Why is PETA so bloody dam stupid....

[Kevin_Lowe]

While his hyperbole that cats were some nexus that made the difference (I'd argue it was dogs and sheep, but only in teasing) is a bit strong, Rogue1stclass is correct in the description of how cats who domesticated contributed to the development of humans society, and not just on the Western side.

This is akin to defending someone who got called out after claiming that Belgium won WW2 singlehandedly by saying "Maybe that was a bit of hyperbole, but Belgium did fight in WW2. Perhaps you should learn you a few books before you argue from ignorance!".

Perhaps you should learn you a few books instead of arguing from incredulity, Kevin. It may help you to seem like less... inadequate. The domestic species that exist today are tied to human civilization going back for millennia, often to the very dawn of what we qualify as "civilization" in terms of history and anthropology. While I don't think I agree fully with the moral case Rogue1stclass makes, your incredulous dismissal shows just how much you're arguing from ignorance.

Firstly, asking for evidence is not the same thing as advancing an argument from ignorance. As ways of embarrassing yourself on a skeptic's discussion board go, this claim of yours stands out as an exceptional one, even for you and even for this thread.

Secondly, the claim that I was incredulous of (and still am incredulous of) is not that domesticated cats have been around a long time, but that "House cats are an animal that made civilization possible in the Western hemisphere". If you've got some evidence for that claim I'm sure we'd all like to see it.

 

[tyr_13]

(derail)

Interesting note about cats. They were self-domesticating. We didn't make any real attempts to train them at first. They just started showing up where the food was, we started feeding them, and then we started worshiping them. They act like gods because we treat them that way.

(/derail)

 

[Cain]

The question isn't whether they should be allowed out, but whether they should exist at all. To keep a cat alive and healthy, other animals have to die.

Should Felis catus be made extinct?

This is a false dichotomy, the one usually pitched on behalf of "livestock." Just because we stop breeding animals does not mean they will cease to exist as a species. Besides, cats are clever; they're survivors.

If so, how exactly is this valuing animal life?

I think you've established that already in at least two of your posts: cats are carnivores who feed off other animals.

House cats are an animal that made civilization possible in the Western hemisphere. Before the domestication of the cat, rodents tore through stored food supplies leading to famine and starvation. Cats kept the rodents managable and allowed for Humanity to reach the point in our evolution where it is possible to even consider giving up animal protein.
...
It is our responsibility as the species who dragged them out of the desert 4000 years ago to provide this for them.

These are just bad arguments and, incidentally, much, much weaker than the kind favoring reparations to descendants of slaves. Simply because cats proved beneficial to us through the centuries does not mean we have a special obligation to their species as a whole. If we do ever do manage to grow meat in a vat, do you think it follows we should keep tens of millions of cows around because their ancestors died for us?

In an economic sense -- and a response to crude sociobiologists into gene maximization -- it's crazy how people spend hundreds of dollars a year on pet food while humans go to sleep hungry (and something like 1/3 of pets are overweight).

A better argument for your position would ignore cats' historic utility and say, "Look, my cat's a member of my family, and you think I should kill it? You're messing with my family." As it stands, your argument suggests people may not have as good a reason for keeping other animals as members of their families.
-----------------------
GreNME:

However, the difference in where the line you mention lies is not in the moral "wrong" of raising, killing, and eating animals, but in the assertion of it counting as trivial. This crosses a line for your argument into the area of moral issues, I agree, but for those who do not have that same line it isn't crossing over into that moral issue. I'm not arguing that either side in a difference on that valuation "line" is superior to the other, but I am pointing out that while it may be a moral issue for one that does not necessitate it being a moral issue for the other.

Just because people may sincerely view an activity in an amoral light does not mean that it's an amoral issue. We can think of captains of industry who do things that wreak havoc on the environment, families, and so on, but to them they're bringing a "product" to "market," responding to the "laws of supply and demand."

On pro-lifers framing abortion as a moral issue:

That simply assigns too much unearned authority to one side of an argument and it skews critical examination of the debate on both sides. With the pro-life arguments I am under no obligation to patronize the assertions of 'life' beginning at the point of conception, because that sort of assertion isn't even supported by anything but a spiritualist or religious/magical belief in what happens.

I partially agree, which is why earlier I had attempted to clarify with a different example. In a better world abortion -- especially first term abortions -- are not considered moral or immoral. The fact Americans have as many abortions as they do points to their stupidity (or ignorance) rather than immorality on account of the fact that there is a literally a pill that can be taken to prevent pregnancy, along with many other effective methods. In other words, abortion is a shockingly dumb form of birth control -- totally cost inefficient.

