(February 21, 2014 at 1:25 am)rasetsu Wrote:

(February 21, 2014 at 12:43 am)bennyboy Wrote: "Nigger" suffering. Oog. Icky. Woman suffering. Oog. Icky. "Homo" suffering. Oog. Icky.

I'm not sure why you think an emotional reaction to the horrors of seeing suffering inflicted on others isn't sufficient reason for them to take a position against the causes of those horrors. Many of the changes to moral thinking have been emotional responses to unpleasant circumstances. This is not a symptom of the weakness of logic, but a testament to the strength of human compassion.

If owning slaves violates my self-interest as a human being, I have a legitimate reason for wanting to stop it.

You don't need a violation of your self-interest. You just need to want not to bring harm to someone who hasn't earned the harm. Now, what if you COULD show that slavery was in the interest of the oppressor? Would it then be moral? I do not accept this view of determining what is right or wrong.

Quote:All you've done is state a preference, which you immediately started adding exceptions and qualifications to (re: punishment). That way lies causistry and a lousy foundation for ethics.p/quote]
Punishment isn't an exception. I had already said that since animals hadn't harmed us, they did not merit harm from us. And I say the same thing about people who don't deserve punishment.

[quote]
That way lies a "might makes right" argument as well, in that you want your preferences to prevail over mine; but you've given no legitimate justification for why they should. If I'm right, and suffering of women and blacks is actually against your self-interest, and suffering of chicken, worms, and bacteria only indirectly relevant, you're essentially cutting your nose off to spite your face, and that's irrational.

Slavery has clearly been in SOMEONE'S interest at many times in history. So has neglecting or abusing women. But this is not a basis for a moral system.

Quote:Suffering only counts when it concerns the suffering of people who base their ethics on empathy and suffering; if I disagree with you, and you put a cows interest ahead of mine and that of my progeny, well, that's okay, because that's your preference.

This is not a symmetrical argument. It's not the ability of a cow to survive vs. your family's ability to survive. It's the ability of a cow to survive vs. your family's disappointment at not getting a juicy steak dinner.

Quote:Really? That doesn't sound like anything more than a gerrymandering of the moral landscape according to anything but personal preference, and I think that's a useless ethical standpoint.

You are asking a rhetorical "really?" in response to the strawman you just set up. That might help you fuel your rhetorical rage, but it has nothing to do with a dicsussion of ethics.

Quote: But realize, in the end, you've justified with appeal to self-interest as well, you just think a world with as little suffering in it as possible is of more value to you than the success of our species. I don't. And I don't think you really do either.

If you think the next Big Mac is crucial to our survival of our species, I'd argue you overestimate the importance of meat, and underestimate the ability of people to survive. In this very thread, we've looked at some numbers and shown there's no evidence that being vegetarian would hurt either individuals or our species as a whole. This "us or them" idea is a false dilemma.

You know what is really stupid of you bennyboy? You are arguing from the point of tween age angst against people who (no matter which way you cut it) have had 30+ years of this sort of debate.

I also notice that you have not challenge me regarding the market niche for "vegetarianism" causing animal "suffering" or is that ok for you and you are happy to be a hypocrite?

---

Your arguments are nothing but emotional manipulation and striving to thrust guilt onto those who don't share your world view. Pathetic!

Are you so enamoured of the dogma as per PETA et al that you will sell yourself?

(February 21, 2014 at 5:15 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote: You know what is really stupid of you bennyboy? You are arguing from the point of tween age angst against people who (no matter which way you cut it) have had 30+ years of this sort of debate.

I don't even know what you are talking about with this, so I'm not able to respond to it.

Quote:I also notice that you have not challenge me regarding the market niche for "vegetarianism" causing animal "suffering" or is that ok for you and you are happy to be a hypocrite?

I'm not sure why those words are in quotation marks. Are you refuting that vegetarians are really vegetarians, or that animal suffering is really suffering? You've made at least 2 new threads, and dozens of links, and I'm still waiting for you to take a specific position. What idea, among the hundreds that I could infer from your own comments as well as your links, are you expecting me to challenge, or accusing me of being unwilling to challenge?

Quote:Your arguments are nothing but emotional manipulation and striving to thrust guilt onto those who don't share your world view. Pathetic!

