the Euthyphro dilemma to understand how this works.


Again, this is a potentially lengthy and involved semantic argument- one I can make (and have made before, many times).

However, I asked you to just accept it because I'd rather you fully understand the concept before (if ever- because I'd rather not, as I don't like semantics) we go traipsing off in that direction.

*Epic facepalm*

It's a concept- it doesn't need to be shown to exist, because by virtue of being a concept it already exists-- as a concept.

If I had, at any time, asserted that it had any more substance than as a concept- THEN- I would need to show that such is valid.

Jumping from showing (tautologically) that a concept exists to the assumption that a substantial entity that concept describes exists in reality is a logical fallacy that is made in apologetics, known as the Ontological argument.

Here I'm making an Ontological argument of sorts- but I stop at the concept itself, and I don't posit that morality exists as any kind of substance or force beyond that. No fallacy.

If apologists stopped at "A god concept exists as a concept, and it's only a concept" they wouldn't be making any kind of logical fallacy in the presentation either.


Do you understand the distinction?



The only thing that needs to be shown is that "morality" is the correct word to use to describe it (or, more aptly, objective morality). That's a tedious semantic argument- I gave you a small crumb of it earlier in this post. The entirety could fill a small book.


Your summary is not precise to my position, but it's close enough that we can (to make this discussion easier) pretend that my position is Utilitarianism.

Point 1 is addressed in length in many books and articles on Utilitarianism that you may read at your leisure.

Point 2 is addressed by cognitive neuroscience- and is a developing field. It's something we can only estimate now based on limited research- but with estimations we can expect to become more accurate over time (deferring to the rate of progress of scientific research on the topic). I have explained the necessary uncertainty (error bars) and provisional nature of this information (being a product of ongoing empirical research).

Point 3 is the most interesting for me to address.



Justification implies moral justification. Legislating to produce more moral outcomes (given that you will at least accept the appropriateness of using the word 'morality' for the concept at hand) is inherently justified by that morality in accordance with its own standards.

That's like asking if morality approved of morality, or if logic is logical.

Following from that- which it a tautology- and point one; yes, yes we can.


A better question is: Is it socially prudent? What kinds of resources would this cost? Would people accept it?

Would you accept it?


If so, and if you agree with this:



-then the remainder of the disagreement on the matter may be merely semantic.

You're a philosopher right? I don't mean to be insulting but you have the philosopher's way of taking 100 words to say something where 10 would do and still having to refer to the textbook to actually make your argument. It makes it genuinely difficult to respond to your posts as its too much to deal with in one go and still keep a thread of what we are discussing.

Jumping to the end - is a semantic argument? I don't think it simply is. Its like you rushed in claiming to have discovered the secret of alchemy only to produce the science of gold plating and claim the difference is just semantics.

You claimed you had a system of morals based on logic and rationality. What you have shown is a system of evaluation based on assumptions with a veneer of logic connecting the assumptive leaps.

None of this is to say it might not be useful, but its a long long long way away from what you claimed to have. And given the vitriol and vigour of your initial insistence I expected something more...well...impressive.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I disagree. Your pseudo-poetry had no humour in it. I'm all for wacky humour... I love Monty Python for instance... I am always waxing silly.... so your assertion that you have "exposed" a lack of humour on my part through posting an objectionable sounding rant with no discernible point is simply delusional on your part. You have failed to do anything but suggest that you are an unpleasant-minded person.

And what's "overly passionate" about pointing out that pigs are sentient creatures, and that eating them just because they "taste good" is a rather shallow position for a human to take. Make jokes about the holocaust if you will, but don't expect me to share your sick sense of humour. And don't think you are superior because you are callous enough to simply dismiss my feelings as a lack of a sense of humour. That's doubly offensive.