Let's change examples from abortion to masturbation and the religious claim that it's "immoral" (offending God for a trivial pleasure). Again, the first useful question to ask on almost any topic is "where's the harm?" In the case of animal rights, I think the harms are obvious and no longer seriously debated. Rogue says "No one is arguing that animals shouldn't receive moral consideration." Even religious people need to cast their arguments in terms of harm, but their understanding of the universe raises many fundamental questions: Does God exist? How do you know God says masturbation is wrong? How can I "harm" or even "offend" God -- isn't He all-powerful? If God does exist, and you know He disapproves of masturbation, doesn't this concern only God and myself? And so on. Is it worth harming God for the pleasure of ejaculating? Well, we reject the first part right off, so what difference does it make? You, however, agreed to the first in our application -- animals are worthy of our moral consideration, so it doesn't matter whether you consider reasons non-trivial because non-trivial here really reads as "justified." The issue is inescapably moral because interests are at stake.

 

[GreNME]

This is akin to defending someone who got called out after claiming that Belgium won WW2 singlehandedly by saying "Maybe that was a bit of hyperbole, but Belgium did fight in WW2. Perhaps you should learn you a few books before you argue from ignorance!".

Which is a good example of you continuing to argue from ignorance. The reality is that domestic animals-- in the case brought up specifically, domestic cats-- really did serve not only a useful purpose in the development of human civilization, but a crucial one that addressed a problem early humans who were building civilization faced. Again, in the case of cats, it was pest control first and foremost, with the more social of the creatures evolving into house pets and not simply food-storage-area (outside) pets.

Firstly, asking for evidence is not the same thing as advancing an argument from ignorance. As ways of embarrassing yourself on a skeptic's discussion board go, this claim of yours stands out as an exceptional one, even for you and even for this thread.

There's a difference between requiring evidence for an outrageous claim and demanding proof of something that's not only well-accepted as historical and anthropological certainty, but is easily found using a simple google search for verification. Demanding a citation for any little bit of information that counters your own ignorance is not behaving skeptically, it's arguing from incredulity.

Secondly, the claim that I was incredulous of (and still am incredulous of) is not that domesticated cats have been around a long time, but that "House cats are an animal that made civilization possible in the Western hemisphere". If you've got some evidence for that claim I'm sure we'd all like to see it.

You're obviously still arguing from incredulity, because I pointed out the scientific study that the first two links I gave referenced, a study that has also gone on to be cited in several scientific studies on similar subject matter since its publication. Domestic cats were one of the species that made the transition from hunter-gatherer to agrarian and sedentary societies possible by removing one of the major factors limiting the food storage problem (pests). That you continue to disbelieve in the face of evidence presented supporting that claim displays your argument from incredulity that much more.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Which is a good example of you continuing to argue from ignorance. The reality is that domestic animals-- in the case brought up specifically, domestic cats-- really did serve not only a useful purpose in the development of human civilization, but a crucial one that addressed a problem early humans who were building civilization faced. Again, in the case of cats, it was pest control first and foremost, with the more social of the creatures evolving into house pets and not simply food-storage-area (outside) pets.

Evidence that this was crucial?

There's a difference between requiring evidence for an outrageous claim and demanding proof of something that's not only well-accepted as historical and anthropological certainty, but is easily found using a simple google search for verification. Demanding a citation for any little bit of information that counters your own ignorance is not behaving skeptically, it's arguing from incredulity.

If it's that well-accepted then one of you might be able to provide evidence.

You're obviously still arguing from incredulity, because I pointed out the scientific study that the first two links I gave referenced, a study that has also gone on to be cited in several scientific studies on similar subject matter since its publication. Domestic cats were one of the species that made the transition from hunter-gatherer to agrarian and sedentary societies possible by removing one of the major factors limiting the food storage problem (pests). That you continue to disbelieve in the face of evidence presented supporting that claim displays your argument from incredulity that much more.

The first link includes very brief mention of some guy being quoted as saying that domestic cats were "critical" to early agriculture, as an aside to the main point of the article. No other evidence is provided.

The second two links have absolutely nothing to do with the issue of cats as being necessary for agriculture or civilization.

The scientific study you reference has nothing to do with the issue of cats being necessary for agriculture or civilization.

What did I say earlier about posters aping the style of rationality without grasping the substance? It's not enough to call out the names of logical fallacies and cite scientific studies at random.

 

[GreNME]

Just because people may sincerely view an activity in an amoral light does not mean that it's an amoral issue. We can think of captains of industry who do things that wreak havoc on the environment, families, and so on, but to them they're bringing a "product" to "market," responding to the "laws of supply and demand."

