Girl Burned Alive: The Quest for Morality in America

[Metsfanmax]

Well, I'm glad that this is funny to you, but whether people deserve life or death I think deserves a little more than a chuckle and a witty retort.

[patches70]

Well, I'm glad that this is funny to you, but whether people deserve life or death I think deserves a little more than a chuckle and a witty retort.

What's funny is that you think no one can figure out what a "human" is. There are two pictures of two different types of living things, I simply ask for anyone to pick out which picture is the picture of a human. I know you'll probably pick the chicken but people with common sense will choose otherwise.

Humans are the only member of a branch of hominids. The only blurring of the line of what is and isn't human is the early hominids and it's a moot point because those creatures are now extinct. We are all that is left of that branch.

So yeah, your point of view is pretty much funny. We, just like every other living thing on the planet that wishes to survive, requires the consumption of other living things in one way or another. It is right and proper that we humans find ourselves on the top of that food chain in most circumstances. It's better than being at the bottom of the food chain I suppose.

And yes, when you are eating plants you are consuming living things. Such is the nature of our existence.

[Metsfanmax]

What's funny is that you think no one can figure out what a "human" is. There are two pictures of two different types of living things, I simply ask for anyone to pick out which picture is the picture of a human. I know you'll probably pick the chicken but people with common sense will choose otherwise.

If I ask you to determine how you came to the conclusion that one is a human, you won't know. It's the result of subconscious matching processes -- you didn't think to determine it was a human, you just knew. Our morality should be based on more than pattern-matching processes in the brain that we don't even understand. We have to do better than "that thing looks like us, so we'll treat it well, but that other thing doesn't look like us, so we'll enslave it." That's the logic that underpinned racism and sexism for almost all time. If your reasoning for treating other humans nicely is that thing looks like me, can you even form a logical argument against racism?

Humans are the only member of a branch of hominids. The only blurring of the line of what is and isn't human is the early hominids and it's a moot point because those creatures are now extinct. We are all that is left of that branch.

So I pose to you the same question I posed earlier in this thread -- if we discovered a relict population of Neanderthals on a remote island, would you treat them like humans (morally speaking)?

So yeah, your point of view is pretty much funny. We, just like every other living thing on the planet that wishes to survive, requires the consumption of other living things in one way or another.

I don't have a problem with consuming living organisms to survive. I have a problem with consuming the ones that can feel pain in circumstances in which it's perfectly easy to consume the ones that don't.

It is right and proper that we humans find ourselves on the top of that food chain in most circumstances.

What do you mean that it is "right and proper?" According to who, and by what logic?

[BigBallinStalin]

Well, I'm glad that this is funny to you, but whether people deserve life or death I think deserves a little more than a chuckle and a witty retort.

What's funny is that you think no one can figure out what a "human" is. There are two pictures of two different types of living things, I simply ask for anyone to pick out which picture is the picture of a human. I know you'll probably pick the chicken but people with common sense will choose otherwise.

Humans are the only member of a branch of hominids. The only blurring of the line of what is and isn't human is the early hominids and it's a moot point because those creatures are now extinct. We are all that is left of that branch.

So yeah, your point of view is pretty much funny. We, just like every other living thing on the planet that wishes to survive, requires the consumption of other living things in one way or another. It is right and proper that we humans find ourselves on the top of that food chain in most circumstances. It's better than being at the bottom of the food chain I suppose.

And yes, when you are eating plants you are consuming living things. Such is the nature of our existence.

Then they're all murderers--unless they kill living entities which I don't call "people."

Well, the lives of plants don't matter in terms of pleasure or pain because I can't/don't want to imagine them preferring a state of existence over a state of non-existence. Nor can I imagine the harvesting vast crops of plants for the sole purpose of consumption and production as mass enslavement and genocide (or rather "specie-cide"). Insert incorrect Holocaust analogy (of course, pigs and plants won't go extinct if they're valued for the goods which can be derived from them. Jews under Nazism weren't so lucky, but forget my false analogy. Get angry and offended, you Nazi!)

However, I can imagine that other living entities like furry animals and maybe disgusting insects as preferring life over death, so we should maximize the utility of such creatures. Maybe not insects because they're not sentient enough. Without exchanges of goods, we won't get market prices, nor can we ask animals' their willingness-to-pay in order to determine deadweight losses. So, we don't have any visible constraints or maximizable value, along which we can correspond with utility. So, my Metsian Animal Persons morality is impractical and especially incoherent in practice, but I'll continue saying that you're wrong. Metsian Animals are people.

