|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Artificial food coming soon.
On Mar 14, 7:05*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Howard Brazee wrote: On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 20:01:04 -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote: So you're a vegan, are you? *Don't wear leather, either? Leather without hair somehow isn't nearly as evil as leather with the hair attached. Nah. *It's just that it's easier to attack country clubs (where the furs are) than motorcycle clubs (where the leather is). The Harley biker gangs certainly are more intimidating than the emaciated runway models. But my understanding is that those who vehemently protest the hairy leather while remaining silent on the hairless leather (maybe even wearing such to their protests) claim to see a huge distinction between the method of killing. They oppose the drawn out agonizing pain involved with leg-gnawing traps, while being ok with the quick bolt shot between the eyes. I see their motivations to be driven more by valuing foxes and such as being cuter than cows, while at the same time valuing their pleasure in eating steaks and hamburgers far more than they value the lives of the cows. This angle is very similar to those who are outraged by horsemeat, but don't think twice about going through the McDonald's drive thru to grab a Big Mac on their way to the rally. =Dustin |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Artificial food coming soon.
On Mar 14, 7:48*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
I was a vegetarian for a number of years, for health reasons. *I've since given it up, but I still eat a lot less meat than the average American and I make sure that very little of that is red meat. *So far, that (combined with moderate exercise) has kept my blood pressure and cholesterol levels where my doctor wants them so I don't have to be put on medication that can have undesired side effects. Unfortunately, there are a lot of vegetarians who are just completely irrational about the issue. *In my book, killing a cow, pig, chicken, or fish is not the moral equivalent of killing a human being. *On top of that, humans are not the only animals on the planet who eat meat. Eating meat fits into the natural order of things quite nicely. I'd be interested to learn of a few examples of vegetarians who see the killing of, say, a factory farmed chicken as being the moral equivalent of killing a person. It's clear to me that there is a spectrum. And you yourself may be surprised with value judgements you arrive at. Consider this... You are faced with the choice of killing one of two sentient being, one a human and the other an animal. The scenario is that, for whatever reason, one will be killed and you have been given the authority for the decision. Here's the choice you're presented with: - The animal is a big cat from a near-extinct species. You learn that she is the very last female. - The human is a 93-year old celibate hermit who has no family or friends. This person has long been inflicted with an excruciating illness. With tears in her eyes, she is begging you to kill her in order to end her pain. Jeff, you've voiced objection to animal life being treated as equivalent to human life. Is it not possible that there are situations where you yourself will value the life of an animal *over* the life of a human? Your call. And finally, every farmer and hunter I know tries to make sure that the animal is killed quickly and as painlessly as possible. *On top of that, they all try to use as much of the animal as possible. *There are doubtless exceptions to this (PETA loves it when they find those exceptions and try to paint entire industries with that brush), but that's not been my experience when dealing with individuals. I do not disagree that killing quickly and painlessly is more compassionate than some other form of killing. ....but it is also clear to me which is more compassionate between the alternatives of slaughter versus free-range unabbreviated living. =Dustin |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Artificial food coming soon.
On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 11:51:38 -0700 (PDT), Dustin Dewynne
wrote: But my understanding is that those who vehemently protest the hairy leather while remaining silent on the hairless leather (maybe even wearing such to their protests) claim to see a huge distinction between the method of killing. They oppose the drawn out agonizing pain involved with leg-gnawing traps, while being ok with the quick bolt shot between the eyes. And mink farms, which don't use leg traps, approach (but not very closely), the terrible conditions of poultry farms. -- "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department." - James Madison |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Artificial food coming soon.
