I have no idea what the hell you would expect me to say, Blake.  I said earlier and I've said in other threads - I'm not a vegetarian.  I wouldn't eat dog, though I know there are cultures - Chinese, some of the American Indians, I'm sure there are others - who do.  I wouldn't eat horse, though there are cultures that do.  I wouldn't eat cat - large or small - and some people do.  I wouldn't eat monkey - and some do.  I wouldn't eat brains or chitlins - though I had liver and onions for dinner last night.  I refuse to eat insects, but I like crab, shrimp and lobster.  None of this is logical, none is rational.  And I feel no need to justify my preferences to you or anyone else.  Why should Sandycane put up with you?

My irrationality extends to plant choices in diet as well.  I will eat almost any vegetable or fruit.  But I hate lima (or butter) beans.  I'm not particularly fond of Mangoes.  Why?  Who knows?  I think it is a left over from my childhood.  I like most ethnic foods I have tried - but Japanese food bores me.  I'm not into subtle, I like flavors that light up my palate.  Not rational.  Thai or Korean is more my style.  Or really hot Mexican or South American.  Other people can't stand hot chilies.  Paprika?  Yum.  Hot paprika is better.  Southern style grits?  No thanks.  No rationality in sight.

I'm sure if you seriously thought about your likes and dislikes when it comes to food - even if you are vegan - you will find items in your diet choices that are seriously irrational as well.

 

PS: for those not familiar with some of the more esoteric dietary items I mentioned.  I used to be married to someone who grew up in the "deep South" of the US.  His family was from Mississippi.  So I was introduced to some food items I had not run into before our marriage.

Chitlins or chitterlings - intestines of a pig.  I have no idea of the different ways to prepare it, but what I was offered smelled bad and tasted worse.

Grits - coarse ground corn cooked as a sort of soft cereal or porridge.  If the corn kernels are treated with an alkali (like potash, lye or lime) they are called hominy.  If you use this treated corn or hominy to make porridge, you get hominy grits.  Tasteless.  I'm not fond of cooked cereal like oatmeal either.  There is a snack sold in the US made from hominy that has been toasted and salted.  Not bad - enough crunch and salt and almost anything is edible.

Turnip greens Southern style - I didn't mention them earlier but the way the ex-mother-in-law cooked them - They are pretty tasteless.  Boil them with a ham bone.  A salted ham bone.  Lots of salt.  Then cook until it is a salty, glue like mass of green stuff. 

I don't know why people in the south get fat on Southern cooking.  Or maybe it was that my introduction was by a really lousy cook.

Not rational, not even close.

To bad we aren't talking about the fat man any longer, that was fun 

In my country we eat cooked snails. I don't find them a delicacy personally, but many people here enjoy them much.

Here we also do bullfighting which I disagree. It's a barbaric circus with origins in ancient Rome.

Both these things are culturally accepted. I don't find it wrong to kill animals for food and I don't even find it wrong to kill for sport to a certain extent, like hunters do. What I criticize is the indulgence on the pleasure of an animal suffering or a mindless killing spree - This is unnecessary and morally degrading. Culture can only go to a certain limit, beyond that it is irrational, selfish and wrong.

As some of you already know I'm for moral objectivity. So for example, a tribe that kills humans for food or the Inca civilization that beheaded thousands to offer tribute to their Gods is just plain wrong, no matter the culture, opinion, religious belief, intelligence, "size of ego", etc. - This is what I call moral objectivity. Because it is something that IS as SUCH independently of my opinion.

My absolute favorite seafood:

I could eat a truck load of them! never had a snail but, if they taste like steamed clams, I'd be willing to try.

 

 

I et some snails in Bonneiux a couple of years ago. It was a case of one chew and a swallow. I was glad when the snail course was done.

 

 

 

 

 

  Y'all are making me hungry. Mmmmmmmm.... love snails, oysters, mussels, clams, lobster, crab, crawfish and pretty much anything else that comes in a shell. And greens can be real good if prepared properly but probably 95% of them aren't. Generally southerners tend to cook them too long at too low of a temperature because thats they way grandma did it. Most greens can be cooked at a med high temp with a little oil, spot of honey and a generous squeeze of lemon juice. Saute until it achieves a firm yet chewable texture and serve immediately. The hardier greens like mustard greens are best braised in a mixture of white wine, chicken broth and garlic for about 15-20 minutes.

