(January 21, 2014 at 2:24 pm)jg2014 Wrote:

(January 21, 2014 at 1:26 pm)Chuck Wrote: Not necessary. Value as seen in common usage is subjective. Consistency and logical soundness are only of value in the pursuit of the objective.

Values are indeed subjective. But when those values are applied they must be applied logically and consistently. Do we agree on this?

No. The values of one person might seem more pursuasive to others if they are seen to be expressed and applied logically and consistently. But pursuasiveness to others may not form an important part of those values in the first place, in which case there is no compelling reason why it must either be logical and consistent, or be amenable to being expressed or applied logically and consistently.

You seem to have an issue with your values not being accepted as value suitable for all, despite the fact that your value would generate no return that most others would care about. You seem very eager to give your value a false and may I say easily penetrated veneer of logic and consistency in an attempt to inflict your value upon others at their expense.

(January 21, 2014 at 2:24 pm)jg2014 Wrote:

(January 21, 2014 at 1:26 pm)Chuck Wrote: There is no must. There would be no must if one value reduction in suffering, but only amongst some subset of those who are capable of suffering. There would be no must if one value reduction in suffering, but value some of what may be attained through infliction of suffering more. There would be no must if one value reduction in suffering, but judge the cost of the implementation of the reduction in suffering to in fact be be equivalent to greater suffering.

Don't quite understand what you are saying here, could you rephrase?

Don't impudently use the word must when it is trivial to show how easily it mustn't.

---

(January 21, 2014 at 2:24 pm)là bạn điên Wrote: reducing suffering is MY primary concern and comes way above maximising pleasure for humans

Humoring your primary concerns comes way below relishing a steak, and relishing a steak is still far from being my primary concern. Yet still I do not try to inflict my primary concern upon you.

I'm not sure what's so complicated. Even truck company marketers get it.

Quote:...tofu, veggie burgers and raw kale salads be damned.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JZRrjtb0kM

(January 21, 2014 at 2:40 pm)Chuck Wrote: No. Values of one might seem more pursuasive to others if it is seen to be expressed and applied logically and consistently. But pursuasiveness to others may not form an important part of the value in the first place, in which case there is no compelling reason why it must either be logical and consistent, or be amenable to being expressed or applied logically and consistently.

I said nothing about values themselves being logical, I am talking about application. For example consider a person who values nature and therefore only eats organic food because it is natural, and further believes that doing anything unnatural, such as eating non organic food, is always wrong. If that person were then to the believe taking medicine is good, they would be inconsistent, and therefore one of their beliefs must be logically incorrect.

(January 21, 2014 at 2:40 pm)Chuck Wrote: Don't impudently use the word must when it is trivial to show how easily it mustn't.

---

Since you have done nothing of the kind, I think I will continue to make that argument. If one values the reduction of suffering as one's primary ethical concern then one must not eat eat.

The fact that animals also suffer in nature in irrelevant. The suffering that would be reduced by not eating meat vastly overwhelms any suffering that would be caused by stopping people eating meat. Eating meat is cruel and should be stopped.

---

(January 21, 2014 at 1:39 pm)StoryBook Wrote: Its glucose, your point?

(January 21, 2014 at 1:48 pm)jg2014 Wrote: Yep, glucose. Now If I get fat from an animal, add a few chemicals in there, I can turn it into glucose. I can then add a few more chemicals in there and polymerise glucose into cellulose. Sure I have used a few other synthetic chemicals in the process, but fundamentally I have fed nutrients from meat to a herbivore in a form that would allow them to be healthy, agreed?

I see so you support animal testing, quite the contradiction there.
Do you really think it is healthy?

---

(January 21, 2014 at 12:33 pm)StoryBook Wrote: Ok then...
1. Animals are conscious, and can suffer. They suffer more in the wild. They get chased, injured, strangled, starved, dehydrated and killed or die a slow/long death(days even). You are confused about nature being a happy place. Domesticated animals get food and water, shelter, and a place to grow with little worry of predators.

2.There is a difference from killing for food and abuse. If you are going to compare yourself to an animal then have fun out running a lion. Lions don't see eating a gazelle is wrong. They claw it, injure it, bite its neck, strangle it, paralyze it and eat it. They don't feel guilty about it, it is in their nature to eat meat.

3. As stated in 1 and 2 eating can cause suffering. Suffering is a fact of life. No matter what you do, you can't prevent that gazelle from suffering without causing another animal to suffer.

