19 of 20
19
Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism
Posted: 15 November 2008 01:33 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 271 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4142
Joined  2008-08-14
BaIB - 09 November 2008 09:05 AM
Chris Crawford - 04 November 2008 11:05 PM

As to your point about eliminating animals as pets, that’s a matter of personal taste. I love my animals, and they’re happy with me, and if you don’t like that, it’s just too bad for you.


It is not a matter of personal choice because it affects someone other than you, namely animals.  How can you tell that “your” animals are happy?  What kind of animals are they?  What kind of life do they have?

No one can be happy and fulfilled unless one has a right to self determination.  Animals used as pets have no choices about their lives.  They are treated as property.  This cannot be morally justified.

BaIB:You stated that you had pets!You stated that you feed your pets meat!Are you saying you are the overseer in whose pets are correct and whose pets aren’t?

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 November 2008 01:49 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 272 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  73
Joined  2008-10-20
VYAZMA - 15 November 2008 01:33 PM

BaIB:You stated that you had pets!You stated that you feed your pets meat!Are you saying you are the overseer in whose pets are correct and whose pets aren’t?

I said cats, whom I took off the streets, live with me.  I try to provide them with as natural life as possible, but I would never claim that they have an ideal life.  It is a better life than they would have had on the streets, but not as good as a wild animal, who has freedom and self-determination.
Yes, I feed them meat.  This is left over meat that is not suitable for humans.  That is what goes into cat food.  When people stop eating meat, there will no longer be slaughterhouses, but by that time, we will have stopped breeding animals for the pet trade.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 November 2008 02:57 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 273 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4142
Joined  2008-08-14
sate - 03 November 2008 03:19 AM
BaIB - 02 November 2008 01:02 PM

Why are you comparing these two things?  What do they have in common?

I didn’t. You did. But hey, why should you have to remember what you said? You arn’t a database so much as a gatlin gun’o truth! fire away.

BaiB - 02 November 2008 01:42 PM

When did you join this discussion?  There were at least 3 variations of the argument for animal rights…

I am late to the party but I have read this entire thread, I’ve heard the podcast, I watched the bloody porn-umentary Erasmus suggested (Earthlings- 1h35m), and I even read up on Singer and Regan. Since I got in here a bit late I would like to present my own ethical theory on animal rights. I call it the Doctrine of Deliciousness.

Doctrine of Deliciousness
I assert that animals have fundamental and inalienable rights. The right to be food (only when necessary and delicious). The right to become quality consumer goods (when tastefully accessorized). Now before you object, let me say not every animal should get to be food. No animal (or plant, really) has the right to become food without having the relevant characteristics- no animal shall gain said right unless found delicious by a “reasonable” cook or sous chef. For example a reasonable sous chef would agree that any animal entree should be spruced up with the right spices & species & side dishes but that simply adding bacon to an untasty animal in fact does not make it so for ethical considerations. Similarly a board of retail moral philosophers will be convened to decide what animals can ethically be made into exciting new activewear and the like.

Erring on the side of Delectability
While we know many domesticated animals desire nothing more than to serve mankind (dogs, carrier pigeons, helper monkeys), we can’t be sure cows want to be eaten. In these cases we should err on the side of yumminess for the reason that the satiety of millions hangs in the balance. Further, we know as a fact that all the smarter animals choose to serve man- seeing-eye dogs, canaries who willingly fly into coal mines, circus elephants and dolphins who deliberately swim into nets so they can be sandwiches later. Therefore, we can conclude that dumber animals strive toward this goal but don’t yet have the capacity to actualize their desire to become products. Why should they be penalized? Don’t you want to help lower animals achieve their biological ambitions the way seeing-eye dogs have? Or maybe you want to see blind people stumble in front of buses. That’s just sickening. I can’t believe you suggested it.

Ending Speciesism
I agree with Peter Singer in that we must end speciesism. That is why the doctrine of deliciousness applies to all species and in fact, all living things- plants, fungi.. everything which makes my moral theory much broader in application than Singer’s own narrow view. I do not think one species gets the right to be food and another does not just because it is a different kind of creature- all living things have this right on the basis of their own culinary merit. Why, even the lowliest mushroom has rights. I’m sad to report that even today in 2008 we have raccoons eating garbage on the streets who could have been on a starlet’s arm strolling down the red carpet. This inhumanity toward nonhuman animals must end.

This is why I would call someone A PATRONIZER!!!

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 November 2008 03:09 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 274 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7641
Joined  2008-04-11
BaIB - 15 November 2008 01:49 PM

I said cats, whom I took off the streets, live with me.  I try to provide them with as natural life as possible, but I would never claim that they have an ideal life.  It is a better life than they would have had on the streets, but not as good as a wild animal, who has freedom and self-determination.
Yes, I feed them meat.  This is left over meat that is not suitable for humans.  That is what goes into cat food.  When people stop eating meat, there will no longer be slaughterhouses, but by that time, we will have stopped breeding animals for the pet trade.

Are your cats spayed and neutered? My guess is if you say no, it is because it takes away from their self determination. In that case, you are adding to the problem of wild unwanted and starving cats. If you say yes, I would say that you are compromising your argument for self determination.

I have dogs, I have always had dogs, and they have always been rescue dogs. My dogs have always been spayed and neutered. In a wild pack, only the pack leaders would be allowed to breed anyway, and I refuse to add to the problem of strays and abandoned pets. My dogs are trained, and I am their pack leader. If they were living in the wild, they would be ‘trained’ by the pack to follow the pack leader. My dog IS happy. How do I know? My dogs will willingly follow me to the ends of the earth. He loves to ‘hunt’ his frisbee and tennis balls. My dog is also healthy, he will probably have a life span unheard of in the wild.

 Signature 

Church; where sheep congregate to worship a zombie on a stick that turns into a cracker on Sundays…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 November 2008 03:17 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 275 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4142
Joined  2008-08-14
sate - 03 November 2008 03:19 AM
BaIB - 02 November 2008 01:02 PM

Why are you comparing these two things?  What do they have in common?

I didn’t. You did. But hey, why should you have to remember what you said? You arn’t a database so much as a gatlin gun’o truth! fire away.

BaiB - 02 November 2008 01:42 PM

When did you join this discussion?  There were at least 3 variations of the argument for animal rights…

I am late to the party but I have read this entire thread, I’ve heard the podcast, I watched the bloody porn-umentary Erasmus suggested (Earthlings- 1h35m), and I even read up on Singer and Regan. Since I got in here a bit late I would like to present my own ethical theory on animal rights. I call it the Doctrine of Deliciousness.

Doctrine of Deliciousness
I assert that animals have fundamental and inalienable rights. The right to be food (only when necessary and delicious). The right to become quality consumer goods (when tastefully accessorized). Now before you object, let me say not every animal should get to be food. No animal (or plant, really) has the right to become food without having the relevant characteristics- no animal shall gain said right unless found delicious by a “reasonable” cook or sous chef. For example a reasonable sous chef would agree that any animal entree should be spruced up with the right spices & species & side dishes but that simply adding bacon to an untasty animal in fact does not make it so for ethical considerations. Similarly a board of retail moral philosophers will be convened to decide what animals can ethically be made into exciting new activewear and the like.

Erring on the side of Delectability
While we know many domesticated animals desire nothing more than to serve mankind (dogs, carrier pigeons, helper monkeys), we can’t be sure cows want to be eaten. In these cases we should err on the side of yumminess for the reason that the satiety of millions hangs in the balance. Further, we know as a fact that all the smarter animals choose to serve man- seeing-eye dogs, canaries who willingly fly into coal mines, circus elephants and dolphins who deliberately swim into nets so they can be sandwiches later. Therefore, we can conclude that dumber animals strive toward this goal but don’t yet have the capacity to actualize their desire to become products. Why should they be penalized? Don’t you want to help lower animals achieve their biological ambitions the way seeing-eye dogs have? Or maybe you want to see blind people stumble in front of buses. That’s just sickening. I can’t believe you suggested it.

Ending Speciesism
I agree with Peter Singer in that we must end speciesism. That is why the doctrine of deliciousness applies to all species and in fact, all living things- plants, fungi.. everything which makes my moral theory much broader in application than Singer’s own narrow view. I do not think one species gets the right to be food and another does not just because it is a different kind of creature- all living things have this right on the basis of their own culinary merit. Why, even the lowliest mushroom has rights. I’m sad to report that even today in 2008 we have raccoons eating garbage on the streets who could have been on a starlet’s arm strolling down the red carpet. This inhumanity toward nonhuman animals must end.

Now reference this persons arguments towards animal rights in the latest Peter Singer thread.Patronism!!Pure and simple!!

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 November 2008 03:23 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 276 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  227
Joined  2008-07-26
asanta - 16 November 2008 03:09 PM

I have dogs, I have always had dogs, and they have always been rescue dogs. My dogs have always been spayed and neutered. In a wild pack, only the pack leaders would be allowed to breed anyway, and I refuse to add.

I’ve never had any pet dogs. Do stray dogs who arn’t related (or for that matter, are) form packs? I mean we arn’t talking about wolves on the Discovery channel here. At some point in domestication don’t dogs see you as their owner, a human, not some quasi-dog pack leader?

Anyway it does seem lose/lose to own pets for the animal rights crowd. They don’t care about your compassionate impulses- you’re part of the problem.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 November 2008 03:28 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 277 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7506
Joined  2007-03-02

UGH!  I’m glad I didn’t put forth anymore than what I did.  Not all people who are vegetarians, have reasons that are patronism.  Maybe empathy or other emotional reasons, but not necessarily patronism, for their abhorance of eating meat.  BTW, how did this thread go from science to vegetarianism/veganism anyway?

 Signature 

Mriana
“Sometimes in order to see the light, you have to risk the dark.” ~ Iris Hineman (Lois Smith) The Minority Report

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 November 2008 03:32 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 278 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7641
Joined  2008-04-11

Your guess is as good as mine.  smile A couple of other threads have devolved into other subjects, it seems to be a trend. blank stare

 Signature 

Church; where sheep congregate to worship a zombie on a stick that turns into a cracker on Sundays…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 November 2008 03:39 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 279 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4142
Joined  2008-08-14
Mriana - 16 November 2008 03:28 PM

UGH!  I’m glad I didn’t put forth anymore than what I did.  Not all people who are vegetarians, have reasons that are patronism.  Maybe empathy or other emotional reasons, but not necessarily patronism, for their abhorance of eating meat.  BTW, how did this thread go from science to vegetarianism/veganism anyway?

In another thread,Sate put forth conflicting views,against what he said in another post.I called him a Patronizer.Perhaps I was too bold,but I still wait for adjudication.

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 November 2008 03:53 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 280 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  227
Joined  2008-07-26
asanta - 16 November 2008 03:32 PM

Your guess is as good as mine.  smile A couple of other threads have devolved into other subjects, it seems to be a trend. blank stare

Listen to the podcast again. At the end, Dawkins is taken to task for his position on eating meat while being a naturalist. Dawkins comments are honest and self effacing- he agrees it is immoral but does it anyway.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 November 2008 03:56 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 281 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  227
Joined  2008-07-26
VYAZMA - 16 November 2008 03:39 PM

in another thread,Sate put forth conflicting views,against what he said in another post.I called him a Patronizer.Perhaps I was too bold,but I still wait for adjudication.

I have no idea what you are talking about or why you are obsessed with me. I think on these issues we are pretty much on the same page.

(fix formatting edit)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 November 2008 06:20 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 282 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4142
Joined  2008-08-14
sate - 16 November 2008 03:56 PM
VYAZMA - 16 November 2008 03:39 PM

in another thread,Sate put forth conflicting views,against what he said in another post.I called him a Patronizer.Perhaps I was too bold,but I still wait for adjudication.

I have no idea what you are talking about or why you are obsessed with me. I think on these issues we are pretty much on the same page.

(fix formatting edit)

I am not obsessed with you.I am trying to make a case,based on some of your past postings.I called you a PATRONIZER.A moderator edited my comment and removed it.I guess to protect your good graces.By patronizer I mean something akin to a Troll.Someone who argues both side of the fence for the fun of it.Usually someone of low mental character.
I said usually.I am in no way refering to you directly.You know what I’m talking about.Your inflammatory remarks towards bAIB,concerning animal rights,and vegetarianism.Then in this latest bit,you come across as someone who is all for animal ethics and rights.Patronizer.A fancy word,for more derogatory taxonomy.

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 November 2008 01:40 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 283 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  227
Joined  2008-07-26
VYAZMA - 16 November 2008 06:20 PM

I am not obsessed with you.I am trying to make a case,based on some of your past postings.I called you a PATRONIZER.A moderator edited my comment and removed it.I guess to protect your good graces.By patronizer I mean something akin to a Troll.Someone who argues both side of the fence for the fun of it.Usually someone of low mental character.
I said usually.I am in no way refering to you directly.You know what I’m talking about.Your inflammatory remarks towards bAIB,concerning animal rights,and vegetarianism.Then in this latest bit,you come across as someone who is all for animal ethics and rights.Patronizer.A fancy word,for more derogatory taxonomy.

I’ve never argued ‘both sides’. Where did I say eating meat is wrong? I’ve consistently said the opposite. Where did I say animals don’t get moral consideration or that humans are in a special position to do as they please? Never. My position has remained the same. In this thread I take my cues about proper type of discussion from those here. Other posters set the standard.. the standard being hawkish, impulsive and perhaps irrational. I responded as close to that setting as possible, though clearly I am not as good.

And what if I was patronizing? Who cares? Is this not for debate and discussion of dissenting views? What if I wanted to play devil’s advocate so I (or whoever) could explore the ideas further? To understand opposing, potentially more correct views better? No one’s position gets stronger by being recycled in a homogenized vat of nonthreatening ideas.

My last remarks I will PM, so as not to offend anyone’s delicate sensibilities.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 November 2008 01:49 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 284 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  227
Joined  2008-07-26
BaIB - 09 November 2008 09:05 AM
Chris Crawford - 04 November 2008 11:05 PM

As to your point about eliminating animals as pets, that’s a matter of personal taste. I love my animals, and they’re happy with me, and if you don’t like that, it’s just too bad for you.

It is not a matter of personal choice because it affects someone other than you, namely animals.  How can you tell that “your” animals are happy?  What kind of animals are they?  What kind of life do they have?

No one can be happy and fulfilled unless one has a right to self determination.  Animals used as pets have no choices about their lives.  They are treated as property.  This cannot be morally justified.

You have elsewhere argued that we can know that animals suffer and I agree. So why do you suddenly insist we can’t tell if they are here?
When it comes to dogs, cats and similar mammals their emotions are fairly evident.. symptoms of emotional pathologies (and well being) are well documented. I’m pretty sure an average 8 year old can tell the family dog or cat is miserable or hates her. Pets often show clear and unambiguous love and devotion to their owners. Do you deny them these emotions as well?

Moreoever, the nature of the domestication process is such that the emotional disposition of “prefering to live among humans” is artificially selected for. No one would want a pet that had to be chained to them 24/7 and desperate to escape. Even if you could argue that the process of domesticating animals is wrong, it wouldn’t change the fact that the end product is still here and that end product is animals who absolutely are fine with living among humans and in many cases could not survive any other way (don’t their interests matter?).

Pets are in fact, not treated like property. I can do whatever I want with property but we have cruelty laws about animals which I could be arrested for mistreating. I don’t think anyone has ever been arrested for mistreating their sofa. Pets are given Christmas stockings, affection, individual fashion items, and even funerals by their human caretakers. Name me other property which does so well on a large scale basis, please. Human caretakers of course do decide the fate of their animal companions but then this is required- in modern times and places they can not decide matters of their own health (very few 4-legged doctors) and well being. The lives of uncared-for stray animals is nasty and short.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 November 2008 01:54 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 285 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7641
Joined  2008-04-11

Excerpts from a Dog’s Journal

* 8:00 am - Dog food! My favorite thing!
* 9:30 am - A car ride! My favorite thing!
* 9:40 am - A walk in the park! My favorite thing!
* 10:30 am - Got rubbed and petted! My favorite thing!
* 12:00 pm - Lunch! My favorite thing!
* 1:00 pm - Played in the yard! My favorite thing!
* 3:00 pm - Wagged my tail! My favorite thing!
* 5:00 pm - Milk bones! My favorite thing!
* 7:00 pm - Got to play ball! My favorite thing!
* 8:00 pm - Wow! Watched TV with the people! My favorite thing!
* 11:00 pm - Sleeping on the bed! My favorite thing!
LOL

 Signature 

Church; where sheep congregate to worship a zombie on a stick that turns into a cracker on Sundays…

Profile
 
 
   
19 of 20
19