Continued: (Ed) Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[Meed]

Saying that it's brutal and cruel, so he's stopped.
That suggests that those still indulging in that behaviour are...

Saying "something's cruel so I stopped" is not the same as saying "I am morally superior", nor does it even strongly imply it. It might imply superiority with respect to one of many types of behavior (e.g. I could proclaim that I think lying is bad and be more honest than most other people while at the same time robbing houses). But so what?

What you're suggesting (the implication of which seems to be that no one should express moral opinions for fear of hurting someone's feelings) is crazy.

 

[Brainache]

I think I'll just let this post stand on its own merits.

I think that's probably best. We don't want to get in trouble for personalising the argument, do we?

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

The call of veganism summons me!

Lot of problems from such a small post. First of all relying on reactions of distaste is poor judgment. I would be disgusted by pictures of war or surgery. Does that make those immoral?

The way science can be involved is if you had the value that, say, environmental damage was immoral. Scientifically we can study the effects of animal use on the environment. If we find damage, it links to our earlier value and we can call it immoral. Science can also be used to debunk myths like "you need to eat meat to be healthy" or "vegan diets are too expensive".

It looks like he is reacting to "holier than thou" and "its too expensive you privileged bastard" complaints in the comments.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Looks like PZ has decided that types of food are immoral.

2013
I’m cured, no more meat

Ethics, Personal

by PZ Myers

My wife is a vegetarian, and I’ve mostly cut meat out of my diet, too — I’ll indulge a bit when I travel, but that’s about it. But I’m done now. It makes no sense: it’s not sustainable or economical, but worse, it’s brutal and cruel. Rolling Stone has just published a remarkable expose of Big Meat, the factory farms that abuse animals.

I made the mistake of watching the videos, too. Fortunately, my dinner had been vegetarian already, or I might have lost it. So be warned.


http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/


I wonder if he'll discover the wonders of a "cleansing" diet next.

I'm sure that as a scientist he'll have the scientific justification for declaring eating meat immoral.

The commenters cannot gush enough.

ETA: Maybe his wife told him "vegetarianism or celibacy".

As an interesting note, apparently the followers were in the lead on this. Or it may be a new SJ trend with the plussers and they're getting ready to go all PETA on us. There's a thread on the A+ forums from before PZers blog post and we have Protein Pal actually sounding reasonable in it. How different from, what was it - a year ago? When they rode (I think it was) Tsukasa B out of town on a rail. We even have "Don't Erase Me" sounding almost thoughtful in that thread.

And apparently Greta had a month-long try-out and is now thinking about whether she can still qualify fish (or maybe just shellfish) as vegan or at least "not meat". That was about a month ago, and I wonder what Cephalopod Guy would think about her giving higher intelligence to a chicken over an octopus. I'd personally take the octopus and bet the over in a one-on-one IQ test.

 

[recursive prophet]

Something wrong with the software or my laptop? Anyone else having poblems using the quote or reply features? Probably just me.

One positive thing I can attribute to A+ is the stimulating discussion it has engendered here. Kudo's to all for an interesting read. And that definitely includes you, Quints, even though you are a far better spokesman for A+ than they deserve.

Impressed by some of your replies on the cart thread I started there way back, I decided to find out more about you. You looked like a bright young guy, and you are, so sometimes you can judge a book by it's cover.

For a great read on the issue of race and the history of this outdated concept, I highly recommend Milford Wolpoff's Race and Human Evolution.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

For a great read on the issue of race and the history of this outdated concept, I highly recommend Milford Wolpoff's Race and Human Evolution.

This might be more suited to Vortigen's thread in "Social Issues". I'm sure he'd appreciate some support for his position.

 

[Dissolution]

Saying "something's cruel so I stopped" is not the same as saying "I am morally superior", nor does it even strongly imply it. It might imply superiority with respect to one of many types of behavior (e.g. I could proclaim that I think lying is bad and be more honest than most other people while at the same time robbing houses). But so what?

What you're suggesting (the implication of which seems to be that no one should express moral opinions for fear of hurting someone's feelings) is crazy.

You might be right if that was the only area of morality which PZ Myers has touched upon, but I think that we all know that isn't the case.
Saying that he's cured clearly implies that there's something wrong with meat eaters, too.

