PETA President's Will

[Dessi]

For example, almost none of our food animals would ever exist if we did not raise them to be eaten.

I don't think there is a good argument to justify this view. What possible basis is there to say that a being is harmed for never being brought into existence? Who is harmed and in what tangible way? How do you harm things that don't exist in the first place?

To me, modest discomfort and a shortened life is an acceptable trade off for existence. Extreme pain throughout a life?

Since you believe that a life of modest discomfort is more preferable than a life of extreme suffering, it seems that you already recognize the value in reducing harm. Sounds to me like you're already 50% down the path to supporting animal rights.

Think about it, you can make a very easy argument that a comfortable life lived to its natural ends is more preferable to a prematurely shortened life, based on the same principle of harm reduction.

Believe me, I was in your position once. There's just not a good argument to support slaughtering animals when it can be easily avoided.

 

[richardm]

Gristle has levels of quality? Thanks, but I'll pass.

Are we redefining terms here for rhetorical effect, or do you really not know the difference?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Gristle has levels of quality? Thanks, but I'll pass.

You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

I don't think there is a good argument to justify this view. What possible basis is there to say that a being is harmed for never being brought into existence? Who is harmed and in what tangible way? How do you harm things that don't exist in the first place?


Since you believe that a life of modest discomfort is more preferable than a life of extreme suffering, it seems that you already recognize the value in reducing harm. Sounds to me like you're already 50% down the path to supporting animal rights.

Think about it, you can make a very easy argument that a comfortable life lived to its natural ends is more preferable to a prematurely shortened life, based on the same principle of harm reduction.

Believe me, I was in your position once. There's just not a good argument to support slaughtering animals when it can be easily avoided.

They taste good and don't have opposable thumbs. Beyond that, they don't have the cognitive abilities humans have.

Argue whatever flavor of Godwin and semantic gotchas you like, at the end of the day I'll still enjoy eating meat, barbaric as that may be, and only think that your priorities are badly skewed. There isn't even equality among humans, yet you would rather waste your time fighting for non-sentient creatures that have been bred specifically to provide food to have more rights than your fellow humans while at the same time attacking those of us who appreciate the taste of meat, as well as the companionship of our pets (who have been bred to be pets and could not survive in the wild, mind you), for not subscribing to the same morality as you.

Please don't patronize us with your "I used to be just like you then I got better" type comments. You and your morality are no better than us and our morality, just different.

 

[roger]

I don't think there is a good argument to justify this view. What possible basis is there to say that a being is harmed for never being brought into existence? Who is harmed and in what tangible way? How do you harm things that don't exist in the first place?.

I made no such argument (if I mistyped something that sounded like that, I retract it wholeheartedly). My argument was that existence, absent Godwin levels of suffering, is generally a good thing for the thing in question. I would guess you agree, since you take exception to ending that existence.

Not all propositions are polar opposites: "If X is good, then ~X is bad" is not universally true.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.

Go easy on the guy. It's just a defense mechanism to an argument he can't (freely/honestly) retort. Same as a coworker who last week was unable to admit that regular ice cream tastes better than low fat ice cream. It's how he (and she) justifies his (her) dietary choices.

Surprisingly, you'll find it very similar in manner to people whose religious beliefs have been pointed out as being fallacious.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Are we redefining terms here for rhetorical effect, or do you really not know the difference?

He calls it gristle, I call it delicious.

 

[roger]

Since you believe that a life of modest discomfort is more preferable than a life of extreme suffering, it seems that you already recognize the value in reducing harm. Sounds to me like you're already 50% down the path to supporting animal rights.

Think about it, you can make a very easy argument that a comfortable life lived to its natural ends is more preferable to a prematurely shortened life, based on the same principle of harm reduction.

Believe me, I was in your position once. There's just not a good argument to support slaughtering animals when it can be easily avoided.

Dial down the patronizing a bit.

I support animal rights, just not the exact mix that you do. Believe it or not, I think, I am skeptical, I've read a lot of philosophy on this subject as well as many others. Reaching for Godwin, statements like "I am a skeptic", etc., changing terms to make somebody sound like a racist is not rational rebuttal, and convinces no one.