Indeed, simply asserting it's an amoral issue is definitely not enough to make it a moral issue. However, that places us at an impasse, since neither of us asserting one way or the other automagically makes it a moral or amoral issue. As such, it would make sense that providing an argument that establishes the moral argument instead of working from a pre-supposed assumption of the moral argument makes more sense in this light, does it not?

On pro-lifers framing abortion as a moral issue:


I partially agree, which is why earlier I had attempted to clarify with a different example. In a better world abortion -- especially first term abortions -- are not considered moral or immoral. The fact Americans have as many abortions as they do points to their stupidity (or ignorance) rather than immorality on account of the fact that there is a literally a pill that can be taken to prevent pregnancy, along with many other effective methods. In other words, abortion is a shockingly dumb form of birth control -- totally cost inefficient.

I think I can mostly agree with your assessment there.

Let's change examples from abortion to masturbation and the religious claim that it's "immoral" (offending God for a trivial pleasure). Again, the first useful question to ask on almost any topic is "where's the harm?" In the case of animal rights, I think the harms are obvious and no longer seriously debated. Rogue says "No one is arguing that animals shouldn't receive moral consideration." Even religious people need to cast their arguments in terms of harm, but their understanding of the universe raises many fundamental questions: Does God exist? How do you know God says masturbation is wrong? How can I "harm" or even "offend" God -- isn't He all-powerful? If God does exist, and you know He disapproves of masturbation, doesn't this concern only God and myself? And so on. Is it worth harming God for the pleasure of ejaculating? Well, we reject the first part right off, so what difference does it make? You, however, agreed to the first in our application -- animals are worthy of our moral consideration, so it doesn't matter whether you consider reasons non-trivial because non-trivial here really reads as "justified." The issue is inescapably moral because interests are at stake.

I was in (near) agreement with you right up to the last two sentences. The two sentences "animals can be worthy of moral consideration" (which is closer to what I agreed on) and "animals can be domesticated for food" are not conflicting statements, because the statement that animals can be considered on moral grounds does not necessitate their being used for food as a required moral subject (except as part of the statements you're making). Essentially, putting it in terms of my alternative argument that there is good reason to lower consumption (but not remove it completely), the reasoning for a change in consumption does not necessitate using moral grounds to come to the conclusion. To use your example, while masturbation in and of itself may not be a problem, public masturbation (or impulsive masturbation at any time during the course of the day, which risks numerous instances of public masturbation) is something I would say I have a problem with, though on social and practical terms and not moral ones. Sure, a moral argument could be put forth, but it isn't necessary to the ends of viewing public masturbation as wrong (in this case, keeping it illegal).

Again, this boils down to where the line is drawn concerning what constitutes the "wrong" (in this case, eating meat). While I can acknowledge the reasoning you have for your line being drawn where it is, that does not mean I agree that is where the line should be drawn and have not been convinced through the arguments using a moral basis that there is an underlying moral reasoning that would compel everyone. Feel free to write that off as me essentially saying "what works for some doesn't necessarily work for all," but again this is the subjectivity of the issue coming into play.

 

[GreNME]

Evidence that this was crucial?



If it's that well-accepted then one of you might be able to provide evidence.



The first link includes very brief mention of some guy being quoted as saying that domestic cats were "critical" to early agriculture, as an aside to the main point of the article. No other evidence is provided.

The second two links have absolutely nothing to do with the issue of cats as being necessary for agriculture or civilization.

The scientific study you reference has nothing to do with the issue of cats being necessary for agriculture or civilization.

What did I say earlier about posters aping the style of rationality without grasping the substance? It's not enough to call out the names of logical fallacies and cite scientific studies at random.

Your attempts to grasp at straws have been noted, as well as your inability to read the evidence presented.

The fact is that there is a noticeable and measurable causal relationship between domestic animals and the establishment of human civilization (as the study establishes). One of the examples within the study involves how cats domesticated as pest control, particularly in the Fertile Crescent and moving outward (as society grew). You're really going to great lengths to deny this evidence, and at this point it seems that you're taking Truther methodology and demanding that the precise wording you want in order to drop your incredulity be presented for you instead of the evidences that are in existence where the data that proves your incredulity wrong are part of the examples of a larger commentary (in this case, on the development of human civilization).

Seriously, Kevin, arguing with you about this is getting to be like arguments with Dotty Murdock's followers, who seem to think that there should be some evidence existing out there stating explicitly that Horus and Jesus were not the same mythical figure, or else their rejection of the reams of evidence that runs contrary to their ignorance is somehow justified. Get over it. There are not going to be scientific publications that say "cat's made civilization possible" out there. There are, however, existent pulications on the development of human civilization, and on the whole whenever any of the factors are listed that were integral in mankind establishing civilization, domestication of animals (including cats) are near the top of the list in terms of direct and necessary causal relationships. Stop being so deliberately obtuse to the information provided and reacting so knee-jerk every time your ignorance is pointed out.