I don't care if people say things which hurt other people's feelings, by the way.
If somebody believes that that they're acting in a morally superior fashion to others and they can justify that in a logical fashion, then by all means they should go ahead and do so.
If it influences people to think about their choices, then that's fine, isn't it?
Just don't moan if people call you on it.

 

[Meed]

You might be right if that was the only area of morality which PZ Myers has touched upon, but I think that we all know that isn't the case.
Saying that he's cured clearly implies that there's something wrong with meat eaters, too.

I took it as a pun. But even if it implies that, so? When we promote ideas, we are almost always implying that there's something wrong with the alternative. Whether we are promoting skepticism in general, arguing against circumcision for girls and/or boys, advocating for condom distribution in Africa, or whatever it may be.

I don't care if people say things which hurt other people's feelings, by the way.
If somebody believes that that they're acting in a morally superior fashion to others and they can justify that in a logical fashion, then by all means they should go ahead and do so.
If it influences people to think about their choices, then that's fine, isn't it?
Just don't moan if people call you on it.

If it's fine then why would one be "called on it"?

 

[Dissolution]

I took it as a pun. But even if it implies that, so? When we promote ideas, we are almost always implying that there's something wrong with the alternative. Whether we are promoting skepticism in general, arguing against circumcision for girls and/or boys, advocating for condom distribution in Africa, or whatever it may be.

Pretty sure I answered that with the next part that you quoted.

If it's fine then why would one be "called on it"?

Because some people won't agree with you and they'll point that out.
Myers chose to then pretend that he hadn't made any sort of moral statement or judgement and went on the defensive, rather unsurprisingly.

 

[tsig]

Pretty sure I answered that with the next part that you quoted.



Because some people won't agree with you and they'll point that out.
Myers chose to then pretend that he hadn't made any sort of moral statement or judgement and went on the defensive, rather unsurprisingly.

Which points up his most aggravating trait, his presumption that he's not only right but that all who disagree are not only wrong but somehow morally inferior.

.

 

[Meed]

Because some people won't agree with you and they'll point that out.

I haven't objected to anyone saying "I disagree with PZ's opinion because _____" or "PZ is wrong because _______" or "PZ's reasoning is bad because _____".

The sentiments I've dismissed as crazy are "PZ shouldn't express that opinion" or "PZ is pompous/arrogant for expressing that opinion". The implication of these types of reactions is that people should not express moral opinions. That is a very harmful message and one I'm skeptical that people would actually express when confronted with moral opinions that they agree with.

Which points up his most aggravating trait, his presumption that he's not only right but that all who disagree are not only wrong but somehow morally inferior.

I don't understand what you're basing this on(?)

 

[tsig]

I haven't objected to anyone saying "I disagree with PZ's opinion because _____" or "PZ is wrong because _______" or "PZ's reasoning is bad because _____".

The sentiments I've dismissed as crazy are "PZ shouldn't express that opinion" or "PZ is pompous/arrogant for expressing that opinion". The implication of these types of reactions is that people should not express moral opinions. That is a very harmful message and one I'm skeptical that people would actually express when confronted with moral opinions that they agree with.



I don't understand what you're basing this on(?)

Five years of reading Pharyngula.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Found an interesting blog amongst the comments that is linked back to A+. Researching...

 

[Edx]

So PZ the grey has become PZ the White?

PZ, the devil incarnate, suddenly becomes the voice of sweet reason when he says something you agree with.

I wonder if this is an insight into how you see the world. ie. literally black and white.

 

[Dissolution]

I haven't objected to anyone saying "I disagree with PZ's opinion because _____" or "PZ is wrong because _______" or "PZ's reasoning is bad because _____".

The sentiments I've dismissed as crazy are "PZ shouldn't express that opinion" or "PZ is pompous/arrogant for expressing that opinion". The implication of these types of reactions is that people should not express moral opinions. That is a very harmful message and one I'm skeptical that people would actually express when confronted with moral opinions that they agree with.

Nobody has said that he shouldn't voice his opinion.
The only person that's suggesting that people shouldn't say what they've been saying is you, in fact.
You're reading things into comments that simply aren't there.

 

[Meed]

Nobody has said that he shouldn't voice his opinion.

