John Stossel Goes After PETA Tonight...

[jj]

Religion is the donkey on which we have traditionally pinned the tail of morality. Ahimsa is an ethical tradition closely associated with Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism. Why this should matter for the purpose of identifying who is expressing 'moral outrage,' I have no idea.

Is a scientist who does science because he believe God compels him to not really a scientist? This is a very strange objection.

Your last sentence is really quite a non-sequiter, in that I don't see anyone arguing that the vegetarian who is so because of religion is not a vegetarian. While I'm a bit uncomfortable discounting their position because it's religious (be clear, I don't credit the idea of reincarnation, or the divinity of a bull, at all), the objection is stated as religious, not as ethical, or as moral except in that it's mandated by religion. Yes, you could make an argument that the cow is more useful alive, but as far as I know, that's not what the religion actually says.

I have no problem with people who don't eat meat, until they decide to deny nature and tell others that they shouldn't/can't eat meat for ridiculous reasons, like some we've seen in this thread. I'm not sure you've made such an argument, just to be clear, but I have certainly seen some very silly arguments in this thread, presented from the high pulpit of indignation, arguing ridiculous issues that simply ignore natural history entirely.

Yes, I'm aware that in general, meat farming isn't as productive as grain farming. Yes, I'm aware that too much, especially of the wrong kind of meat, is bad for most people, although that varies greatly by genetics. Yes, I'm aware that one can survive just fine on a vegetarian diet, although most vegetarians I know do appear to pay somewhat of an economic penalty. The economic penalty is in fact counter to the environmental cost of production, I know that, too. (Yes, it is theirs to decide to pay, that's fine.)

As I said before, I'm comfortable with my (our) position at the top of the food chain. No, we don't have canines, we learned to cook. No, we don't have a rumen, we learned to eat higher-energy foods. We evolved to keep our brains fed, that's what distinguishes us. Those who argue that the fact we evolved to keep our brains fed means we should relinquish one of the most important high-calorie, high-protein, high-fat foods (lipids are what brains are mostly made out of) to feed the brain seem to me to be trying to run counter to how humans are constructed.

 

[Freakshow]

That's what I mean. Why is it so hard not to ridicule vegetarism? Lack of conclusive arguments? Fear to be wrong after all?

It is hard for me to not ridicule ANYONE that tells me how to live. When someone tells me what to do, they have just painted a huge bullseye on themselves, and all pretences of nicety are called off. Doesn't matter if it is conservatism, liberalism, something religious, vegetarianism, whatever.

 

[Amapola]

This reduces to the definition of species, so DNA really has little to do with it.


However we define 'human beings,' you will face the problem that if we go back far enough in our evolution, we will be confronted with ancestors who are not obviously human (and if we go back even further, with ancestors who are obviously not human). In this sense, at least, there are non-human animals that have produced human beings as offspring.


I am fully confident that I can tell the difference between baby and an adult in similar circumstances. That I can differentiate between them according to a handful of visual clues does not justify greater consideration of one over the other.

The question here is why you think it's valid to introduce a biological construct (and why this particular biological construct) into a question about morality. What if, as an accident of history, two species of Homo had survived to the present day, and that the other species were incapable of mating with the rest of us and producing fertile offspring? If they were just as 'human' as we were, would we then be justified in enslaving them, using them for food animals, or whatever else it is we might decide to do?

I am not saying that ANY of this has anything to do with morality. I never did. My point is that animals do not have, or understand, morality. Morality, ethics, etc. are human constructs that animals can not fathom. Since I am able to distinguish between a cat and a person, I don't see the difficulty.

Why do you think you should force the animals into having "rights", just because you are a human being? Maybe the animals don't want "rights". Have you asked them? The whole idea of rights is a human concept; I think you would have a hard time explaining it, in a way that it could understand, to an animal.

We can not, in fact, go back to a time in our evolution when humans were not so different. In fact, we have to live in the present. In the present, we can (hopefully) distinguish between a human and a rabbit. None of this discussion would be meaningful to a rabbit.

