User Tag List

First 7891011 Last

Results 81 to 90 of 131

  1. #81
    Boring old fossil Night's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5/8
    Socionics
    ENTp None
    Posts
    4,754

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Samuel De Mazarin View Post
    That is the most absurd argument I've ever heard. Releasing farm animals into the wild would probably result in a massive environmental upheaval, due to the interaction of wild and domestic animals.... but domesticated animals generally turn feral... the laws of evolution would kick in and only those individuals would survive and procreate which were able to... but after the initial trauma, equilibrium would be achieved, even if some species died out.
    You describe this biological vignette well, SDM.

    Evolutionary fitness (or lack thereof) would quickly establish a pecking order - a hierarchy among thieves, if you will. The less robust creatures would rapidly die out/migrate/modify their nutritional mosaic as to diminish the initial aftershocks of this upheaval.

    Regressing to a feral state is not an immediate thing, and would likely require social adaptation to appropriately finance from a short-term outlook.

    What is biology, but cellular adaptation to adverse stimuli?

    Quote Originally Posted by Samuel De Mazarin View Post
    Better to end the misery once and for all than to prolong it over countless generations. The true barbarism is your idea that being enslaved is a good thing. It would be more honest of you to say that breeding and slaughtering animals is part of the truth of living in a world where people eat meat than to rationalize farm animals' subjection by saying they enjoy it (see "reason"'s earlier post.)
    This is a value statement.

    I don't necessarily agree or disagree with your premise, but find this insertion maladroit to your earlier point on instinctual utility.

    Your personal investment is apparent as an extension of your earlier commitment to a vegetarian lifestyle.
    Reason's as a non-vegetarian lifestyle.

    I don't know where "honesty" comes into play here.

  2. #82
    Strongly Ambivalent Ivy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    6
    Posts
    24,060

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Samuel De Mazarin View Post
    I like milk and I've lived around free-range cows who aren't hurt or disabled in any way by the milking process. Milk is NOT necessary for my growth or sustenance, but I deem it a product that doesn't result in collateral damage, certainly not the same way killing a cow would.

    I don't see how my drinking milk (because I like it) quite undermines my argument about meat-eating.... which by the way, I haven't REALLY condemned. I'm arguing both sides really. I don't really know if it's "wrong" to eat meat.... I'm pretty sure it's not necessary though.
    It's definitely not necessary. Lots of things we do are not necessary. I killed an ant colony last week though I clearly could have coexisted with them and shared my bounty.

    The reason your drinking milk because you like it undermines your argument about meat eating is that you didn't accept "because I like it" as a valid argument from meat-eaters before. The cows may not be hurt or disabled, but they are still essentially slaves. We don't force human mothers to provide milk even to their own babies.
    The one who buggers a fire burns his penis
    -anonymous graffiti in the basilica at Pompeii

  3. #83
    Wonderer Samuel De Mazarin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    1,026

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Night View Post
    This is a value statement.

    I don't necessarily agree or disagree with your premise, but find this insertion maladroit to your earlier point on instinctual utility.

    Your personal investment is apparent as an extension of your earlier commitment to a vegetarian lifestyle.
    Reason's as a non-vegetarian lifestyle.

    I don't know where "honesty" comes into play here.
    Trust a scientist and/or philosopher to pick up on that

    "The true barbarism is your idea that being enslaved is a good thing. It would be more honest of you to say that breeding and slaughtering animals is part of the truth of living in a world where people eat meat than to rationalize farm animals' subjection by saying they enjoy it (see "reason"'s earlier post.)"

    I stand by this, because in an earlier post "reason" implied that animals enjoy being enslaved and acting as sources of sustenance. This, I felt, was dishonest, since there's no way we could know whether or not animals enjoy being farmed, though I think it would be obvious that they wouldn't.

    _______________________
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    The reason your drinking milk because you like it undermines your argument about meat eating is that you didn't accept "because I like it" as a valid argument from meat-eaters before. The cows may not be hurt or disabled, but they are still essentially slaves. We don't force human mothers to provide milk even to their own babies.
    My argument was not a mere "because I like it" argument. I made a point about how there's far less damage inflicted (if any) in the extraction of milk than there is with extraction of a pound or more of flesh.

    The cows are not hurt or disabled... that's the point.

    Yes... they are slaves... but a slave treated with a modicum of respect, allowed outside of milking hours to live its own life as it will and to die its own death on its own time, is a slave in a condition far better off than one which is merely raised to be killed for its meat. Generally, cows raised for their meat have quality-of-life levels far inferior to those which are just milked.

