Then what are you talking about?
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".
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"?
User Tag List
-
08-08-2008, 01:10 PM #121Artes, Scientia, Veritasiness
-
08-08-2008, 01:30 PM #122
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".
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"?A criticism that can be brought against everything ought not to be brought against anything.
-
08-08-2008, 01:34 PM #123
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.
-
08-08-2008, 02:20 PM #124
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"?
What is the argument then? How do we know that the animals accept their own death in a psychological sense?
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?
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
-
08-08-2008, 05:30 PM #125
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
-
08-08-2008, 05:40 PM #126
-
08-08-2008, 07:44 PM #127
-
08-08-2008, 07:57 PM #128
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.
-
08-08-2008, 08:04 PM #129
- Join Date
- Jul 2008
- MBTI
- type
- Posts
- 9,100
-
08-08-2008, 08:06 PM #130
Similar Threads
-
Passive voice is to be abused in this thread
By ygolo in forum The Fluff ZoneReplies: 74Last Post: 08-31-2015, 01:31 AM -
Bill in TN for online data base for animal abusers
By prplchknz in forum Home, Garden and NatureReplies: 19Last Post: 03-01-2014, 08:49 AM -
comparing my personality to my natal chart
By paully105 in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive FunctionsReplies: 5Last Post: 10-01-2012, 07:25 PM -
Why do people keep comparing the US to Europe?
By Haphazard in forum Politics, History, and Current EventsReplies: 63Last Post: 03-21-2010, 06:48 PM