You're still proving my point by arguing with a monkey who posted a ridiculous pseudo-Biblical paean as a god of blood and death and treating that post as if it were a serious argument in favor of being a carnivore. Food is a fundamental human activitiy, possibly the most fundamental of all. Look at how many cultural rites and activities involve food--nearly all of them. What we eat is what we are, and you can't argue people into change, not with rational arguments, however well-crafted. Nor can you bully them emotionally. Or Godwin them into it, thanks for that. If you honestly wish to change what people eat, you are doomed to failure because you are using exactly the wrong methods. You'll only irritate them.

 

[asydhouse]

I'm not actually campaigning on this... or anything really. I have recognised the futility. But spreading information is always good (as long as you know it's real information, of course). I think up until the post before this, I had remained quite unconfrontational on that issue. It was the pointlessness and potentially arrogant brutality of your rant that bothered me.... I had a lot of possible interpretations for your intent rise up and assault me, and I simply wasn't interested in pursuing any of those potential meanings. So yes you got to me.... but I still don't think I've proved anything about a sense of humour. Perhaps it's because I usually take a fairly flippant attitude to life that the occasional issue sucks me in... or maybe it's the other way around, and I tend to take everything seriously, so I have adopted a light-hearted attitude to escape from that?

Neither and both... I'm a human being, and your "poetry" rubbed me up the wrong way...

Still, you are correct that arguing with a monkey is a bit silly.... and in fact it all does seem quite laughable now... but only because you have spoken to me in a voice which "sounds" human, saying reasonable things, so now I can relate to you. So, thanks for the opportunity for me to exercise self-knowledge. I am trying to become less excitable!

PS What do you mean about "Godwin them"?

 

[RelativeSpace]

For now though i maintain the opinion that my vote wont change an election and choosing not to eat meat will save no animals.

That is not an opinion. That is a belief in a false fact. Coupled with some kind of willful ignorance and denial of conflicting information.

The same way, "The Earth is 5,000 years old" is not an opinion. It is a factual claim that is false.

You can't have "opinions" about empirical reality and think they override actual evidence. Around these parts, that's known as "Woo".

If you are actually honest about wanting to grow as a person, that's the first thing you need to learn and address.

You're a philosopher right?

Guilty as charged.

Its like you rushed in claiming to have discovered the secret of alchemy only to produce the science of gold plating and claim the difference is just semantics.

That is a semantic argument. But saying "just" implies that semantics are not important- which are are; very much so.

You could look at the definition of "alchemy", and see if it fits the situation.

Looking at the definition, and the customary application, it turns out the definition of "alchemy" does not fit.

So, it's a bunk claim.

If the definition did fit, it would be a valid claim.


The difference between that, and what I'm suggesting, is the difference between a definition that does not fit, and one that does.

It's also the difference between a very simple definition, with a simple concept, with few logical implications, and one of the most complex concepts that exist in philosophy. So, one is very obvious and transparent, and one takes quite a bit of investigation to examine.

It is easily apparent that "Alchemy" is the wrong word to use in that instance.

It is not easily apparent that "objective morality" is, or isn't, the right word to use in this instance. Like I said, the argument could fill a small book.

What you have shown is a system of evaluation based on assumptions with a veneer of logic connecting the assumptive leaps.

Yes, although it's not a veneer so much as I simply didn't address the source and derivation of those assumptions in detail.

I have only given a brief overview of why those assumptions are valid for the term "objective morality" (they don't come out of thin air- they actually come from that)- or, and I could show, valid for the term "morality" anywhere it is assumed to be coherently and consistently applicable to reality (expanding upon the implications of 'objective'). Due to common usage, that applies to "morality" in general- but I digress.

but its a long long long way away from what you claimed to have.

I beg to differ- it's exactly what I claimed to have (and in actuality, I was very careful about the precise wording of what I said). Of course, that too is part of the semantic argument which I have yet to make here in detail.

And given the vitriol and vigour of your initial insistence I expected something more...well...impressive.

I do have a flair for the dramatic don't I?


A better analogy, which you may be able to relate:


"I just proved beyond a shadow of a doubt the existence of God! Here's the proof!"

...

