Total posts: 206
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
1. Initiating force against someone who is not initiating force against you is unethical.
Seems reasonable.
2. governments existence is based on the seizing of private property by force which is initiating force against someone who's not initiating force against the government the first place.
Governments, for the most part, exact force in accordance to law. Law is designed to protect private property (among other things). For example, theft is illegal. So, in attempting to protect private property, governments enact force upon people who transgress law, hence making this action "ethical".
Not a bad attempt, though.
3. Therefore, government's existence is unethical
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Pretense is the nonsense that defense is a fence.
Please stop publicly masturbating.
Between man and other animals? What would you call it. Related?
Your original quote was this: "intelligence in animals, including man, is relative". You said intelligence *IN* animals, not intelligence *RELATIVE* to humans.
Hence, my criticism of your original quote still stands.
As I said, relative intelligence is not the factor of greatest importance. And it is not a moral question, either, since we cannot murder other animals animals, only humans.
It shouldn't be a factor period because harm can be caused regardless of the 'g' factor of the thing experiencing it.
"Murder" is a legal term that is (you'll love this word) *related* to morality, but isn't morality in itself. For example, it was once legal to own slaves in plenty of countries around the world, despite it being considered nowadays a moral conundrum. Since we are debating morality, appealing to legal standings is a red herring, so your defense doesn't stand.
Your claim of a naturalist fallacy is, itself, fallacious. You ignore that a tool designed for a specific purpose can only be used for the designed purpose. So, people who use a screwdriver as a stirring stick for a screwdriver cocktail are fallacious? No, just innovative.
You're so confused with your stupid claims that you have it backwards hahaha. You were the one implying that canine teeth were designed for tearing meat, hence we should eat meat: "Not to mention that among our tooth variety, we have canines, the purpose of which exclusively to tear flesh." That was the naturalistic fallacy which you've now argued against here xD
So thanks for agreeing with me lol.
I can certainly have my canines removed to put small molars in their place, but such would be inefficient relative to cost and the extended time required to fully masticate meat. And, you cannot say the animal is aware of being harmed to use it as a food source. You're going to have to obtain that testimony from the animal. Harm is a self-generated claim. Good luck with that.
For the first sentence, you're still arguing against yourself.
I will absolutely say that an animal is aware that it is being harmed, hence why animals flee danger. You don't need a testimony to see that an animal is being harmed when its body language is screaming that it is. This is textbook moving the goalposts.
"Harm is a self-generated claim" is such a ridiculous comment that I'm baffled a thoroughly educated man would ever construct it. Clearly, people can witness harm being done to others, hence the entire concept of empathy. This is easily the worst thing you've written so far, despite the stiff competition.
I cannot designate which enzyme in my saliva can be turned off. Can you do so to stop the digestion of vegetable matter if I claim a carnivor's right to demand an end to eating vegetables? And what of the harm done to vegetables you claim is the right of animals to claim as a morally superior position? Are not vegetables also living things?
I'm not telling you to turn it off. I'm telling you to not eat meat, hence not use it.
"Living" isn't a sufficient qualifier for experiencing harm. Unless you would like to demonstrate that vegetables have emotions, then your counter-argument does not parallel the moral issues with meat consumption.
You first. You're the one claiming moral superiority of eating only vegetation. I'm claiming morality has naught to do with humans eating anything but other humans. Your prior claim takes timely precedent. Je vous en pris.
Wrong. You made the initial claim: morality has no nexus with meat-eating. You have the burden of proof. We're waiting for your defense.
Animal abuse is an entirely different matter than killing an animal with the express purpose of eating it. Do you not pick a living carrot from the ground with the express purpose of eating it? Why should your morality be the deciding factor? We're both doing the same thing to living things.
Yes, because killing animals to eat them causes them no harm.
Idiot.
But I do have moral qualms about hitting a dog with a shovel to crush its skull. I would use the best weapon to kill the dog, but only do so to eat it. My purpose is not abuse, but specifically to eat, and the two are entirely different purposes. By the way, I have eaten dog meat in China. Not bad, really. But you're not the best judge of that. I've also eaten roasted locusts. Roasted peppers are very good, but you don't have a problem with that, do you? As I said, Ma gavte la nada: Please remove the cork. The cork that is a pretense.
Eating animals *INVOLVES* abusing animals. You have to kill it to eat it, unless you eat it alive (which causes far more harm). You also cause it tremendous harm as it is dying, unless you anesthetize it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I don't know if animals conceptualise in this way. They have instinctive behaviour, which we might interpret as feelings.