Whenever you disagree, the chances of my equating your argument (you) with a racist argument (racist) are high. It doesn't improve my argument at all because it can applied against me since I'm 'specieist' against all plant matter, bacteria, etc.; however, I've always ignored that argument by dodging it with irrelevant questions and by ignoring commonly accepted premises such as "all humans are equally morally valuable--regardless of national origin or skin color." It doesn't matter that such a premise contradicts all racist arguments because you sir are acting like a racist.


See? That was easy. And Mets fit the pattern.

[Metsfanmax]

Well, the lives of plants don't matter in terms of pleasure or pain because I can't/don't want to imagine them preferring a state of existence over a state of non-existence. Nor can I imagine the harvesting vast crops of plants for the sole purpose of consumption and production as mass enslavement and genocide (or rather "specie-cide"). Insert incorrect Holocaust analogy (of course, pigs and plants won't go extinct if they're valued for the goods which can be derived from them. Jews under Nazism weren't so lucky, but forget my false analogy. Get angry and offended, you Nazi!)

What argument would you provide that could begin to convince a Nazi that what they were doing is wrong? Seriously, that's a challenge that extends to anyone in this thread. Suppose I'm a racist -- convince me that I am wrong.

However, I can imagine that other living entities like furry animals and maybe disgusting insects as preferring life over death, so we should maximize the utility of such creatures.

Why do you believe that anyone other than you, including humans, prefers life over death? How many people have you asked?

Maybe not insects because they're not sentient enough. Without exchanges of goods, we won't get market prices, nor can we ask animals' their willingness-to-pay in order to determine deadweight losses. So, we don't have any visible constraints or maximizable value, along which we can correspond with utility. So, my Metsian Animal Persons morality is impractical and especially incoherent in practice, but I'll continue saying that you're wrong. Metsian Animals are people. Why do I keep doing this? Because I'm using the motte-and-bailey tactic.

Or, in other words: since it will be hard to figure out what to do otherwise, we should just keep enslaving them and eating them. I hope you understand just how awful this reasoning is. Even if you think that I cannot possibly imagine a "coherent" future under my standard, how could that possibly justify slavery and torture of beings that should have legal rights protecting them from that?

Maybe we should just kill and eat human babies. We can't ask them whether they would prefer that or not, so what's really wrong with it?

BTW, that is an incorrect usage of motte-and-bailey. I have been perfectly consistent in what I have been saying; motte-and-bailey is when I say one thing and change my response when questioned further about it. I have not once changed my argument that any being that is capable of having preferences deserves to have those preferences considered in a moral system.

Whenever you disagree, the chances of my equating your argument (you) with a racist argument (racist) are high. It doesn't improve my argument at all because it can applied against me since I'm 'specieist' against all plant matter, bacteria, etc.; however, I've always ignored that argument by dodging it with irrelevant questions and by ignoring commonly accepted premises such as "all humans are equally morally valuable--regardless of national origin or skin color." It doesn't matter that such a premise contradicts all racist arguments because you sir are acting like a racist.

You don't understand the term speciesism, evidently. Speciesism is not the same as treating members of different species differently; rather, it means treating members of different species differently precisely because they are a member of that species. I don't treat grass differently from chimpanzees because one is grass and the other is a chimpanzee, I treat them differently because one has preferences and the other does not.

[BigBallinStalin]

Mets' argumentation reminds me of the motte-and-bailey doctrine.


The motte-and-bailey:

The writers of the paper compare this to a form of medieval castle, where there would be a field of desirable and economically productive land called a bailey, and a big ugly tower in the middle called the motte. If you were a medieval lord, you would do most of your economic activity in the bailey and get rich. If an enemy approached, you would retreat to the motte and rain down arrows on the enemy until they gave up and went away. Then you would go back to the bailey, which is the place you wanted to be all along.

The doctrine:

So the motte-and-bailey doctrine is when you make a bold, controversial statement. Then when somebody challenges you, you claim you were just making an obvious, uncontroversial statement, so you are clearly right and they are silly for challenging you. Then when the argument is over you go back to making the bold, controversial statement.

Some classic examples:

1. The religious group that acts for all the world like God is a supernatural creator who builds universes, creates people out of other people’s ribs, parts seas, and heals the sick when asked very nicely (bailey). Then when atheists come around and say maybe there’s no God, the religious group objects “But God is just another name for the beauty and order in the Universe! You’re not denying that there’s beauty and order in the Universe, are you?” (motte). Then when the atheists go away they get back to making people out of other people’s ribs and stuff.

2. Or…”If you don’t accept Jesus, you will burn in Hell forever.” (bailey) But isn’t that horrible and inhuman? “Well, Hell is just another word for being without God, and if you choose to be without God, God will be nice and let you make that choice.” (motte) Oh, well that doesn’t sound so bad, I’m going to keep rejecting Jesus. “But if you reject Jesus, you will BURN in HELL FOREVER and your body will be GNAWED BY WORMS.” But didn’t you just… “Metaphorical worms of godlessness!”

