Peta Compares Bus Beheading to Animal Abuse

[Orangey]

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?

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".

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"?

[reason]

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.

[reason]

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.

[Orangey]

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"?

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?

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?

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.

[SillySapienne]

PETArds, can't stand 'em.

[pure_mercury]

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.

[millerm277]

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.

[ajblaise]

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.

[Jack Flak]

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.

[ajblaise]

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.