 

(You think chitlins are bad you should try lutefisk which I am fairly sure is the most disgusting food you can buy in the US)

 

And Sandy, I was only half kidding about the cats. They actually are quite tasty at least cougar and bobcat are, I have never tried house cat. It just always struck me as weird that people get grossed out from eating some certain type of animal but will eat others. I thought, and I think Blake thought as well you were saying that we raise cattle to eat therefore it is ok to eat them, implying that if animals were not being raised to eat it would be less moral. Although, warning to anyone tempted to try cat, in many localities it is illegal to kill and eat a pet cat or dog even if you own it. Such a waste of perfectly edible meat. 

 

Beyond Saving,

Thank you, much more nicely put than I would have done it.



Sandycane,

He just invalidated your arguments, and you mostly ignored it.

You did make one concession, though:
 

This is something I just asked before- does it come down to abuse- before you said no, and created an elaborate mythology to explain your moral complex based on trophic levels- now you seem to concede and admit that it *does* come down to abuse.

If you accept deviation from your sacred 'natural order' (which was never natural to begin with), do you then accept that cannibalism is O.K. as long as abuse didn't occur?

While it may not be legal, can you accept that is is moral for one to go out and kill people to eat, as long as one does it quickly and without them feeling any more pain than is absolutely necessary?





This is not really an argument, it's a series of rational people trying to explain to you the error in your logic (or lack thereof); and trying to figure out how to help you understand that.

Beyond Saving, mellestad, and I *disagree* with each other to a large part on opinion- that's not the issue, and you don't seem to understand that.







That's quite what I'm trying to tell you, but meeting rejection and denial.

Morality is relative- it is not based on your opinions, or upon arbitrarily ascribed "purpose" (something that is objectively meaningless), upon any concept of trophic levels, or anything else.

THERE IS NO ULTIMATE AUTHORITY ON MORALITY.  There is only the fact of its relativity- only the fact that it is an opinion.







It's amazing to me that you don't understand why mellestad and I aren't going into that.

Can you guess?

Probably not.

It's because it's not relevant, even remotely, to the conversation.

My opinions, mellestad's opinions, are meaningless in this.

We're only talking about the FACT of internal consistency, or lack thereof.






BECAUSE THAT'S NOT THE SUBJECT!  I'm not tip-toeing around anything!






Of course I'm correct, and so is mellestad (and now that Beyond Saving has clarified his position, it seems he is too- st least mostly).

We all disagree with each other on matters of opinion (which are neither correct nor incorrect- they have no truth value), but do you know what we have in common?

Internal consistency- maybe a lack of hypocrisy?

You should try it.  It's pretty easy; either simply stop trying to force your own (inconsistent) belief systems upon others, or start being consistent.



If you want to know my opinion, I can tell you- but you must first acknowledge that it has nothing to do with the conversation at hand- that being the lack of logical consistency shown by the 'middle ground' as mellestad and I had been discussing it.

It doesn't matter if you want to save the whales, or kill them all to burn their oil for fuel- the question here is one of internal consistency.  None of us are arguing for or against killing or torturing animals here- we're arguing for being consistent in your actions with those you attempt to force upon others.


cj,


I think you know that was all tongue in cheek




That's just it cj,

You recognize that they are arbitrary preferences and don't try to justify them.  More importantly, it seems you don't try to impose them upon others by way of absolutist moral judgment.

You just say 'I eat what I eat on whim', and you don't pretend it's based on some consistent universal moral law.

If you will read Sandycane's posts, she ascribes justifications based on some contrived form of universal morality to explain why it's wrong for anybody to do that (not just her personal actions, but those of others), and why she feels she's entitled to pass judgment (and actual laws) against others' actions while permitting her own.  She pretends to have a rational basis (although she seems very wishy washy on this), while referencing internally contradictory justifications and moral prescriptions.





I could eat or not eat anything I wanted, and treat other animals however, and not be a hypocrite as long as I refrained from more negatively judging others for actions that were the same or better than mine in accordance with my own expressed moral standards.