You also obviously haven't read what I've written on this thread. That's not an accusation, I doubt I could perfectly summarize your position. But, shouldn't we desist from characterizing somebody's position absent that effort. If you'll scroll up a bit, you see me arguing for better farm conditions, for eating grain fed beef, etc. You'll even see that my family raised many species of farm animals - I'm not just googling my 'knowledge', I've lived it. But, if you want to go on assuming that everyone that eats meat does not think, or know anything about farming practices, go on thinking that.

I'll share a true story with you. Yesterday afternoon, just after posting on this thread, I drove off to my bullseye league. Just after leaving my driveway a small herd of deer bolted across the road. Fortunately, I was going slow and was able to miss, though it was a close thing. Somewhat shaken, I continued driving on to my destination, a road that includes 8 miles of twisty mountain roads. Sooner or later I will probably hit and kill a deer.

That's a tradeoff we all make. Perhaps it is more likely for me than for you, based on where we live (if I recall you are in Lincoln NE, or closeby?), but we all kill with our cars. As I stated up thread, I would never drive my car at 65 through an apparently empty preschool playground, and I feel sure you would behave the same. Yet, we both do so through the living rooms of deer. (Perhaps you don't drive, but given you are posting on a computer I feel confident in saying you benefit from the roads and transportation).

I honestly want to know how you live with yourself if you truly hold that all our various species lives are equivalent? Some Buddhists live in monasteries, and strive to avoid so much as stepping on a bug, so it's possible to live that way. Ingrid has stated that she'd prefer to not live because her existence means dead animals. Heck, she has stated that she prefer that the human race not exist. In short, how do you justify, if you do, the deaths of deer, birds, skunks, squirrels, etc., on our roadways every day?

I probably have a bit more blood on my hands than you do. But not that much more. If you eat bread, lots of mice died for that loaf. To me, that seems incompatible with an argument that all lives are equal.

 

[Cain]

Vegans want cows to go extinct!

The same could be said of any creature who was never born. Would a hypothetical person who was not born in a Nazi camp, because its mother was murdered first, have been better off existing in that camp and living 5 hellish years before being gassed? Other things matter to existence besides the binary equation of living or not. Sorry to Godwin, but obviously the question isn't existence vs nonexistence, because we can come up with many scenarios in which living is not preferable to death. But you're not even talking about death. You're talking about never having existed, which sounds bad to YOU, but not to the gogol plex life forms that weren't born throughout the universe. If you were never born you wouldn't be losing anything. In the case of live animals, hurting them for food, when it is completely unnecessary to do so, is wrong. If you had to do it to survive you'd have a better case. But you don't. So hurting those animals has much less justification.

So, no need to go to Nazi prison camps, which is where JREFers who ape the language of skepticism and rationality can flatly dismiss any argument they find disagreeable. So then: birth control, abortion.

The argument that people want animals raised and slaughtered for the animals' own good -- not because they taste delicious, no siree -- is to peddle the big lie. A lie so big they believe it themselves.

 

[Dessi]

They taste good and don't have opposable thumbs. Beyond that, they don't have the cognitive abilities humans have.

Argue whatever flavor of Godwin and semantic gotchas you like, at the end of the day I'll still enjoy eating meat, barbaric as that may be, and only think that your priorities are badly skewed. There isn't even equality among humans, yet you would rather waste your time fighting for non-sentient creatures that have been bred specifically to provide food to have more rights than your fellow humans while at the same time attacking those of us who appreciate the taste of meat, as well as the companionship of our pets (who have been bred to be pets and could not survive in the wild, mind you), for not subscribing to the same morality as you.

Please don't patronize us with your "I used to be just like you then I got better" type comments. You and your morality are no better than us and our morality, just different.

Hi there, welcome to the JREF where we discuss things to promote rationality and critical thinking. Sometimes we have discussions about political and moral topics, and most of the time we're committed to justifying our positions using rationality and critical thinking.

Let's talk about the arguments you've specifically laid down:

1) "They taste good", seems like a bizarre argument. The satisfaction you get from certain flavors is a greater good than the "barbaric" (your words, not mine) way to obtain it? This view doesn't appear to have a very good justification, and would seem to justify treating humans in the same "barbaric" manner if doing so were particularly tasty.

