User Tag List

First 311121314 Last

Results 121 to 130 of 131

  1. #121
    Blah Orangey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    6,364

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by reason View Post
    No, you can interpret it however you like, though their behaviour is not wildly inconsistent with the idea that they accept their slaughter willingly. That is not enough to derive anything from, but then I never meant to derive anything from the behaviour of any particular animals.
    Then what are you talking about?

    Quote Originally Posted by reason View Post
    In any case, the genes would prime an animal to accept death by constructing the brain such that the experience of being slaughtered would not be something unexpected or to be feared, accepted as a duty or inevitable occurrence.
    This would mean, as I suggested before, that the animals are able to contemplate their death in advance of its actual occurrence. They must understand that they're going to be killed before they can "accept" it as "inevitable", or as a "duty".

    Quote Originally Posted by reason View Post
    As far as the genes are "concerned" this might be a very good strategy, since such docile and obedient behaviour would be preferred and selected by generations of farmers.
    So you *are* saying (contrary to the first part of your post, the bolded part) that docile behavior indicates that the animals psychologically accept their own deaths as a "duty" or "inevitable occurrence"?
    Artes, Scientia, Veritasiness

  2. #122
    Senior Member reason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    1,211

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Orangey View Post
    Then what are you talking about?
    I am expositing a theory of evolutionary psychology. In short, the theory states that farmyard animals have been bred to "accept" their use and eventual slaughter as a "duty", and that fears about their suffering and exploitation are misplaced. The relationship between humans and farmyard animals is not exploitative, but mutualistic, and though the ancestors of domesticated animals may have had some terrible injustice done to them, the same is not true of their modern descendents.

    If I had written something like, "the cow behaves like x so therefore the cow is accepting of its own death" then someone would have rightly called me out on an invalid inference, and so quite sensibly I have never made such an argument.

    This would mean, as I suggested before, that the animals are able to contemplate their death in advance of its actual occurrence. They must understand that they're going to be killed before they can "accept" it as "inevitable", or as a "duty".
    No, it would not mean that the animals were able to comtemplate their own death, you can take the words metaphorically in the sense previously mentioned, or better yet note that I used the word 'or'. In any case, it really does not matter whether they can contemplate their own death or not. Perhaps they can contemplate it and accept it as a duty, or perhaps they never understand but feel no fear or anxiety when it occurs. The question may be interesting by itself, but it is irrelevent the discussion we are having.


    So you *are* saying (contrary to the first part of your post, the bolded part) that docile behavior indicates that the animals psychologically accept their own deaths as a "duty" or "inevitable occurrence"?
    I did not say that 'docile behaviour' indicates anything, since there are many alternative ways to interpret 'docile behaviour'. The most that can be said is that my theory predicts docile and obedient behaviour and that the evidence, so far as I am aware, does not contradict that prediction.
    A criticism that can be brought against everything ought not to be brought against anything.

  3. #123
    Senior Member reason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    1,211

    Default

    Orangey,

    You seem less interested in the ideas being discussed than you are in trying to catch me out. For example, even if I did say something like 'docile behaviour during slaughter implies acceptence of death' then that would be a fault with my reasoning. There is nothing to imply that the theory is false because I made an invalid inference, since it is quite possible for the conclusion of an invalid argument to be true. I think that you need to shift your crosshairs away from me and at the propositions under discussion.
    A criticism that can be brought against everything ought not to be brought against anything.

  4. #124
    Blah Orangey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    6,364

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by reason View Post
    I am expositing a theory of evolutionary psychology. In short, the theory states that farmyard animals have been bred to "accept" their use and eventual slaughter as a "duty", and that fears about their suffering and exploitation are misplaced. The relationship between humans and farmyard animals is not exploitative, but mutualistic, and though the ancestors of domesticated animals may have had some terrible injustice done to them, the same is not true of their modern descendents.
    Even if I accept the theory that you are "expositing" as true, I don't believe that it says anything at all about the ethical considerations under discussion in this thread. Why are fears about animal suffering and exploitation proven to be misplaced by the fact that the animals have been bred to "accept" their use and eventual slaughter as a "duty"?

    Quote Originally Posted by reason View Post
    If I had written something like, "the cow behaves like x so therefore the cow is accepting of its own death" then someone would have rightly called me out on an invalid inference, and so quite sensibly I have never made such an argument.
    What is the argument then? How do we know that the animals accept their own death in a psychological sense?

