RE: Do you agree with Richard Dawkins?
April 19, 2012 at 6:13 pm
(This post was last modified: April 19, 2012 at 6:43 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
I think it's amusing that I am being asked to provide sources to "refute" an argument for which no source has been provided in support of. I'm still reading the report that has been linked from the UN, and I still can't find any support for your moral or ethical argument for vegetarianism there (and forgive me if you aren't the person who linked it, but I hope you are, because if not, you're just saying "prove me wrong".......which would be unfortunate). It's actually a trade paper meant to offer potential solutions to the problems livestock production faces/creates in the first place..... I'm not arguing against your statement that "unnecessary suffering" should be avoided. I'm completely giving that to you. We're beyond that. We are now assigning truth values to your assertions and what constitutes "unnecessary suffering" in the world beyond your argument, the real world. Isn't that exciting? Now, I'm not going to blow smoke up your ass, I'm glad I'm not a cow. I don't particularly like the way we currently produce beef (just as one example), but I'm not ready to declare beef production unethical or immoral as a whole when I know full well that there are other, much more humane and much more efficient ways of raising cattle (that would require dietary changes, absolutely) already in existence. The issue of their slaughter is a moot point for me, they are rendered completely unconscious if done properly. It's the production that concerns me, personally.
I don't know if you realize this, but the subject you've taken such a single minded stance on is actually immense, this is why I've asked you to offer a solution so we could weigh the pro's and cons against our current system (I actually do this for a living btw, and enjoy it very much, my impartiality in the decisions people make after all relevant information has been gathered is the bread and butter of why I have a business at all). I don't want to straw man you by arguing against practices that you wouldn't sign on-board with, now do I?
What you need to do here is pick a substitute crop (or a range of substitute crops) that would fulfill the gaping hole left in the wake of cessation of livestock production. If you cannot do this, you are shuffling the suffering onto us (we do get consideration here as sentient creatures that should not have to endure "unnecessary suffering", correct)? I could suggest some, but there are reasons that we haven't adopted them in each and every case. I don't know why you seem to think that no one has considered these things.
If you could narrow this down I could give you a very specific list of environmental concerns which would include within them, in each and every case, the suffering of sentient creatures. I leave it to you to decide whether or not it is "necessary" or "unnecessary" and how we are to determine which sentient creature we side with when conflict arises...and conflict will arise. This is why I can confidently state that you are going to cause suffering either route you choose, and the route you have chosen may actually cause more suffering (albeit suffering that is hidden to you, or ignored by you) depending upon which route you want to go. Without knowing precisely what solution you're offering, how can I give you the source you want?
That would be step 1, wouldn't it? To base an argument on "unnecessary suffering" you're going to have to demonstrate that whatever suffering you're referring to is actually unnecessary. To leap from "unnecessary suffering" to vegetarianism, you would have to demonstrate that no system of livestock production we have available to us would be able to do it's business without causing said "unnecessary suffering". Those are reasonable requests, are they not?
If you say "Let's all be vegetarians" that leaves the door pretty open, doesn't it? I could say, "Yes, yes, absolutely, lets all be vegetarians and grow watermelons and cabbages, rape this land for the nutrients required. Mine out every mountain and scrape the bottom of every ocean boys, we need that fertility! Fuck every living thing in, on, or under any rock we need, watermelons and cabbages for all!" But I doubt that you would be ok with that (and you don't seem to realize that this isn't as terrible an exaggeration as it may seem at first). Now, you seem to have some misconceptions about livestock as it relates to agriculture, and we can delve into that if you like, but I would just be nitpicking you and I'd rather cross that bridge if and when we come to it.
I don't know if you realize this, but the subject you've taken such a single minded stance on is actually immense, this is why I've asked you to offer a solution so we could weigh the pro's and cons against our current system (I actually do this for a living btw, and enjoy it very much, my impartiality in the decisions people make after all relevant information has been gathered is the bread and butter of why I have a business at all). I don't want to straw man you by arguing against practices that you wouldn't sign on-board with, now do I?
What you need to do here is pick a substitute crop (or a range of substitute crops) that would fulfill the gaping hole left in the wake of cessation of livestock production. If you cannot do this, you are shuffling the suffering onto us (we do get consideration here as sentient creatures that should not have to endure "unnecessary suffering", correct)? I could suggest some, but there are reasons that we haven't adopted them in each and every case. I don't know why you seem to think that no one has considered these things.
If you could narrow this down I could give you a very specific list of environmental concerns which would include within them, in each and every case, the suffering of sentient creatures. I leave it to you to decide whether or not it is "necessary" or "unnecessary" and how we are to determine which sentient creature we side with when conflict arises...and conflict will arise. This is why I can confidently state that you are going to cause suffering either route you choose, and the route you have chosen may actually cause more suffering (albeit suffering that is hidden to you, or ignored by you) depending upon which route you want to go. Without knowing precisely what solution you're offering, how can I give you the source you want?
That would be step 1, wouldn't it? To base an argument on "unnecessary suffering" you're going to have to demonstrate that whatever suffering you're referring to is actually unnecessary. To leap from "unnecessary suffering" to vegetarianism, you would have to demonstrate that no system of livestock production we have available to us would be able to do it's business without causing said "unnecessary suffering". Those are reasonable requests, are they not?
If you say "Let's all be vegetarians" that leaves the door pretty open, doesn't it? I could say, "Yes, yes, absolutely, lets all be vegetarians and grow watermelons and cabbages, rape this land for the nutrients required. Mine out every mountain and scrape the bottom of every ocean boys, we need that fertility! Fuck every living thing in, on, or under any rock we need, watermelons and cabbages for all!" But I doubt that you would be ok with that (and you don't seem to realize that this isn't as terrible an exaggeration as it may seem at first). Now, you seem to have some misconceptions about livestock as it relates to agriculture, and we can delve into that if you like, but I would just be nitpicking you and I'd rather cross that bridge if and when we come to it.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!