"Turns out people were wrong for thousands of years. God isn't a physical thing, or even a floaty spiritual energy thing. God is just an idea- a meme."

*underwhelmed*


That's easy to demonstrate. But now the trick there also lies in semantics. It would have to be demonstrated that this meme is a valid fulfillment of the term 'existence' as it applies to "God" given the common and philosophical definitions of God.

Chances are that a usage panel would reject this usage of the definition quickly, and that given the bulk of definitions and usage over time, it would not be logically consistent. Of course God is a meme- but the common definition also implies a real power and existence beyond mere concept; many of them tangible.

I don't think existing as a concept is enough to fulfill the claim "God exists"- but for morality? Existence as a concept is certainly enough.

That's where these two applications differ.

Both sound very exciting and dramatic on the face of it. One turns out to be quite mundane.


Note: I'm not trying to say here that God exists or doesn't; just that I don't think existence as a meme qualifies the claim.

 

[Nihilianth]

Re: chocolate and slavery, see fair trade cocoa thread, basically one long "ha ha only serious" take on how people would talk about child slavery if we approached it with the same rational, compassionate arguments people use against animal rights.

Ok. A link to another thread in JREF. Which had a link to a video about "non-fair-trade" cocoa from Africa. Hershey gets their beans from South America. Not going to boycott Hershey chocolate. (Not really that big a deal, as I eat VERY little chocolate to begin with.)

?

come on! I thought you were good at the sarcasm thing?

Do you remember that scene in Huck Finn where Huck comments about steam boat which blew a cylinder head, Aunt Sally asks:

Aunt Sally: "Good gracious! anybody hurt?"

Huck: "No ma'am. Just a couple of ********."

Aunt Sally: "Well, it's lucky; because sometimes people do get hurt."​

I couldn't agree more, Aunt Sally.

Edited by Locknar: 

Edited, breach of rule 10.

Honestly? I have no idea what you are talking about. I mean, I read Huck Finn for a book report once. But....not sure what it has to do with my statement that animals are not the equal of humans. Plus I see you violated a forum rule, so I guess I should be offended? Or something?

 

[Nihilianth]

And yet you've made a lot of claims based on the science behind nutrition and diet?

I should have said I am not well-versed in the science of dieting. As an athlete doing rigorous training on my own without a highly-specialized dedicated nutritionist, I will not attempt to go vegan.

Even if I did know about that stuff, I still wouldn't. So it is irrelevant to begin with.

 

[angrysoba]

I'm all for wacky humour... I love Monty Python for instance... I am always waxing silly.... so your assertion that you have "exposed" a lack of humour on my part through posting an objectionable sounding rant with no discernible point is simply delusional on your part. You have failed to do anything but suggest that you are an unpleasant-minded person.

Whenever I want to dispel the notion that I am po-faced, overly-earnest or sense-of-humour challenged individual I always whip out my ... wait for it... my "I'm wacky! I love Monty Python for instance" defence.

I too very much like the zany scene in which John Cleese enters a cheese shop and asks for some cheese only for the cheeseshop owner to have no cheese. It is a wacky scenario.

Hoever, occasionally, it has to be conceded, they did go too far with "spring surprise" and "crunchy frog". I found the idea that someone loved animals and that's why he liked to kill them to be an unpleasant non-sequitur. As for the glutton who makes himself pop after over-eating, well, I would like to say that it could perhaps be thought of as poetic justice but comedy it most certainly is not. And don't get me started on the blasphemy in Life of Brian...

 

[Nihilianth]

BS. That's not AT ALL what I described.

TVP should cost you about $1 a day, MAX. If prepared by somebody even half competent at cooking as lazagna, tacos, etc. it's also indestinguishable by most people from pure meat (a lot of people even mix in meat flavour when cooking- which is very common in Mexico).

It kind of is. This person is engaging in staggering intellectual dishonesty to rationalize his factually bunk position. And he is literally appealing to a difference without any logical justification as a moral justification.

