No more Fido or Fluffy for supper?

[mellestad]

Animals DO feel pain, inflicting unnecessary pain is cruel and wrong.

So let's play with that.

Would you define pain as the neurological response to harmful stimuli?  If so, fish and insects feel pain.  Is there a non-arbitrary dividing line between what should be protected from 'unnecessary pain' and what isn't?  Some plants show response to 'pain'.  Just mammals?  If so, why?

Also, how do you define unnecessary?  We can live perfectly fine without meat, meat just an expensive luxury protein.  So is your standard for necessary, "When humans have a whim."?  Something else?

And how much pain is cruel?  1 second of pain during a quick blow to the head?  The time it takes for a deer shot through the vitals to bleed out?  Bull fighting?  How about a gut shot deer?  How do you defend your choice as non-arbitrary?

How about stress?  Is pain the only 'cruel' thing, or could stress be cruel as well?  If stress is OK, why?  If stress is not OK, what activities does that eliminate?

Finally, does intent matter, or is it simply a mathematical formula of intensity and duration of pain/suffering/stress = cruel and wrong?  If someone shoots a deer in the guts on purpose, is it less moral that someone who does it on accident?  Since it does not matter which way it happens from the deer’s perspective (and we are hypothetically concerned about the deer's suffering here, not the human's guilt), is one more moral than the other?

[tyme]

Animals raised in a healthy, humane manner grow faster and are much healthier.

Of course they are healthier, but they don't grow faster.

Large scale animal farms use (or used to use) growth hormones, and practically force feed the animals cornmeal from a trough for a reason: they get fatter, faster, on diets of simple carbohydrates, even if it's so unhealthy for them that a few die in the process.

Pescetarian is the term for you, rather than Vegetarian. Like one of my sister's friends (I wouldn't have known the term existed otherwise).

Isn't Steve Jobs a pescetarian?

Animals DO feel pain, inflicting unnecessary pain is cruel and wrong.

The threshold of what is unnecessary is where a lot of the disagreement between vegans, animal researchers, and meat eaters lies.

But as far as the animals themselves, IMO they are biological machines.

So are we.

[red headed stranger]

If more people ate dogs and cats, we'd have fewer strays.
How does that work?

It's an old wives tale in China and Korea.  Supposedly, eating dog soup, especially on the "hottest day of the year" (Summer Solstice)  will help you cool off in the heat. 

[Blakenzy]

Honestly, I couldn't care less what people eat, or how the food is treated while it is alive.  In fact, I don't even think there should be animal abuse crimes whatsoever.  I do think people who abuse animals are sick, but only because there is a strong correlation between animal abuse and later crimes against people.  But as far as the animals themselves, IMO they are biological machines.  I think the emotional attachment people have with animals is pretty silly, at the includes food animals, pets, wildlife, etc.  I don't begrudge anyone for getting close to a pet.  You're free to do whatever you want.  But I do take issue with people who try to tell me what I can and can't do regarding animals because of their emotions.

Bottom line, I would care if the Chinese rounded up every dog in the country and burned them alive just for the hell of it, so long as they started respecting the Inalienable Rights of People.

Holy lack of empathy, Batman!

[taurusowner]

Holy lack of empathy, Batman!

I have plenty of empathy.  For Humans.

[Sindawe]

But as far as the animals themselves, IMO they are biological machines

Maybe you need a couple of wacks with the clue-bat Ragnar, but you too are are "biological machine".  Sure, you can CLAIM that our species is somehow different from the other animals on the planet.  Maybe it would that we walk on two legs...opps, lots of birds are bipedal. 

OK, we use tools...opps, so do Finches, Ravens and Chimps. 

OK, we MAKE tools...opps, again so do some species of birds and apes. 

OK, we make weapons and traps to hunt with!  Opps, so do Chimpanzee's and some whales.

Hmmm...lots see, *I* know!  Humans are the only ones who convey complex information to their fellows! 

Opps...so do honey bees.

OH! OH! OH!  I got it now!  Humans are the only ones with immortal souls!  YEAH!  Thats it! 

Not that said soul can be demostrated to exist, much less measured.  You just have to trust me on this one.

I have plenty of empathy.  For Humans.

And some people wonder why I'm such a misanthrope.

As I see it, the only thing that truely sets our kind apart from the rest of the animal kingdom is our capacity for rationalization of the evil we do to our own kind and to the other life on the planet.

[taurusowner]

Cut the hyperbole there champ.  It's unbecoming.

Yes.  I believe that humans and all other animals were created by God, and that only we have souls.  And that is why I pay little to no heed to what people eat or how they treat animals, except as it is sometimes an indicator of how they treat humans as well.  But to me, the bottom line is and always will be humans.

I don't see people as machines in the way that I do see animals as such.  So your snarky and belligerant attitude is pointless.  Thanks for playing though.

[BridgeRunner]

Snarky is arguable either way. Belligerent? I think only R.D.'s posts qualify there. 

