Gratitude, Compulsion, Idiocy or Nobility?

[abaddon]

Let's make it simple. Kumar, when you see someone choking their chicken what is your innate reaction? Do you think everyone's reaction will be the same?

My reaction would be to tell them to get a room.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Let's make it simple. Kumar, when you see someone choking their chicken what is your innate reaction? Do you think everyone's reaction will be the same?

Most people don't like to see cruelty to animals. I'd be very unsettled to see someone spanking his monkey in public, for example.

Dave

 

[fagin]

Let's make it simple. Kumar, when you see someone choking their chicken what is your innate reaction? Do you think everyone's reaction will be the same?

Most people don't like to see cruelty to animals. I'd be very unsettled to see someone spanking his monkey in public, for example.

Dave

That's true, but some people go online to watch a lady smack the pony.

 

[Kumar]

Why? Most species of food animal have been created by breeding for just that purpose. Why is Homo sapiens not allowed to benefit from what he made using his superior intelligence?...

Okay let us compromise. Probably animals who are initially nursed but ultimately slaughtered by human for their use(need, greed or luxury?) are so great that even they sacrifice their life for that nursing but we are so **** that we take their lives and body in return of nursing them. Might is right which is also a rule of nature along with live & let live. So we are natural in doing so. Yes but, it should be natural and need for us. Okay?

It appears personally to me, nature progress as under:

Creation and "Live & Let live"(on plenty & sufficiency) >> Maintenance and "Might is Right" (on deficiency, insufficiency & greed) >> Destruction and "Survival of fittest"(for correcting the odds)>>"Live & Let live". So this cycle go on...

So in view of above, anything can be made justified or rational.

 

[JayUtah]

need, greed or luxury?

Stop moralizing. The people from whom you have taken your moral cues are really no good at it either.

...even they sacrifice their life for that nursing...

There's no "sacrifice." You're still stuck in the rut of anthropomorphizing animals. You've shown no evidence of any level of cognition in animals that would support this interpretation. You're just uncritically swallowing the self-serving rhetoric of the radical animal rights advocates.

but we are so **** that we take their lives and body in return of nursing them.

You proposed a compromise, but you can't deliver it. You're still just moralizing uncritically. I have asked you repeatedly to examine the moral basis of your argument in light of the behavior of those whose moralityl you have adopted. You have not done so, nor answered the implications of what you propose.

So in view of above, anything can be made justified or rational.

No. Just because your personal morality is demonstrably absurd doesn't mean there aren't rational moral bases. Disputing you is not tantamount to anarchy.

 

[Kumar]

Stop moralizing. The people from whom you have taken your moral cues are really no good at it either.



There's no "sacrifice." You're still stuck in the rut of anthropomorphizing animals. You've shown no evidence of any level of cognition in animals that would support this interpretation. You're just uncritically swallowing the self-serving rhetoric of the radical animal rights advocates.

No, I am just discussing our attitude vs other species attitude. We can not say, even who take normal Veg do not practice Violence & other odds. In some sense, it may be more odd.

You proposed a compromise, but you can't deliver it. You're still just moralizing uncritically. I have asked you repeatedly to examine the moral basis of your argument in light of the behavior of those whose moralityl you have adopted. You have not done so, nor answered the implications of what you propose.

Should humans not be higher in morality? Are we just following humanity or also morality?

No. Just because your personal morality is demonstrably absurd doesn't mean there aren't rational moral bases. Disputing you is not tantamount to anarchy.

Nature, basic need, greed, luxury, truth, rationality, common interest & selfish interest,s etc. can be some consideration for the discussion of this topic. One can say directly which may not attract aurguments that, we need to kill for our nature & basic needs or for otherwise.

 

[Kumar]

Most people don't like to see cruelty to animals. I'd be very unsettled to see someone spanking his monkey in public, for example.

Dave

Yes, it can be a cruelty, esp if, it is in some selfish interests. From a parent or teacher to their children or student, it may not.

 

[Kumar]

Are they still being fed?

Yes. They are so great, they even sacrifice their life for small easy feeding and we take it for that small feeding.

 

[JayUtah]

No, I am just discussing our attitude vs other species attitude.

You beg the question that food animals have an attitude. You seem unable to think of animals without anthropomorphizing them. Why are you so limited in your thinking?

Should humans not be higher in morality?

There's a difference between moralizing and morality. You're doing the former, not the latter. You're basing your moral view on what's being taught by a group that is abjectly hypocritical about them. Why do you refuse to take a critical view at your own beliefs and where they come from?

...can be some consideration for the discussion of this topic.

Not if you're simply going to project human cognition and emotions onto animals. You proposed a false dilemma between your comically naive moral view and total anarchy. Get rid of that and then someone might want to attempt a rational discussion with you.

 

[Kumar]

And yet you argue on. If not for truth, then for what? Most here would likely chime in more or less in unison that it's for falsehood, ignorance and error, but it might behoove you not to join the chorus.

I argue on non A&F part. Truth is real truth when it is A&F. Even a Half truth is often a great lie , like nursing of those animals in OP.

 

[JayUtah]

they even sacrifice their life for small easy feeding and we take it for that small feeding.