    Slavery of animals is a harsh reality. And you're right, Ivy, one is forcing the cow to yield its milk. But this is a major issue I'm struggling with... is it right to have pets? One brings a dog into one's life, for instance, and forces it to live within certain boundaries, accept one's will as law... in a sense, demands love from an animal with no choice in the matter.... restricts its natural breeding cycles... I can't honestly say I've reconciled the matter on a strictly philosophical level.

    I mainly look at it as minimizing pain. And I know for a fact that if I have a family of cows which is free to graze the pastures near my farm and I take milk from it, or with sheep, shear them for their wool, it's a lesser invasion than taking their lives. This doesn't undermine my argument against meat-eating. It qualifies it as a principle of degrees, though milking a cow and killing it seem to be very different in kind.
    Madman's azure lie: a zen miasma ruled.

    Realize us, Madman!

    I razed a slum, Amen.

    ...............................................

  4. #84
    Strongly Ambivalent Ivy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    6
    Posts
    24,060

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Samuel De Mazarin View Post
    As I said in my previous post, my argument was not a mere "because I like it" argument.

    The cows are not hurt or disabled... that's the point.

    Yes... they are slaves... but a slave treated with a modicum of respect, allowed outside of milking hours to live its own life as it will and to die its own death on its own time, is a slave in a condition far better off than one which is merely raised to be killed for its meat. Generally, cows raised for their meat have quality-of-life levels far inferior to those which are just milked.
    At the point when I asked the question, all you had said about milk was "milk would be a 100% necessity for me." You elaborated on your argument afterwards. I'm not confronting you about your choice. In a roundabout way I'm pointing out that a person who says "mmm, meat" may have more substantive reasons for making the choice to be an omnivore, but hasn't yet elaborated on them in your presence.
    The one who buggers a fire burns his penis
    -anonymous graffiti in the basilica at Pompeii

  5. #85
    Senior Member reason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    1,211

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Samuel De Mazarin View Post
    That is the most absurd argument I've ever heard. Releasing farm animals into the wild would probably result in a massive environmental upheaval, due to the interaction of wild and domestic animals.... but domesticated animals generally turn feral... the laws of evolution would kick in and only those individuals would survive and procreate which were able to... but after the initial trauma, equilibrium would be achieved, even if some species died out. Better to end the misery once and for all than to prolong it over countless generations. The true barbarism is your idea that being enslaved is a good thing. It would be more honest of you to say that breeding and slaughtering animals is part of the truth of living in a world where people eat meat than to rationalize farm animals' subjection by saying they enjoy it (see "reason"'s earlier post.)
    The more I think about it the more this argument seems morally shaky. It would seem to suggest that the end result would be worth the suffering of billions of animals, and brings to mind Lenin's dictum that 'if you want to make an omelet, you must be willing to break a few eggs.' By the same logic we should abandon the millions of suffering humans in the world and let the wolves have their feast; and why? Because then there would be less suffering in the world. If you really want to extend to animals the rights that humans currently enjoy then presumably whatever is good enough for animals is also good enough for humans. Moreover, the assumption here is that the end result you envisage really is preferrable, but nature is not a Disney movie and can be a far more cruel place than a slaughterhouse. Even if the end result was achieved it is not a forgone conclusion that it would be better than the current situation.
    A criticism that can be brought against everything ought not to be brought against anything.

  6. #86
    Wonderer Samuel De Mazarin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    1,026

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    At the point when I asked the question, all you had said about milk was "milk would be a 100% necessity for me." You elaborated on your argument afterwards. I'm not confronting you about your choice. In a roundabout way I'm pointing out that a person who says "mmm, meat" may have more substantive reasons for making the choice to be an omnivore, but hasn't yet elaborated on them in your presence.
    It's not a 100% necessity for me. I feel there's more justification within a coherent philosophical purview in drinking milk than there is in eating meat.

    You did confront me on the reasoning for my choice by saying it undermined my argument against eating meat. I've tried laying out my reasons, but as with most debates, my platform is far from being airtight. The reasoning I'm being forced to use is non-monotonic so it's difficult to generalize. I can see much of the milk in department stores in New York being extracted by means of machines which clamp down on a cow and then simply squeeze her teats with no concern for pain or comfort... it's an awful image...

    In an earlier post I specifically addressed the point that meat-eaters often have much more substantive reasons behind their choice to eat meat... I merely responded to something someone posted which indicated a certain amount of thoughtlessness and did exhibit the "I do it only because I like it" mentality. Because we're on a forum where people are trying to make explicit their reasonings, I felt it was inappropriately glib.

    The post I'm referring to:

    Quote Originally Posted by IF3157 View Post
    Mmm . . . organically-fed, free-range, "humanely"-slaughtered animals for the win.
    Madman's azure lie: a zen miasma ruled.

    Realize us, Madman!

    I razed a slum, Amen.

    ...............................................