 

[jj]

It is hard for me to not ridicule ANYONE that tells me how to live. When someone tells me what to do, they have just painted a huge bullseye on themselves, and all pretences of nicety are called off. Doesn't matter if it is conservatism, liberalism, something religious, vegetarianism, whatever.

That in a nutshell is the problem I have with some of the people who posted to the revival of this thread.

 

[Freakshow]

That in a nutshell is the problem I have with some of the people who posted to the revival of this thread.

Yep. I really don't care what other people eat. Just don't tell ME what to eat.

 

[jj]

In fact, we have to live in the present. In the present, we can (hopefully) distinguish between a human and a rabbit. None of this discussion would be meaningful to a rabbit.

Therein lies the basic issue with being, say, a herd herbivore. It evolved, basically, to survive for a while and be eaten alive for the good of the herd.

We do not eat animals alive, at least in modern western society. There is a huge economic penalty to even causing them pain or upset during slaughtering, even, although some people in this thread seem to ignore that particular detail.

 

[Cain]

JJ writes:

You're citing this as an authoritive rerference?

There's no dialog to have here.

No, I've cited _Slaughterhouse_ as an authoritative source. I chose the above work because it approached slaughterhouses from an angle concerned about worker safety, not animal rights. And because I happened to remember it while browsing a related thread.

You're right to say there is no dialog because your facile talking point has been rather easily undermined, theoretically and empirically.

Now go ahead and call me a totalitarian again, you old floppy c*ck. That was fun! It seems you got a lil' red last time. Again, again, again.

Please to show where I said "species is factually substantive"?

This is another interesting fabrication. Look at what I put in quotes and then look at what you put in quotes. If you want to see where you used the turn of phrase, then I suggest looking at page four, searching for the relevant key terms, and then following the threading. Moreover, I did ask this as a question as you were characteristically vague.

It's called falsification.

Then educate them or take their animals away.

and you're still stubbornly missing the larger picture.

Let us couple the next two blocks together as they are related:

I never said that you never make arguments only that your posts are full of invective and rhetoric. You didn't answer my question.

How and why does it seem? What is my belief system?

The statement "you didn't answer my question" fails to appreciate the instrumental questions I asked. You wondered why it was OK for me to use Singer, and why it is not OK for you to use Cohen. That framing, to begin with, is wrong. You can cite anyone you please. I'm saying the argument you put forth appears hurried; it's just plain bad. So I asked when you first read Cohen. If the first time you read him was three days ago, then I think that says something.

I do like the final question here: "What is my belief system?" This is still another red-herring that I laugh and roll my eyes at. Returning to more relevant concerns, the Cohen argument seeks to give exclusive concern to human beings -- all of them -- while trying to minimize concern for other species. But the need to reconcile concern for infants (say) while dismissing the interests of chimps (for example) results in a rather arbitrary, contorted moral outlook. For arguments against this mode of reasoning see my earlier posts and Mumblethrax's reply.

I'm going to couple this with the your last paragraph in order to bring some sense of structure to shameful meanderings:

? So, now I have to prove a negative? What "series of arguments"? Why can't you just make your argument to me? So, please note that so far you are straying far afield. Could you make an argument?

Answer to what? I'm not digging through the thread looking for posts. Link it or quote it.

I didn't think it would be difficult for you to find the arguments I was referencing as I knew they appeared at the top of a post that refuted your silly nonsense. As it stands, it was a reply to a Geckko (post #175). I will append it at the end so as not to give you another excuse for your pussyfooting. Of course, I'm not sure why I bother as you have chronically ignored central arguments. You already avoided Mumblethrax's post (several times now) in spite of my quoting it, so I wonder why I even bother.

People can choose to make any philosophy a social convention. I do not make mine so.

I see; you don't really have any clue as to what you're talking about.

The second statement doesn't follow from the first. I don't speak to [of??] Kantian philosophy only to state that people can choose to make any philosophy a social convention.