 

[realpaladin]

Any one side convinced any of the other side yet? PM me when that happens, ok?

 

[Rogue1stclass]

We could keep a few in zoos I guess. Or we could have a market in road kill and other ethical cat food. I don't foresee us getting to that point in the next few generations though.

In a few generations, it will likely be a moot point, as the cloning of animal tissue in isolation will probably be practical.

I can't make sense of the question "If so, how exactly is this valuing animal life?". I'm not sure what assumptions could underly a question like that.

Cats can't help what they are or what they need to eat. To condem them for this is not valuing animal life. It is either "favoring" prey species or anthropomorphication.

I put "favor" in quotes because protecting prey species from predation is hardly doing them any favors. These species are design to survive despite predation, and taking that out of the equation will increase the suffering by more individuals long term.

Evidence?

This from a modern guide on grain storage found here: http://www.fao.org/docrep/t1838e/T1838E1L.HTM

...Once a large population of rodents has established itself in a store considerable losses, that cannot be retrieved, have already occurred and subsequent control action is expensive...

Normally predation will not keep rats and mice at economic population levels. One exception is the keeping of cats. Cats do not directly control rats and mice by feeding on them. It is their presence, which keeps most rats and mice away. A survey conducted in a Myanmar village has clearly shown that households with cats had no rats while those without cats in the same village were visited by rats.

Bolding mine. Keep in mind, this is with modern agriculture and storage technigues. 4000 years ago, "considerable losses" meant people didn't eat.

Also, it seems we are not done with cats, after all.

Are you arguing that we "owe them" in some sort of interspecies, trans-temporal sense?

How is that any different than owing cows in some vague, abstract moral sense.

I find that unlikely.

The popularity of monitor lizards in the pet trade says otherwise, and they have none of the advantages of a cat.

It looks like you are indeed arguing that we "owe them".

How does this work? Do we also owe some kind of moral debt to every species we've domesticated, relocated, driven to extinction, driven near extinction, hunted or what-have-you? Do these obligations apply to individual animals in any way, shape or form or are they owed to some metaphysical concept like "the species as a whole"?

I find it hard to believe that's your real position, but if so please elaborate on it.

So, we don't owe a moral debt to animals?

Awesome, debate solved.

Seriously, I have difficultly believing your position too. You are essentially arguing that we should cause the deaths of millions of animals so that you won't feel bad about them suffering or causing suffering. Further, you are arguing that this is somehow better for the animals themselves.

Tell me, is it better to be born in slavery, or not at all? What if you have absolutely no concept of what slavery is, much less that you are in it?

 

[Cain]

Feel free to write that off as me essentially saying "what works for some doesn't necessarily work for all," but again this is the subjectivity of the issue coming into play.

Again, it's a moral issue when you're interfering with the affairs of others, especially in a violent way. This is just a horribly meaningless tangent.

 

[GreNME]

Again, it's a moral issue when you're interfering with the affairs of others, especially in a violent way. This is just a horribly meaningless tangent.

I don't think it's a tangent. The value you're using to call it interfering with the affairs of others-- other whats? people? individuals?-- is where the difference comes in, provided you're responding to my statement about the subjectivity of the issue.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Your attempts to grasp at straws have been noted, as well as your inability to read the evidence presented.

"Grasping at straws"? I think you should look in the mirror. You're trying to defend an extraordinary claim (that cats were necessary for civilisation), by extrapolating wildly from snippets and asides, and lying outright about the content of scientific papers.

The fact is that there is a noticeable and measurable causal relationship between domestic animals and the establishment of human civilization (as the study establishes).

Now you're taking correlation for causation. Are you trying to be nice to people playing fallacy bingo at home by employing all the major ones, or are you really this clueless?

Just because wild cats moved in with humans shortly after humans started stockpiling grain (and hence stockpiling rodents), because their prey was there, does not entail the conclusion that they saved civilisation by showing up.

One of the examples within the study involves how cats domesticated as pest control, particularly in the Fertile Crescent and moving outward (as society grew). You're really going to great lengths to deny this evidence, and at this point it seems that you're taking Truther methodology and demanding that the precise wording you want in order to drop your incredulity be presented for you instead of the evidences that are in existence where the data that proves your incredulity wrong are part of the examples of a larger commentary (in this case, on the development of human civilization).

Now you're comparing people to Truthers, because you've seen people do that and you think it's clever.

Look, GreNME, there's more to this skepticism business than trying to copy the terms used as best you can. You also have to think. I realise that you want this claim to be true because then you'd have scored a point, but the whole point of skepticism is reserving belief until you see some proper evidence.

You've got absolutely no direct evidence that cats are necessary to agriculture, and there's an obvious alternative hypothesis to explain the facts, which is that agriculture causes cats to show up, rather than cats enabling agriculture to work.

Seriously, Kevin, arguing with you about this is getting to be like arguments with Dotty Murdock's followers, who seem to think that there should be some evidence existing out there stating explicitly that Horus and Jesus were not the same mythical figure, or else their rejection of the reams of evidence that runs contrary to their ignorance is somehow justified. Get over it. There are not going to be scientific publications that say "cat's made civilization possible" out there. There are, however, existent pulications on the development of human civilization, and on the whole whenever any of the factors are listed that were integral in mankind establishing civilization, domestication of animals (including cats) are near the top of the list in terms of direct and necessary causal relationships. Stop being so deliberately obtuse to the information provided and reacting so knee-jerk every time your ignorance is pointed out.

So now you're comparing me to Dotty's followers (because you've seen the big kids doing that and want to copy them), and at the same time admitting that you are never going to find any evidence for the claim you are supporting. Classy.

All you have is evidence that domestication in general was vital to civilisation, which nobody was contesting in the first place.

You're really scraping the bottom of the barrel here. This issue isn't even relevant to the main thread topic, but you're still desperately casting about trying to prove me wrong about something, no matter what it is or how you do it.

To Rogue1stclass

Cats can't help what they are or what they need to eat. To condem them for this is not valuing animal life. It is either "favoring" prey species or anthropomorphication.

I put "favor" in quotes because protecting prey species from predation is hardly doing them any favors. These species are design to survive despite predation, and taking that out of the equation will increase the suffering by more individuals long term.

There's so much wrong here I barely know where to start. The animal rights position usually starts from the premise that individual animals have rights, not that metaphysical entities like species' have rights and individual animals do not. If your premise is that individual animals have rights it's entirely consistent to say that keeping an animal which kills lots of other animals is a bad idea.

As for the predation avoiding suffering argument, that's a highly specific one that only applies to prey species prone to boom/bust breeding cycles where cats are the main controlling factor. Can you name any particular species' of prey animals in suburbia that would suffer or breed out of control as a result of housecats disappearing?

This from a modern guide on grain storage found here: http://www.fao.org/docrep/t1838e/T1838E1L.HTM

Bolding mine. Keep in mind, this is with modern agriculture and storage technigues. 4000 years ago, "considerable losses" meant people didn't eat.

That's a huge leap. You got from "considerable losses" to "civilisation would not have happened" in one mighty jump to the conclusion you wanted. Wouldn't it be easier to admit that you just made that claim up, or heard it on some daft cat-fancier web site, and now you've thought about it the claim might actually be a load of rubbish?

How is that any different than owing cows in some vague, abstract moral sense.

As I said above, the animal rights position usually starts from the premise that individual animals have moral importance. It does not start from the premise that we owe historical debts to species' as a whole because of what happened millennia ago.

The popularity of monitor lizards in the pet trade says otherwise, and they have none of the advantages of a cat.

Do I need to post pictures of monitor lizards and toads?

So, we don't owe a moral debt to animals?

Awesome, debate solved.

Not so fast. If I denied, say, that modern USians owed something to descendants of slaves because of how their ancestors were treated, would it follow that descendants of slaves had no moral status whatsoever? Or could it be possible that the descendants of slaves were still moral entities worthy of consideration, even if modern USians didn't "owe them" for historical injustices?

I also noticed that you completely ignored some very important questions I put to you. Do we also owe some kind of moral debt to every species we've domesticated, relocated, driven to extinction, driven near extinction, hunted or what-have-you? Do these obligations apply to individual animals in any way, shape or form or are they owed to some metaphysical concept like "the species as a whole"?

I think that it's going to turn out that you do not actually hold to this "owe them" story consistently. I think it's going to turn out that you just pulled this story out to defend cat ownership, and that you aren't willing to apply the concept of "owing them" to every other species we've historically interacted with.

As I kept saying to RandFan, consistency is a prerequisite for rationality. I don't think you hold this position consistently, and I don't think it's a rational position.

Seriously, I have difficultly believing your position too. You are essentially arguing that we should cause the deaths of millions of animals so that you won't feel bad about them suffering or causing suffering. Further, you are arguing that this is somehow better for the animals themselves.

If those millions of animals are going to torture and kill hundreds of millions of animals, yes, I'd say the world would be a better place without those millions.