3. The feminists who constantly argue about whether you can be a real feminist or not without believing in X, Y and Z and wanting to empower women in some very specific way, and who demand everybody support controversial policies like affirmative action or affirmative consent laws (bailey). Then when someone says they don’t really like feminism very much, they object “But feminism is just the belief that women are people!” (motte) Then once the person hastily retreats and promises he definitely didn’t mean women aren’t people, the feminists get back to demanding everyone support affirmative action because feminism, or arguing about whether you can be a feminist and wear lipstick.

Can y'all spot Mets' motte(s) and bailey?

[Metsfanmax]

Can y'all spot Mets' motte(s) and bailey?

Can you?

BTW, that is an incorrect usage of motte-and-bailey. I have been perfectly consistent in what I have been saying; motte-and-bailey is when I say one thing and change my response when questioned further about it. I have not once changed my argument that any being that is capable of having preferences deserves to have those preferences considered in a moral system.

You might think that I have an incoherent system in practice, or that I am not adequately responding to your claims of incoherency, but that doesn't qualify as motte-and-bailey, because I still completely defend the system that you argue is incoherent.

[patches70]

Mets argument-
It's wrong to kill humans.
All creatures that feel pain are human.
Thus it's wrong to kill animals for food.

Except the argument falls apart since all those creatures aren't human. Mets even says himself that no one can define what a human is, but he's sure that everything that feels pain is human. How the hell does that logic work?



A captive bolt to the brain kills a cow with zero pain, thus it should be alright to eat the cow then, Mets? The cow didn't feel any pain and up to that point in it's life it never had to worry about being predated on by wolves or such. It was always kept warm, safe and fed. It led a nice easy life until it was time to repay all the effort that went into taking care of that animal. And then it was just lights out, no pain.

About the only thing I can agree with Mets on is that it's not a cool thing to treat animals cruelly. Even if one is just going to eat that animal anyway. No need to make the animal go through needless suffering.

It's cool, Mets, if you don't want to eat meat. It's cool to even try and convince others to not eat meat. But you shouldn't resort to coercion in those attempts to convince. And if people say, "Nah, I'm not going to drink your kool-aid, but thanks anyway", then you should just say "Ok then" and be on your way.

You just can't help but compare people who aren't vegan or whatever to racists and you can't even see how absurd that conclusion is. Quit telling everyone else how they should live.
Apparently Mets was a fish in a past life and he remembers that past life. So he is uniquely qualified to tell everyone else what a fish <or insert feed animal of one's choice> feels and thinks.
Ok Dude, whatever. I find it interesting how you take a thread about the murdering and body burning of a young woman and turn it into you pet vegan issue. Sheesh, man, show some class at least. Make a separate thread so that people can disagree with you that a cow isn't a human and that the killing of a cow is not the same as killing a young woman.

[Metsfanmax]

Mets argument-
It's wrong to kill humans.
All creatures that feel pain are human.
Thus it's wrong to kill animals for food.

No, it's wrong to kill a person, and some animals that feel pain are persons, in addition to humans. It's kind of definitional -- for simplicity's sake, assume I'm calling anyone a person who deserves not to be killed. (The reason they deserve not to be killed is derived from the ethical system I outlined earlier.)

A captive bolt to the brain kills a cow with zero pain, thus it should be alright to eat the cow then, Mets? The cow didn't feel any pain and up to that point in it's life it never had to worry about being predated on by wolves or such. It was always kept warm, safe and fed. It led a nice easy life until it was time to repay all the effort that went into taking care of that animal. And then it was just lights out, no pain.

As a factual matter, the cow did feel pain throughout its whole life. No cow brought up in the modern industrial animal agriculture system has a "nice easy life." And even when they are hit with the bolt, many of them survive that and are conscious when they are ripped apart.

About the only thing I can agree with Mets on is that it's not a cool thing to treat animals cruelly. Even if one is just going to eat that animal anyway. No need to make the animal go through needless suffering.

That suffering happens all the time. It is basically inevitable when 300 million people want to eat animal flesh -- economics dictates that things are going to get unpleasant for the animals.

It's cool, Mets, if you don't want to eat meat. It's cool to even try and convince others to not eat meat. But you shouldn't resort to coercion in those attempts to convince. And if people say, "Nah, I'm not going to drink your kool-aid, but thanks anyway", then you should just say "Ok then" and be on your way.

I think that what you are doing is murder. This has nothing to do with being "vegan" or not. It has to do with you committing murder, and me thinking that it is not OK. Do you think coercion might be justified if people are committing murder? I do.

[patches70]

I think that what you are doing is murder.

You are wrong. Just because you think something doesn't make it true.
I think you are a crazy nutbag, am I right? According to your thinking I must be. From now on let it be known as fact that Mets is a crazy nutbag.
Or, is that just my opinion?
If it's just my opinion, then what I think doesn't matter, even if there are other people who think you calling people who eat steak "murderers" is just plain crazy. You've just drank too much kool-aid is all.

This has nothing to do with being "vegan" or not.

Yes it does. If you were an omnivore you would't be spouting this nonsense.

It has to do with you committing murder, and me thinking that it is not OK. Do you think coercion might be justified if people are committing murder? I do.

Coercion is never justifiable.
And now you are calling me, personally, a murderer. If I am a murderer, Mets, then please, enlighten me on exactly what person I supposedly murdered?

[BigBallinStalin]

Well, the lives of plants don't matter in terms of pleasure or pain because I can't/don't want to imagine them preferring a state of existence over a state of non-existence. Nor can I imagine the harvesting vast crops of plants for the sole purpose of consumption and production as mass enslavement and genocide (or rather "specie-cide"). Insert incorrect Holocaust analogy (of course, pigs and plants won't go extinct if they're valued for the goods which can be derived from them. Jews under Nazism weren't so lucky, but forget my false analogy. Get angry and offended, you Nazi!)

What argument would you provide that could begin to convince a Nazi that what they were doing is wrong? Seriously, that's a challenge that extends to anyone in this thread. Suppose I'm a racist -- convince me that I am wrong.

However, I can imagine that other living entities like furry animals and maybe disgusting insects as preferring life over death, so we should maximize the utility of such creatures.

Why do you believe that anyone other than you, including humans, prefers life over death? How many people have you asked?

Maybe not insects because they're not sentient enough. Without exchanges of goods, we won't get market prices, nor can we ask animals' their willingness-to-pay in order to determine deadweight losses. So, we don't have any visible constraints or maximizable value, along which we can correspond with utility. So, my Metsian Animal Persons morality is impractical and especially incoherent in practice, but I'll continue saying that you're wrong. Metsian Animals are people. Why do I keep doing this? Because I'm using the motte-and-bailey tactic.

Or, in other words: since it will be hard to figure out what to do otherwise, we should just keep enslaving them and eating them. I hope you understand just how awful this reasoning is. Even if you think that I cannot possibly imagine a "coherent" future under my standard, how could that possibly justify slavery and torture of beings that should have legal rights protecting them from that?

Maybe we should just kill and eat human babies. We can't ask them whether they would prefer that or not, so what's really wrong with it?

BTW, that is an incorrect usage of motte-and-bailey. I have been perfectly consistent in what I have been saying; motte-and-bailey is when I say one thing and change my response when questioned further about it. I have not once changed my argument that any being that is capable of having preferences deserves to have those preferences considered in a moral system.

No, it's not. You don't have to change your stance ("Metsian Animals are People") to engage in motte-and-bailey.

What's wrong with that? Institutions, mets. Consent. You don't understand these, so I won't bother explaining their role to you for the 10th time. Even if I spelled out the ridiculousness from the implications, you'd run from your bailey and into your other mottes. "Well, my moral stance isn't universal, so it doesn't apply to people in the 3rd world." [Therefore, animals aren't people in the 3rd world, by implication]. Or, "let's talk about legal rights instead"! How about the implications of legal rights x, y, and z? "You're being a racist!" (motte).

Impressive motte, by the way. They all seem to become so similar though. You totally failed in regard to the exposed impracticality of your utility stance. Maybe you were too busy running into the motte to pay attention? Here's how it'll work: I'll lay out several premises which prevent my stance from dipping into racism, and I'll keep mentioning the inherent problem of moral axioms in this debate (which entities get what). You'll again, as you keep doing and doing, ignore this, and run into your motte: "Your arguments are like Nazi racist arguments." Or you hold your ground on the moral philosophy part, but as soon as I mention the impracticality, you run into your Nazi, racist motte.

Whenever you disagree, the chances of my equating your argument (you) with a racist argument (racist) are high. It doesn't improve my argument at all because it can applied against me since I'm 'specieist' against all plant matter, bacteria, etc.; however, I've always ignored that argument by dodging it with irrelevant questions and by ignoring commonly accepted premises such as "all humans are equally morally valuable--regardless of national origin or skin color." It doesn't matter that such a premise contradicts all racist arguments because you sir are acting like a racist.

You don't understand the term speciesism, evidently. Speciesism is not the same as treating members of different species differently; rather, it means treating members of different species differently precisely because they are a member of that species. I don't treat grass differently from chimpanzees because one is grass and the other is a chimpanzee, I treat them differently because one has preferences and the other does not.

That's rich coming from the person who (in)sincerely claims to not understand what a human is. Apparently, your knowledge of definitions comes into "sharp" focus whenever you use them to only defend your stance. Interesting.