Again, it's amusing to see you say one part does not follow the other when you apparently understand neither. In any case the second sentence in the above quote is not exactly a model of clarity.

[snipped- no comment on empty assertion]

No, my point is that humans can be inconsistent and apply morality inconsistent and change moral philosophies. It is certainly possible to consistently follow my moral philosophy but not without a degree of moral conflicts.

The first statement falls under the label of "descriptive", and I do not disagree. Yes, that happens, and it is mundane; philosophically uninteresting. I'm attempting to push the discussion into normative territory since we are ostensibly discussing, you know, morality.

Cain writes:

If no one knows you're torturing animals in your basement, then no one will be offended.... The question is whether or not it's wrong, and why it's wrong.

That would not make it right by my philosophy.... and there is nothing axiomatic to determine that it is wright or wrong. There are no absolute morals [<---- this is actually an example of a non sequitur ].... If it made ALL of us feel good? Why not? What is right and what is wrong? And spare me the rhetoric. Just answer the question.

Earlier you said we have anti-cruelty laws because humans feel bad (as a matter of empathy) when they see animals tortured (I'm not going to use the loaded term "mistreated").

Now I interpret this to be a sort of public anti-obscenity law. If the reason is that it makes people feel bad, then it shouldn't matter if one does it in private and no one on the outside learns about it.

Let's change the scenarios slightly. Let us, in order to understand the fundamentals at work, replace the cat with a human. What "axiomatic" reason, if any, can you cite? I can name a rather simple one: the interests of the victim. Animals do not enjoy being tortured anymore than human beings. Torturing animals is wrong regardless of how humans "feel" about the matter. If by some quirk in our biology, our evolutionary heritage, we were all sadists who loved torturing felines, would that make it OK? Of course not.

How could it NOT make sense? You ask me what argument I would make in a given circumstance. The argument would change based on the audience. So I will ask again, to whom am I making this argument to. It is YOUR hypothetical. So still have not answered the two questions. Assuming the second

I see. So instead of clarifying the question you'd rather rant on, ironcially leaving your leaving your last sentence incomplete (which is what I thought of your second question). The first had a response inside the quote.

[one block of text snipped, another was moved up North]

Here is the text of the original post you've been dodging. As I mentioned earlier, it was hiding at the top of one of consolidated replies, most of the text therein a response to you.

______________________________

I don't see anything ad hoc about the distinction. We hold the rights of children under reserve. As an infant human who will grow into a being who will exercise moral reason the child comes under the umbrella of human rights.

I'm afraid it is not so simple. First, not all infants and children will grow into beings capable of exercising moral reason. Consider the terminally ill, for example. Second, your distinction rests on potentiality confusion: if an X is a potential Y, it does not have the rights of Y (because it's still an X). Third, why bother talking about infants? Would about an eight month old fetus? Four months old? An embryo?

A similar, though different concession is made to those mentally incapable of fully excercising moral reason.

How so? They will never be a member of the "moral community."

Towhit, a 2 year would never find himself on murder charge (or any criminal charge for that matter).

Yes, two year olds seem to lack this thing called "moral agency."

A chimpanzee, or lion or whatever will never possess the moral reason neeeded to understnad what murder or assault is for example. A lion that attacks someone in the wild will not be accused of a crime and prosecuted.

You're right! I failed to consider the truly awesome threat animals pose to humans.

 

[bob_kark]

It's an objection from an ethical tradition that does not exist independent of religion (although the concept of ahimsa does occur in at least several religions). The Hindus (mostly Hindu nationalists) who protested were no less 'activists' than the animal rights activists here are. This is a distinction without difference.

I do realize what rik was insinuating, of course, and it is essentially the same claim Nietzsche made about morality being the exclusive domain of the nobility. It's historically inaccurate.