And it is unbecoming a human being.

Much like deliberate and gratuitous cruelty.

[taurusowner]

Maybe you need a couple of wacks with the clue-bat Ragnar, but you too are are "biological machine".  Sure, you can CLAIM that our species is somehow different from the other animals on the planet.  Maybe it would that we walk on two legs...opps, lots of birds are bipedal.

OK, we use tools...opps, so do Finches, Ravens and Chimps.

OK, we MAKE tools...opps, again so do some species of birds and apes.

OK, we make weapons and traps to hunt with!  Opps, so do Chimpanzee's and some whales.

Hmmm...lots see, *I* know!  Humans are the only ones who convey complex information to their fellows!

Opps...so do honey bees.

OH! OH! OH!  I got it now!  Humans are the only ones with immortal souls!  YEAH!  Thats it! 

If you honestly think a post like that is how one has a polite debate, than I really have no idea how to even to speak to someone such as you.  Your ideas of what make up polite speech are wholly alien to me.

[209]

I did a "world tour", courtesy of the Corps, and saw the open food markets in more than a few countries that displayed dogs (and maybe cats) in the meat sections.  I saw other types of meat also.  While not my first choice of an entree, I figure I don't want a bunch of foreigners telling me what I need to change in my culture, it's not my place to tell them what they should change.  Then again, I'm not big on the global community concept. 

[Bigjake]

I just LOVE beating this dead horse.. 

[red headed stranger]

I just LOVE beating this dead horse.. 

That's a good way to tenderize it . . . 

[Bigjake]

They are a bit tough

[tyme]

Cut the hyperbole there champ.  It's unbecoming.

Yes.  I believe that humans and all other animals were created by God, and that only we have souls.  And that is why I pay little to no heed to what people eat or how they treat animals, except as it is sometimes an indicator of how they treat humans as well.  But to me, the bottom line is and always will be humans.

I don't see people as machines in the way that I do see animals as such.  So your snarky and belligerant attitude is pointless.  Thanks for playing though.

Unbecoming... of him?  You're the one with the hubristic religious philosophy, insisting that humans are intrinsically special, that is, something more than biological machines.

If you honestly think a post like that is how one has a polite debate, than I really have no idea how to even to speak to someone such as you.  Your ideas of what make up polite speech are wholly alien to me.

How could anyone with an opposing view be polite, by your standards?  Any challenge to that religious philosophy is rude from your perspective, because it is disrespectful of your beliefs.

Your idea of what passes for evidence of the correctness of your beliefs about humans are wholly alien to me.  Maybe if you were a biological machine like we primates, you wouldn't take it so personally when someone jokingly talks about clue bats.

[taurusowner]

How could anyone with an opposing view be polite, by your standards?  Any challenge to that religious philosophy is rude from your perspective, because it is disrespectful of your beliefs.

Did you momma ever teach you "it's not what you say, it's how you say it?"

There is a big difference between saying something like "I understand that one of the arguments you may use in your favor is that you believe in a soul.  That is something I do not believe because it cannot be substantiated" and something along the lines of "OH! OH! OH!  I got it now!  Humans are the only ones with immortal souls!  YEAH!  Thats it!"

Both attempt to convey the idea that the writer disagrees with the idea of a soul.  However, one is a polite statement of debate, the other is the ranting of an overly emotional child.  And it is unfortunate that some people here cannot see that.

[BridgeRunner]

Did you momma ever teach you "it's not what you say, it's how you say it?"

One might ask you the same question.

[taurusowner]

One might ask you the same question.

Citation needed.


-Everything I said was a specific response to rudeness on the part of Sindawe.  You know that.  But because the content of my posts conflicts with your opinions, you are choosing to selectively ignore who is being rude to whom, and for what reason.

-I posted my opinion on the subject at hand, in a manner not directed at any one poster.

-Sindawe choose to respond to my post in the manner of a child. To which I responded.

-You and others are now choosing to ignore Sindawe's original attitude, and instead attack me for my response.  You do this because you agree with him and not with me, so in your eyes, he is free to act however he wants so long as he's on your side in this matter, not mine.

-That is a textbook example of hypocrisy.  You fail to hold him to the same standards of behavior as you are trying to hold me, even though he is the one who made the original attack post in the first place.

-And lastly, though there is no way to know another's mind, I have a strong feeling that this animosity towards me has some of its root in plain old anti-religious bigotry.  I voiced an opinion about a matter and mentioned that I believe in religion and souls, and thus I am to be attacked.

[Bigjake]

That, and it's fashionable to go after anyone whose religion places humans over your average critter.  Don't let that stop y'all though.

What I don't get, is that when it comes up,  the agnostics get a pass in classifying humans as primates (usually, in an abrasive, holier than thou tone) , but anyone who says otherwise is ridiculed.

That said, sorry for adding to the general thread derail-ment. 