Speciesism (/ˈspiːʃiːˌzɪzəm, -siːˌzɪz-/) involves the assignment of different values, rights, or special consideration to individuals solely on the basis of their species membership. The term is mostly used by animal rights advocates, who argue that speciesism is a prejudice similar to racism or sexism, in that the treatment of individuals is predicated on group membership and morally irrelevant physical differences. The argument is that species membership has no moral significance.[1]

The term is not used consistently, but broadly embraces two ideas.[2] It usually refers to "human speciesism" (human supremacism), the exclusion of all nonhuman animals from the protections afforded to humans.[3] It can also refer to the more general idea of assigning value to a being on the basis of species membership alone, so that "human-chimpanzee speciesism" would involve human beings favouring rights for chimpanzees over rights for dogs, because of human-chimpanzee similarities.[4]

Guess what you've been doing? It's analogous to the underlined. Can you figure it out? (the italicized is the hint).

[BigBallinStalin]

I think that what you are doing is murder.

You are wrong. Just because you think something doesn't make it true.
I think you are a crazy nutbag, am I right? According to your thinking I must be. From now on let it be known as fact that Mets is a crazy nutbag.
Or, is that just my opinion?
If it's just my opinion, then what I think doesn't matter, even if there are other people who think you calling people who eat steak "murderers" is just plain crazy. You've just drank too much kool-aid is all.

This has nothing to do with being "vegan" or not.

Yes it does. If you were an omnivore you would't be spouting this nonsense.

It has to do with you committing murder, and me thinking that it is not OK. Do you think coercion might be justified if people are committing murder? I do.

Coercion is never justifiable.
And now you are calling me, personally, a murderer. If I am a murderer, Mets, then please, enlighten me on exactly what person I supposedly murdered?

You won't get anywhere with Mets. He's using the motte-and-bailey doctrine, which is essentially fallacious. Just sayin'.

[BigBallinStalin]

Can y'all spot Mets' motte(s) and bailey?

Can you?

BTW, that is an incorrect usage of motte-and-bailey. I have been perfectly consistent in what I have been saying; motte-and-bailey is when I say one thing and change my response when questioned further about it. I have not once changed my argument that any being that is capable of having preferences deserves to have those preferences considered in a moral system.

You might think that I have an incoherent system in practice, or that I am not adequately responding to your claims of incoherency, but that doesn't qualify as motte-and-bailey, because I still completely defend the system that you argue is incoherent.

Gee, how many times do I have to mention the unavoidable arbitrariness of this moral dilemma?

Then how many times do I have to keep repeating the ridiculous implications of your moral stance? Your Metsian World Order is incoherent and impractical. It's also ripe with opportunism.

Then, how many times will you retreat into you Nazi racist motte?


You're done, Mets. Put a sock in it.

[Metsfanmax]

What's wrong with that? Institutions, mets. Consent. You don't understand these, so I won't bother explaining their role to you for the 10th time. Even if I spelled out the ridiculousness from the implications, you'd run from your bailey and into your other mottes. "Well, my moral stance isn't universal, so it doesn't apply to people in the 3rd world." [Therefore, animals aren't people in the 3rd world, by implication]. Or, "let's talk about legal rights instead"! How about the implications of legal rights x, y, and z? "You're being a racist!" (motte).

A discussion board is an imperfect way to hold a conversation. You might become convinced that I have decided to run away from an argument simply because it was not addressed for a period of time. But that would not be correct. (For example, I didn't say that my moral stance is not universal -- it does apply to people in the "3rd world." What is not necessarily universal is how societies should change to compensate for consideration of the interests of beings that have preferences, because in different circumstances conflicts will be resolved differently, but all societies should consider the interests of beings that have preferences.) I will be happy to address you on any of the topics you think are relevant, so instead of merely accusing me of trying to dodge them, perhaps we can continue to have a conversation about them.

Impressive motte, by the way. They all seem to become so similar though. You totally failed in regard to the exposed impracticality of your utility stance.

I answered it rather directly, and you have not yet responded: in no scenario that I can envision, does the consequences of the "impracticality" measure up against the wrongful enslavement, torture, and murder of billions of beings every year. I challenge you to provide an example of a future in which the future is worse than the present, assuming that I am correct about the present and that we need to consider the interests of sentient beings.

Maybe you were too busy running into the motte to pay attention? Here's how it'll work: I'll lay out several premises which prevent my stance from dipping into racism, and I'll keep mentioning the inherent problem of moral axioms in this debate (which entities get what).

You have not actually laid out a single premise which prevents your stance from dipping into racism, as far as I can tell. Please correct me by providing some examples if I am mistaken -- I honestly have not seen a single example from you. Or, answer the question about how you would convince a Nazi that they are wrong -- that would suffice as well. I am not accusing you of being a Nazi, I am merely asking you why you think the Nazis were wrong.

Speciesism (/ˈspiːʃiːˌzɪzəm, -siːˌzɪz-/) involves the assignment of different values, rights, or special consideration to individuals solely on the basis of their species membership. The term is mostly used by animal rights advocates, who argue that speciesism is a prejudice similar to racism or sexism, in that the treatment of individuals is predicated on group membership and morally irrelevant physical differences. The argument is that species membership has no moral significance.[1]

The term is not used consistently, but broadly embraces two ideas.[2] It usually refers to "human speciesism" (human supremacism), the exclusion of all nonhuman animals from the protections afforded to humans.[3] It can also refer to the more general idea of assigning value to a being on the basis of species membership alone, so that "human-chimpanzee speciesism" would involve human beings favouring rights for chimpanzees over rights for dogs, because of human-chimpanzee similarities.[4]

Guess what you've been doing? It's analogous to the underlined. Can you figure it out? (the italicized is the hint).

I don't think chimpanzees should be treated similarly to humans because they are similar to humans; I think that beings which can see themselves as existing through time should be treated as moral persons which are capable of having rights, and this includes at least chimpanzees, humans, and probably at least a few other mammals. Humans are not particularly special in my moral framework, only in yours, so many of your arguments are an example of projecting rather than meeting them directly on point.

[BigBallinStalin]

You have utterly failed. Sadly, pathetically, unapologetically failed.

Not sure what you mean. We humans have been consuming animals as food for a very long time. The realization that maybe it's not the best thing to do is a fairly new one in cultural terms. I don't expect to win everyone over in one argument. This isn't failure, because I didn't expect to succeed. I am just planting a seed of some ideas that I want people to consider. This is a discussion that is ongoing, both on this forum and in our society, and I am playing my part in keeping that fire burning and forcing people to think about their actions. BBS may still be eating animals today, but if I have done my job well at least he'll have to think a little more about whether he should be. And there's nothing wrong with that -- we should always be introspective about our actions.

Give it up, show that you aren't an idiot and say, yes guys, I hadn't really thought it through.

The arguments posed against such a societal shift are as demonstrative of a lack of human imagination and ingenuity as the slaveowners of the 1850s who thought that if we let the slaves free, they would destroy our societal order and we wouldn't have the means to produce our cotton and our tobacco anymore. "We've always done this, I don't want to think about how to do it a different way" is as perennially bad an argument as any of the justifications used for trampling on the rights of minorities. You seem to generally be a fan of challenging conventional wisdom -- the only reason you are so perturbed by this particular version of it is because it challenges your own actions.

Motte.

Also, this criticism of yours has been addressed numerous times. We can't get you to view your own faults, so you'll keep repeating your error and conclude (to yourself) that you're morally superior. Of course, you'd be wrong to think that, but--oops, there goes Mets into his motte again.

[Metsfanmax]

You have utterly failed. Sadly, pathetically, unapologetically failed.

Not sure what you mean. We humans have been consuming animals as food for a very long time. The realization that maybe it's not the best thing to do is a fairly new one in cultural terms. I don't expect to win everyone over in one argument. This isn't failure, because I didn't expect to succeed. I am just planting a seed of some ideas that I want people to consider. This is a discussion that is ongoing, both on this forum and in our society, and I am playing my part in keeping that fire burning and forcing people to think about their actions. BBS may still be eating animals today, but if I have done my job well at least he'll have to think a little more about whether he should be. And there's nothing wrong with that -- we should always be introspective about our actions.

Give it up, show that you aren't an idiot and say, yes guys, I hadn't really thought it through.

The arguments posed against such a societal shift are as demonstrative of a lack of human imagination and ingenuity as the slaveowners of the 1850s who thought that if we let the slaves free, they would destroy our societal order and we wouldn't have the means to produce our cotton and our tobacco anymore. "We've always done this, I don't want to think about how to do it a different way" is as perennially bad an argument as any of the justifications used for trampling on the rights of minorities. You seem to generally be a fan of challenging conventional wisdom -- the only reason you are so perturbed by this particular version of it is because it challenges your own actions.

Motte.

You say motte, I say analogy. *shrug*

Also, this criticism of yours has been addressed numerous times.

I have been reading pages of your posts, and not once have you provided an actual reason why the analogy fails, other than just the tautology that "I care about all humans, I would never think like that." (You've discussed "consent" and "institutions," perhaps as an answer to this issue, but a lot of white people in the 1850s thought that black people were not smart enough to take care of themselves or provide the type of consent you are talking about. They thought themselves unquestionably superior.) In fact, let's just pause here since this seems to be a central issue. Why don't you collect the reasons you believe you have provided for why the analogy fails, and then we can just have it out once and for all rather than just constantly dancing around about who said what.