I'm sorry, I did a poor job in clarifying what I meant in my previous post. The Hindus who were rioting against McDonalds were not doing so because they objected to other people eating meat, merely themselves due to religious traditions. Just like how an Orthodox Jew would not protest other people eating a cheeseburger with dairy cheese. They are simply concerned with conforming to the dietary restrictions placed by their religious beliefs, not with bringing social change. Therefore, I would not qualify them as activists.

 

[mumblethrax]

Your last sentence is really quite a non-sequiter, in that I don't see anyone arguing that the vegetarian who is so because of religion is not a vegetarian. While I'm a bit uncomfortable discounting their position because it's religious (be clear, I don't credit the idea of reincarnation, or the divinity of a bull, at all), the objection is stated as religious, not as ethical, or as moral except in that it's mandated by religion. Yes, you could make an argument that the cow is more useful alive, but as far as I know, that's not what the religion actually says.

The problem with argument by analogy is that the other person might miss the crucial similarity you're suggesting. Anyway, a moral belief is simply a belief about what is wrong, and the source of that belief is strictly irrelevant when we're asking which beliefs are moral beliefs. A religious belief that answers the question, "Is this right?" is also a moral belief.

The dominant belief in our culture that human life (and only human life) is sacred, for example, emerges from the Christian tradition. You might argue that this belief is irrational, and I would be inclined to agree; that does not alter its status as a moral belief.

I have no problem with people who don't rape, until they decide to deny nature and tell others that they shouldn't/can't rape for ridiculous reasons, like some we've seen in this thread. I'm not sure you've made such an argument, just to be clear, but I have certainly seen some very silly arguments in this thread, presented from the high pulpit of indignation, arguing ridiculous issues that simply ignore natural history entirely.

I've selectively changed a few words in the above quote, to help illustrate why most thoughtful people consider this sort of naturalistic argument fallacious.

As I said before, I'm comfortable with my (our) position at the top of the food chain.

Weren't you earlier criticizing others for making might-makes-right arguments?

Those who argue that the fact we evolved to keep our brains fed means we should relinquish one of the most important high-calorie, high-protein, high-fat foods (lipids are what brains are mostly made out of) to feed the brain seem to me to be trying to run counter to how humans are constructed.

You know, I read an article a while back about how tool use in humans may have emerged so that we could get to the bone marrow that many predators couldn't. Bone marrow, of course, is an excellent source of proteins and fats, and this might have fueled an evolutionary feedback that selected for larger brains.

My memory is fuzzy, but if this turns out to be true, I'm sure you'd start barbequeing bone marrow on a regular basis in order to be consistent with this argument.

Of course, you might also argue that it's easy to get essential nutrients from other sources these days, and that this sort of genetic determinism is invalid.

 

[jj]

Just to acquaint everyone with Cain's "reasoning" and "moral superiority", by capturing a few choice comments.

Now go ahead and call me a totalitarian again, you old floppy c*ck.

...
I'm going to couple this with the your last paragraph in order to bring some sense of structure to shameful meanderings:

...
I see; you don't really have any clue as to what you're talking about.

(N.B. This is just a few of the many, if you want to waste time, read his article.)

Once again, you continue with your campaign of insults and misinformation, ignoring the real issues, among which is that stressed meat is a very serious economic penalty for inhumane slaughter. For you, it's a 'talking point' because it is, in fact, an irrefutable problem for someone who does slaughter animals poorly, and as such, all you can do is try to hide from it. It's a fact that stressed meat is a huge economic hit, there's no way around it, you know, so your entire histrionic behavior is exposed clearly as nothing more than an attempt to shout "DO NOT LOOK BEHIND THE CURTAIN".

Your dismissal as a "talking point", your citation of nontechnical articles, and your unsupported dismissal of the issue suggests to me that you know well that you are cornered here. Why else would you resort to the sad kind of insults captured above?

Do you have any idea what your arguments look like, with all the evasions, exercises of fallacies, dreadfully stupid attempts at emotional manipulation, etc?

 

[bob_kark]

Just to acquaint everyone with Cain's "reasoning" and "moral superiority", by capturing a few choice comments...