Therefore your logic is flawed. You are blind to what has been presented to you.

Quote:The points you raise then. Firstly could you clarify your argument for me? Do you agree that reducing suffering should be our prime ethical concern?

Clarify? Did you forget your own argument? Someone that claims to have over 8 years of college and thinks they know more about animals then a vet should know this.

We do try to reduced suffering and HAVE. Humans make ethics animals don't have ethics. Animals live and think in the present. They don't dwell on things. Like i said before, there is a difference between abuse and survival. Beating an animal is wrong, killing an animal for nutrients is a fact of life.

(January 21, 2014 at 3:08 pm)jg2014 Wrote: I said nothing about values themselves being logical, I am talking about application. For example consider a person who values nature and therefore only eats organic food because it is natural, and further believes that doing anything unnatural, such as eating non organic food, is always wrong. If that person were then to the believe taking medicine is good, they would be inconsistent, and therefore one of their beliefs must be logically incorrect..

No, one of their beliefs might be practically unactionable. One of their beliefs might have been expressed imprecisely, inaccurately, or incompletely. One of their beliefs might be constrained in practice by another of their beliefs. One of their beliefs might be all beliefs should tolerate or entertain certain acts or speeches in contradiction to it within certain tolerances.

(January 21, 2014 at 3:08 pm)jg2014 Wrote: Since you have done nothing of the kind, I think I will continue to make that argument. If one values the reduction of suffering as one's primary ethical concern then one must not eat eat.

The fact that animals also suffer in nature in irrelevant. The suffering that would be reduced by not eating meat vastly overwhelms any suffering that would be caused by stopping people eating meat. Eating meat is cruel and should be stopped.

I've given you at least 3 examples. That you might deny what is plain to view does not help your case. I will repeat them now:

1) I could value reduction of suffering as primary concern, but only amongst humans.

2) I could value reduction of suffering over all as my parimary ethical concern, but regard deprivation of meat from those humans who desire it to be a greater suffering then the death of the animals that could have fed the desire. Therefore suffering intrisically increases overall if suffering amongst food animal decreases.

3) I could value reduction of suffering over all as my parimary ethical concern, but regard the dislocation required to implement a move away from meat diet to be the equivalent of greater suffering than death of animals required to maintain status quo. Therefore suffering increases overall in practice if suffering amongst food animal decreases

(January 21, 2014 at 3:08 pm)jg2014 Wrote:

I eat humane meat, so I am ready to be friend to most humans, and also am already a better friend to you then you realise or deserve in your grasping, domineering, reductio as absurduming, self-righteousness.

(January 21, 2014 at 3:18 pm)Chuck Wrote: No, one of their beliefs might be practically unactionable. One of their beliefs might have been expressed imprecisely, inaccurately, or incompletely. One of their beliefs might be constrained in practice by another of their beliefs. One of their beliefs might be to say and act as whim dictates within certain tolerances.

Might have? Yep, if they were to hold one of the beliefs you say then that is true, but it is my thought experiment. A person simply holds two contradictory beliefs. Surely you agree one must be wrong?

(January 21, 2014 at 3:18 pm)Chuck Wrote: I've given you at least 3 examples. That you might deny what is plain to view does not help your case. I will repeat them now:

1) I could value reduction of suffering as primary concern, but only amongst humans.

As I said before this creates an error of kind, and creates inconsistencies. e.g. absolute natural kinds based on species do not exist as we evolved. What distinguishes us from other species are are characteristics, but there are no characterises that ALL humans share, and animals don't have. See similar arguments about errors of kind here

Effectively you would have no option but to exclude disabled people from your ethics, which again creates inconsistencies.

(January 21, 2014 at 3:18 pm)Chuck Wrote: 2) I could value reduction of suffering over all as my parimary ethical concern, but regard deprivation of meat from those humans who desire it to be a greater suffering then the death of the animals that could have fed the desire. Therefore suffering intrisically increases overall if suffering amongst food animal decreases.

Nope, the suffering of human from not being able to eat meat would be zero if they chose it for themselves because they recognised it was wrong. Secondly after one generation all humans would feel no suffering at not being able to eat meat, therefore it would be a finite amount of suffering. Animals however would continue suffering for ever, creating an infinite amount of suffering. Therefore, you are wrong.

(January 21, 2014 at 3:18 pm)Chuck Wrote: 3) I could value reduction of suffering over all as my parimary ethical concern, but regard the dislocation required to implement a move away from meat diet to be the equivalent of greater suffering than death of animals required to maintain status quo. Therefore suffering increases overall in practice if suffering amongst food animal decreases

Again, the dislocation to move away from eating meat only need happen once, but animal suffering continues forever, as your habits are passed down the generations.

(January 21, 2014 at 3:44 pm)jg2014 Wrote: Might have? Yep, if they were to hold one of the beliefs you say then that is true, but it is my thought experiment. A person simply holds two contradictory beliefs. Surely you agree one must be wrong?

Not necessarily. Two beliefs that might seem like incompatible black and white on a single scale from the smug comfort of inexperienced self-rightness would usually be found upon actual implementation to either exist on two different, orthagonal axis, or really exist as impractical ends of a single practical continum.

(January 21, 2014 at 3:44 pm)jg2014 Wrote: As I said before this creates an error of kind, and creates inconsistencies. e.g. absolute kinds based on species do not exist as we evolved. What distinguishes us from other species are are characteristics, but there are no characterises that ALL humans share, and animals don't have. See similar arguments about errors of kind here

Have you ever mistakenly regarded a dog as a human, of any kind? Sorry, you would be a singlarly bad and hopefully non-representative exemple. But even you can clearly be distinguished from a dog, at least by me and most others. We would not have mistakeb any dog or cow for you, or any version of homo sapiens for another other species.

In practice, there currently are large, and actionable, gaps between any member of homo sapien species as conventionally understood, and any members of any other species. The fact that you chose to dwell upon measures that appear to blur the difference under some circumstances does not mean we can not use other standards that outline the present extent differences in sharp relief. There is for example a vast gap between the difference that exist amongst existent human population, and that which exist between any human and any other animal.

More generally, differences and distinctions are fundamentally arbitrary concept that exist only to serve a purpose. Some may appear to be based on unambiguiously measurable characteristics. But all are designed to suit a particular purpose. If my purpose it better the welfare of humanity with limited resources, then by god I will come up with some measure of distinction that allow me to best apply my resources without self-defeating dissipation of my resources.

(January 21, 2014 at 3:44 pm)jg2014 Wrote: Effectively you would have no option but to exclude disabled people from your ethics, which again creates inconsistencies.

Why do you so foolishly keep on insisting what I must do this or would have no option but to do that or that when it is so completely and utterly effortless for me to do otherwise with absolute impunity? I obviously have the option to do so. I just did. There, I just did it again.

(January 21, 2014 at 3:44 pm)jg2014 Wrote: Nope, the suffering of human from not being able to eat meat would be zero if they chose it for themselves because they recognised it was wrong.

In practice they do not recognize it be wrong, your simulatenously conceited and plaintiff yelps of "must" not withstanding. So it is not zero.

(January 21, 2014 at 3:44 pm)jg2014 Wrote: Again, the dislocation to move away from eating meat only need happen once, but animal suffering continues forever, as your habits are passed down the generations.

There is no forever. I may value the dislocation of one cow farmer to be equivalent to 1 million times the suffering of all the cattles to be slaughtered in the next 10 million years. I think given a appropriate discount rate for uncertainty over existence of humanity in 10 million years, keeping just one cow hand slaughtering cows today handily outweight the probabalistic value of suffering of all cows to be slaughtered in the next 10 million years.

Now you will undoubtedly now insist I "mustn't" value suffering of cows so lightly or I "can not but" value a cow more highly. So what if I regard that with the same disdain as your previous insistence of "must"?

Give me a practical reason why I should contenance your value system while working within my own?

(January 21, 2014 at 9:02 am)Aractus Wrote: What is it with you vegans and your fucking half-truths? We can break down proteins. But plant protein is incomplete, that's why you have to plan very carefully to get all the required amino acids to rebuild all the proteins that you need - and part of that of course is nuts. People with nut allergies (and this allergy is becoming more common), didn't I already explain this, literally can not get all the required amino acids without supplements from a vegan diet. Vegetarians can, so long as they can either eat dairy or eggs or both.

Tell us, what amino acids can a vegan not get? There are vegan bodybuilders, and I'm sure they'd like that information!

About 30 seconds on google, and you can find out what you're missing by giving up nuts, and what foods can substitute them.

---

(January 21, 2014 at 11:26 am)StoryBook Wrote:

(January 21, 2014 at 9:55 am)jg2014 Wrote: No I am not a vet, but trust me I am more qualified than a vet!

What, you have over 8 years or college? You think you are more qualified then a vet, yet I doubt you know what makes a carnivore a carnivore or a herbivore a herbivore.

Appeal to authority fails. You have to bring some links, or at least some meaningful understanding of how various substances are/can't be processed by the animals.

Firstly you only demean yourself with insults. Its interrupting the debate and you do make a number of interesting points, so please try to be polite.

Your whole argument fails because you appeal to natural kinds. Ill try to explain to you why this is so

(January 21, 2014 at 4:06 pm)Chuck Wrote: Not necessarily. Two beliefs that might seem like incompatible black and white on a single scale from the smug comfort of inexperienced self-rightness would usually be found upon actual implementation to either exist on two different, orthagonal axis, or really exist as impractical ends of a single practical continum.

Nope, the two beliefs just happen to be on the same axis, and just happen to be contradictory. Do you agree one is logically wrong?

(January 21, 2014 at 4:06 pm)Chuck Wrote: Have you ever mistakenly regarded a dog as a human, of any kind? Sorry, you would be a singlarly bad and hopefully non-representative exemple. But even you can clearly be distinguished from a dog, at least by me and most others. We would not have mistakeb any dog or cow for you, or any version of homo sapiens for another other species.

In practice, there currently are large, and actionable, gaps between any member of homo sapien species as conventionally understood, and any members of any other species. The fact that you chose to dwell upon measures that appear to blur the difference under some circumstances does not mean we can not use other standards that outline the present extent differences in sharp relief. There is for example a vast gap between the difference that exist amongst existent human population, and that which exist between any human and any other animal.

More generally, differences and distinctions are fundamentally arbitrary concept that exist only to serve a purpose. Some may appear to be based on unambiguiously measurable characteristics. But all are designed to suit a particular purpose. If my purpose it better the welfare of humanity with limited resources, then by god I will come up with some measure of distinction that allow me to best apply my resources without self-defeating dissipation of my resources.

If your ethics are correct then it is only logical that they should hold true under all ethical dilemmas. Agreed?
1. Lets I were to take a human brain and put it inside a dogs body, and using some amazing future science could ensure that while the dog, behaved like a dog, inside was a thinking human brain that could experience everything the dog could
Would the suffering of this man/dog be worthy of this ethical consideration?

2. Lets say i got a lump of human neurons in a dish, and managed to create some basic network of neurons that think and feel. Would these this cells be worthy of ethical consideration?

3. Now lets go back in time, to our evolutionary ancestors, at what point do your ancestors become worthy of ethical consideration? Are Neanderthals worthy of consideration? They had different physical characteristics, and even interbred with H. Sapiens. You see evolution does not just move from one species directly to the next, there are series of intermediate steps, and if those intermediates are worthy of ethical consideration then why are their ancestors not also worthy?
The point is there is nothing “essential” about humanity, ie humanity is not a natural kind. There are no characteristics by which you could define all of humanity.

Your ethics only are consistent at a superficial layer, when pushed a little deeper they fall apart.

(January 21, 2014 at 4:06 pm)Chuck Wrote: There is no forever. I may value the dislocation of one cow farmer to be equivalent to 1 million times the suffering of all the cattles to be slaughtered in the next 10 million years. I think given a appropriate discount rate for uncertainty over existence of humanity in 10 million years, keeping just one cow hand slaughtering cows today handily outweight the probabalistic value of suffering of all cows to be slaughtered in the next 10 million years.

Now you will undoubtedly now insist I "mustn't" value suffering of cows so lightly or I "can not but" value a cow more highly. So what if I regard that with the same disdain as your previous insistence of "must"?

Give me a practical reason why I should contenance your value system while working within my own?

As the universe is flat, then forever is certainly possible. So there is still a possibility that meat eating causes an infinite amount of suffering.
One could of course value human suffering significantly higher than animal suffering, but then in order to not fall prey to the logical inconsistencies of the “natural kind” argument which I outlined above, then one has to show why human suffering is significantly greater. The fact is there is no reason to assume this, and all the neuroscientific evidence demonstrates the opposite.
So there you go, your argument presents an number of logical inconsistencies and must be incorrect. Eat meat is cruel and wrong.