That's something you seem to be doing where you acknowledge that other people do as they do- say, eating dogs or cats- while you won't because you don't want to. 



When you say this, is it a personal preference, or something you're wanting to impose upon the universe as a whole?  I get the impression that it's the former.

Sandycane isn't being quite as ambivalent and tolerant towards the actions of others- that's where mellestad and I are criticizing her.



I was hoping you would see that distinction and explain it to her more nicely than I could, is all.

or just sermonising her position as we all tend to do here from time to time? Just from a brief read it seems she's more concerned with non torture of her lunch than anything else. P'raps I missed something in the translation. Her position seemed obviously subjective but in the context of what makes us comfortable at table, being subjective is perfectly ok? I think in her first foray into this aspect of the lateralisation of the OP she used the term "in my opinion" a couple of times. 

It's more a matter of essentialism in Sandy's case, I think. The fact she says she could not eat an animal 'she knew by name' gives this element of her character away. I'm not sure I agree that an animal being only 'a biological machine' opens the critter up to ill treatment. Animals are definitely aware of their environment in some way and cattle in particular go to their deaths in a meatworks in real distress. Sure, we are made up of biological mechanisms but consciousness/awareness in higher orders does take these mechanisms to another level. A level in which fear is a useful survival lever. Does causing fear constitute abuse? Yes - I think it does.

I agree with Sandy, too, that animals do have individual natures tho how deep this goes and how much is our own self projection is a question. Sandy already said she did not believe in spirit.  But personally, I would eat an animal I knew by name. In fact I'd probably name the beast 'Stew' throughout its life to remind me what the future held for the both of us.  Further, having an inherent respect for other living things is ok by me. We all share the same planet and are all part of the same life family. This would not stop me from scoffing a creature but it has occurred to me in the context of dinner that the critter probably died in terror and this was not a pleasant thought. Admittedly, the bugs that will eat my dead body will not consider these issues but that's ok, too.

I think if the lot of us toured the whakatu freezing works and then sat down for a nice rare fillet, we'd look at each other with some discomfort over our shiraz. I've been to a few meatworks over the years for work and I do remember distinctly the obvious shared distress of the cattle. They had to be forced into the race by electric shock. Not a pretty sight.

So while harming animals makes me uncomfortable, I still eat meat - rare and with blood on it for preference - I enjoy it, and have no intention of stopping, so I guess I'm a killer at heart.

Blake,

Since cj, Terelek and especially atheistextremist get the gist of what I'm saying, I have to conclude you are just being argumentative or dense - maybe both.

I'm talking about how I feel on the subject, not declaring that everyone else should feel the same as I do.

EXCEPT WHEN IT COMES TO ANIMAL ABUSE: ANYONE WHO ABUSES ANIMALS SHOULD BE LOCKED UP. 'Animal abuse', IMO, includes everything from keeping a dog on a 3' chain 24/7, sticking a fire cracker up a cats butt, to having sex with your pet goat. It does not include humanely raising and slaughtering animals for food purposes. I don't know why this is so difficult for you to understand.

 

and get the differences of opinion. Sandy - if you were in the wilds you'd kill a creature as best you could to survive, wouldn't you? I would, myself. I did once sock a bloke who was whacking an octopus with a tennis raquet at the beach. Then i probably had a steak sanga or a meat pie for lunch. Maybe the intention to cause suffering - the lack of empathy - is the issue for Sandy?

In terms of the disagreement I don't think you can eat most kinds of meat without an animal being distressed or inconvenienced in some way. So there is a double standard there - intentional or not. There's part of me that thinks this dispute relates to the ambiguity of language. While Sandy says she'd kill a person for harming an animal, she's probably saying deliberate abuse of animals makes her blood boil.

In Oz we have a dispute with Japan over an issue like this. They kill whales in our declared marine sanctuaries and while the govt does nothing, private interest groups attack the whaling ships and protest over their killing the whales with grenade-tipped harpoons. In response the japanese accuse us of killing and eating kangaroos and cattle and suggest the 2 things are the same. Interestingly whale watching in Oz is a more valuable industry than whale meat in japan. And most the whales watching customers are Japanese. Go figure.