On Mar 18, 2:33*pm, Dustin Dewynne wrote:
On Mar 14, 7:48*am, Jeff Findley wrote: I was a vegetarian for a number of years, for health reasons. *I've since given it up, but I still eat a lot less meat than the average American and I make sure that very little of that is red meat. *So far, that (combined with moderate exercise) has kept my blood pressure and cholesterol levels where my doctor wants them so I don't have to be put on medication that can have undesired side effects. Unfortunately, there are a lot of vegetarians who are just completely irrational about the issue. *In my book, killing a cow, pig, chicken, or fish is not the moral equivalent of killing a human being. *On top of that, humans are not the only animals on the planet who eat meat. Eating meat fits into the natural order of things quite nicely. I'd be interested to learn of a few examples of vegetarians who see the killing of, say, a factory farmed chicken as being the moral equivalent of killing a person. *It's clear to me that there is a spectrum. *And you yourself may be surprised with value judgements you arrive at. *Consider this... You are faced with the choice of killing one of two sentient being, one a human and the other an animal. *The scenario is that, for whatever reason, one will be killed and you have been given the authority for the decision. *Here's the choice you're presented with: - The animal is a big cat from a near-extinct species. *You learn that she is the very last female. - The human is a 93-year old celibate hermit who has no family or friends. *This person has long been inflicted with an excruciating illness. *With tears in her eyes, she is begging you to kill her in order to end her pain. Jeff, you've voiced objection to animal life being treated as equivalent to human life. *Is it not possible that there are situations where you yourself will value the life of an animal *over* the life of a human? *Your call. And finally, every farmer and hunter I know tries to make sure that the animal is killed quickly and as painlessly as possible. *On top of that, they all try to use as much of the animal as possible. *There are doubtless exceptions to this (PETA loves it when they find those exceptions and try to paint entire industries with that brush), but that's not been my experience when dealing with individuals. I do not disagree that killing quickly and painlessly is more compassionate than some other form of killing. ...but it is also clear to me which is more compassionate between the alternatives of slaughter versus free-range unabbreviated living. * afflicted My bad. ....and the scenario could be extended to point out that in the land this is happening in, one choice is called murder while there is no law at all protecting the animal's life. =Dustin |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Artificial food coming soon.
Dustin Dewynne wrote:
On Mar 18, 2:33 pm, Dustin Dewynne wrote: You are faced with the choice of killing one of two sentient being, one a human and the other an animal. The scenario is that, for whatever reason, one will be killed and you have been given the authority for the decision. Here's the choice you're presented with: - The animal is a big cat from a near-extinct species. You learn that she is the very last female. - The human is a 93-year old celibate hermit who has no family or friends. This person has long been inflicted with an excruciating illness. With tears in her eyes, she is begging you to kill her in order to end her pain. * afflicted My bad. ...and the scenario could be extended to point out that in the land this is happening in, one choice is called murder while there is no law at all protecting the animal's life. The example is interesting. (In what sense do you use *sentient* for the cat, though? Do you imply that it thinks just the same as the human, or use the traditional philosophical sense?) Anyhow, your extended scenario muddies the waters further. Were it not implied that the killer would be considered a murderer, the choice to kill the ancient hermit, even if she were healthy and not pleading to die, would be the obviously morally right one. However, if doing so would in addition endanger the life of the perpetrator, this would represent an additional burden. It would then, be the same as being asked to choose between killing two healthy people (useless hermit + killer punishment == valuable cat). -- You'd be crazy to e-mail me with the crazy. But leave the div alone. * Whoever bans a book, shall be banished. Whoever burns a book, shall burn. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Artificial food coming soon.
On Mar 18, 8:45*pm, Patok wrote:
Dustin Dewynne wrote: On Mar 18, 2:33 pm, Dustin Dewynne wrote: You are faced with the choice of killing one of two sentient being, one a human and the other an animal. *The scenario is that, for whatever reason, one will be killed and you have been given the authority for the decision. *Here's the choice you're presented with: - The animal is a big cat from a near-extinct species. *You learn that she is the very last female. - The human is a 93-year old celibate hermit who has no family or friends. *This person has long been inflicted with an excruciating illness. *With tears in her eyes, she is begging you to kill her in order to end her pain. * afflicted My bad. ...and the scenario could be extended to point out that in the land this is happening in, one choice is called murder while there is no law at all protecting the animal's life. * *The example is interesting. (In what sense do you use *sentient* for the cat, though? Do you imply that it thinks just the same as the human, or use the traditional philosophical sense?) Sentience does not require the ability to do integral calculus. All sentience means is the ability to feel. From the Latin 'sentire', meaning 'to feel'. That is all. (All other usage is distortion of this pure meaning.) If you've got a nervous system, you're sentient. A banana slug is sentient. All cats are sentient. Humans are sentient. Now what humans have that cats (and beetles and tapeworms ...) don't have is *sapience*. This appears to be the quality you are referring to, and it's where the term homo sapien comes from. It is the quality that sets humans apart from the rest of the animal kingdom. Or at least the *vast* majority of the animal kingdom. It's been estimated that at least 99.999% of animal species are not sapient. * *Anyhow, your extended scenario muddies the waters further. Were it not implied that the killer would be considered a murderer, the choice to kill the ancient hermit, even if she were healthy and not pleading to die, would be the obviously morally right one. However, if doing so would in addition endanger the life of the perpetrator, this would represent an additional burden. It would then, be the same as being asked to choose between killing two healthy people (useless hermit + killer punishment == valuable cat). Yeah, I know it was convoluting the original point. I through it in there because I felt that posting just to correct a word error was really lame. That, and I did find the extended moral conundrum to tickle a few more neurons. I don't, however, arrive at the same conclusion you've presented. A major aspect being introduced by the extension is threat to personal safety. So the real issue I see is whether a person is willing to make a decision they see to be right even when their own comfort is hanging in the balance. The strongest moral stance that any person can hold is the willingness to die for what they believe is the right thing. And that's without figuring your own personal loss into any equation of greatest good / least harm, etc. (Of course, this opens a brand new can of worms. Allah akbar, as just one example.) =Dustin |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Artificial food coming soon.
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Artificial food coming soon.
On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 23:05:25 -0700 (PDT), Dustin Dewynne
wrote: Sentience does not require the ability to do integral calculus. All sentience means is the ability to feel. From the Latin 'sentire', meaning 'to feel'. That is all. (All other usage is distortion of this pure meaning.) If you've got a nervous system, you're sentient. A banana slug is sentient. All cats are sentient. Humans are sentient. Now what humans have that cats (and beetles and tapeworms ...) don't have is *sapience*. This appears to be the quality you are referring to, and it's where the term homo sapien comes from. It is the quality that sets humans apart from the rest of the animal kingdom. Or at least the *vast* majority of the animal kingdom. It's been estimated that at least 99.999% of animal species are not sapient. Of course, we are very good at modifying our definition of sapience to exclude animals we don't want to include. * *Anyhow, your extended scenario muddies the waters further. Were it not implied that the killer would be considered a murderer, the choice to kill the ancient hermit, even if she were healthy and not pleading to die, would be the obviously morally right one. However, if doing so would in addition endanger the life of the perpetrator, this would represent an additional burden. It would then, be the same as being asked to choose between killing two healthy people (useless hermit + killer punishment == valuable cat). Yeah, I know it was convoluting the original point. I through it in there because I felt that posting just to correct a word error was really lame. That, and I did find the extended moral conundrum to tickle a few more neurons. I don't, however, arrive at the same conclusion you've presented. A major aspect being introduced by the extension is threat to personal safety. So the real issue I see is whether a person is willing to make a decision they see to be right even when their own comfort is hanging in the balance. The strongest moral stance that any person can hold is the willingness to die for what they believe is the right thing. And that's without figuring your own personal loss into any equation of greatest good / least harm, etc. There are things that (for many people) are harder to do than to die for a cause. And most evil in the world today is done by Righteous people. -- "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department." - James Madison |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Artificial food coming soon.
On Mar 19, 10:11*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 66564428-1304-4448-b952-aba657b2ec23 @t16g2000yqt.googlegroups.com, says... On Mar 14, 7:48 am, Jeff Findley wrote: I was a vegetarian for a number of years, for health reasons. I've since given it up, but I still eat a lot less meat than the average American and I make sure that very little of that is red meat. So far, that (combined with moderate exercise) has kept my blood pressure and cholesterol levels where my doctor wants them so I don't have to be put on medication that can have undesired side effects. Unfortunately, there are a lot of vegetarians who are just completely irrational about the issue. In my book, killing a cow, pig, chicken, or fish is not the moral equivalent of killing a human being. On top of that, humans are not the only animals on the planet who eat meat. Eating meat fits into the natural order of things quite nicely. I'd be interested to learn of a few examples of vegetarians who see the killing of, say, a factory farmed chicken as being the moral equivalent of killing a person. *It's clear to me that there is a spectrum. *And you yourself may be surprised with value judgements you arrive at. *Consider this... You are faced with the choice of killing one of two sentient being, one a human and the other an animal. *The scenario is that, for whatever reason, one will be killed and you have been given the authority for the decision. *Here's the choice you're presented with: - The animal is a big cat from a near-extinct species. *You learn that she is the very last female. This is a b.s. scenario, IMHO. *I see this sort of thing at work all the time. *Someone else's failure to properly manage something (in this case, the population of an endangered species) is somehow made into my problem and I need to make a decision like this "at the last minute". But I suppose I'll accept this, for now. It certainly is a bogus, fabricated scenario. But pointing to an extreme corner outside the bounds of reality can help to shed light on cases that can occur, and have occurred. - The human is a 93-year old celibate hermit who has no family or friends. *This person has long been inflicted with an excruciating illness. *With tears in her eyes, she is begging you to kill her in order to end her pain. This is a separate assisted suicide scenario in and of itself. *Anyone who supports assisted suicide in the case of terminally ill patients who are experiencing pain that can't be successfully, medically, managed would assist regardless of the other half of your scenario. Only someone completely opposed to assisted suicide would need to consider the other half of your scenario. Either that, or the situation could force the person to rethink their position. Jeff, you've voiced objection to animal life being treated as equivalent to