"Small feeding?" You're still being selective and simplistic in how you view the interaction between humans and food animals. Can you get it through your skull that these animals would have no existence whatsoever without humans? Food animals do not "sacrifice their lives." They have no concept of nobility or duty. They are not capable of cognition at that level. You say otherwise but provide no evidence except to state that facts are simply different for you.

 

[Filippo Lippi]

Yes, it can be a cruelty, esp if, it is in some selfish interests. From a parent or teacher to their children or student, it may not.

An altruistic monkey spanking?

 

[Kumar]

You beg the question that food animals have an attitude. You seem unable to think of animals without anthropomorphizing them. Why are you so limited in your thinking?



There's a difference between moralizing and morality. You're doing the former, not the latter. You're basing your moral view on what's being taught by a group that is abjectly hypocritical about them. Why do you refuse to take a critical view at your own beliefs and where they come from?



Not if you're simply going to project human cognition and emotions onto animals. You proposed a false dilemma between your comically naive moral view and total anarchy. Get rid of that and then someone might want to attempt a rational discussion with you.

ok as you say, in your interests. When I can not be influenced by posters here, how any other ONE SIDED ENTITY can influence me? Just thinking by equanimity. But I know rationality also have value due to phenotype modifications affected due to environmental changes. But however, we should also try to understand about our "natural diet" and need on scarcity. Probably now it is becoming need due to scarcity due to excesses....somewhat might is right is needed for survival of fittest.

 

[bruto]

Yes, it can be a cruelty, esp if, it is in some selfish interests. From a parent or teacher to their children or student, it may not.

I really think you should look up the idiomatic terms being used here, so that when people here pull your leg they don't yank it clean off.

 

[JayUtah]

Yes, it can be a cruelty, esp if, it is in some selfish interests.

I wrote you a fairly lengthy essay on the subject this morning. It briefly surveyed the history of humankind's symbiosis with other species. You obviously didn't read it because you're still taking the one-sided approach that any relationship with animals in which the human is not entirely deferential to the animal is somehow exploitative. So much for your claim to want to understand both sides. As I said before, you're clearly here to moralistically evangelize, only you did no more homework that crib from PETA. You obviously have no idea the pariah that PETA is among actual animal lovers. What will it take for you to critically examine your belief?

 

[JayUtah]

...how any other ONE SIDED ENTITY can influence me?

I see no evidence that you can be influenced by anything you haven't already decided to believe in.

Just thinking by equanimity.

That's your problem. Not only do you seem to consider humans and food animals on equal footing, you're venturing on considering animals to be superior to humans such that it becomes the responsibility of humans to cater to them.

But however, we should also try to understand about our "natural diet" and need on scarcity.

The natural diet of Homo sapiens has always included meat, and has for many thousands of years included meat from domesticated food animals. The notions you express to the contrary are purely modern inventions cast from a hypocritical morality. Why do you resist examining the validity of those contrivances?

Probably now it is becoming need due to scarcity due to excesses....somewhat might is right is needed for survival of fittest.

You insist on characterizing humans as brutish for breeding animals for food. PETA has brainwashed you into this sort of flagellation, which has no basis in fact and which PETA itself violates on a regular basis. Stop looking to them for moral support. They are not moral people.

Now if you want to talk about a rational food policy, there is much room for discussion. But first you have to shed the concept of animals as noble creatures who knowingly sacrifice themselves for us for food. That's just absurd.

 

[Kumar]

I see no evidence that you can be influenced by anything you haven't already decided to believe in.



That's your problem. Not only do you seem to consider humans and food animals on equal footing, you're venturing on considering animals to be superior to humans such that it becomes the responsibility of humans to cater to them.



The natural diet of Homo sapiens has always included meat, and has for many thousands of years included meat from domesticated food animals. The notions you express to the contrary are purely modern inventions cast from a hypocritical morality. Why do you resist examining the validity of those contrivances?



You insist on characterizing humans as brutish for breeding animals for food. PETA has brainwashed you into this sort of flagellation, which has no basis in fact and which PETA itself violates on a regular basis. Stop looking to them for moral support. They are not moral people.

Now if you want to talk about a rational food policy, there is much room for discussion. But first you have to shed the concept of animals as noble creatures who knowingly sacrifice themselves for us for food. That's just absurd.

No you perceive or calculate wrong. To me, even regular vegetarian food can also be somehow food by violence--may even be more in some sense. True food with non violence & cruelty can just be what nature offer with a purpose. May it be fallen fruits, milk from happy cows/animals somewhat like mother milk, minerals, honey droplets, nector, dead beings(?) etc.

I just want to know, why nature has not evolved us with hunting & eating tools(like hunter animals lion etc.)? Why we need to cook meat?

 

[Mojo]

I just want to know, why nature has not evolved us with hunting & eating tools(like hunter animals lion etc.)?

It has, they just aren't the same as the ones lions have.

 

[Kumar]

Let's make it simple. Kumar, when you see someone choking their chicken what is your innate reaction? Do you think everyone's reaction will be the same?

Should be, if all are ínnate like me.

 

[Filippo Lippi]

Should be, if all are ínnate like me.

What?