At least one person has implied that he shouldn't have expressed that opinion on his blog. But now if you'll look at the full sentence of what you're responding to, what I said was: "The sentiments I've dismissed as crazy are "PZ shouldn't express that opinion" or "PZ is pompous/arrogant for expressing that opinion"."

(bolding added)

The idea that expressing moral opinions makes one arrogant or pompous or that expressing moral opinions is the same as proclaiming oneself to be morally superior to others is extremely wrongheaded. Yes, people have been saying this. And like I've said I'm highly skeptical anyone who says this would actually react the same way when confronted with someone expressing a moral opinion that they happen to agree with.

The only person that's suggesting that people shouldn't say what they've been saying is you, in fact.

I haven't been doing this to my knowledge. I've been suggesting that some of the things people have been writing, through strong implication or otherwise, are (in my mind) very obviously incorrect (e.g. that one shouldn't state moral opinions without scientific evidence, that expressing a moral opinion is akin to proclaiming oneself to be superior, that expressing moral opinions is arrogant/conceited/insensitive, that one should appraise the writings of others based on who they are rather than on the actual merits of the content...).

 

[MarkCorrigan]

I wonder if this is an insight into how you see the world. ie. literally black and white.

It's a Lord of the Rings comment, not a treatise on how tsig thinks the world is run. You really do just look for things to jump on people for don't you? It's like a mirror image of A+.



As for the PZ not eating meat thing, I don't get it. I can understand (although I disagree with) those who claim all meat production and killing for food is immoral. I understand those who say they do not like the taste of meat, or do not wish to eat it for personal dietary reasons. I even understand people who don't eat it for religious reasons, odd as those seem to me.

What I can't understand is this bizarre exclusion of the middle.

"Factory farms are evil!"

"Well, I'm not a fan either that's-"

"So now I don't eat meat!"

"Well, ok but what about NON factory farms? The ones that rear their livestock well, slaughter them humanely and aren't just out to make a buck without considering the welfare of the animal?"

"Those aren't evil."

"So why are you swearing off all meat?"

"Factory farms are evil!"



As someone who now works as a plucker for a local medium sized ethical farm, I have no qualms about what I do or what they do. The 600 odd turkeys we're killing plucking and dressing have been cared for, fed properly, received veterinary care, are properly free range, not just a slightly bigger cage, aren't pumped full of growth hormones or force fed, and they are stunned before killing. There is a great variation in the size of the birds I've been dealing with, rather than having any kind of imposed uniformity either so they are pretty naturally reared.

A lot of the meat from them or the whole birds themselves are sold through the farm shop, or through the farmers market stalls they regularly go to. The rest seems to be traded between local farms for them to sell and in return the farm I work for purchases products like cheese, or home made pies and the like to sell on.

I can't think of a way that the farm could be more humane in its practices, and since we buy a lot of our meat from them, or other local companies like them, I'm fine continuing to eat meat.

 

[qwints]

I enjoyed this debate on the issue. It starts from the premise that factory farms are evil, and (mostly) sticks to debating consuming ethically raised meat animals. Biggest problem is the main points hinge on studies whose validity isn't adequately discussed.

 

[tsig]

I wonder if this is an insight into how you see the world. ie. literally black and white.

If you can determine how I see the world by reading one post on the internet you're wasting your time posting here, the world awaits.

 

[Meed]

What I can't understand is this bizarre exclusion of the middle.

"Factory farms are evil!"

"Well, I'm not a fan either that's-"

"So now I don't eat meat!"

"Well, ok but what about NON factory farms? The ones that rear their livestock well, slaughter them humanely and aren't just out to make a buck without considering the welfare of the animal?"

"Those aren't evil."

"So why are you swearing off all meat?"

"Factory farms are evil!"

Is this a conversation that's actually ever happened?

If one only objects to factory farms then one could try to continue eating meat but simply try to avoid factory farm sourced meat, I agree. But in most situations this would mean not eating meat as a dinner guest, not eating meat at restaurants and not buying meat from stores unless one knows exactly where it came from. I can see why one might consider it simpler to just go vegetarian.

There are others who object to both factory farm and non-factory farm sourced meat. Many people who feel this way would agree that factory farms are worse than other types of animal farming, but still not be okay with either.