Whether he (or anybody) eats meat or not is their business. But the intellectual dishonesty and Woo he's pushing is not acceptable. Dessi is right to call him on it. And she's doing a good job too (hi Dessi).

I sense someone with a lot of anger. I dunno why. This person doesn't even now me, and is making all sorts of assumptions about me, based on....like....two or three posts?

And he doesn't even ask about me. I see a lot of intellectual laziness.

Listen. Dessi started off with practically nothing but sarcasm. I was giving it back. If you can dish it, you should be able to take it.

I dunno what your beef is, but I admitted to not knowing a whole lot about the science behind dieting. You also mentioned this MVP or whatever stuff. The way you described it....freeze-dried food that all you need is hot water, and is full of nutrition....sounded an aweful lot like the stuff I ate up in that stupid mountain. (Stupid mountain! Not doing that ever again. )

Either that, or MRE's.

You could have provided a link ya know, to show what you were talking about. Instead, you resort to strawman arguments, by comparing me to the wierd "woo" ufologists and stuff in a derisive, intellectually dishonest, and mean-spirited way.

And finally: Why in the heck would I admit to doing something "immoral?" You accuse me of being immoral because I eat meat. One man's trash is another man's treasure, ya know. "Morality" is entirely subjective. Which is why we do NOT legislate based on "morals."

And yet here I am facing your ire because I don't share your moral choices. If only we could all be so certain about what is the right thing not only for ourselves but also for everyone else on the planet, what a truly wonderful place it would be.

I am of the STRONG opinion that anyone who even thinks of coming into a forum such as this one, John Stuart Mill's On Liberty should be required reading. You hit the nail on the head.

Hell, if we are going to discuss peddling strawmen and making outright woo claims then let's start with this whopper.

Of course, you must be right so when your argument doesn't convince someone then it must be their fault right? It couldn't be that your argument just isn't convincing?

It may help your argument if you avoided going off on long rambling rants against things that I am not putting forward as my arguments do not stem either from Objectivism or from Rand. If they happen to coincide then it is exactly that - coincidence.

Now if you want to know my opinions on things feel free to ask, if you are just going to assert your moral superiority then we will continue to disagree.

So far your best argument is unconvincing, and your best example is full of holes. Neither of those things is my fault. Nor is the fact that I disagree with your assertions.

I think RelativeSpace's rant about Ayn Rand is an appeal to emotion, rather than objectivity.

Of course nobody in this thread mentioned anything about Rand. Well, except for RelativeSpace. And not just once. Not just twice. But at least a half a dozen times.

 

[Nihilianth]

You're still proving my point by arguing with a monkey who posted a ridiculous pseudo-Biblical paean as a god of blood and death and treating that post as if it were a serious argument in favor of being a carnivore. Food is a fundamental human activitiy, possibly the most fundamental of all. Look at how many cultural rites and activities involve food--nearly all of them. What we eat is what we are, and you can't argue people into change, not with rational arguments, however well-crafted. Nor can you bully them emotionally. Or Godwin them into it, thanks for that. If you honestly wish to change what people eat, you are doomed to failure because you are using exactly the wrong methods. You'll only irritate them.

[/thread]!

Out of all this arguing over the "morality" of eating meat, you just said pretty much the crux of my "appeal to nature" argument that was so conveniently hand-waved away.

I couldn't think of a way to put it. I was thinking of the cultural aspect of foods, but I have not the ability to express what I mean to say more often than not.

(I am Italian. I am an Italian from a large Italian family. I am Italian from a large Italian family that has great recipes. I am an Italian from a large Italian family that has great recipes that are used in the restaurants we own.)

BTW, did I mention I am Italian?

Eating seafood is a large portion of the culture in which I grew up in. When I am told that by eating meat, I am somehow "immoral," is not only irritating, it is downright RUDE. It is wrong.

The appeal to nature, in this case, actually does make sense. Food is so fundamentally intertwined with being human, that trying to make "logical" arguments about the immorality of eating meat is useless, and completely subjective. Not to mention, downright offensive.