As sandy said upthread, maybe the best thing is to try to be as humane as possible. None of us delights in torturing animals and we probably all have had/have pets we care for, perhaps love. And most all of us eat hairy things that had parents. Animals are lovable but they are yummy. These are not the easiest qualities to reconcile.

Yes it is rather broad and I'll admit arbitrary. I draw the line at all humans living within the state. My reasoning is that the main purpose of living in a state as opposed to anarchy, is an attempt to get along. While the argument can be made that we are not that different from other animals, a state is created mainly for the purpose of protecting humans from humans. I don't see a reason to extend it further than that. Of course, some might argue that the contract should also extend to unborn humans. I disagree, but I think you reach a point where the exact line that a social contract should have becomes a matter of preference and taste. Some people liked living in Hitler's Germany as much as we love to use it as the portrait of all evil in our rhetoric today. Since I am a born human, it is possible that in a society that allows abuse to certain types of humans that abuse will eventually reach me. For example, with slavery you are right, generally the slave is well defined legally. However, that definition has been known to change. My personal liberty is endangered on two fronts, first the definition may expand to include me, second even if danger of expanding to me isn't very large because I am solidly in the protected class the danger of the enslaved class eventually overthrowing the slavers and doing some pretty nasty things to me for revenge is quite real.

I believe the most pleasant society is based on the premise "I promise not to do x to you if you don't do x to me." And we can argue all day about what should be included in x. Although, I do feel the need to point out that this type of society has been shown to be inherently unstable. From a purely rational viewpoint of what kind of society is going to remain stable for the longest period of time slavery, conquest and inequality can have stabilizing factors. My preference is to live in a society that is inherently unstable and attempt to keep it together as long as possible. Most people today don't seem to realize this but states based on democracy and the idea of universal human equality do not have a promising history.

 

 

Yes, I see your point on a theoretical level and will concede it. However, I don't see how it could work on a practical level. Why go through the effort to determine a persons motivation for committing murder when it is obvious that no matter what the reason was the practiced punishment was not severe enough to deter the murderer. The law is attempting to stop 100% of murder, not to make different types of murder occur in equal amounts. In the fat man scenario I was assuming that committing a murder would essentially screw my whole life so in some respect pushing the fat man would be the equivalent of jc choosing to jump. I would be sacrificing my freedom, and perhaps life, to save the people on the ground, who would have to be something really special to get me to give up my freedom. There comes a point where it is simply impossible to make a law severe enough so the only way to equalize the likeliness of an immoral person and a moral person being killed would be to reduce and maybe even eliminate the penalty or actually create a large reward for killing the moral person and thus make it more likely I would push the moral person.

Your rational legal system has to take into account that much of the time people are not rational and do not do things for rational reasons.

 

 

Except there is no such thing as a law that is strong enough. People will always break laws and there will always be some situation where a person will decide whatever the laws punishment, their illegal action is worthwhile. To the point that if the punishment is so horrible (say extreme torture) a person will break the law and then promptly kill themselves. Then the danger with an extremely aggressive law is always the practical matter of determining actual guilt. I used to be all for capital punishment, but recently I have changed my opinion because determining guilt can never be perfect and it is highly likely that sooner or later the state will kill someone who did not break the law. With a social contract, it isn't any more right for the state to break the contract than it is for an individual to break it. And while it is impossible to prevent 100% of the breeches on both sides it is important that both sides believe the other is doing its best to uphold the contract. 

 

Exactly.  *If* we use a metric of suffering, unless you *have to* eat meat, you can't justify that action over another that also causes suffering.  And none of us have to eat meat- some just think it tastes good.  That acceptance of pleasure (taste) at the cost of suffering.

You were hypocritical when you socked the guy on the beach: He enjoyed the sound of the *thwack* against the octopus, or the sight of it squirming.  He was accepting that pleasure at the cost of the octopus' suffering.  You enjoy the taste and smell of a cooked animal that has suffered to provide that for you.  You accept that pleasure at the cost of that animal's suffering.

That is, *if* we use the metric of suffering- you've no place to judge the octopus thwacking guy, and you probably owe him an apology (or you don't owe him an apology, but you do owe one to the cow).  You can't continue to engage in both behaviors and maintain consistency.  By smacking the guy, you were imposing your standards upon him, but not following them yourself.