Tell me, is it better to be born in slavery, or not at all? What if you have absolutely no concept of what slavery is, much less that you are in it?

Say what? What does this have to do with cats killing other animals? Granted PETA morally equates domestication with slavery, but I don't think any posters here have been doing so.

 

[GreNME]

You've got absolutely no direct evidence that cats are necessary to agriculture, and there's an obvious alternative hypothesis to explain the facts, which is that agriculture causes cats to show up, rather than cats enabling agriculture to work.

Along with the "lessons in skepticism" and "philosophy 101" from Kevin Lowe, now we have more ridiculous strawmen.

Seriously, Kevin, just stop backpedaling into strawmen like that. You're arguing yourself into a corner. Again. Either address what I've actually pointed out or just admit that there was something about what is now a common pet that you didn't realize. You don't have to come at this like such a fanatic.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Along with the "lessons in skepticism" and "philosophy 101" from Kevin Lowe, now we have more ridiculous strawmen.

That was Rogue1stclass's claim. Look, since you're lying about it now I'll quote it again.

T
House cats are an animal that made civilization possible in the Western hemisphere. Before the domestication of the cat, rodents tore through stored food supplies leading to famine and starvation. Cats kept the rodents managable and allowed for Humanity to reach the point in our evolution where it is possible to even consider giving up animal protein.

There. That's the claim I wanted to see evidence for. You can try shifting the goalposts to "cats help keep rodents away", or "domestication of animals made civilisation possible, and cats are animals", but it's not going to work.

Seriously, Kevin, just stop backpedaling into strawmen like that. You're arguing yourself into a corner. Again. Either address what I've actually pointed out or just admit that there was something about what is now a common pet that you didn't realize. You don't have to come at this like such a fanatic.

"Backpedaling" and "straw man" are two more terms you've obviously picked up around here but can't quite use appropriately yet.

As usual I've been completely consistent and replied to the arguments actually made, and you're arguing in some fantasy world that exists only inside your own head.

You keep acting like it's news to me that domesticated cats have been around since the dawn of civilisation. It's not news to me, and it's not the claim I was taking issue with. Perhaps more importantly, even if it was news to me it would still be completely irrelevant to the thread topic, and your pursuit of that point while ignoring the thread topic just indicates you've got nothing meaningful to contribute.

 

[GreNME]

That was Rogue1stclass's claim. Look, since you're lying about it now I'll quote it again.

House cats are an animal that made civilization possible in the Western hemisphere. Before the domestication of the cat, rodents tore through stored food supplies leading to famine and starvation. Cats kept the rodents managable and allowed for Humanity to reach the point in our evolution where it is possible to even consider giving up animal protein.

There. That's the claim I wanted to see evidence for. You can try shifting the goalposts to "cats help keep rodents away", or "domestication of animals made civilisation possible, and cats are animals", but it's not going to work.

And I already pointed out the hyperbole, and where it was incorrect. It wasn't just cats that made civilization possible, it was domestication of animals (which included cats) that made it possible. I then provided the evidence that supports it. You're refusing to acknowledge it, instead intent on trying to get Rogue1stclass to continue arguing nonsense-- which seems to be what you're good at.

"Backpedaling" and "straw man" are two more terms you've obviously picked up around here but can't quite use appropriately yet.

Your "obvious alternative hypothesis to explain the facts" (your own words) was the backpedaling, your hyper-literalism even after the the overblown rhetoric was pointed out (and corrected, with citation) was (and is) your strawman. Your assumption of intellectual superiority is your own personal problem.

As usual I've been completely consistent and replied to the arguments actually made, and you're arguing in some fantasy world that exists only inside your own head.

Are you always the hero in your little epics?

You keep acting like it's news to me that domesticated cats have been around since the dawn of civilisation. It's not news to me, and it's not the claim I was taking issue with. Perhaps more importantly, even if it was news to me it would still be completely irrelevant to the thread topic, and your pursuit of that point while ignoring the thread topic just indicates you've got nothing meaningful to contribute.

In case you missed it, Cain and I have been having a civil and useful exchange for a couple pages now. Of course, with your civility filter on backward I can understand how you've missed more meaningful posts.

 

[Rogue1stclass]

Missed this one earlier.

This is a false dichotomy, the one usually pitched on behalf of "livestock." Just because we stop breeding animals does not mean they will cease to exist as a species. Besides, cats are clever; they're survivors.

I was specifically addressing a PETAish pattern of extermination. The cessation of breeding is a less extreme position, but it still does not address what we are to do about the animals that exist in the here and now. The average lifespan of a cat is around 15 years, with examples living up to twice that. Do we or do we no have a moral responsibility to provide for those animals for that period?

