Eating Meat is Barbaric

[Iwannaplato]

Anywho i find it interesting how a deist as adamant as Henry Q is about being free as a bird and all that, could so easily strip a lesser creature of its freedom and right to live.

Have you managed to avoid stripping lesser creatures, as you call them, of their freedom and right to live. You realize that any food you eat leads to the deaths of animals, meat-based or not. You realize that owning a digital device contributes to the deaths of animals - including whatever device you are posting here with. Even if you never eat meat, never wear leather, the odds are that your pharmaceutical use, use of plastics, buying products that are shipped, use of clothing (and both natural and artificial textiles leads to animals deaths), using roads (even in mass transportation leads to animal deaths in a variety of ways, and so on.

Unless you live in the woods and are a gatherer who doesn't get food from that originated from farming, never drive or get driven, don't take pharmaceutical (or somehow filter your urine and poop), don't wear most types of clothes, stay off the internet, etc., you're killing animals.

Whatever the problems with hq¨s justification, he's right out admitting he's willing to kill and/or have others kill for him.

[LuckyR]

Plants are living organisms, but they don't have a central nervous system, so they don't experience any pain.

This is kind of basic lol shouldn't even have to explain this.

It's perfectly ethical to eat carrots. They don't experience any anxiety or pain when consumed.

Slaughtering animals, on the other hand, is a whole different ball game.

Veganism is about minimizing pain and suffering.

A philosophical discussion of animal's status must distinguish between wild animals and human created domesticated animals whose entire reason for existing at all is to be culled for their contribution to humans.

If there is no need for animal contribution, say horses for transportation, their numbers drop dramatically due to economic forces without any particular plea or mandate. It is erroneous to suppose that it is "unnatural" to kill and eat animals specifically invented for that purpose (as opposed to hunting wild animals for the same thing).

As a separate and in my opinion, more important issue, improving the conditions of the segment of the ranching industry that occupies the lowest portion of the spectrum is where the most actual improvements in animal welfare will occur.

I never stated that it's unnatural to kill animals.

On the contrary, it is actually natural to kill animals.

But just because something is natural, that doesn't necessarily make it morally right.

Rape, for example, is natural. But any civilized person would say it's morally reprehensible.

You also need to remember that those animals that have been culled and created a certain way are still living, breathing beings capable of experiencing pain and suffering.

I don't know if you are lacking the ability to experience empathy and compassion, but yeah, having your throat slit open doesn't feel good, even for culled and specifically created animals.

You're kind of all over the place. So are you okay with eating animals who were anesthetized before being killed? Are you against the practice regardless or just under certain circumstances?

As to my empathy and compassion quotient, since only 1% of Americans are vegan, if one's eating habits are the measure of those (which, of course it isn't, despite your histrionics), mine are in the top 10%, since I make the decision to spend more to select less inhumane ranches as my source of foodstuffs.

BTW I can't wait to hear your details on why you find the practice of rape: "natural'. I'll go make some popcorn.

[henry quirk]

It's not complicated: a man is a person; a [insert your favorite bio-Roomba] is not.

Why are you a person? You're a free will -- a point of creative and causal power -- capable of moral discernment and subject to moral judgment with an absolute claim on your, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property. Your favorite bio-Roomba is a bio-Roomba, nuthin' more.

But, Henry, how do you know this?

Same way you know: intuition

Oh, that's all woo, Henry!

Well, it's metaphysical, yes.

Well, I don't and won't accept it.

Okay.

Wait, aren't you going to try and convince me?

Nope. As I say, you already know you're a free will with natural rights, a person. Why you deny it is none of my concern. And, you know your favorite bio-Roomba is just a bio-Roomba and not a person. Why you deny this is also none of my concern. I have my (conspiracy) theories on why people will fight tooth and nail to define themselves as less and animals as more but that's another discussion, altogether.

Anyway, you do you. And if that means you don't eat meat and wanna lobby hard to give said meat the vote, hey, knock yourself out. Me, I'm havin' pork chops tonight.

[Atla]

Why are you a person? You're a free will -- a point of creative and causal power -- capable of moral discernment and subject to moral judgment with an absolute claim on your, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property. Your favorite bio-Roomba is a bio-Roomba, nuthin' more.

That's just 'morality' without the actual morality again.

[Atla]

Tell me what you think morality is please.

impossible

Why?

It's impossible to explain the experience/feeling/sensation of moral rightness and wrongness to someone who can't experience them.

[henry quirk]

Well, okay then.

[promethean75]

"You realize that any food you eat leads to the deaths of animals"

Oh lol no I'm not a vegetarian. Damn my bad.

But my reasons are: there are no such things as inherent rights for any animal, so i don't feel like I'm violating a cow's rights when i eat it in a cheeseburger.

But more metaphysically minded folks like H. Quirk who do believe in some kind of intelligent design and purpose and perfection in living things (being incredibly complex creatures), have to justify their not extending their own rights to other 'intelligent' animals like mammals without recourse to a clear and decisive set of instructions (given by a god) regarding their relationship to the animal.

A deist just assumes that the animals were designed to be used by humans and taken by force as livestock or game. For all they know, their intelligent clock maker god may have meant for animals not to be eaten becuz he hasn't said otherwise. Think about it.

H. Quirk is nothing more than an egostic Louisianan substance dualist apex predator who so fascinated and impressed with his own vast dual complexity, just assumes that lesser complex animals are subordinate to him and made so by his creator, the clock maker. He's never once considered that maybe grampa clock maker duddint want us to eat cows and deer and shit like that becuz those mammals have complex nervous systems and suffer a great deal, dispite being unable to tell u. They too are the grandsons and granddaughters of the grand clock maker maybe.

[Iwannaplato]

Nope. As I say, you already know you're a free will with natural rights, a person. Why you deny it is none of my concern. And, you know your favorite bio-Roomba is just a bio-Roomba and not a person. Why you deny this is also none of my concern. I have my (conspiracy) theories on why people will fight tooth and nail to define themselves as less and animals as more but that's another discussion, altogether.

Many Bioroombas seem vastly better people than many 'persons'. My intuition tells me that many persons have crimped up souls and get their sense of self from commercials and social media. No nobility, no elegance, no free will.

Ever track a missing child with an air-scenting dog?

Ever walk into what feels like a ghost town diner. Their bobbleheads svivel toward us without emotion yet somehow, they're shocked by some minor difference between our inexpensive jeans and t-shirts and theirs. Their mouths slightly ajar. Not even managing to be children-of-corn full of light creepy,

Of course this happens in cities also.

Not that I'm into cannibalism. Heck, I shudder at the thought of shaking hands with these unheimlich walking dolls.

[Age]

Was there any actual purpose here for saying and writing what is, and was already, blatantly obvious to absolutely every one here?

I wrote that as a direct answer to you're asking for clarification.

If you go back through the dialogue to where I first brought up the issue, in relation to your post, it should be clear what my purpose was.

So, once more, you cannot or will not 'just clarify'.

You asked me why I wrote it and I clarified why I wrote. You asked for a clarification and that was why I wrote it. In addition to my clarifying answer, in case you wanted more information, which you had not asked about, I suggested you check the original context. I clarified and added an easy way to check, should have you have further questions. You seem to think I have to repeat myself because you are either too lazy to read what I write or you have memory issues. And I am beginning to suspect you have memory issues because you constantly ask me to do things I have already done. Or ask me to clarify things I have already clarified. Or ask me questions I have already answered. Yes, I have done that also, but with you it is pretty much every post with more than a few sentences. If anyone in your in-person life has made the same observation, I recommend you visit a neurologist. [/quote]

Once again, your assumptions here are completely False and Untrue.

If you go back through this forum, with me, this is a very common habit of yours. Which is very clear.

And yours.

LOL you, still, do not even know what I am doing, and showing and revealing, here "iwannaplato".

It'd be very strange to have an assumption one thought wasn't true. Rather oxymoronic.

Okay.

But, still having assumptions, and then just carrying on as though those assumptions were true, before and without ever actually seeking out actual clarification, is a Truly stupid and very closed thing to do.

Nah.

Okay, if you say and believe so, then it must be so, to you.

So, please carry on doing the exact same habit of yours here.

Here is another prime example of just how closed, and thus Truly stupid this one here is.

Here is the idiocy of not reading the complete answer before coming with judgments performed by Age.

Here 'we' have another example of another False and Wrong assumption, which this one has believed is absolutely true, before and without any actual seeking out of clarification was ever made.

The baby assumes that mother's face it more important that anything else in the room.

And, you 'know' this how, exactly?

Or, is this just another 'assumption' of yours?

And, is there any actual proof that you have sought out and/or obtained regarding your claim and assertion here?

How do I know this exactly. Well, it's been common knowledge in science for decades, so it is hard to nail down exactly what research I read. It also came from seeing two newborns and then in conversation with mothers.

So, to you, if there was a fire in that room, and which was closer to the baby than the mother's face is, the baby would still 'assume' that mother's face is more important, right?

Here's a link: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598- ... 2Dmonths23).

Evidence of Newborns' Preference for Faces

Face-Like Patterns:
Newborns show a preference for face-like patterns over non-face-like patterns. This was demonstrated in studies where infants tracked moving face-like stimuli more than scrambled or non-face-like patterns.

This has absolutely nothing at all to do with a 'mother's face'.

Mother's Face Recognition:
Research indicates that newborns can recognize their mother’s face within the first few days of life.

Well this is absolutely nothing like what you said and claimed above here.

Studies using preferential looking techniques have found that infants will gaze longer at their mother’s face compared to the faces of strangers.

So what?

Where is the 'assumed' word used absolutely anywhere in these studies, in relation to babies "themselves"?

As far as I can see the only 'assumptions' being made are by you adult human beings, in regards to what 'could be happening and occurring'.

Bonding and Attachment:
The preference for the mother's face is crucial for bonding and attachment. Newborns are sensitive to the facial features, voice, and smell of their mother, which helps them form a secure attachment.

Again, absolutely nothing at all about 'assumptions', or 'assuming', itself.

What you are 'now' showing and presenting is actually opposing your first claim here.

Key Studies

Johnson et al. (1991): This study found that newborns preferentially tracked face-like configurations more than other shapes, suggesting an innate mechanism for face preference.
Bushnell et al. (1989): This research showed that infants could distinguish and show a preference for their mother’s face compared to a stranger's face within the first few days of life.
Field et al. (1984): This study found that newborns showed a preference for their mother's face over the faces of other women, highlighting the importance of early visual recognition in attachment.

Again, this has absolutely nothing at all to do with your claim about babies 'assuming' things.

In fact, what does the word 'assumption' even mean, to you, exactly, "iwannaplato"?

Mechanisms Behind the Preference

Innate Predisposition: Newborns seem to have an innate predisposition to pay attention to faces. This is likely an evolutionary adaptation that facilitates social bonding and communication.
Early Learning: Within hours of birth, newborns start learning and recognizing their mother's face through repeated exposure. The combination of visual, auditory, and olfactory cues aids this rapid learning process.

Once more, this has absolutely nothing at all to do with the actual claim that you made above here.

Research seems to indicate that autistic babies or children who later get diagnosed with autism have less of this tendency.

And as usual you ask me this kind of question but do not, as most people would, say if they agreed or disagreed. I've explained before why this is good practice, especially when we are not talking about the main topic. I know, you don't find my advice useful. Your loss, even with us not necessarily -lol - being the target audience. I love that you put in more effort to give less information with that phrasing.

Okay.

What you 'love', others might 'hate'. But, each to their own, as some would say here.

We all use ad hoc assumptions,

Here 'we' have another 'generalization' of this one of all of you human beings. Which this one also claims I do and when I do it it is toxic.

Yes, the universalized negative generalizations about human beings is toxic, especially when aimed at individuals without even bothering to justify it. I think you have done this less of late. I hope that is the case.

But, you will just keep doing what you criticize others do.

which hopefully we check in on and also notice things like counterevidence and anomolies regarding.

you 'hoping' you check in on never means that you actually do.

No, it doesn't mean that. Some people do, some don't. Further people do it with different frequencies, with more or less skill and I would say courage. Terrible interpretation.

But, as I was just saying, you do not do it "yourself" "iwannaplato". As can be clearly seen and so proved True throughout this forum.