[patches70]

You won't get anywhere with Mets. He's using the motte-and-bailey doctrine, which is essentially fallacious. Just sayin'.

I know, but when he told you that you can't understand what a human is because it's supposedly never been defined, I had to laugh and say something. I'd stayed out of the ridiculousness until that point, but, well, I'm only human, after all.

[Metsfanmax]

You won't get anywhere with Mets. He's using the motte-and-bailey doctrine, which is essentially fallacious. Just sayin'.

I know, but when he told you that you can't understand what a human is because it's supposedly never been defined, I had to laugh and say something. I'd stayed out of the ridiculousness until that point, but, well, I'm only human, after all.

Unless you actually thought that I couldn't tell the difference between a male human child and a chicken, then you should have continued staying out, because your post added nothing to the discussion.

[BigBallinStalin]

[

Maybe you were too busy running into the motte to pay attention? Here's how it'll work: I'll lay out several premises which prevent my stance from dipping into racism, and I'll keep mentioning the inherent problem of moral axioms in this debate (which entities get what).

You have not actually laid out a single premise which prevents your stance from dipping into racism, as far as I can tell. Please correct me by providing some examples if I am mistaken -- I honestly have not seen a single example from you. Or, answer the question about how you would convince a Nazi that they are wrong -- that would suffice as well. I am not accusing you of being a Nazi, I am merely asking you why you think the Nazis were wrong.

Sure, Mets. I "haven't laid out a single premise" because whenever I do, you ignore it with your garbage reasoning. There's no need for me to take you seriously.

I don't think chimpanzees should be treated similarly to humans because they are similar to humans; I think that beings which can see themselves as existing through time should be treated as moral persons which are capable of having rights, and this includes at least chimpanzees, humans, and probably at least a few other mammals. Humans are not particularly special in my moral framework, only in yours, so many of your arguments are an example of projecting rather than meeting them directly on point.

Think harder. What species have preferences and which don't?

See? A racist can 'avoid' your criticism by not referring to race, but instead to skin color. Just as you can 'avoid' speicieism by referring not to species but to particular characteristics in such a manner that results in classifying a subset of species as 'legitimately' inferior. That was easy. You're a specieist. Your argument by analogy is self-defeating since it'll apply to anyone's moral stance on this issue. This is why I don't constantly play the "ad Nazism" argument; this is why I use it as a reductio ad absurdum to any of your criticisms. It's a motte, so stop using it.

(It is a comfortable motte though. Any challenge to your utility stance, categorical imperatives, blah blah blah can be dismissed with your weak defense. After the incorrectness of the defense is highlighted and that the challenge has still not be vanquished, time and time again you run to your motte).

[Metsfanmax]

Sure, Mets. I "haven't laid out a single premise" because whenever I do, you ignore it with your garbage reasoning. There's no need for me to take you seriously.

You are free to discontinue this conversation if you desire.

Think harder. What species have preferences and which don't?

Species don't have preferences. Preferences are something individuals have. That is why your question is ill-formed, and why your arguments are speciesist. We do not correctly judge the characteristics or traits of an individual by reference to its species; the species as a whole at best only represents an average of what is likely among individuals of that species. Some humans don't have preferences, because they don't have brains or because they are in a permanent vegetative state. If we treated them with rights that are exactly the same as all other members of their species, we would be led to incorrect moral judgments. That is why this constant appeal to "humans" needs to stop; by putting humans on a pedestal we also do real harm to humans some of the time.

See? A racist can 'avoid' your criticism by not referring to race, but instead to skin color. Just as you can 'avoid' speicieism by referring not to species but to particular characteristics in such a manner that results in classifying a subset of species as 'legitimately' inferior. That was easy. You're a specieist. Your argument by analogy is self-defeating since it'll apply to anyone's moral stance on this issue. This is why I don't constantly play the "ad Nazism" argument; this is why I use it as a reductio ad absurdum to any of your criticisms. It's a motte, so stop using it.

No, you just need to stop talking in species language for this to make sense. The reason I treat a blade of grass differently from chimpanzees is not because it is a member of a particular species, but because that blade of grass does not have preferences. (It is true that by this metric, all members of its species do not "matter." But that is a consequence of the moral system, not an axiom of it. There are many, many examples -- such as human babies -- where it is easy to see that in no case do I believe that appealing to the species an individual belongs to should say anything about its moral characteristics.) It is only when we generalize a group of individuals by "race" or "gender" or "species" that atrocities like genocide can happen. If we force ourselves to always treat each individual as having the rights due to that individual, based on the capacities of that individual, then genocide can't happen. That is why I insist on a moral system with this characteristic. I believe that you do too, in a way, since you agree with my above example about a human in a vegetative state.