2) "at the end of the day, I'll still enjoy eating meat", this seems to be equivalent to the statement that you simply don't care about animal interests, and no reason to consider them. The existence of a criminal justice system in the US, and likely your criticism of specific criminal actions, indicates that you feel that criminals should not exploit their victims even when they have no empathy for them at all. In other words, caring about something is not prerequisite for moral consideration. Your statement that you continue to enjoy eating meat has no moral implications whatsoever, its a red herring at best which advances no possible argument for or against animal slaughter.

3) "There isn't even equality among humans", seems like a pointless criticism, we can clearly support human rights and animal rights at the same time.

4) "Please don't patronize us..." is an irrelevant criticism. Can be dismissed without conceding any argument for or against animal rights. Still, I can dial down the patronizing if you like.

5) "You and your morality are not better than us, just different", seems to be an irrational statement which is flatly contradicted by the fact that you're even trying to argue with me. You clearly believe that some moral systems are more justifiable than others, this fact impacts whether you support or object to abortion, gay rights, whether you believe women deserve voting rights, have feelings about human rights abuses or violence in your community, etc. Differences in morality determine whether other people consider your interests valuable enough to respect, which in turn can have an impact on your quality of life. In other words, you don't simply feel that all moral systems are different, you likely believe there are arguments that make some moral systems more reasonable than others.

In your particular case, your arguments just aren't very good. If you have a serious criticism of animal rights or anything I have to say, I'm very much interested to hear your opinion.

 

[roger]

So, no need to go to Nazi prison camps, which is where JREFers who ape the language of skepticism and rationality can flatly dismiss any argument they find disagreeable. So then: birth control, abortion.

The argument that people want animals raised and slaughtered for the animals' own good -- not because they taste delicious, no siree -- is to peddle the big lie. A lie so big they believe it themselves.

Arguing works a lot better when you don't misrepresent other's arguments.

The argument that some farm animals have a good existence was raised to counter the argument that raising animals for food is bad because of the suffering it entails.

It's interesting. Every argument I have made in this thread has been misrepresented by the vegetarians. It's transparent, and utterly unconvincing.

To avoid later accusations of weasel words: of course the reason for raising food animals is for the food, not benevolence. That does not mean that farm animals can not benefit from that situation.

So far: the accusations are that we are not skeptics, we haven't thought, we are liars, we are racists, we are compared to Nazis, words are redefined for emotional content (gristle, etc) and every argument is misrepresented. How about just making your argument instead, like we are?

 

[BobTheDonkey]

I can dial down the patronizing if you like.

That's odd, you already failed.

 

[ehcks]

In general do non-human animals treat each other and humans as equals, or do they often exploit each other when the opportunity arises?

That's something I've found funny about the whole thing.

Animals exploit each other, kill the weak, and take any advantage they can. There's rape, sometimes as the sole means of procreation. Murder, incest, cannibalism (sometimes even of their own family).

To say we should not do any of those things is to say we are different from other animals. And yet, the people actually saying this most strongly are calling for animal equality.

If we can avoid inhumane and cruel actions while having an animal benefit us, I see no problem. Even better, if we can form a symbiosis with some animals such as by domesticating them and prolonging their lives, that's just a good thing.

 

[Cain]

Ingrid Newkirk obviously does not do good work. She draws a salary of 37,701 dollars, which, if you want to put into perspective, places her in the top 4% of the global rich list. One word: hypocrite.

Now that's the lefty critique. Here's the rational critique: Salary is a reflection of one's contribution to the world. Take for instance Mr. James Randi. He heads an internationally known organization that fights against the evils of woo. It's only fair he draws a salary of about 200 thousand dollars. Back ten years ago, Newkirk only made 25,000 dollars a year, so Randi contributed eight times more to the world than she did. Age has taken a toll and now he only does five times as much. I think Newkirk should be criticized for bilking money from her stupid, naive donors as she lives high on the hog in a one room apartment (no roommates, she has it all too herself!)

Other points to Randi's favor:
-He probably receives a bunch of death threats each year.
-He drives a cool car (Ingrid Newkirk doesn't even drive, which I think is annoying)
-Penn & Teller like Randi and hate Newkirk. They're non-douchy. And they do magic. And they're skeptics.

Links:
http://www.rickross.com/reference/animal/animal1.html
http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=4314
http://www.globalrichlist.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Randi_Educational_Foundation#cite_note-SF-Weekly-13

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Hi there, welcome to the JREF where we discuss things to promote rationality and critical thinking. Sometimes we have discussions about political and moral topics, and most of the time we're committed to justifying our positions using rationality and critical thinking.