And, the amount of times that you never can be clearly seen throughout this forum.

You have no idea how much I notice anomalies, deal well with cognitive dissonance, change beliefs based on new experiences and challenges from others.

Once again, your assumptions and beliefs have led you completely astray here. So, once more, you have completely and utterly missed and/or misunderstood what I was referencing, exactly.

And you clearly have little idea why I have reacted to you the way I have. As usual as if how someone reacts to your or what you've written is how they react in life...to you.

I assume you are not an evil being hoping to hurt me.

Once again, I will suggest that before you assume absolutely any thing it is much better to obtain actual clarity/clarification first.

Mull over how idiotic that what you wrote here is. You let me know if it was a poor assumption.

Once again I will suggest that it will always be better for you, and for others, to seek out and obtain actual clarification first, before any assumptions are made.

But, you obviously believe the opposite is true.

And, again, I chose and wrote the words I did for a very specific reason.

Also, it does not matter one iota if your assumption is 'poor' or 'great', it is always to obtain actual clarity before assuming things.

I assume that today in some basic ways will be like yesterday.

Who cares what you assume.

Oh, you don't understand the idea of giving counterexamples when someone else asserts something.

LOL Once more, your assumption here is completely and utterly False, and Wrong.

Perhaps you have no idea what it means to demonstrate something, let alone prove it.

And of course you don't interact with the points I made at all. You assert. I present a challenge to that. You say idiotic things like the above. But you're not pissed off. LOL.

It's time for me to pause or perhaps even end our communication.

you have made this pleasant suggestion a few times now already.

But, you have always come back, unfortunately, some might say.

[Age]

K: this seems to me to be an sort of argument for some aspect of
morals and ethics..... to be ''truly'' moral, ethical, one must not
eat meat..... but that leaves us several problems.... as been noted,
plants are still alive, eating a plant also raises moral and ethical problems
if, if we go with the idea that eating anything previously alive is ''immoral"...

Your arguments carried to its logical conclusion leads us to not being able
to eat, virtually anything..... wheat for example is grown on a plant,
and the plant is cut down and the wheat is harvested.... isn't that
practicing cruelty to living things? and water... all water has living
things within it.... very small micro organisms live in all the
water we drink.... isn't that the exact same problem you have with
animals? How are we going to work out avoiding ALL living things
in the things we eat.....

I hear they are growing meat in labs..... I for one, can't even
think about eating that.... would that be acceptable for you?
eating process meat from a lab? and that leaves the entire
question of eating living things that come from the ocean...
from shrimp to tuna, to sushi.... I don't eat seafood, the thought
makes me sick...... but if we can't eat anything that has been
previously alive, what exactly can we eat?

Kropotkin

Plants are living organisms, but they don't have a central nervous system, so they don't experience any pain.

This is kind of basic lol shouldn't even have to explain this.

It's perfectly ethical to eat carrots. They don't experience any anxiety or pain when consumed.

Slaughtering animals, on the other hand, is a whole different ball game.

Veganism is about minimizing pain and suffering.

K: a couple of thoughts..... there is an entire school of thought that suggests
that we must have pain and suffering if we are to grow......the basic premise
of Buddhism lies within this pain and suffering we have.... the question is not to
avoid pain and suffering but to embrace it... and if it seems true of human beings
that suffering has some benefits, then why can't plants enjoy the benefits of
suffering?

the second point is this: on what grounds do you believe that eating carrots
is ethical? You say they don't experience any anxiety or pain when eaten,
but there is a theory out there that says, everything in the universe has
consciousness, even matter like rocks and doors and water.....

if this is true, then carrots may actually feel something when eaten.....

Not if they are 'killed' first, right?

your theory become ethically compromised when faced with the idea
of a universal consciousness.... that all things are conscious....

Kropotkin

No it does not.

That you are not yet fully Conscious, of what actually happens and occurs and how It actually happens and occurs, or works, is why you believe, absolutely, that some thing is 'compromised' here.

[Age]

Plants are living organisms, but they don't have a central nervous system, so they don't experience any pain.

This is kind of basic lol shouldn't even have to explain this.

It's perfectly ethical to eat carrots. They don't experience any anxiety or pain when consumed.

Slaughtering animals, on the other hand, is a whole different ball game.

Veganism is about minimizing pain and suffering.

A philosophical discussion of animal's status must distinguish between wild animals and human created domesticated animals whose entire reason for existing at all is to be culled for their contribution to humans.

Can 'we' have a so-called 'philosophical discussion', first, about 'what contribution' 'to humans' is actually being made?

If there is no need for animal contribution, say horses for transportation, their numbers drop dramatically due to economic forces without any particular plea or mandate. It is erroneous to suppose that it is "unnatural" to kill and eat animals specifically invented for that purpose (as opposed to hunting wild animals for the same thing).

Has any human being ever thought that it is 'unnatural' to kill and eat animals?

As a separate and in my opinion, more important issue, improving the conditions of the segment of the ranching industry that occupies the lowest portion of the spectrum is where the most actual improvements in animal welfare will occur.

So, as long as the 'killing' and/or 'murdering' of animals continues this is, supposedly, where the so-called 'most actual improvements in animal welfare', will occur.

Has it not occurred to you that the non using of animal, which result in the premature death of the animal, just for some human being's monetary gain and for some human beings, so-called, 'enjoyment', would not be a more actual improvement in animal welfare?

[Age]

Atla,

Let's see, we have 5 cats -- Socks, Tigs, Foots, BW, Big O -- and an ever changing cast of squirrels and possums. I like 'em all. But they ain't people. Age, Harbal, Flash, etc., I don't like 'em at all. But they are people.

Push comes to shove: who you think I'm gonna pull out of the burning building, animals I like or people I don't?

It ain't about empathy: it's about right and wrong. Morality. In a sense, I owe sumthin' to the people, that I don't owe the animals.

you do not 'owe' any one any thing.

Why do you believe that you 'owe' people?

And, what, exactly, do you 'owe' people?

[Age]

There is no morality without empathy.

Can't agree with you. I don't have to like you or feel for you to recognize and respect your personhood. And that -- recognizing and respecting you as person -- is what morality is all about.

LOL All you 'see' is a human body, and, very laughingly, call 'it' 'a person'. Which you then, just as laughingly, 'see' human bodies not as animals.

Which, again, is all very contradictory.

[Age]

I had some Soy Nuggets that were pretty good, fried them with some onions and mushrooms.

Eat a steak. Real cow, not reshaped veg. Have it rare. Enjoy it.

Meat from human bodies also make 'steak'. And, according to "henry quirk" it is perfectly fine, okay, and all right to eat steak, and it sounds like the closer meat is to having come straight from the source the better it tastes to "henry quirk".

Also, do not forget, that the human animal is made out of the exact same 'meat' as all of the other 'meaty animals'.

[Age]

So the purpose of my question was to show that the liberty, freedom and rights that humans inherently have (somehow H. Quirk just knows this) does not extend to animals, apparently, and yet there is no way to derive any theory of animal rights from the deist philosophy.

Most religions tell u what animals are for and what to do with em, and part of that is that they don't have the same rights as humans.

So when H. Quirk says that he's a life form with a soul and natural rights, extended to him by his creator, how is he sure those rights aren't extended to all living things (with nervous systems let's say) by that creator?

One thing he can do is attempt a technical argument where he tries to show that there is a special kind of difference between humans and other animals that gives the humans certain rights that other animals don't get. He'll say things like self-awareness, complex language, and opposable thumbs is the evidence that the creator meant only for them to have freedom, liberty and a right to life. But that's just guessing. U can't possibly KNOW know this.

Then he'll play this card; if humans have'ta eat meat, and the universe was intelligently designed, then eating meat is an intelligent thing that humans do.

Yeah but u can't KNOW know this either. Plus we don't gotta eat meat.

Anywho i find it interesting how a deist as adamant as Henry Q is about being free as a bird and all that, could so easily strip a lesser creature of its freedom and right to live.

The excuse other religious people have is 'god said I could'... but Henry Q don't got no god havin truck with em I don't reckon.

"henry quirk" just loves 'eating meat'. So, what "henry quirk" is just trying to do here is 'make up' some sort of 'world view', which will 'fit in' with what it, personally, likes and does not like.

But, obviously to no success at all.