I think you've established that already in at least two of your posts: cats are carnivores who feed off other animals.

So an animal's life is worth less dependant on features that it can't control? Is this actually something you would like to argue?

These are just bad arguments and, incidentally, much, much weaker than the kind favoring reparations to descendants of slaves. Simply because cats proved beneficial to us through the centuries does not mean we have a special obligation to their species as a whole. If we do ever do manage to grow meat in a vat, do you think it follows we should keep tens of millions of cows around because their ancestors died for us?

I disagree. If an animal's life is comparable in value to a human's, then we still have an obligation to consider it's needs regardless of it's benefit to us. You can weigh things like the amount of cats fed verses the amount of "harm" done to cattle, but to say that "we don't need you anymore, so we are going to phase you out like vaccuum tubes" is not an acceptable answer.

In an economic sense -- and a response to crude sociobiologists into gene maximization -- it's crazy how people spend hundreds of dollars a year on pet food while humans go to sleep hungry (and something like 1/3 of pets are overweight).

Yes. It's also crazy how many people spend hundreds of dollars a year for internet access so they can argue with strangers on line for those same reasons. Yet here we are.

A better argument for your position would ignore cats' historic utility and say, "Look, my cat's a member of my family, and you think I should kill it? You're messing with my family." As it stands, your argument suggests people may not have as good a reason for keeping other animals as members of their families.

The cat's historic utility was incidentally to my argument. My argument is that cats are here now--out of the bag, so to speak--and by your own argument it is our responsibility to provide for them.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

And I already pointed out the hyperbole, and where it was incorrect. It wasn't just cats that made civilization possible, it was domestication of animals (which included cats) that made it possible. I then provided the evidence that supports it. You're refusing to acknowledge it, instead intent on trying to get Rogue1stclass to continue arguing nonsense-- which seems to be what you're good at.

Again, you're acting as if common knowledge is somehow news to us. You are patting yourself on the back for providing evidence for trivially true claims nobody was contesting in the first place.

Your "obvious alternative hypothesis to explain the facts" (your own words) was the backpedaling

Sorry, you don't understand the words you are using.

Backpedalling is when a person retreats from a previously stated position to a safer one. Say, retreating from "cats are responsible for Western civilisation" to "cats help keep rodents out of grain stores".

Explaining that correlation is not causation, and providing an alternative hypothesis for the sake of illustration in which the arrow of causation goes in the opposite direction is not backpedalling. It's supporting my original position, which was skepticism towards the claim that cats are responsible for Western civilisation.

, your hyper-literalism even after the the overblown rhetoric was pointed out (and corrected, with citation) was (and is) your strawman. Your assumption of intellectual superiority is your own personal problem.

I can see how my style of writing seems like "hyper-literalism" to you. I actually respond to what people say, not to what I wished they had said or what I think they said after skim-reading it.

Next bit of skeptical education for you: Proper use of the term "straw man".

A "straw man" is when someone ignores the actual argument put forward by another poster, and makes up their own "straw man" version of the argument which is easier for them to attack. Then they attack the straw man.

In this case, my actual position was "I am skeptical of the claim that cats were responsible for the development of civilisation". That's not a straw man, because that was Rogue1stclass's actual claim which they have still not retracted or supported. It doesn't become a straw man just because you afterwards tried to change the subject, either. As long as it's still Rogue1stclass's actual position it cannot be a straw man.

You jumped in and started posting stuff that was irrelevant to that argument, while claiming it was relevant. I'm not sure whether you just got confused or whether you were actually being mendacious. Then you backpedalled (see how I use the term correctly?) and started claiming that you had really only been arguing that the domestication of animals was responsible for civilisation. However unless Rogue1stclass is your sock, just because you backpedal doesn't mean that he has backpedalled.

 

[Rogue1stclass]

To Rogue1stclass[/b]

There's so much wrong here I barely know where to start. The animal rights position usually starts from the premise that individual animals have rights, not that metaphysical entities like species' have rights and individual animals do not. If your premise is that individual animals have rights it's entirely consistent to say that keeping an animal which kills lots of other animals is a bad idea.

You seem stuck in some kind of word game.

I don't have any interest in doing that, so I'll just restate.

A cat cannot help what it needs to eat. To condemn the cat for this is not valuing animal life. It is valuing the life of the animals it needs to eat.

As for the predation avoiding suffering argument, that's a highly specific one that only applies to prey species prone to boom/bust breeding cycles where cats are the main controlling factor. Can you name any particular species' of prey animals in suburbia that would suffer or breed out of control as a result of housecats disappearing?