 

 

If it only makes her angry, and she doesn't do anything about it to impose her conflicted morality on others, then that's another matter.  She made it very clear that we should have laws to put those people in prison- that is, she wants her morality forced on others at gun point.

Mellestad doesn't like seeing people abuse animals for fun, same with Beyond Saving, but the recognize that they can't force their perspectives upon others because in another way, they do the same thing.

Sandycane doesn't understand that- she thinks her way of abusing animals is a special exemption, and that her moral perspective on the prohibition of over ways of abusing animals should be forced on everybody else.

 

 

Right, which is why people such as Sandycane turn to delusional thought processes and compartmentalization to avoid dealing with those conflicting feelings.  She wants to have her animals and eat them too.

I think it is for us rational thinkers to rise above that kind of behavior, and those illogical thought processes- and hold each other to that.

 

We can either recognize that we have no place to impose our beliefs on practices that are within the bounds of the social contract, or we can engage with an internally consistent and preferably objectively sourced moral system, and comply with it ourselves before attempting to hold others to those standards.

 

The former means we also have to turn a blind eye to men who cut off their wives' noses, human slavery, or even farms that raise small children for sex and then kill them at puberty for entertainment and soft human meat.  Personally, I don't prefer that- but that's just me.  Mellestad and Beyond Savings seem to prefer that minimal social contract approach- and as long as they don't protest slavery and those kinds of abuses of women and children, I can't criticize them for hypocrisy.

 

 

 

I do agree my morality is subjective opinion based on the nature of my own upbringing and I agree being angry over animal abuse and eating meat is technically inconsistent.

I'd still respond harshly to some one who harmed animals for sadistic pleasure. This may not be strictly consistent but there's a difference between some one who kills something from hunger and some one who just beats the everloving shit out of something for sport, right?

 

 

 

lol, yeah this might be one of the most diverse threads we have ever had. The topic seems to change with every post.

Blake, take a pill, smoke, deep breath, listen to classical music, meditate or whatever your personal preference is to calm yourself before your head explodes, Ohmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.........

 

 

The crux of the question Sandy is what basis the laws have and how do you determine what IS abuse to animals. For example, you seem to have no problem with owning pets. Many people believe that owning a pet is akin to slavery. There is a rather large movement in the US called PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) that has freeing all animals from bondage as one of their main goals. The central question is, what makes YOUR moral ideas right, but theirs wrong? I'm sure you would consider it wrong to keep a human around as a "pet" so why is it ok to do so to an animal? And when it comes to creating laws, which random moral line do we follow? Is it simply whatever the majority thinks?

I see nothing wrong with having pets. Pets like to be petted and live better in our houses than in the harsh conditions outside. Take Garfield for exemple; he is a fat cat who sometimes pets his owner instead. They are happy and that's what is important 

As a human, I wouldn't mind to be petted by some women... 

You see in all these subjects the motivations and attitudes are really what matter! If your attitude is selfish, cruel, arrogant or irrational. Suffer for the sake of suffer, pain for the sake of pain, than it is wrong.

 

I am aware of who PETA is and while I think some of their tactics are over the top, I also think they are necessary for the protection of animals. If they weren't so extreme, no one would pay any attention to them and nothing would be done about animal abuse.

I just went to their web site and found a summary of a book comparing animal 'slavery' to African-American slavery. I didn't see where PETA endorsed this view. I also found an article praising the efforts of a couple of chicken factories to reduce the trauma inflicted on the chickens in the killing process.: http://www.peta.org/b/thepetafiles/archive/2010/10/22/peta-makes-waves-in-chicken-farming-industry.aspx 

There was another article offering advice on how to keep your pet safe during Halloween: http://www.peta.org/living/Animal-Friendly-Fun/keep-your-animals-safe-and-happy-this-halloween.aspx 

I didn't see anywhere on their site where their goal is to 'free all animals from bondage' as you claim...just the opposite by offering advice on how to keep your pet safe. 

Pretty much it. If you live in India, your social contract forbids eating cows. If you don't agree, move to the USA where you can get a nice juicy steak.