Happy 10,000th post!

 

[jj]

I've selectively changed a few words in the above quote, to help illustrate why most thoughtful people consider this sort of naturalistic argument fallacious.

As I could change your arguments about meat to "plant". Starve much?

It is frankly dishonest to change words like that and leave them inside a quote.

Your editing shows nothing but an attempt to avoid the subject at hand.

Weren't you earlier criticizing others for making might-makes-right arguments?

Weren't you criticizing someone for mischaracterizing your arguments? Why are you doing it to mine, then? That's twice in the post I'm replying to.

Bone marrow, of course, is an excellent source of proteins and fats, and this might have fueled an evolutionary feedback that selected for larger brains.

My memory is fuzzy, but if this turns out to be true, I'm sure you'd start barbequeing bone marrow on a regular basis in order to be consistent with this argument.

Really?

Regardless of how tool use came about (one would suspect that capture and killing food would come first, but that's irrelevant to this argument, really), why would you propose that I would do such a thing.

You're ignoring half of my argument and mischaracterizing the other half. That speaks loudly to me about your position.

Of course, you might also argue that it's easy to get essential nutrients from other sources these days, and that this sort of genetic determinism is invalid.

Let the world note that you, not I, used the term "genetic determinism". Since I've made no argument to genetic determinism, why did you use this term?

Genetics does determine to great extent how we work (I'll leave the nature/nurture debate out of this in terms of intellect), especially at a metabolic level, but there is nothing, indeed, that keeps us from using a greater understanding of how we work to accomodiate this.

Some people are vegetarians, they go to great lengths to accomodate particular issues that matter to them. Fine.

Some people are not vegetarians, they chose a different method of accomodation.

What some folks in this thread would have us do is accept their particular accomodation as the "one true way".

 

[mumblethrax]

I am not saying that ANY of this has anything to do with morality. I never did. My point is that animals do not have, or understand, morality. Morality, ethics, etc. are human constructs that animals can not fathom. Since I am able to distinguish between a cat and a person, I don't see the difficulty.

Well, there are arguments that this is not true. Regardless, it fails to miss the critical distinction between those who possess moral beliefs and the subject of those moral beliefs.

Why do you think you should force the animals into having "rights", just because you are a human being? Maybe the animals don't want "rights". Have you asked them? The whole idea of rights is a human concept; I think you would have a hard time explaining it, in a way that it could understand, to an animal.

Why do you think infants want rights? Did they tell you they want rights? What about profoundly retarded people? How dare you force rights on them!

I don't believe in moral rights, and haven't argued that we can make animals understand rights. I also don't think that's necessary; it's sufficient to ask whether they possess characteristics (like desires or preferences) which would render them worthy of moral consideration.

None of this discussion would be meaningful to a rabbit.

Nor to a baby. Nor a speaker of Urdu, for that matter, unless she happens to also speak English (and this was, astonishingly, one of the arguments put forth in favor of imperialism).

 

[Amapola]

Well, there are arguments that this is not true. Regardless, it fails to miss the critical distinction between those who possess moral beliefs and the subject of those moral beliefs.


Why do you think infants want rights? Did they tell you they want rights? What about profoundly retarded people? How dare you force rights on them!

I don't believe in moral rights, and haven't argued that we can make animals understand rights. I also don't think that's necessary; it's sufficient to ask whether they possess characteristics (like desires or preferences) which would render them worthy of moral consideration.


Nor to a baby. Nor a speaker of Urdu, for that matter, unless she happens to also speak English (and this was, astonishingly, one of the arguments put forth in favor of imperialism).

Here you go, this is a cow:

Infants, profoundly retarded people and Urdu speakers are humans. OK?

 

[mumblethrax]

As I could change your arguments about meat to "plant". Starve much?

It is frankly dishonest to change words like that and leave them inside a quote.

Your editing shows nothing but an attempt to avoid the subject at hand.

