Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on May 15, 2012 at 4:00pm

Then I'll let you dig through all these pages to find it an reply to it directly rather than starting here where you've already misstated my position.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Major on May 18, 2012 at 1:36pm

I think it was you who posted the video that showed how educated people could be stupid. Well done for that.

Don't try to trivialise a valid and important argument by dumbing it down. You know, but pretend otherwise, that no one is equating slavery with choosing a balanced diet.

The issue is the ethics of inflicting immense suffering on sentient beings and justifying it on a genetic difference I.e. species. The argument is that discrimination on the basis of species is arbitrary, LIKE (although NOT the same) discriminating on the basis of skin colour.

To represent the argument as you have reflects badly on you and serves only to hide the fact that you have no consistent, intelligible ethical philosophy yet expressed.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on May 18, 2012 at 10:02pm

You make this wild claim about 'immense suffering' being inflicted on 'sentient beings' as though that is a given.  Unless you are prepared to have a factual discussion then what's the point?

Everything is a slippery slope, false dichotomy, or strawman with you.  I think the only variation I've seen so far was your completely irrelevant links about food-calorie production.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Major on May 19, 2012 at 3:11am

Let me know if you believe suffering of other sentient beings is an ethical consideration for you. Let me know if you believe the life of a non human animals has any intrinsic value. Let me know if you dispute there is any harm or suffering caused by the production of meat and we can discuss.

I have no idea what your ethical philosophy is and so discussion is difficult. I have stated mine. I believe that it is unethical to cause unnecessary pain and suffering and ethical to promote happiness and well being. Simple as that.

Tell me CLEARY what you think and I would be happy to explore some issues. Coming out with trite criticisms doesn't help.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by archaeopteryx on May 19, 2012 at 8:03am

I don't have a horse in this race John, but I believe one of her basic disagreements is that she doesn't feel that the animals we choose for meat production are sentient.

Arch

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by archaeopteryx on May 19, 2012 at 11:05am

Then again, it could be that your definitions of sentience differ - the dictionary defines sentience as being, "able to perceive or feel things," but I've known those who view sentience as possessing self-awareness, such as being able to recognize onesself in a mirror. I've known cats bristle at the "cat" in the mirror, and seen birds (OK, one --) fly into a mirror, thinking they're going to hook up with the one they're flying toward.

Permalink Reply by John Major on May 19, 2012 at 12:18pm

Hey Arch, have you saddled up? We will certainly ask Heather how she defines sentience. The Oxford English dictionary defines it as, 'Having the power or function of sensation or of perception by the senses.' Self awareness is something different in my opinion but am happy to discuss either or both.

Do you'd believe animals like pigs, dogs, cats, chickens and cows can suffer? What relevance is self awareness?

It is interesting the parallels that can be found with the pro-slavery lobby who justified mistreatment of others on flakey science.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism

Permalink Reply by archaeopteryx on May 19, 2012 at 5:21pm

John (all the "reply" buttons seem to be missing - hard to tell where this post will wind up) - like I said, I'm not in this, just trying to define the terms. Besides, from what I've learned of you, you don't need any help.

Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on May 19, 2012 at 10:04pm

I stated my position clearly, and concisely, on the first page of comments in this thread.  I disclosed my ethical/moral stance without charging after everyone to subscribe to my cult.

I do not believe that 'life' has any intrinsic value - it's nothing more than a fatal condition.  Imbuing 'life' with some metaphysical value is a religious standpoint to which I, as an Atheist, do not subscribe.  I am a humanist, first and foremost, and I also like animals - but I have killed animals for food and don't see how that creates 'immense suffering'.

Now we've both stated our moral/ethical positions - so I suggest, if you want to discuss whether or not veganism is mandatory for any stance to be ethical/moral, that you start a discussion on that rather than continuing to hijack this thread for your own ends.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Major on May 20, 2012 at 5:43am

Firstly, this post is about ethics and how we come to them. It's not off track.

Your moral position seems to be your actions should help humans feel safe and secure, well-fed and free from fear of physical or emotional attack.

You are excluding non human animals for your moral concerns. Why? This seems to me to be speciesist and a throw back to a religion-based idea of dominion over the animals. So, on what basis do you limit your moral consideration to your own species?

Just to clarify, you believe that human life has no value? Is this a tenet of the humanist movement? Why does this publication from a humanist organisation say that 'special value' is placed on this life. Are they adopting a religious standpoint in so doing?

http://www.humanismforschools.org.uk/pdfs/HUMANISM%20-%20a%20summar...

Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on May 20, 2012 at 7:23pm

Now you attempt argument by misquotation.  First off, you state that my position includes people being 'well fed' - a throwback to your irrelevant starvation links.  Then you go on to suggest that I feel 'human life' has no value <- another misquote.

It's obvious that your position is nothing more than an argumentative one and you have no facts or rational foundations for your position.  All you've done here has been to attempt to persuade me to your line of thinking using fallacy, hyperbole, and misquotes.

When you have an intellectually honest position to present I'll give it some consideration -> in the meantime you've entered the category of 'troll' in my books.

Permalink Reply by Dogly on May 19, 2012 at 10:10am

Heather, You have avoided watching the undercover videos of "Immense suffering", and savage abuse of factory farmed animals in the biggest factory farms and slaughterhouses in the U.S.  They have been on TV, and more are available on the internet.  This video evidence is proof. Physical evidence.  This is confirmed by those at the USDA, which has imposed fines and occasional factory closings.  The USDA's directors have consistently been top executives of the meat industry.   They are not vegans..   These are facts.  

We have established the harmful, painful, and frightening treatment given to the vast majority of the animals you eat

So again, are cows,  pigs,  goats, and horses sentient beings in your opinion, who are capable of suffering, or are they not?

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 64
• 65
• 66
• 67
• 68
• …
• 87
• Next ›
• Page