Again...the issue is not forbidding people from eating meat, it's forbidding torture.

 

And there are various quotes from people high in the organisation making similar statements. 

But how widespread this belief among PETA members is irrelevant to the discussion. I was simply pointing out that some people view what you do as immoral. So what basis do you use to determine that your morality is the one that should be adopted by society? As opposed to those who think owning a pet is the same as slavery?

 

The issue is not forbidding eating meat or forbidding torture. The issue is WHY should society follow your morality as opposed to something else. Why not Beyond Savings Totalitarian Morality?

 

The group is that which is mutually recognized to make up the equal parties in the social contract.  It's not arbitrary, it's relative, emergent and self-defined based on rational principles and common grounds, but there can be many layers and types of social contracts coexisting among the same population.

The most common legal grounds would be a class of citizens inhabiting a state- you are right in that a 'state' represents the typical bounds of a social contract's reach (although states may engage in treaties with each other).

 

 

Mostly a threat to the owner.  And if the slave escapes or kills the owner, laws that integrate the slave into the social contract would eliminate said slave's motivation to pose a threat.  Slavery has been a long held and extremely stable system throughout history.  Yes, there are slave revolts and occasionally somebody who isn't involved is killed- but likewise non-human livestock have escaped and hurt or killed people too.  Like I said, it's about the liability inherent in an action- and that's a different matter; one not exclusive to slavery.

 

 

And a cow, a horse, a pig, or even a dog can be a pretty serious threat even without any additional weaponry- and no less mentally competent than a young child (and probably much more coordinated).

 

All property can be dangerous- that isn't the metric- it's about being an imposing threat; something not controlled by the other- which is also capable of entering into the mutual social contract for mutual benefit.

 

 

You weren't just using that; you were implicitly imposing that on all societies without taking into account the true minimum of what a pure social contract represents.

I'm not saying you have to designate a group x which are slaves- just that it is permissible.  And it's not arbitrary if that group is already enslaved- if group z has full control over group x and group z is forming a social contract, there's no reason in accordance with a pure social contract to include group x unless there are other significant mitigating factors at play.

If a society has already formed, and somebody wants slaves, that person can not take slaves from other people in the society, but may bring in people from another area that are not covered by the social contract- or make new people- to serve as slaves.  Provided that person maintains full control over that slave population and prevents it from being a threat to you, there is no reason to argue against it on the basis of social contract.

 

 

This isn't the problem you make it out to be.  One can draw the line as late as one is willing to use the resources to control them.  If you want to keep them as slaves until 30, force them into military service for a time before they can be citizens, or anything you like, then that would be your prerogative.

If a father decided not to free his children to become members of society, but instead keep them as slaves, then it would be *his* responsibility to make sure he kept them under control, and any liability they posed would be his to bear.

It's only a question of how much time, and how much resource expenditure, the controlling parties are willing to bear.

 

 

Any additional concessions of membership the group grants- such as mandating that all 15 year olds are citizens- is above and beyond what the social contract calls for.  The most basic social contract calls only for admitting those who must be admitted, or appropriately dealing with those who are not (by expelling, killing, enslaving, etc.).  Where there's a lower cost to society to admit the party than to otherwise deal with the party, or that party would provide something of greater value if admitted, then the social contract would call for that party to be admitted.  The only major point of subjectivity that comes in to play there is the potential benefit v.s. risk (like any investment)- but in no case does that preclude a fully controlled and impotent class of slaves/children sex toys/pigs provided the expenses are taken to adequately mitigate the risks as per that society's comfort level.

There's some pretty complicated cost and benefit analysis that goes on there- complex to the point that it is arguably impossible to come up with a perfect solution for most societies- but the more objective basis is there, and there are some pretty obviously subjectively repulsive things that can be permitted under a system guided purely by rational social contract.  You have yet to provide a reason why a baby sex factory that rapes the babies to death before they're old enough to pose any threat is a violation of social contract (provided the babies aren't stolen, etc.)- social contract can permit, in most modern opinions, some pretty f*cked up shit.