    Quote Originally Posted by reason View Post
    No, it would not mean that the animals were able to comtemplate their own death, you can take the words metaphorically in the sense previously mentioned, or better yet note that I used the word 'or'. In any case, it really does not matter whether they can contemplate their own death or not. Perhaps they can contemplate it and accept it as a duty, or perhaps they never understand but feel no fear or anxiety when it occurs. The question may be interesting by itself, but it is irrelevent the discussion we are having.
    I'm honestly not understanding what you're saying. From my point of view, it seems as though you are saying that the animal's genetic make-up, evolved over a long period of domestication by humans, causes the animal to "accept its own death". This "acceptance" is demonstrated by the animal's docility. Because the animal accepts its death (in whatever sense you mentioned, it doesn't matter), humans should not feel that the animal is being mistreated in any way (exploited, suffering, etc...). Where is my interpretation of your words incorrect?

    Quote Originally Posted by reason View Post
    Orangey,

    You seem less interested in the ideas being discussed than you are in trying to catch me out. For example, even if I did say something like 'docile behaviour during slaughter implies acceptence of death' then that would be a fault with my reasoning. There is nothing to imply that the theory is false because I made an invalid inference, since it is quite possible for the conclusion of an invalid argument to be true. I think that you need to shift your crosshairs away from me and at the propositions under discussion.
    The propositions under discussion are only as good as the form in which you've presented them. Attempting to find faults in your reasoning is the only thing that we can do here, since I (and, I suspect, most others here) am not an evolutionary psychologist, nor am I familiar with your "theory" outside of its presentation on this discussion board.
    Artes, Scientia, Veritasiness

  5. #125
    `~~Philosoflying~~` SillySapienne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    9,849

    Default

    PETArds, can't stand 'em.
    `
    'Cause you can't handle me...

    "A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it. The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it." - David Stevens

    "That that is, is. That that is not, is not. Is that it? It is."

    Veritatem dies aperit

    Ride si sapis

    Intelligentle sparkles

  6. #126
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainChick View Post
    PETArds, can't stand 'em.
    If one of those people ever threw paint on me for wearing a fur coat or a leather jacket, I'd do things to them that would make cattle slaughter look like a kindergartener's tea party.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  7. #127
    Senior Member millerm277's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    978

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    If one of those people ever threw paint on me for wearing a fur coat or a leather jacket, I'd do things to them that would make cattle slaughter look like a kindergartener's tea party.
    I'd be inclined to do the same...but, I think I'd get more amusement out of taking them to court, and making them pay to buy it for me. Don't like slaughter of animals? Now you get to pay money, to have them killed for my jacket.
    I-95%, S-84%, T-89%, P-84%

  8. #128
    Minister of Propagandhi ajblaise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    7,917

    Default

    I think I kind of understand PETA activists. They have a strange relationship with animals in that they seem to have just as much empathy towards animals as towards towards humans, maybe even more so for some. Maybe some dislike humans and turn to animals, seeing them as innocent and good, unlike they see humans.

    I don't feel the need to bash them, unlike everyone else. They get ragged on more than NAMBLA.

  9. #129
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    type
    Posts
    9,100

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ajblaise View Post
    I think I kind of understand PETA activists. They have a strange relationship with animals in that they seem to have just as much empathy towards animals as towards towards humans, maybe even more so for some. Maybe some dislike humans and turn to animals, seeing them as innocent and good, unlike they see humans.

    I don't feel the need to bash them, unlike everyone else. They get ragged on more than NAMBLA.
    Probably only because they have more members.

  10. #130
    Minister of Propagandhi ajblaise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    7,917

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flak View Post
    Probably only because they have more members.
    They are definitely more visible, but a group of pedophiles should still be getting it harder than animal lovers, that's for sure.

Similar Threads

  1. Passive voice is to be abused in this thread
    By ygolo in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 74
    Last Post: 08-31-2015, 01:31 AM
  2. Bill in TN for online data base for animal abusers
    By prplchknz in forum Home, Garden and Nature
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 03-01-2014, 08:49 AM
  3. comparing my personality to my natal chart
    By paully105 in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 10-01-2012, 07:25 PM
  4. Why do people keep comparing the US to Europe?
    By Haphazard in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 63
    Last Post: 03-21-2010, 06:48 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO