Childhood indoctrination

[KichigaiNeko]

So you are against animal cruelty then, at least to the extent that it is convenient for you.

ad homenim?

May I ask why?

Why what?

If you're rejecting the notion that we should behave in a civilised manner towards them, then surely animal cruelty would be acceptable under that system?

assumption

"The Germans are Coming" has already brushed this aside by saying that morality is always based on convenience, but surely there are moral positions where people are required to rise above convenience?

Why? do you like being malnourished?

There is a serious inconsistency if you're against beating a cow with a stick for fun (senseless cruelty) but are happy to pay slaughterhouse workers to beat a cow with a stick to get her to walk to her death (legalised cruelty that is inevitable in that system of food production).

ad hominem and assumption.

To you, these actions are different, but to the victim they are identical. Why be against one cruelty but support another?

You have NOT listened to a word I have said. Your only saving grace is that the written word has difficulties in expressing nuance, inflection, tone and meaning from the above.

I could say the same to you, that you are happy to have plants beaten with sticks their whole ecosystem wiped out just so you are fed and nourished? You are happy to support the cruelty inflicted on our environment to save your moral high ground?

---

Okay, this is now deteriorating into simple name-calling and accusations, of which I'm admittedly not innocent, but it won't help anyone and the internet has already enough flame wars on record. So I'm taking a hiatus from this thread until the dust settled or very interesting new points emerge

So essentially you are saying you have no way of defending your position and am happy to vilify me by claiming the victim card?....well done endie

[Forbinator]

littleendian already answered this by referring to plants' lack of a central nervous system, so repeating this argument is akin to trolling. It also offers nothing constructive to the debate, since consumption of plant life (either directly or by filtering it through an animal as you do) is necessary for survival. Unless you're advocating suicide? Again, not constructive or applicable to reality.

So now you are being speciesist? it's ok to vilify and exploit a living creature do long as it is not like you?

I'm sorry? You are advocating the direct use of plant material and holding this up as preferable to those who need the next step of having it digested through a meat animal? And that those who prefer this added step should commit suicide?

And who said this was a debate? This is a discussion and your comments are not constructive at this point in my opinion.

So essentially you are both not reading my posts and are determined to take this fallacious "moral high ground"?

Do you both live on/in this planet? have you learnt nothing? Or do you prefer to have your ideologies fed to you by the likes of PETA and their ilk?

I'll ignore the character attacks, but I need to address speciesism because you do not understand it (or pretend not to). Probably on the first page of the thread it was discussed that an animal rights position gives equal consideration of interests, not identically equal rights. Animals with brains have hormonally-driven survival instincts (adrenaline, cortisol etc.), but plants do not. As littleendian already explained, if they could be considered as having interests, it would be in propagating their seed; they actually rely on being eaten by animals. And chopping part of a plant off when they don't have any pain receptors? You cannot seriously be suggesting that that is harmful. Even if it is, you haven't given me any alternative, other than starving to death or committing suicide, since animal products actually require more plants to be killed. If you're going to make the point about plants, at least provide an alternative that doesn't harm plants!

It is not speciesism if I provide a hen with a place to dust-bathe, but don't do the same for my child, as the interests that the two species have are different. However, to act against the interests of a species would be speciesism.

[little_monkey]

So wolf eating deer is what in this debate?

[Forbinator]

@ KichigaiNeko: that post where you just kept writing "ad hominem" and "assumption" was based on a misunderstanding I think. You indicated that you were against Halal and Kosher slaughter. I assumed this to mean you were against the cruelty involved. If I am wrong and you are simply against people's freedom of religion (or anything else), please let me know, but I would have thought animal cruelty was the main reason why people are against those forms of slaughter.

[Something completely different]

@ KichigaiNeko: that post where you just kept writing "ad hominem" and "assumption" was based on a misunderstanding I think. You indicated that you were against Halal and Kosher slaughter. I assumed this to mean you were against the cruelty involved. If I am wrong and you are simply against people's freedom of religion (or anything else), please let me know, but I would have thought animal cruelty was the main reason why people are against those forms of slaughter.

Maybe you need a reminder that you are not just annyoing a nobody.

But this forums most beloved Austalian.

[KichigaiNeko]

I'll ignore the character attacks,

Oh that is SO big of you. But it is ok for you to attack me? Wonderful.

but I need to address speciesism because you do not understand it (or pretend not to). Probably on the first page of the thread it was discussed that an animal rights position gives equal consideration of interests, not identically equal rights.

But you left me out of that "discussion" as I have told you, I am unable to do this vegan/vegetarian thingy.

Animals with brains have hormonally-driven survival instincts (adrenaline, cortisol etc.), but plants do not. As littleendian already explained, if they could be considered as having interests, it would be in propagating their seed; they actually rely on being eaten by animals.

But so do plants. They only lack a central nervous system.

And chopping part of a plant off when they don't have any pain receptors?

Are you sure? Do we REALLY know so much?

You cannot seriously be suggesting that that is harmful. Even if it is, you haven't given me any alternative, other than starving to death or committing suicide, since animal products actually require more plants to be killed. If you're going to make the point about plants, at least provide an alternative that doesn't harm plants!

Ah there's the rub. You and your avocation of "animal rights" leave me and 75% of the total world population to starve (yeah I know that the 75% is an arbitrary figure pulled out of my backside but I am making a guess here that only 25% of the total world population can be vegan/vegetarian whilst the rest will have varying mixtures of vegetarian an omnivorism

It is not speciesism if I provide a hen with a place to dust-bathe, but don't do the same for my child, as the interests that the two species have are different. However, to act against the interests of a species would be speciesism.

But you ARE advocating that animals have priority over one's own children and you ARE acting against the interests of a species namely the entire plant kingdom with your vegan/vegetarianism.

---

@ KichigaiNeko: that post where you just kept writing "ad hominem" and "assumption" was based on a misunderstanding I think. You indicated that you were against Halal and Kosher slaughter. I assumed this to mean you were against the cruelty involved. If I am wrong and you are simply against people's freedom of religion (or anything else), please let me know, but I would have thought animal cruelty was the main reason why people are against those forms of slaughter.

NOW THIS is something I AM with YOU on.

Kosher and Halal slaughter is an abomination, an insult, a desperate act by a puny little man thing; and as such should be abolished. It is NOT kind, humane, nor is it a swift clean kill. I dread to think of the amount of hormones that are surging through that poor animals body prior to the slaughter...and the meat tastes terrible very substandard for here in Australia.

You also have to understand that here we have our farmers struggling to keep stock alive during drought and floods and lack of fodder thanks to "animal activists" who seem intent on making sure these animals suffer MORE than just being slaughtered.

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/17637...-Indonesia

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-04-08/dr...rs/4615768

---

So wolf eating deer is what in this debate?

Apparently a "kumaya" moment little_monkey and non violent?

[Forbinator]

You stated I was a biggot for calling other species infirior, I pointed out that this way every species eating another species was biggoted. And after that you accuse me of using a fallacy! when in fact it is your very own fallacy!!!!!

Do you do that kind of stuff often! Using a nonsence argument and when being shown how nonsence it is accusing the one who refuted it of using the very nonsence argument!

Damn! I havent encountered such disgusting dishonesty in a very long time!!!!

I probably should try to understand what the problem is in a logical manner. I'll post what I think you're saying. Please correct me if I'm wrong:
1. I have made the "nonsense" argument that speciesism is a form of bigotry.
2. You have then tried to use the behaviour of other animals to suggest that they are bigots towards each other. You then infer that your speciesism is morally justifiable because other species do it, but ignore the serious fallacy involved in this inference: if we're using the behaviour of wild animals as an ethical reference point, we can justify throwing faeces at each other, raping and stealing.
3. I pointed out this fallacy.
4. You got mad because it was somehow meant to be a fallacy in the first place, used to somehow demonstrate that I was making the same fallacy in step 1.

Please correct any areas of that which I have misinterpreted, but I don't really see how being against speciesism can be construed as falsely applying wild animal standards to our own lives. I am actually advocating that we do the opposite and behave in a civilised manner. We already have animal cruelty laws which require us to do this, to a limited extent. I have argued (and I think you agreed) that the main limitation on how willing we are to apply ethics, is convenience. I would argue that doing what is convenient and doing what is ethical are two very different pathways (which if they intersect is a happy coincidence).

[little_monkey]

I would argue that doing what is convenient and doing what is ethical are two very different pathways (which if they intersect is a happy coincidence).

So define what you think is ethical.

[Forbinator]

Animals with brains have hormonally-driven survival instincts (adrenaline, cortisol etc.), but plants do not. As littleendian already explained, if they could be considered as having interests, it would be in propagating their seed; they actually rely on being eaten by animals.

But so do plants. They only lack a central nervous system.

Yes, completely minor detail I'm sure!

And chopping part of a plant off when they don't have any pain receptors?

Are you sure? Do we REALLY know so much?

Beyond a reasonable doubt I would think, but you haven't provided me with an alternative so the point is a bit moot!

You cannot seriously be suggesting that that is harmful. Even if it is, you haven't given me any alternative, other than starving to death or committing suicide, since animal products actually require more plants to be killed. If you're going to make the point about plants, at least provide an alternative that doesn't harm plants!

Ah there's the rub. You and your avocation of "animal rights" leave me and 75% of the total world population to starve (yeah I know that the 75% is an arbitrary figure pulled out of my backside but I am making a guess here that only 25% of the total world population can be vegan/vegetarian whilst the rest will have varying mixtures of vegetarian an omnivorism

You keep conveniently ignoring all the nutrition information available about where to get certain nutrients. I already posted links, and if all else fails, the worst case scenario is we have vitamin pills as I mentioned! I already said this, but you keep mentioning this same point as if the information and supplements don't exist.

It is not speciesism if I provide a hen with a place to dust-bathe, but don't do the same for my child, as the interests that the two species have are different. However, to act against the interests of a species would be speciesism.

But you ARE advocating that animals have priority over one's own children and you ARE acting against the interests of a species namely the entire plant kingdom with your vegan/vegetarianism.

Hah when did I advocate prioritising an animal over one's children? Are you trying to win straw man of the year? (Unless you're referring to the provision of a place to dust-bathe, which is not an interest that humans have!) And why do you keep ignoring the damning fact that the animals you eat are fed plants, at a rate of 6-12 x as much as the food they produce? In simple terms, meat-eaters decimate plant life at a much greater volume than vegans. I'm glad you apparently care so much about plants, but what is your solution to this? If meat-eating involves harming lots of plants, and veganism still involves harming some plants, then what alternative do you propose?

@ KichigaiNeko: that post where you just kept writing "ad hominem" and "assumption" was based on a misunderstanding I think. You indicated that you were against Halal and Kosher slaughter. I assumed this to mean you were against the cruelty involved. If I am wrong and you are simply against people's freedom of religion (or anything else), please let me know, but I would have thought animal cruelty was the main reason why people are against those forms of slaughter.

NOW THIS is something I AM with YOU on.

Kosher and Halal slaughter is an abomination, an insult, a desperate act by a puny little man thing; and as such should be abolished. It is NOT kind, humane, nor is it a swift clean kill.

So your objection was on animal cruelty grounds, so my assumption was correct...so why did you call me out for making an assumption!? How about responding to my post where I begin by stating that there is in fact evidence that you are against animal cruelty, and I draw conclusions based on that? Or maybe constructive debate isn't really your thing?

[Something completely different]