If you were to change 'animals' to 'plants' in my arguments, they would no longer be instructive, because they would no longer make sense or be true in any way. Plants do not have desires; or do you believe they do?

It is not dishonest to change the words within your quote if I immediately point out that I have done so, and that you have done so for the purpose of instruction. Which I did. I think you're addressing fictional concerns, rather than my argument.

Given that rape is a 'natural' behavior which is documented among humans over and over again (in fact, the idea that sex need be consensual is relatively novel in our society), how would you respond to someone who argued that by not raping, you are ignoring natural history? If you could not, do you think they would have justified their position in favor of rape?

Really?

Yes.

Regardless of how tool use came about (one would suspect that capture and killing food would come first, but that's irrelevant to this argument, really), why would you propose that I would do such a thing.

Because you're arguing that we are entitled to eat the food that we ate during the time our brains were developing into the brains we know today, and you might well have misidentified which food that is. Anyway, the whole argument is fallacious, I just think it's funny how quickly people assume that what they do eat is what people have always eaten, and what people naturally eat.

If it makes you feel better, some of the far-out space nuts with whom you've undoubtedly associated me at this point also harp on which diets are 'natural', just as fallaciously.

Let the world note that you, not I, used the term "genetic determinism". Since I've made no argument to genetic determinism, why did you use this term?

Let the pillars of Heaven shake.

I apologize if you do not think that humans are genetically compelled to eat meat. It's hard to tell exactly what you're arguing for, so I've made some assumptions.

What some folks in this thread would have us do is accept their particular accomodation as the "one true way".

And abolitionists weren't particularly tolerant of those who engaged in the slave trade. Should they have instead said, "Well, I think owning slaves is wrong, and you don't, so you just go ahead and own slaves, but don't expect me to." The problem with using the live-and-let-live argument here (well, one of the problems) is that you aren't letting live.

I've never told anyone to become a vegetarian, but I do take exception to the claim that these differing belief systems are equivalent, which I think some people interpret as a demand that they be like me.

 

[mumblethrax]

Here you go, this is a cow:

Infants, profoundly retarded people and Urdu speakers are humans. OK?

So while I have taken the time to respond to your concerns in detail, you have decided to simply restate the biological distinction.

Tell me, if the other species in the thought experiment I gave above were cows (that's right, intelligent cows), would looking at pictures of humans and cows inform our judgment when considering how to treat cows?

Or is this just cow flop?

 

[Amapola]

So while I have taken the time to respond to your concerns in detail, you have decided to simply restate the biological distinction.

Tell me, if the other species in the thought experiment I gave above were cows (that's right, intelligent cows), would looking at pictures of humans and cows inform our judgment when considering how to treat cows?

Or is this just cow flop?

That's right, there IS a biological distinction between humans and cows. You seem to me to be trying to make them the same; they are not. I am glad that you understand my point. I was beginning to worry you were just not getting it.

You were not addressing my concerns; you seemed to be addressing your own, or someone else's, with the talk of "morals" and "ethics". I have never once suggested how, or how not, to treat cows.

PETA apparently wants all domestic animals to be extinct, and that would of course include cows. I guess it's just too bad for the cows, PETA does not appear to care about them all the while saying that they do. PETA seems to think that cows are better off not existing at all. In my opinion, a world without any domestic animals would be a lesser place. I do not agree with PETA; however if they began working for animal welfare instead of animal rights, and could do it without blowing things up and setting things on fire, I would be more interested in them.

 

[mumblethrax]

That's right, there IS a biological distinction between humans and cows. You seem to me to be trying to make them the same; they are not. I am glad that you understand my point. I was beginning to worry you were just not getting it.

I think I stated several times that while there is a biological distinction, it's not clear why this matters when we're talking about ethics. Peter Singer is an ethicist. When he says there is no property P that includes all humans, he is talking about moral properties. You asserted that there is a property P that includes all humans, namely membership in the human species. This is a biological distinction introduced into an ethical argument for unclear reasons. It makes no more sense than assuming a biologist is talking about a faraway land where badger knights ride ponies and slay dragons when they speak of the animal kingdom.