OH! And to whoever said that soy-based products are not identical in taste to meat products: You obviously know nothing about food. sure, you may know about the science behind food. But you don;t know about the "food industry."

A rack of roasted lamb-chops, has a particular taste (and TEXTURE) that....quite franly....cannot be replicated by anything other than a rack of roasted lamb-chops. Variety is the spice of life, I like to say. Yum!

 

[Cain]

The animal "rights" crowd has a totalitarian agenda. Next thing you know they're going to stick us into tiny pens and feed us nothing but grain. Food has nothing to do with morality -- unless you're forcibly stopping me from supporting factory farming.

 

[asydhouse]

Whenever I want to dispel the notion that I am po-faced, overly-earnest or sense-of-humour challenged individual I always whip out my ... wait for it... my "I'm wacky! I love Monty Python for instance" defence.

I too very much like the zany scene in which John Cleese enters a cheese shop and asks for some cheese only for the cheeseshop owner to have no cheese. It is a wacky scenario.

Hoever, occasionally, it has to be conceded, they did go too far with "spring surprise" and "crunchy frog". I found the idea that someone loved animals and that's why he liked to kill them to be an unpleasant non-sequitur. As for the glutton who makes himself pop after over-eating, well, I would like to say that it could perhaps be thought of as poetic justice but comedy it most certainly is not. And don't get me started on the blasphemy in Life of Brian...

Oh oh! Now I've made myself a target for ambiguous humourphiles! I was growing suspicious as you waxed about crunchy frog etc, but by the time you had escalated to objecting to the blasphemy in Life of Brian I knew you were attempting to be "having me on", as we say in Britain. More because there is no blasphemy in Life of Brian than because you expressed taking offense at it (although that was a pretty strong clue too).

I admit I'm not good with sarcasm (I grew up in Canada and Vermont, so I had a bemused time adjusting to the caustic aspects of British humour.) It's difficult to recognise (especially in print) when someone is basically pulling a Poe.

So, nice try Angrysoba, but no cigar

Just for the record, I thought the exploding diner was classic Python, and highly amusing. They did something similar in the film Jabberwocky when someone gets chomped by the monster and winds up like a half-crushed bug on the ground with unharmed head emerging from real entrails etc steaming on the ground, waving arms and complaining.... been decades since I saw it, so I may have embellished this image. Highly amusing nonsense.

 

[asydhouse]

The animal "rights" crowd has a totalitarian agenda. Next thing you know they're going to stick us into tiny pens and feed us nothing but grain. Food has nothing to do with morality -- unless you're forcibly stopping me from supporting factory farming.

And here's another one! Such a ridiculous comment has just got to be a Poe.

Unless you are such an extreme Libertarian that you think "morals" are limited to addressing the amount of personal liberty you have. That's quite ironic, as your idea of morality seems to be all flowing towards your benefit at the expense of everything and everyone else.... or such is the implication of your post.

Just to address your suggestion that there is an agenda behind the concept of animal rights: You are right, but you have the wrong agenda. It isn't fascism, it's compassion. Enlightenment of your mind to expand your area of self-interest until it includes the whole of the planetary biome. (Poetic license in expanding the concept of biome to encompass the entire ecosystem of ecosystems that is the planetary machine we depend on.) Wise husbandry. That's all we ask.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Sure. I mean pigs can be cute, clever and stuff but eating them isn't controversial so why not?

[TRAVOLTA] Because bacon tastes good, pork chops taste good [/TRAVOLTA]

 

[asydhouse]

[TRAVOLTA] Because bacon tastes good, pork chops taste good [/TRAVOLTA]

You're quoting a Scientologist?!

Must be more of this unfunny sarcasm thing. Just to save everyone the dust, I'm losing interest in this, so I won't bother responding to such anymore. Much more entertaining and educational to let RelativeSpace continue making his argument. He seems to be making sense to me.