human life. *Is it not possible that there are situations where you yourself will value the life of an animal *over* the life of a human? *Your call. The fact that I chose to examine the human's situation first is a clear indication to myself that I value human life over that of animals. I would hope that *everyone* would examine the human's situation first. Even if the decider's career was as a conservation zoologist. In the end, I'd go by what was legally my best option. *Laws are created and enforced for this very reason. *So my answer would depend on the laws of the state and federal government when it comes to assisted suicide and killing an endangered species. *The option which carries the lightest penalty for violating the law would be my choice. *My own "moral compass" isn't as important as those of the society in which I live. Wow. Very interesting answer. I expect you never drove faster than 55mph on the freeways during the 70s & 80s as well. Ha! The very reason the speed limits were raised is because no one was following that law. Or actually, the very few people who did follow that law were creating a safety hazard to the vast majority who were all driving significantly faster than 55. If you want to follow the moral compass of society, I hope it's evident to you that most people are willing to throw out the law in favor of what their internal moral compass is telling them is the right thing to do. And if you have that awareness, you would at least ask yourself, in the contrived scenario, not what action carries the least legal penalty, but what would the majority of society do if they were faced with that predicament. And once you were aware of the validity in that angle, you'd be faced with the limitations of finding the answer to that - which puts you straight back to searching your own moral compass for the best answer! ....either that, or taking a very limited poll of those you could reach within the time you have to make your decision. Point summary: Laws often do not reflect the moral compass of society. What they reflect is the expediency of those in legislative power ...at the time the laws were made. And finally, every farmer and hunter I know tries to make sure that the animal is killed quickly and as painlessly as possible. On top of that, they all try to use as much of the animal as possible. There are doubtless exceptions to this (PETA loves it when they find those exceptions and try to paint entire industries with that brush), but that's not been my experience when dealing with individuals. I do not disagree that killing quickly and painlessly is more compassionate than some other form of killing. ...but it is also clear to me which is more compassionate between the alternatives of slaughter versus free-range unabbreviated living. Because of the decimation of so many predator species (by humans), your so called "free-range unabbreviated living" would lead to mass suffering of deer if their population was not actively managed through legal hunting. *Sorry, but humans have an obligation to manage the messes we've created, even if that means legally killing deer during hunting season in order to manage their population. I agree that people have an obligation to help manage the populations of animal groups that people have artificially changed. But culling their numbers with rifles is not the only way to do that. In fact, the word 'culling' comes from the Latin 'colligere', which means 'to collect'. It doesn't mean 'to kill', at least originally. It's not hard to imagine that 'culling' became synonymous with 'shoot with rifle' because two camps found a strong mutual interest. The hunters wanted to kill the wildlife, and the rangers wanted the numbers reduced. A marriage made in carnivore heaven. Now it's quite possible to divorce those two interests with a healthy dose of Bambi-esque compassion. You know... tap into that emotion that you felt when you were a young child and you actually cared about the lives of the deer. If you apply human ingenuity to the issue, you can find all kinds of creative solutions that do not require slaughter. Already today, there are animal herds that are tracked to the point where GPS tracking devices are inserted into female vaginas to locate exactly where the babies are being birthed. Yes, your tax dollars are paying for that person to chase these critters down and hi-tech rape them. All in the name of love! Anyone interested in seeing a photo, here's what one company sells: Telonics Vaginal Implant Systems http://www.telonics.com/products/tvit/ If you click over to the Company Info page, you'll find this: "Telonics is best known for its adaptation of aerospace technologies and reliability to the field of wildlife research." Imagine that. Space technology applied toward the goal of animal welfare. =Dustin |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Artificial food coming soon.
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Artificial gravity? | Christopher[_5_] | Technology | 9 | November 5th 10 03:04 AM |
Humanity is coming to Feurer world, humanity is coming to Google! | gb[_3_] | Astronomy Misc | 2 | April 18th 08 12:02 AM |
Death is Coming a global extinction event is coming | Wounded Knee | Astronomy Misc | 4 | October 1st 06 07:44 PM |
Artificial sunlight? | Christopher | Technology | 13 | December 27th 03 02:07 PM |
artificial gravity | Johnson.. | Space Station | 7 | August 22nd 03 05:48 AM |