You were not addressing my concerns; you seemed to be addressing your own, or someone else's, with the talk of "morals" and "ethics". I have never once suggested how, or how not, to treat cows.

You cannot reasonably respond to an ethical argument with a biological argument and then say you aren't talking about ethics.

But if this is the source of the confusion, I'm happy to have it cleared up.

 

[Cain]

Just to acquaint everyone with Cain's "reasoning" and "moral superiority", by capturing a few choice comments.


(N.B. This is just a few of the many, if you want to waste time, read his article.)

Yes, indeed; a representative sample, no doubt. Out of thousands of lines of text you can summon these few sentences. The kicker is ignoring arguments while claiming to stick to them; accusing me of being a "totalitarian" while defending practices I can describe as totalitarian without exaggeration. An interesting case study in Orwellian doublespeak.

But let me address the more relevant allegations in this posting:

Once again, you continue with your campaign of insults and misinformation, ignoring the real issues, among which is that stressed meat is a very serious economic penalty for inhumane slaughter. For you, it's a 'talking point' because it is, in fact, an irrefutable problem for someone who does slaughter animals poorly, and as such, all you can do is try to hide from it. It's a fact that stressed meat is a huge economic hit, there's no way around it, you know, so your entire histrionic behavior is exposed clearly as nothing more than an attempt to shout "DO NOT LOOK BEHIND THE CURTAIN".

I must also highlight the irony of you describing anyone else's behavior as "histronic". Do you have any more lyrics to recite, JJ? Since you have taken to repeating easily refuted arguments, I will repeat my refutation: standard neo-classical reasoning protests against your characterizations.

Apologists for slavery made strikingly similar arguments. Slave traders had an economic interest to ensure their property got across the Atlantic in good condition. Slaves were expensive. Slave owners had an economic incentive against killing, or (severely) injuring, their property.

The problem, of course, is that the interest of the animal (or the subject, as it were) is not intrinsic to the owners' economic calculations. You have not even attempted to cope with the argument at hand. First you ducked it by committing the genetic fallacy, and now you're repeating yourself.

The meat industry is one of last sectors of the economy where one should be singing the virtues of market forces. I seem to recall an important that came out almost exactly 100 years ago....

Your dismissal as a "talking point", your citation of nontechnical articles, and your unsupported dismissal of the issue suggests to me that you know well that you are cornered here. Why else would you resort to the sad kind of insults captured above?

Humorous. Two of the three "sad... insults" were not even directed at you or your post; You have cited zero articles, technical or otherwise; you have failed to substantiate your claims on multiple occaisons.

Do you have any idea what your arguments look like, with all the evasions, exercises of fallacies, dreadfully stupid attempts at emotional manipulation, etc?

Now you're imputing your behavior on to me. I will not bother commenting.

 

[jj]

Humorous. Two of the three "sad... insults" were not even directed at you or your post;

Oh, how indicative. Why does it matter who the insults were directed to? At the same time you're railling on about selflessness and letting animals be, you want to appeal to selfishness when caught with both hands in the ego? Right. Sure.

Yes, I find your insults about others just as annoying. They are deliberately, willfully destructive, they intentionally seek to derail discussion, and they demonstrate that you consider the animals you defend to be more deserving of respect, and one might even suspect life, than other human beings.

Your contempt is clear, you are a traitor to your own species. Don't worry, evolution will take care of you, most likely. (I don't know, have you reproduced? Have they emancipated themselves yet?)

You have cited zero articles, technical or otherwise; you have failed to substantiate your claims on multiple occaisons.

You initiated the series of claims, not I. I repeat the common understanding. You make an extraordinary claim. Heal thyself, oh maker of extraordinary claims.

Let's see, here you've appealed to selfishness, tried to shift the burden, deliberately tried to turn an argument into personality...

Malice?

Well, it looks like a duck, it quacks like a duck, and it sure as **** stinks like a duck pond.