  7. #87
    Boring old fossil Night's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5/8
    Socionics
    ENTp None
    Posts
    4,754

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Samuel De Mazarin View Post
    I mainly look at it as minimizing pain. And I know for a fact that if I have a family of cows which is free to graze the pastures near my farm and I take milk from it, or with sheep, shear their skin, it's a lesser invasion than taking their lives. This doesn't undermine my argument against meat-eating. It qualifies it as a principle of degrees, though milking a cow and killing it seem to be very different in kind.
    This is admirable, SDM, and is certainly not a position to defend.

    To work to reduce pain is to actively seek a prevention of distress - both for oneself and others. Distress as instinctual awareness of discomfort - either as observed threats in one's environment and/or the oceanic, psychological burdens the tend to naturally accompany - and amplify - the former.

    Suffering and desire toxify into a natural fusion. The expressions of this cooperation are the existential anxieties that have been noted to function in superposition to biological makeup. Dogs can fear. Penguins have been observed to "grieve". Humans need very little to weep.

    Emotion is evolved instinct - our present intellectual eminence is owed to our hereditary accuracy of its application.


    Protection is related to self-sacrifice. Commendable, SDM.

    I will have mercy and not sacrifice.

  8. #88
    Wonderer Samuel De Mazarin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    1,026

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by reason View Post
    The more I think about it the more this argument seems morally shaky. It would seem to suggest that the end result would be worth the suffering of billions of animals, and brings to mind Lenin's dictum that 'if you want to make an omelet, you must be willing to break a few eggs.' By the same logic we should abandon the millions of suffering humans in the world and let the wolves have their feast; and why? Because then there would be less suffering in the world. If you really want to extend to animals the rights that humans currently enjoy then presumably whatever is good enough for animals is also good enough for humans. Moreover, the assumption here is that the end result you envisage really is preferrable, but nature is not a Disney movie and can be a far more cruel place than a slaughterhouse. Even if the end result was achieved it is not a forgone conclusion that it would be better than the current situation.
    I think it's infinitely preferable for a family to be left to fend for itself in the jungles than for it to be enslaved, its children butchered for meat, living in substandard, unnatural conditions, for the rest of its line, bred over generations and generations to live out the same unfortunate existence repeatedly.

    Yes, this is a value-judgment.
    Madman's azure lie: a zen miasma ruled.

    Realize us, Madman!

    I razed a slum, Amen.

    ...............................................

  9. #89
    now! in shell form INA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    intp
    Posts
    3,198

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Samuel De Mazarin View Post
    I merely responded to something someone posted which indicated a certain amount of thoughtlessness and did exhibit the "I do it only because I like it" mentality. Because we're on a forum where people are trying to make explicit their reasonings, I felt it was inappropriately glib.

    The post I'm referring to:
    Ah, there there. Let me untwist those panties for you.
    glib again. It is amazing how much of my non-opinion you got from an expression of dietary preference in response to an expression of your dietary preference.
    hoarding time and space
    A single event can awaken within us a stranger totally unknown to us. To live is to be slowly born.
    — Antoine de Saint-Exupery

  10. #90
    Strongly Ambivalent Ivy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    6
    Posts
    24,060

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Samuel De Mazarin View Post
    It's not a 100% necessity for me. I feel there's more justification within a coherent philosophical purview in drinking milk than there is in eating meat.

    You did confront me on the reasoning for my choice by saying it undermined my argument against eating meat. I've tried laying out my reasons, but as with most debates, my platform is far from being airtight. The reasoning I'm being forced to use is non-monotonic so it's difficult to generalize. I can see much of the milk in department stores in New York being extracted by means of machines which clamp down on a cow and then simply squeeze her teats with no concern for pain or comfort... it's an awful image...

    In an earlier post I specifically addressed the point that meat-eaters often have much more substantive reasons behind their choice to eat meat... I merely responded to something someone posted which indicated a certain amount of thoughtlessness and did exhibit the "I do it only because I like it" mentality. Because we're on a forum where people are trying to make explicit their reasonings, I felt it was inappropriately glib.

    The post I'm referring to:
    I remember the post. It doesn't mean IF3157 doesn't have deeper reasoning for her (making an assumption on the proper pronoun to use here) dietary choices, simply that she isn't interested in laying them out for you at this time. That doesn't mean she isn't allowed to post in this thread. This is a forum on which people make irrelevant, offhand, jokey remarks instead of making substantive arguments all the time. It has been done on the abortion thread and countless other threads as well.

    Your argument is fine. Arguments, as you say, are rarely airtight and I actually agree with you for the most part on this. Actually, I usually agree with you- but you can sometimes present your arguments in such a way that I want to take the other side.
    The one who buggers a fire burns his penis
    -anonymous graffiti in the basilica at Pompeii

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