Patronizing drivel. No response really required. I do hope the irony is not lost on everyone.

Let's talk about the arguments you've specifically laid down:

OK! Let's do it!

1) "They taste good", seems like a bizarre argument. The satisfaction you get from certain flavors is a greater good than the "barbaric" (your words, not mine) way to obtain it? This view doesn't appear to have a very good justification, and would seem to justify treating humans in the same "barbaric" manner if doing so were particularly tasty.

Yes, by reforming my argument to remove all the points where I differentiate between humans and animals bred for food, you've not only formed a strawman (yummy!), you've ignored the exact premise of my argument! Good thing this is the JREF where people engage in rational and well-formed arguments.

2) "at the end of the day, I'll still enjoy eating meat", this seems to be equivalent to the statement that you simply don't care about animal interests, and no reason to consider them. The existence of a criminal justice system in the US, and likely your criticism of specific criminal actions, indicates that you feel that criminals should not exploit their victims even when they have no empathy for them at all. In other words, caring about something is not prerequisite for moral consideration. Your statement that you continue to enjoy eating meat has no moral implications whatsoever, its a red herring at best which advances no possible argument for or against animal slaughter.

Where did I discuss the criminal justice system? Or even crimes? Your retort here is so far from even responding to what I posted that red herring doesn't even come close to fathoming what you did. And, of course, ignores the distinction I made between "beasts of the field" bred specifically for use a food and humans. Fail x2.

3) "There isn't even equality among humans", seems like a pointless criticism, we can clearly support human rights and animal rights at the same time.

This is a valid point, but does nothing to counter the point I presented.

5) "You and your morality are not better than us, just different", seems to be an irrational statement which is flatly contradicted by the fact that you're even trying to argue with me. You clearly believe that some moral systems are more justifiable than others, this fact impacts whether you support or object to abortion, gay rights, whether you believe women deserve voting rights, have feelings about human rights abuses or violence in your community, etc. In other words, you don't simply feel that all moral systems are different, you likely believe there are arguments that make some moral systems more reasonable than others.

Discussing abortion is hardly the same as discussing the rights of beings that have zero capacity for cognitive thought (curentoor in their lifetime)(oops, before we go with the godwinning again... humans =/= farm animals).

In your particular case, your arguments just aren't very good. If you have a serious criticism of animal rights or anything I have to say, I'm very much interested to hear your opinion.

Really? Because not only did you not address the relevant opinions in my previous post, you flat out attempted to strawman the few bits of my post you thought you could. Wait, is this the JREF or isn't it?

 

[Cain]

Arguing works a lot better when you don't misrepresent other's arguments.

The argument that some farm animals have a good existence was raised to counter the argument that raising animals for food is bad because of the suffering it entails.

No, I think that's a brilliant argument, and the objections above miss the sharp point you're making. People who point out that individuals born into internment camps, slave plantations, and so on completely miss the point you're making... whatever that point is...

Of course humans can raise happy animals on farms. I'm not sure how we could possibly make their existence any happier -- short of not consuming them.

It's interesting. Every argument I have made in this thread has been misrepresented by the vegetarians. It's transparent, and utterly unconvincing.

Like I said earlier, they're stupid-heads.

To avoid later accusations of weasel words: of course the reason for raising food animals is for the food, not benevolence. That does not mean that farm animals can not benefit from that situation.

True 'dat, brother. It's like what Adam Smith said, "Not from the benevolence of the butcher, brewer, baker." Animal rights people are just crazy. "Hey, don't hurt animals blah blah blah." Shut up, bacon tastes good! Frankly, I find it offensive they would compare sweet, sweet bacon to gristle. Someone needs to apologize.

So far: the accusations are that we are not skeptics,[/quote

Crazy.

we haven't thought,

Ridiculous.

we are liars,

Absurd.

we are racists,

Insanity.

we are compared to Nazis,

Godwin.

Clearly they have no argument. Accusing people of racism and comparing them to Nazis. I'm glad you're not misunderstanding that criticism. You get it. They called you a Nazi racist, which is dumb since Nazis were racists.

 

[roger]

This thread is pretty funny.

 

[Cain]

Sorry I haven't replied for the last ten minutes. I've been busy lifting weights.

