Philosophy Now Forum

Dalek Prime wrote: Btw, I just noticed you called it a "poor" animal. Why would you consider it to be "poor", if it freely consented? Wouldnt it then be "rich", and fulfilled? Unless you really agreed with me... Is this a contrarian moment, Doc?

"Poor" in the sense that Authur and Trillian were allowing their human sensibilities to override the practical nature of the situation. They needed nourishment, and were freely offered that nourishment, yet they were refusing it on non-practical grounds. The Amiglion Major Cow clearly stated it's intention to provide such nourishment, and arguing about whether the consent was free or not is not relevant to the situation.

FYI, I would have eaten and enjoyed a good steak without a second thought.

.





.................................................







.

Bill Wiltrack wrote:.

.................................................
.

And do you have a point for showing the heads being cut off of dead chickens? FYI, There was a "Chicken Plant" in my home town, and I still like chicken for a meal.

thedoc wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote: Btw, I just noticed you called it a "poor" animal. Why would you consider it to be "poor", if it freely consented? Wouldnt it then be "rich", and fulfilled? Unless you really agreed with me... Is this a contrarian moment, Doc?

"Poor" in the sense that Authur and Trillian were allowing their human sensibilities to override the practical nature of the situation. They needed nourishment, and were freely offered that nourishment, yet they were refusing it on non-practical grounds. The Amiglion Major Cow clearly stated it's intention to provide such nourishment, and arguing about whether the consent was free or not is not relevant to the situation.

FYI, I would have eaten and enjoyed a good steak without a second thought.

So, being bred, conditioned and brainwashed into offering itself as nourishment is not relevant? How about if a young woman was groomed by a man for years into offering herself for his pleasure, when she came of age? The issue before any court would definitely be whether her consent was truly free... How about a second-generation slave, offering to put that extra work in? Is that truly free? It may look it on face value, but is it really? And is it not relevant?

I don't think they are consenting to be 'nourishment' for fat, useless humans. They might be aware of it, but it fills them with terror and revulsion. Imagine how we must look to them.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:I don't think they are consenting to be 'nourishment' for fat, useless humans. They might be aware of it, but it fills them with terror and revulsion. Imagine how we must look to them.

I honestly couldn't tell you what goes on in a non-human brain, or how an animal views its condition, though I sympathize, and stand by what I said regarding imposition.

As for the discussion with thedoc, it's based on a fictional animal from Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, which has been anthropomorphized, and thus has little bearing on what real animals go through. It's just a mental exercise.

Dalek Prime wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:I don't think they are consenting to be 'nourishment' for fat, useless humans. They might be aware of it, but it fills them with terror and revulsion. Imagine how we must look to them.

I honestly couldn't tell you what goes on in a non-human brain, or how an animal views its condition, though I sympathize, and stand by what i said regarding imposition.

As for the discussion with thedoc, it's based on a fictional animal from Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, which has been anthropomorphized, and thus has little bearing on what real animals go through. It's just a mental exercise.

'Anthropomorphism' is another misused word. Attributing emotions to other animals isn't anthropomorphism. It's pretty obvious they share the same emotions we do, and often on a much deeper level.

.






.......................................................






.

Bill Wiltrack wrote:.

.......................................................
.

That would sting a bit.

Dalek Prime wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:I don't think they are consenting to be 'nourishment' for fat, useless humans. They might be aware of it, but it fills them with terror and revulsion. Imagine how we must look to them.

I honestly couldn't tell you what goes on in a non-human brain, or how an animal views its condition, though I sympathize, and stand by what i said regarding imposition.

As for the discussion with thedoc, it's based on a fictional animal from Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, which has been anthropomorphized, and thus has little bearing on what real animals go through. It's just a mental exercise.

Fiction is often used to bring subjects into the discussion that would not otherwise get a hearing. Star Trek did this a lot because they were dealing with fictional aliens rather than other human beings. The Amiglion Major Cow was Douglas Adams way of expressing his opinion on the subject. Projecting human emotions and feelings onto animals is also not very realistic, and mostly guesswork. And to attribute conditioning and brainwashing is also unrealistic, since the animals background was not elaborated on, in the story.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:I don't think they are consenting to be 'nourishment' for fat, useless humans. They might be aware of it, but it fills them with terror and revulsion. Imagine how we must look to them.

I honestly couldn't tell you what goes on in a non-human brain, or how an animal views its condition, though I sympathize, and stand by what i said regarding imposition.

As for the discussion with thedoc, it's based on a fictional animal from Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, which has been anthropomorphized, and thus has little bearing on what real animals go through. It's just a mental exercise.

'Anthropomorphism' is another misused word. Attributing emotions to other animals isn't anthropomorphism. It's pretty obvious they share the same emotions we do, and often on a much deeper level.

Anyone who loves their dog knows this. But I've kept chickens, ducks, sheep and goats. I ate them all. You just can't get attached in the same way.
Dogs are gregarious, big-brained and have pack loyalty. Chickens run around like they don't know they've lost their heads.

Foghorn Loghorn is not an accurate model for chicken behaviour.

.




................................................





.

Bill Wiltrack wrote:.

................................................[/color]

.

Why?

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Anyone who loves their dog knows this. But I've kept chickens, ducks, sheep and goats. I ate them all. You just can't get attached in the same way.
Dogs are gregarious, big-brained and have pack loyalty. Chickens run around like they don't know they've lost their heads.

Foghorn Loghorn is not an accurate model for chicken behaviour.

It's stupid to compare them. Just because dogs happen to be the animal you know the best doesn't make others any less sensitive. Chickens can make lovely pets. Actually all those listed can. I've never been able to understand reptiles as pets though. Perhaps reptile-owners know something I don't.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Anyone who loves their dog knows this. But I've kept chickens, ducks, sheep and goats. I ate them all. You just can't get attached in the same way.
Dogs are gregarious, big-brained and have pack loyalty. Chickens run around like they don't know they've lost their heads.

Foghorn Loghorn is not an accurate model for chicken behaviour.

It's stupid to compare them. Just because dogs happen to be the animal you know the best doesn't make others any less sensitive. Chickens can make lovely pets. Actually all those listed can. I've never been able to understand reptiles as pets though. Perhaps reptile-owners know something I don't.

I would suggest that most pet owners think they know something that they think non pet owners don't know.