I was speaking specifically about domesticated livestock. All domestic livestock will overproduce if checks are not made on them. They were kind of designed that way.

That's a huge leap. You got from "considerable losses" to "civilisation would not have happened" in one mighty jump to the conclusion you wanted. Wouldn't it be easier to admit that you just made that claim up, or heard it on some daft cat-fancier web site, and now you've thought about it the claim might actually be a load of rubbish?

Ya know, you've quoted my post like 4 times, try to actually read it. "House cats are an animal that made civilization possible in the Western Hemisphere". That's a very qualified claim that both myself and GreNME have posted evidence for. Inflating it out to "civilization would not have happened without cats" is something that happened in your head.

Further, I specified the ways in cats helped early civilizations. They helped control rodents in food stores. Would you not agree that unchecked, rodents will decimate food stores? Would you not agree that having food stores is one of the reasons that people began to congragrate in villages and cities, and access to these stores allowed people to move from subsistance farming into specializations such as masonary and government?

If not, then you are arguing against one of the basic tenents of anthropology.

As I said above, the animal rights position usually starts from the premise that individual animals have moral importance. It does not start from the premise that we owe historical debts to species' as a whole because of what happened millennia ago.

Well, because of that importance, those animals are here now. They have a genetic deficiency that causes to sicken and die if not fed a certain diet. They can't help that, they didn't ask to be here. Do we just not consider that at all?

Do I need to post pictures of monitor lizards and toads?

Sure, start with the most popular species, Varanus exanthema.

Not so fast. If I denied, say, that modern USians owed something to descendants of slaves because of how their ancestors were treated, would it follow that descendants of slaves had no moral status whatsoever? Or could it be possible that the descendants of slaves were still moral entities worthy of consideration, even if modern USians didn't "owe them" for historical injustices?

But those are not your options with cats. You have the option to either meet their needs, or not. I you choose "not", then all moral consideration means is that you'll usher them into extinction more gently.

I also noticed that you completely ignored some very important questions I put to you. Do we also owe some kind of moral debt to every species we've domesticated, relocated, driven to extinction, driven near extinction, hunted or what-have-you? Do these obligations apply to individual animals in any way, shape or form or are they owed to some metaphysical concept like "the species as a whole"?

You seem to having issues with the concept of species. I suggest you take the matter up with the entire science of biology.

I think that it's going to turn out that you do not actually hold to this "owe them" story consistently. I think it's going to turn out that you just pulled this story out to defend cat ownership, and that you aren't willing to apply the concept of "owing them" to every other species we've historically interacted with.

As I kept saying to RandFan, consistency is a prerequisite for rationality. I don't think you hold this position consistently, and I don't think it's a rational position.

You'd be wrong. Yes, I feel that we do owe a duty to other animals, particularly those that we brought along with us into civilization. We owe the continuation of their species and the best lives we can provide for them. That some individuals have to die so that others can live, or even just live better, is a sad but unavoidable fact.

My education is in biology and anthropology. In these sciences, to paraphrase a classic, the lives of individuals don't amount to a hill of beans. What matters in the continuation and eventual evolution of species and societies. Sacrifices are and have to be made for those to happen.

In my personal life, I admit to being irrational. I value myself, my family, my girlfriend, my dog, my cat, my lizard, my snake and my squirrel more than I would other members of these species. I understand these are judgements based on emotion, and I'm fine with that.

If those millions of animals are going to torture and kill hundreds of millions of animals, yes, I'd say the world would be a better place without those millions.

And I'd disagree.

Say what? What does this have to do with cats killing other animals? Granted PETA morally equates domestication with slavery, but I don't think any posters here have been doing so.

It's late and I honestly don't remember where I was going with this. Probably something about the extinction of domestic cattle to keep them from suffering. I'm just going to agree that it had nothing to do with cats and let it go.

 

[Rogue1stclass]

There. That's the claim I wanted to see evidence for. You can try shifting the goalposts to "cats help keep rodents away", or "domestication of animals made civilisation possible, and cats are animals", but it's not going to work.

I wanted to respond to this specifically to point out that I clearly said "an animal". "An" meaning "a particular kind amonst others" in this context. Are you claiming that cats did not have a hand in making civilization possible? On what do you base that claim?

 

[GreNME]

Again, you're acting as if common knowledge is somehow news to us. You are patting yourself on the back for providing evidence for trivially true claims nobody was contesting in the first place.

You're making ridiculous arguments, Kevin. You hopped all over a hyperpolic statement in order to avoid the larger point Rogue1stclass was making regarding your line of argument that would lead logically to abandoning all domestic species. That you're now working so hard to try to explain yourself is only making your arguments seem that much less honest.

Great job.