[patches70]

Unless you actually thought that I couldn't tell the difference between a male human child and a chicken, t

Oh, I had to check, after all you yourself said it's a little fuzzy-

The argument here, very simply, is that when you say human, you don't actually know what you are saying. (Prove me wrong. Define exactly what you mean when you say human.) That is because it is a fuzzy concept

so I had to just check to see if you could tell the difference between a human and a chicken because you apparently think the concept of a human is fuzzy. Heck, even Plato got confused on what a human is, if those old stories are to be believed.

It's a pretty straight forward concept actually, not sure what exactly you are fuzzy about. You are confused because of your anthropomorphism.

So I'm pretty sure BBS understands exactly what a human is even if you don't.

[Metsfanmax]

It has to do with you committing murder, and me thinking that it is not OK. Do you think coercion might be justified if people are committing murder? I do.

Coercion is never justifiable.

Don't bullshit yourself. If someone came and started raping your wife or your daughter, you wouldn't just stand there and let it happen because you believe that coercion is always unjustified.

And now you are calling me, personally, a murderer. If I am a murderer, Mets, then please, enlighten me on exactly what person I supposedly murdered?

You didn't pull the trigger. But you are complicit in a system that murders people to provide food. I am too, actually. Even though I strive to purchase products that have minimal animal oppression linked to them, I undoubtedly have contributed. There are some circumstances where it is very hard to get away from that -- animals are often even used for the farming of plants. And even if I was certain that nothing I bought was itself the direct result of animal oppression, I would probably be supporting the livelihood of people who do eat animals to make my products. It is virtually impossible to get away from, because it's a foundation of our economy. So in a way I don't really blame you for participating in it -- like me, you were raised by parents who saw absolutely nothing wrong with the practice of eating animals. However, it is important for us to question the values and practices of society at large, and call them out if they are ill-founded. This practice is one of them -- we are hurting innocent animals, and ourselves (with all of the resources we're wasting and all of the noxious byproducts we're emitting) and it's time that the practice got brought into the national conversation. I don't expect everyone here to change their perspective instantly, but I do think it is reasonable to at least think hard about whether what we are doing makes sense. And if it doesn't, what can we do about it?

[/]

If by your logic, we are pretty much just animals exhibiting natural biological motives

The only point in bringing up that we are the product of evolution is to demonstrate why using a species category for anything other than classification is as fundamental an error as using race as a category for anything other than classification. Species doesn't even have an actual meaning when you're considering issues like this -- what actually is a human? Where is the dividing line between humans and chimpanzees and other animals? Chimpanzees and humans both evolved from a common ancestor. If we trace our lineage back through the generations to that common ancestor, we see a continuous line of creatures that started at something like "chimpanzee + human hybrid" (though it was probably anatomically much closer to modern chimpanzee than it is to modern human), and slowly changes to something that looks like modern humans on one side, and something like modern chimpanzees on the other side. It is purely an accident of history that the descendants of that lineage other than the currently existing humans, chimpanzees and bonobos died out. Suppose that they instead had all survived. Would you be prepared to decide where the species boundary ends for humans, and begins for non-humans? Essentially, even using the term "human" is a fundamental error when having a discussion of morality, because human is not a uniquely defined quantity. All living humans (modulo identical twins) have different genetic code, and human is a term we invented to group together people whose genetic code is highly similar but not exactly identical. The difference between you and me, and you and a chimpanzee, is a matter of degree and not of kind. It's an unavoidable conclusion of evolution. It means that BBS doesn't even know what he is talking about when he says the word human, which is why his moral system is so confused.

"A species is often defined as the largest group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring." -Wikipedia
I think that's a concise enough definition. If we also add the first generation offspring regardless of fertility, it would be enough to include all living modern day Homo sapiens. Even if my great-x-a-zillion-grand whatsit was a was a protozoa, it doesn't further my future genetic line. If you ever naturally impregnated an Orangutan, I would admit that they are humans. The same with lost Neadrathals, they might have been human in their time, but the moment their genetic line theoretically diverged enough to to become incapable in interbreeding, I would argue they became a competing species of their own.

[mrswdk]

Is this what people like PS were talking about when they said that legalizing gay marriage would lead to legalizing bestiality?

[JBlombier]

I like food that was gained from some animel, it's just my personal taste. You may call me an ass-hole, but I really don't care about animal cruelty whatsoever. A speciesist in its purest forum, I guess.

I support Mets in his struggle to get a good point across, though. It seems that some people just don't wanna hear an anti-voice against their habituary behaviour of eating meat. To those people defending themselves I'd like to say: 'Eat your meat, enjoy it while it's still here. I do too.' - signed: an extreme majority of people around the world