[BridgeRunner]

But because the content of my posts conflicts with your opinions, you are choosing to selectively ignore who is being rude to whom, and for what reason.

Which opinion?  I agree with you on the soul thing.  I don't agree with you that a soul means it's ok to inflict gratuitous cruelty on much of anything. 

-And lastly, though there is no way to know another's mind, I have a strong feeling that this animosity towards me has some of its root in plain old anti-religious bigotry.  I voiced an opinion about a matter and mentioned that I believe in religion and souls, and thus I am to be attacked.

Well, my animosity comes from a couple places.  There's your screen name.  I loathe and despise Ayn Rand as a bad author and worse philosopher.  A good friend is a life-long devotee.  I tried to respect her.  Couldn't manage it. 

An obvious Randian trying to emulate what looks a whole lot like Rand's style of blanket pronouncements devoid of any sense of nuance, compromise or ethics unrelated to property interests irks the heck out of me.  Add to it that you are taking one of the few tenets of Western religion in which I still firmly believe and use it to excuse disgusting behavior, instead of considering that perhaps the existence of a soul imposes obligations on the bearer as well as rights.

You Randians tend to be very hung up on rights.  Get back to me when you're willing to recognize some obligations.  Until then, I will continue to find your hostility both grating and unjustifiable. 

But I suspect you will not allow yourself to recognize much of what I say as valid, because it deals in complex concepts other than those relating to property rights. 

Of course, I don't speak for anyone else.  I dunno why anyone else is hostile.  Possibly because most of us think that both burning dogs alive for the hell of it is pretty gross.

[Bigjake]

I'd say that the missed point is that as humans, we have dominion over animals.  Your average animal rights whacko tries to overlook that.  We're not advocating any kind of cruelty here, but in the face of radical animal rights nutjobs, it's really easy to take the polar opposite to their position, and also take the position that animals have no rights.

 We're not advocating cruelty, just superiority.  

We still have an obligation to give any critter we eat or kill a humane end, though.  I do my best to make the steers and hogs I butcher not suffer for the experience, but they're still food.

[BridgeRunner]

We're not advocating any kind of cruelty here

Who's "we"?

[Bigjake]

Who's "we"?

Or you could just keep hunting up drama..

[mellestad]

Maybe you need a couple of wacks with the clue-bat Ragnar, but you too are are "biological machine".  Sure, you can CLAIM that our species is somehow different from the other animals on the planet.  Maybe it would that we walk on two legs...opps, lots of birds are bipedal. 

OK, we use tools...opps, so do Finches, Ravens and Chimps. 

OK, we MAKE tools...opps, again so do some species of birds and apes. 

OK, we make weapons and traps to hunt with!  Opps, so do Chimpanzee's and some whales.

Hmmm...lots see, *I* know!  Humans are the only ones who convey complex information to their fellows! 

Opps...so do honey bees.

OH! OH! OH!  I got it now!  Humans are the only ones with immortal souls!  YEAH!  Thats it! 

Not that said soul can be demostrated to exist, much less measured.  You just have to trust me on this one.

And some people wonder why I'm such a misanthrope.

As I see it, the only thing that truely sets our kind apart from the rest of the animal kingdom is our capacity for rationalization of the evil we do to our own kind and to the other life on the planet.

Purely from an objective standpoint then, since we are all animals how is something like humans setting up dog fighting different from when a cat tortures a mouse to death just for kicks?  My cats don’t even eat the mice they kill, they just like to kill them…slowly.

This is what I mean: 

If you are Christian, then you typically draw a dividing line between humans and animals based on the idea that humans have magic that animals don’t.  Then you can do whatever you want to animals, because they are less than man in every way.  The Bible certainly doesn’t say anything (that I know of) about avoiding unnecessary pain to non-humans.

If you are not religious, or simply don’t want to base your morality around your religion in regards to animals, then we are all biological machines…in which case, as long as doing harm to an animal does not damage something larger than the specific animal, why would we have any duty to avoid causing pain to said animal?  Animals kill animals just for fun in nature, so why do humans have a duty to avoid that?  Again, if you say it is because we should be stewards of our environment that only covers things that could harm that environment.  Killing a house pet certainly doesn’t meet that criteria.

I get the empathy aspect of it, I just don’t think I’ve heard a rational justification for making laws around issues purely related to animal suffering, because there doesn’t seem to be a reason beyond empathy.  Empathy might be enough though…it just seems like people are usually trying to justify it as something greater than that.

[taurusowner]

Well said mellestad.  I've heard a lot of fervent opposition to animal abuse based on one's personal feelings, but so far no rationale for making laws restricting it.

And from a moral standpoint, I take the religion approach.  I see morality revolving entirely around humans and how we interact with other humans.  IMO, the earth and the plants and animals on it are basically scenery.  They just don't enter the morality equation.

[mtnbkr]

Closed.  Not in the mood for the attitude and drama.

Chris