Whilst the emotions are perhaps not as complex as humans, non-human animals have been shown to have emotions:
Near identical activation of the caudate nucleus (the part of the brain which activates in response to things we love) https://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/opinion/sunday/dogs-are-people-too.html
Shows brain activity akin to human emotion in response to stimulus (e.g. human hand signals that indicate food) http://www.ccnl.emory.edu/greg/journal.pone.0038027.pdf
For what it's worth, this video indicates a clear empirical difference in emotions in a dog (despite being a Tik Tok video) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwkZD3MbPjw
Certainly for dogs, there is plenty of evidence that they experience emotion similar to humans.
Koko the gorilla was a gorilla that was taught sign language. With this ability, it's clear that Koko responds to negative events (e.g. deaths) with negative emotion that is backed by negative sign language https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQCOHUXmEZg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqJf1mB5PjQ
I could fill this text box with research and video evidence that these big brain animals experience emotion, but I think it's pretty clear that these types of animals experience emotion.
The more debatable topics are whether invertebrates experience emotions. If they do, they are certainly not as complex, due to the primitive nature of them. Here's a recent paper looking at invertebrates in particular https://jeb.biologists.org/content/220/21/3856
Standards become established as human society evolves.. And I think that I'm right in saying that not eating your neighbour is now pretty much a global standard...... Whereas, the move towards a global standard of dietary morality based upon a flesh free diet is a long way off..... Basically these things change as the transfer of information from generation to generation changes.
So because it's not a global standard as of yet, it's acceptable to cause harm to animals?
There are already very good commercially available meat alternatives, derived from vegetable protein. Whether there will be a widespread need for fully synthesised alternative proteins I don't know. I suppose that this depends to a great deal upon the long term sustainability of world eco-systems.
The "need" is that eating animals causes harm to them. Again, unless you're content in causing harm to animals, this should concern you.
Yes...There is very little actual need for meat as a protein source....Though in Arctic Regions and poorer countries. there may well be cost and sustainability factors to be taken into consideration.
It goes to show how hopeless these regions and countries are lol.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Thank you for conceding the discussion. It saved me having to read more of your pretentious drivel.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Animal stupidity: intelligence in animals, including man, is relative, but there is no correlation between intelligence and eating other than some people merely eat to live, and I live to eat. I am an avowed omnivore.
Firstly, intelligence isn't relative as the 'g' factor is an objective measurement of intelligence (I.Q. is not, perhaps explaining your confusion).
Secondly, you didn't address the sentiment of his question: is the fact that animals are less intelligent than humans the/a reason you believe animal consumption is moral?
Moral acceptance of meat-eating: it is not a mater of morality, it is a matter of taste. I prefer steak to rice. Not to mention that it just so happens that cultivate wetlands, such as rice paddies, and all natural wetlands, river, lakes and oceans deliver more methane into the atmosphere than cows.
It is a matter of morality because that was the question asked. We're not interested in reading about your personal tastes.
Survival: Now we do not absolutely require meat to survive, but it is necessary for thriving. Not to mention that among our tooth variety, we have canines, the purpose of which exclusively to tear flesh. Not to mention that one enzyme in saliva has the exclusive purpose to begin the digestion of meat protein.
This is a naturalistic fallacy in that you assume our canine teeth, due to evolutionary design, must be used to tear flesh. Unless you can demonstrate harm in not using canine teeth in such a way, it is entirely possible to not use those canine teeth for such a use, especially when said usage demands harm to animals.
As for your point's latter half, again, you haven't demonstrated that said enzyme must be used elsewise there will be a negative impact.
Genetics: As said above, morality has no nexus with meat-eating. And our genetic aggressive behavior, even though sometimes excessive, is more related to survival than violence, and, it is not as though we are compelled to violence, because we have the ability to apply morality over violence. That we allow excessive aggression in ourselves is a lack of will power, not weakness to coercion.
Merely stating that "morality has no nexus with meat-eating" doesn't make it so -- you need to demonstrate this conclusion through argumentation.
Using your moral framework, we need not be violent to animals anymore (since we have meat alternatives), hence this "excessive aggression in ourselves is a lack of will power." After all, "we have the ability to apply morality over violence".
Murder: is a crime that is legally exclusive to humans against humans. We do not murder an animal. It is killing, but it is not murder.
Nonsense. Animal abuse incurs criminal penalties in the developed parts of the world. Albeit, currently, not all animals have the fortune of this protection.
Furthermore, if you have no moral qualms with using a shovel to smack a dog until you crush its skull, you likely have severe psychological pathologies.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
@Checkmate
In conclusion, I guess the reason I eat meat is because it tastes good and I really, to put it bluntly, do not care about animals.
Are animal's feelings not valuable?
Also, how do you distinguish indifference between eating human meat and animal meat? Why be apathetic about one and not the other?
We need to kill to survive.
In yesteryears, this may be the case, but our current technological circumstances have us on the precipice of commercially available synthetic meat. "Need" will soon be obsolete.
Created: