Christianity

[Harry Baird]

Now, what is your (causal) explanation of that behaviour.

Hell if I know

Finally, after many, many posts of dodging and avoidance, we get a definitive (non-)answer from you - one that says it all.

The error here isn't one of mistaken anthropomorphism on our parts; it's one of mistaken exceptionalism on yours. You falsely exclude non-human living beings from mindedness, making humans the exception, despite that the behaviour of non-human living beings evidences the same motivations as ours: joy, suffering, and emotion and feeling in general (amongst other evidence of their mindedness). When called upon to provide your alternative explanation for that behaviour - even when stripping interpretations and inferences of mindedness from its description - you come up with absolutely nothing, as you at last explicitly acknowledge.

You compare non-human living beings to Roombas, but we know that Roombas are programmed by human engineers and software developers for a purpose. Who programmed non-human living beings, and for what purpose? Again, you come up absolutely empty.

Over and over, you deny that animals are capable of joy and suffering, but why? You have not provided any reasons. All you do is argue by assertion.

On the other hand, the case is compelling: by (at least) induction, parsimony, common sense, and caution, the behaviour of non-human living beings is best - and extremely plausibly, to the point of certainty - explained by their having minds (as humans have).

Aside from failing to provide a case of your own, you haven't addressed that case.

Your position is baseless, and you have no justification for denying to non-human living beings the natural rights that you (correctly) affirm for humans.

It seems to me that you might, just might, have to accept that Henry is not going to be influenced and swung over to the camp of understanding -- about animal life -- that animals are sentient creatures with wide ranges of, well, feelings.

He doesn't seem to hold his beliefs for rational reasons, so all I can do is point that out. My line of questioning has reached its end, and that is its conclusion.

Alternatively, as somebody suggested earlier in other words, he is simply trolling.

Another possibility is that he knows that he has no basis for denying to non-human living beings the natural rights that he affirms for humans, but he is unwilling and unable to admit as much, especially given his selfish interest in continuing to violate their rights. Denying that non-human living beings have minds - even though he knows that they do - is, in that case, the tactic he's chosen to avoid admitting his violation of their rights.

To propose, for example, that a nation or the whole world cease to kill and consume creatures will mean that no domesticated creatures will ever come to exist!

I think that this concern is misplaced.

At the group level, domesticated creatures would surely continue to exist, both in the wild (in some cases labelled "feral"), and side by side with humans, such as the held-to-be-sacred cows which (if I understand correctly) roam some of the streets of India unhindered and unmolested.

In any case, even if the group choice was between subjugation and exploitation on the one hand, and non-existence on the other, I think that the maxim "give me freedom or give me death" applies: there would still be plenty of other types of living forms into which for souls to incarnate without being subjugated, exploited, cruelly treated to the point of torture, and slaughtered.

There is another case for group non-existence: many domesticated creatures have been bred in ways advantageous to humans but detrimental to their own experience, which would make group non-existence the preferable option. A few examples are: an unnaturally increased growth rate which leaves them with brittle bones that break easily; an unnaturally increased rate of egg production which depletes their bodies of calcium and other minerals; unnaturally increased production of wool which leaves them overheated in warmer weather and unable to exist without human intervention.

It seems unquestionable to me that all living creatures feel misery when they find themselves in miserable conditions.

Of course; naturally; and rightly so - which makes it plausible that hq is playing games with us.

[Alexis Jacobi]

In any case, even if the group choice was between subjugation and exploitation on the one hand, and non-existence on the other, I think that the maxim "give me freedom or give me death" applies: there would still be plenty of other types of living forms into which for souls to incarnate without being subjugated, exploited, cruelly treated to the point of torture, and slaughtered.

I don’t have much else to contribute to the general premise we have explored here.

So the comment I make is one of noting what I have always noted in you: your extreme idealism. That idealism has largely been developed by the Occident and I think it has its root in Christian Personalism. The individual is “sacred” and inviolate (at least ideally). The individual has rights. Or rights are recognized and granted.

As an idealistic radical (I do not say this judgmentally but assessingly) you extend the rights of Christian Personalism to animals and to man’s domesticated slaves: the animal brutes who are now semi-people. Persons.

Interestingly, I must note that in the absence of Christian Personalism we would likely live in a far more cruel and brutal world. Yet there is (as with any positive virtue) also a downside: mawkish sentimentalism. When the sensitive individual deeply feels all the agonies of the “tragic” world and, in a sense, separates himself from that world which causes so much anguish. (This is not a comment about you but a general assessment about the ultra-sensitive).

For this reason I stress: it seems greatly to be doubted that humankind will stop consuming domesticated animals. Therefore, the most that can be hoped for is better conditions and less suffering for animal slaves. This is a real attainment of (relatively) recent history: the animal rights movement.

[Harbal]

there would still be plenty of other types of living forms into which for souls to incarnate without being subjugated, exploited, cruelly treated to the point of torture, and slaughtered.

So if I were down to reincarnate into, say, a Hereford cow -not that I've ever even been to Hereford- and none were available, I would end up as a water buffalo, or something? But not a wildebeest; please, not a wildebeest.

[Sculptor]

there would still be plenty of other types of living forms into which for souls to incarnate without being subjugated, exploited, cruelly treated to the point of torture, and slaughtered.

So if I were down to reincarnate into, say, a Hereford cow -not that I've ever even been to Hereford- and none were available, I would end up as a water buffalo, or something? But not a wildebeest; please, not a wildebeest.