This statement is demonstrably false. Not only have I discussed the practical issues and downsides of vegetarianism, and shown a willingness to engage in the debate you suggested and then changed your mind about, I think you'll find that I've come out in favor of, or at least understanding of, the meat-eating position on several occasions when discussing dietary pragmatism and issues of economy (and, in the past, pest control). Since in our private tells, I specifically said that we should look at factual data-- crop reports, etc.-- It is dishonest for you to say my arguments are "nothing but emotional manipulation." You have recent and unambiguous evidence to the contrary in your own possession.

Quote:Are you so enamoured of the dogma as per PETA et al that you will sell yourself?

You seem, since PETA have been demonized as nutcases in this thread, to be attempting to dismiss my moral arguments by a kind of ad hom by association. I think if you're being honest, you should look at many of my arguments, and see that I'm radically different in my outlook than they are. The only thing I have in common with them is that I'm vegetarian, and so are they.

(February 21, 2014 at 2:11 am)là bạn điên Wrote: If you don;t want to fuck children THEN JUST DON'T

If you don;t want to beat someone up for being Gay THEN JUST DON'T


If you don;t want to murder someone for being an Atheist THEN JUST DON'T

Yeah.... Those things all involve harming other people. Worst analogies ever. Better analogies would be having children, being openly gay and being an atheist.

What I am refuting bennyboy is your teenage angst regarding suffering. Are you Buddhist or Jainism ?

You blather on about animal "suffering" yet seem happy for such "suffering" to occur in the cause of vegetarianism to the point where other long term vegetarians have had enough of your whinging.

You also neglect the fact that the big four industries are pandering to you and your pathetic idealism to create the very thing your "ethical" choice is supposedly to prevent and you seem quite happy with this hypocrisy. Not everyone can do a vegetarian diet. I have been consistent with this and I will no condemn anyone who finds it suitable for their particular metabolism ....but I will call bullshit for the pseudo-religious vocalisations that you and your cohorts want to impose on ALL PEOPLE just because YOU think this is something that EVERYONE SHOULD ADOPT (aka religious belief that vegetarianism is much more ethical than omnivoreism) or is that why I have to suffer protein enriched flour (that I don't need because of a balanced omnivorous diet) and the fact the companies like Monsantos have these "roundup ready soy beans" that they need to recoup the research $$$$$$ from?
And what of palm oil? We used to be able to get the fats necessary to produce soap from animal fats... But NO say the vegetarians, you can get it from palm oil! Yippie! So now we have the habitat of untold Indonesian species being wiped out because of vegetarian preferences, not to mention the displacement of thousands of people just to keep you "ethical Veggies" happy? And then give you something to whinge about?

Can you not see you are being exploited? Check out greenpeace for more information regarding palm oil.

(February 21, 2014 at 6:13 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote: What I am refuting bennyboy is your teenage angst regarding suffering. Are you Buddhist or Jainism ?

No. I'm just a guy who thinks that animals shouldn't be made to suffer if it can be avoided. I don't see what a moral argument has to do with either teenage angst or with Asian philosophies.

Quote:You blather on about animal "suffering" yet seem happy for such "suffering" to occur in the cause of vegetarianism to the point where other long term vegetarians have had enough of your whinging.

You still haven't specified what suffering I'm willing to inflict in the "cause of vegetarianism."

Quote:You also neglect the fact that the big four industries are pandering to you and your pathetic idealism to create the very thing your "ethical" choice is supposedly to prevent and you seem quite happy with this hypocrisy.

Is there another bennyboy here? None of what you are saying ever happened.

Quote:Not everyone can do a vegetarian diet. I have been consistent with this and I will no condemn anyone who finds it suitable for their particular metabolism ....but I will call bullshit for the pseudo-religious vocalisations that you and your cohorts want to impose on ALL PEOPLE just because YOU think this is something that EVERYONE SHOULD ADOPT (aka religious belief that vegetarianism is much more ethical than omnivoreism) or is that why I have to suffer protein enriched flour (that I don't need because of a balanced omnivorous diet) and the fact the companies like Monsantos have these "roundup ready soy beans" that they need to recoup the research $$$$$$ from?

I'm still not seeing a connection between your increasingly hysterical tyrade and anything I've ever actually said. Have I not on several cases specifically argued against big agricultural companies, in favor even of naturally-grazed cattle?

Quote:And what of palm oil? We used to be able to get the fats necessary to produce soap from animal fats... But NO say the vegetarians, you can get it from palm oil! Yippie! So now we have the habitat of untold Indonesian species being wiped out because of vegetarian preferences, not to mention the displacement of thousands of people just to keep you "ethical Veggies" happy? And then give you something to whinge about?

You are addressing your arguments to me, but they have nothing to do with anything I've ever said. Have you officially given up on engaging actual ideas, and gone into full tilt mode?

The animal-fat soap vs. Indonesian ecosystem dilemma is clearly a false one. These are not the only sources of fatty acids which can be mixed with lye to make soaps.

I created a whole page for us to have this discussion. Yet you avoid it and avoid actually looking into your pseudo religion.

---

You opt for the moral high ground and offer no concrete evidence of your position. Have a REAL good look around bennyboy. You are part and parcel of the problems you think the mammalian world is suffering from but are just so blasé about just how the vegetable kingdom is going to save you

---

Just as well I did't set up a debate for this.

I would have won with your no show.

And here I was thinking that you wanted an intelligent debate over this issue.

---

As for those people who find that vegetarianism suits their metabolism and continues the help them thrive? Good on you! It didn't work for me but then we are all built differently eh?

---

So much for intelligent design..... : dodgy:

(February 21, 2014 at 6:38 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote: I created a whole page for us to have this discussion. Yet you avoid it and avoid actually looking into your pseudo religion.

You've made 2 new threads, and I've participated in both of them. You were going to make a debate thread, which I also agreed to participate in, and then changed your mind. I'm not sure at this point exactly in what way you thinking I'm avoiding anything.

As for vegetarianism being a religion. . . well, obvious bullshit is obvious. You keep trying to brand me as either a PETA clone or a religious-type nut. I'm not. I'm just a guy who thinks animals shouldn't be made to suffer if we can avoid it, and who therefore chooses not to eat meat.

Quote:You opt for the moral high ground and offer no concrete evidence of your position. Have a REAL good look around bennyboy. You are part and parcel of the problems you think the mammalian world is suffering from but are just so blasé about just how the vegetable kingdom is going to save you

What evidence are you looking for? Evidence that animals suffer, or evidence that it's wrong to make them suffer? It's obvious that they suffer, and the wrongness of making them suffer is a matter of subjective evaluation and is therefore not subject to rules of evidence-- by what criteria would you evaluate moral choices as objectively right or wrong?

Quote:Just as well I did't set up a debate for this.

I would have won with your no show.

Again, I don't know specifically what "no show" you are talking about. Either you have yet another thread that I haven't found, or you are engaging in enrico-level delusion. You made 2 new threads about this topic, and I posted in them both. So what's the problem?

Quote:And here I was thinking that you wanted an intelligent debate over this issue.

If you want a formal debate, start a debate thread. If you want a casual conversation, then that's fine, too. But the degree to which you keep trying to call me out over opinions I've never expressed, or over no-shows which never happened, is really getting a little bit strange. You keep ranting about PETA, an organization which I've expressly disagreed with, and about industrial farming practices, which I not only disagree with, but I believe I went on record first in this thread as pointing them out to be sources of hypocrisy among vegetarians.

I'm really not sure what you're up to in your many threads, but it seems to be a lot of unfocused busy-work. If you have a thesis, state it clearly, and we can engage in a debate about it, either in a formal debate thread or anywhere else. But you are really running hot-and-cold: 1 minute you are engaging me in a constructive discourse on farming practices, and the next you are claiming that I'm a crazy quasi-religious nut, and pretending that I'm dodging you. I'm interested in talking about vegetarianism; I'm not interested in engaging in a dramatic battle of wounded egos or a flame war.

You keep forgetting two things.

a) Since my ethics is based on evolutionary principles, counter-claims are a matter of basic survival.

b) Since my ethics operates at the species level, it can't be used to support gender or race distinctions directly.

Your appeals continually violate these two basic facts.

I would agree that we should eliminate unnecessary animal suffering if it doesn't result in a drain on our survival. But if being altruistic involves sacrificing the goals of humans for the sake of animals, then your altruism is irrational. Altruism evolved to serve species goals, and when you take it outside of that, you are costing lives.

Regardless, if animal suffering is only partially a constraint on human behavior, it doesn't lead to an ethical mandate to eliminate the eating of meat. There are good, evolutionary reasons why we don't want to be insensitive to the suffering of creatures that remind us of ourselves. However, vegetarianism is a case of looking for an ethical principle to use to justify an ideological position, and holding fast to that rationalization in spite of the consequences. If I felt empathy were a sound basis for morals, they might be right, but so far all you've shown is that some people "want" it to be the basis of morals; not that it is. And mounting your ethics on the principle of "mere preference" guts your ethical stand more surely than any naturalistic basis can. If it's "just preference," then there's no argument you can make if I want to enslave blacks or oppress women; one preference is as good as another if that is all that it is.

(February 21, 2014 at 6:13 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote: You blather on about animal "suffering" yet seem happy for such "suffering" to occur in the cause of vegetarianism to the point where other long term vegetarians have had enough of your whinging.

You also neglect the fact that the big four industries are pandering to you and your pathetic idealism to create the very thing your "ethical" choice is supposedly to prevent and you seem quite happy with this hypocrisy.

Veganism is an ethical choice but that does not preculde other ethical choices also having to be made. We know that vegan diets kill less animals than meat eating, with the letter necessarily killing farmed animals. Now some animals may die during farming crops but that is still less than those killed by farming. This is demonstrated in the following article which calculates that "to obtain the 20 kilograms of protein per year recommended for adults, a vegan-vegetarian would kill 0.3 wild animals annually, a lacto-vegetarian would kill 0.39 wild animals, while a Davis style omnivore [eating grass fed beef] would kill 1.5 wild animals." Veganism causes less harm and does not treat animals like property, while meat eating completely disregards the interests of animals for our own.

Sure there are other things which cause harm in the world, and we should support sustainable farming, pharmaceuticals etc. But that does not negate the fact that eating meat causes harm to our health, the environment and to the animals

---

(February 21, 2014 at 12:19 pm)rasetsu Wrote:


You keep forgetting two things.

a) Since my ethics is based on evolutionary principles, counter-claims are a matter of basic survival.

b) Since my ethics operates at the species level, it can't be used to support gender or race distinctions directly.

Your appeals continually violate these two basic facts.

I would agree that we should eliminate unnecessary animal suffering if it doesn't result in a drain on our survival. But if being altruistic involves sacrificing the goals of humans for the sake of animals, then your altruism is irrational. Altruism evolved to serve species goals, and when you take it outside of that, you are costing lives.

Regardless, if animal suffering is only partially a constraint on human behavior, it doesn't lead to an ethical mandate to eliminate the eating of meat. There are good, evolutionary reasons why we don't want to be insensitive to the suffering of creatures that remind us of ourselves. However, vegetarianism is a case of looking for an ethical principle to use to justify an ideological position, and holding fast to that rationalization in spite of the consequences. If I felt empathy were a sound basis for morals, they might be right, but so far all you've shown is that some people "want" it to be the basis of morals; not that it is. And mounting your ethics on the principle of "mere preference" guts your ethical stand more surely than any naturalistic basis can. If it's "just preference," then there's no argument you can make if I want to enslave blacks or oppress women; one preference is as good as another if that is all that it is.

What evolutionary principle are you basing your ethics on? Evolution DOES not care about the survival of species, indeed it will select for characteristics so that species evolve, and become new species. Nor has evolution specifically select us to develop empathy for our species as a whole. Rather it has select us for empathy towards our tribe, and with people we associate with being part of our group. That is why the history of humanity is filled with fighting between tribes, communities, countries, races, genders etc. Evolution does not select on the basis of species, it selects on the basis of individuals, and our ability to pass on genes. That is why many men want to just have lots of sex with as many women as possible, but with our problems with our population, this is actually counter productive for the survival of our species! Your ethics based on evolutionary principles therefore justifies actions against your principle that ethics should concern what is best for our survival.

Now, these are all reasons why basing ethics on evolution is wrong, but there are also reasons why just focusing on our species are also wrong. Consider some humans cells cultured in a petri dish. Do those cells have ethical value? Most people would say "No", as they do not have feelings etc. So just being part of the same species is not enough to have ethical value. It is the ability to feel and to suffer that confers ethical worth, rather than just being part of the same species.

Lastly, even if we are to accept that ethics primarily concerns the survival of our species, then as it has been shown that eating meat decreases survival (ie increases risk of cardiovascular disease and cancer), then it must still be wrong to eat meat.