But I want to say something while we're on the subject of... Naziism.
(dramatic pause)
Warlocks are the enemy of God!

Adolf Hitler was a vegetarian! He also liked blondes. So if you -- like Hitler -- also like blondes, then that makes you a vegetarian.

OK, I'm gonna go back to gettin' big.

 

[Manopolus]

I'd say its ok to slaughter animals for food, infect them diseases and cancers, and use their organs for transplantation only in the areas where it would be acceptable to use a mentally similar human in the exact same way.

Hmm... so you have a special hate for special ed types, is that what you're saying?

Have some human decency, woman! They make great pets, but it doesn't seem to me like they'd be fit to eat.

 

[Dessi]

Dial down the patronizing a bit.

I support animal rights, just not the exact mix that you do. Believe it or not, I think, I am skeptical, I've read a lot of philosophy on this subject as well as many others. Reaching for Godwin, statements like "I am a skeptic", etc., changing terms to make somebody sound like a racist is not rational rebuttal, and convinces no one.

You also obviously haven't read what I've written on this thread. That's not an accusation, I doubt I could perfectly summarize your position. But, shouldn't we desist from characterizing somebody's position absent that effort. If you'll scroll up a bit, you see me arguing for better farm conditions, for eating grain fed beef, etc. You'll even see that my family raised many species of farm animals - I'm not just googling my 'knowledge', I've lived it. But, if you want to go on assuming that everyone that eats meat does not think, or know anything about farming practices, go on thinking that.

I'll share a true story with you. Yesterday afternoon, just after posting on this thread, I drove off to my bullseye league. Just after leaving my driveway a small herd of deer bolted across the road. Fortunately, I was going slow and was able to miss, though it was a close thing. Somewhat shaken, I continued driving on to my destination, a road that includes 8 miles of twisty mountain roads. Sooner or later I will probably hit and kill a deer.

That's a tradeoff we all make. Perhaps it is more likely for me than for you, based on where we live (if I recall you are in Lincoln NE, or closeby?), but we all kill with our cars. As I stated up thread, I would never drive my car at 65 through an apparently empty preschool playground, and I feel sure you would behave the same. Yet, we both do so through the living rooms of deer. (Perhaps you don't drive, but given you are posting on a computer I feel confident in saying you benefit from the roads and transportation).

I honestly want to know how you live with yourself if you truly hold that all our various species lives are equivalent? Some Buddhists live in monasteries, and strive to avoid so much as stepping on a bug, so it's possible to live that way. Ingrid has stated that she'd prefer to not live because her existence means dead animals. Heck, she has stated that she prefer that the human race not exist. In short, how do you justify, if you do, the deaths of deer, birds, skunks, squirrels, etc., on our roadways every day?

I probably have a bit more blood on my hands than you do. But not that much more. If you eat bread, lots of mice died for that loaf. To me, that seems incompatible with an argument that all lives are equal.

I lived in Lincoln a few years ago, now living in Omaha. Right now its easier to take a hot air balloon around the city than our totally crappy public transit, everyone has a car. (Somewhere out there, someone reading this is going to briefly wonder whether Nebraskas really do take their balloons from place to place. Do you know how many times I get the "you're ******** me" face when I tell people I'm a software developer in Nebraska Speaking of which I've spent an inordinate amount of time procrastinating my work so I can post here... )

I think I live with myself the same way that you live with yourself knowing that humans are included in unintentional car and train deaths every year. I think I live my life the same way that you do knowing that you own stuff made by slaves.

I don't think its possible to participate in society without an indirect impact on human and non-human life, I also don't think its possible to remove yourself from society without doing the same thing. Here's why:

I first developed an interest in the animal rights movement because I read discussions on the internet, I'd never really thought about my diet before, and when I saw people laying down explanations for killing animals, I was not aware that the arguments were arguably untenable. There's a woman in Australia who used to post on philosophyforums.com whose posts I found interesting and persuasive, I read the books she recommended and found them persuasive, and the counter arguments are almost universally based on fallacious logic or based on principles that logically negate any possible basis for human rights whatsoever. I eventually came to the conclusion that animal rights and humans rights are two sides of the same coin, the arguments that justify one logically extend to the other.

Had this woman removed herself from society, I probably wouldn't have jumped on the vegan train for years, if at all -- who knows if she's had the same effect on others.