What about Jersye - they make the best cream. Not sure if it is because of the breed or location.

My second choice would be an Eland, they are nice that widebeasts.
I think you will agree..

eland.jpg

[Sculptor]

That is to say, that Christ gets to the ROOT of the concept of God.

The Jews have always been highly intellectual and influential in their god conceptions. Gentiles never had a chance except to submit!

Most of them don't really beleive in god as such.

[Harbal]

My second choice would be an Eland, they are nice that widebeasts.
I think you will agree..

I do agree, but I have nothing against wildebeest as such. I just don't want to appear in a wildlife documentary being brought down by a gang of lions, with David Attenborough calmly describing the event.

[Sculptor]

My second choice would be an Eland, they are nicer than widebeasts.
I think you will agree..

I do agree, but I have nothing against wildebeest as such. I just don't want to appear in a wildlife documentary being brought down by a gang of lions, with David Attenborough calmly describing the event.

I suppose that could be the case with an Eland too??

Better to be an Dairy Cow, - at least you get your tits sucked off every day.
Food shelter and as much grass as you can eat.

[Harbal]

My second choice would be an Eland, they are nicer than widebeasts.
I think you will agree..

I do agree, but I have nothing against wildebeest as such. I just don't want to appear in a wildlife documentary being brought down by a gang of lions, with David Attenborough calmly describing the event.

I suppose that could be the case with an Eland too??

Yes, but nowhere near as likely. Attenborough seems to have a thing about wildebeest; he always seems to show some footage of them, even if the documentary is about butterflies.

Better to be an Dairy Cow, - at least you get your tits sucked off every day.

That isn't something I am accustomed to, so I can't really say how I would feel about it.

[Sculptor]

I do agree, but I have nothing against wildebeest as such. I just don't want to appear in a wildlife documentary being brought down by a gang of lions, with David Attenborough calmly describing the event.

I suppose that could be the case with an Eland too??

Yes, but nowhere near as likely. Attenborough seems to have a thing about wildebeest; he always seems to show some footage of them, even if the documentary is about butterflies.

Better to be an Dairy Cow, - at least you get your tits sucked off every day.

That isn't something I am accustomed to, so I can't really say how I would feel about it.

As you would be a cow, you would be programmed to enjoy it - no worries there.

[henry quirk]

Finally, after many, many posts of dodging and avoidance, we get a definitive (non-)answer from you - one that says it all.

Be fair, Harry.

Now, what is your (causal) explanation of that behaviour.

Hell if I know: hell if I care.

Hell if I know; hell if I care was me, leavin' the merry-go-round.

But you want an explanation...okay, fine, try this...

Your frolickin' cows? Natural grazers who were kept from doin' that for six months and then re-introduced to the pasture. It wasn't joy the cows exhibited: it was a system reset for meat. You, of course, say no, it was joy...the cows were happy to be set loose. I say you're overlaying human emotion and personality, on a meat machine.

You're anthropomorphizing.

You will not accept my explanation: I will not accept yours.

-----
AJ, you said, to Harry...

So the comment I make is one of noting what I have always noted in you: your extreme idealism.

...I say it's garden-variety fanaticism flavored with mental illness.

[Gary Childress]

I suppose that could be the case with an Eland too??

Yes, but nowhere near as likely. Attenborough seems to have a thing about wildebeest; he always seems to show some footage of them, even if the documentary is about butterflies.

Better to be an Dairy Cow, - at least you get your tits sucked off every day.

That isn't something I am accustomed to, so I can't really say how I would feel about it.

As you would be a cow, you would be programmed to enjoy it - no worries there.

Hmm. Now that I visualize myself being a cow getting its tits relentlessly sucked day in and day out in order to provide milk for me, I suddenly feel myself leaning toward veganism.

[Alexis Jacobi]

...I say it's garden-variety fanaticism flavored with mental illness.

To each his own — as you make so very plain.

I do not regard idealism as a negative. In fact very much the opposite. Without ideals and idealism we’d be screwed.

However I have a generally pragmatic bent. Idealism has to be modified when dealing with the real world.

[Dubious]

...I say it's garden-variety fanaticism flavored with mental illness.

To each his own — as you make so very plain.

I do not regard idealism as a negative. In fact very much the opposite. Without ideals and idealism we’d be screwed.

However I have a generally pragmatic bent. Idealism has to be modified when dealing with the real world.

That was always my contention but somehow you seemed to have missed it no matter what I wrote or how often

It was never 'ideals' per se which separate us but the ones we give credence to.

[Sculptor]

Yes, but nowhere near as likely. Attenborough seems to have a thing about wildebeest; he always seems to show some footage of them, even if the documentary is about butterflies.


That isn't something I am accustomed to, so I can't really say how I would feel about it.

As you would be a cow, you would be programmed to enjoy it - no worries there.

Hmm. Now that I visualize myself being a cow getting its tits relentlessly sucked day in and day out in order to provide milk for me, I suddenly feel myself leaning toward veganism.

Oh? Why deny the cow that wonderful pleasure.
Did you know that when milking time comes they struggle with each other to be first in line?
At least they have a purpose and enjoy their job.

[henry quirk]

To each his own

Absolutely.

If he wants to eat tofu and pal around with his four-legged buddies:

Me: I'll keep on eatin' 'em.