 

 

Pigs might spontaneously develop opposable thumbs by way of mutation and overthrow human society.  Aliens might touch down on Earth and determine that humans, an 'inferior' species, is not deserving of freedom from slavery because we haven't granted the same to those species 'inferior' to us. 

There are quite a few things that *might* happen.  I hope you agree that the burden of proof would be on you to demonstrate how that's at all probable- and that it would be a consideration of risk/benefit that the society would have to make by weighing the risks against the economic benefits.

If the power over the redheads was weak and tenuous, then you might have an argument.  If they were quite thoroughly overwhelmed, owned, denied weapons, education, possessions- you wouldn't have much of one.

 

Either way, you're missing two important mitigating points:

1. The social contract is primarily a matter of interest in the now- people aren't traditionally concerned with what might happen in a hundred years.

2. When a lower class rebels, they typically only seek admission into the social contract, and not total overthrow of society.  That's not a big risk, except to the owners- who are the ones that stand to benefit and chose whether to own redheads or not.

 

 

 

You're grasping for straws again.

 

There is basis in social contract to outlaw certain kinds of abuse of children who will certainly come to be part of the social contract- we don't exactly want society flooded with homicidal maniacs, so running a maniac making factory would be frowned upon- but if the children will not be released into the society (for example, if they will be harvested for meat), then there is no argument there.

However, even for children who will become adults who will be allowed into the social contract, I think you may find that human psychology makes them more likely to become their parents than to fight the system that abused them as children.  In either case, at the time that they would come into power, if they were allowed to be free, they would have nothing to fight against but themselves.

Bleak?  Yes, I never said it wasn't.

Like I said, I somewhat disagree with social contract as the only basis for society.  It permits some kind of f*cked up shit.

 

 

I think you're missing the damage that is done in mass via persecution.

My point was that of two crimes with the same penalty, the criminal will choose the crime with the greater reward.  If there is a prejudice against a kind of person, criminals who hate them will target those people unless there's something there to stop them.

In a country where law enforcement is pretty good, that may not be a strong force, but there are some countries where you can't be an atheist- though the law 'allows' it, the penalty for assault is non-existent or not practiced, and a known atheist would be beaten up so often as to make it effectively illegal to not believe in Allah.

There must be stronger enforcement or harsher punishment for hate crimes, otherwise you just have moral law by virtue of mob rule.

 

 

If it's abused, it does.  There are questions of burden of proof, but I don't think that's a reason to throw the baby out with the bath water- just because practice is difficult, doesn't mean we should give up and completely defer to mob moral law.

Even in some places in the middle east where Sharia may not be on the books, it's still law.

Social contract amounts to nothing if it's not protected against impositions of moral law by inhabitants.

The facts are, we don't live in a Perfect World and animals need humans to protect them from other humans. If you are asking why my belief that animal abuse should be punished is more valid than the belief that it is okay to abuse animals, all I can say is, 'It just is'...and the fact that there are laws that protect animals from abuse is proof that my belief is the more popular one in our society.

 

Okay, Blake.  My previous post was only a very small portion of my opinion on this subject.  I agree with Sandycane - this world is not perfect.  My opinions are not consistent or even logically rational.  We need animal abuse laws because some people are sick.  For those who have missed it in previous threads I posted on, my husband and I have been involved with dog rescue both as members of an international dog rescue association and as private rescue.  Also, my husband used to work as an environmental/health inspector.  I have seen (and smelled) the results of abuse and neglect personally.

People who abandon kittens by dumping the barely weaned babies out in the country because "they can take care of themselves in the country" should go directly to a very special place in hell.  But there is no law against it in many counties.  Some counties do have a law, but it is almost impossible to enforce as you have to be able to identify the person doing the dumping. 

People who turn their dogs loose in the country because "some farmer will really want this untrained herding / hunting bred dog" should also go straight to hell.  The farmer doesn't want or have time to train said untrained dog.  If the dog is very lucky, they will be picked up by animal control and then farmed out to some rescue sucker - like me.  We will nurse the dog back to health, remove the parasites, fix the injuries, get the weight back on, and groom the coat back to a glossy shine.  Then we house train them and get some basic obedience on them and finally find them a new home and beg for a few dollars in donations to try to offset the thousands we suckers spent on the dog.  My household has suspended our rescue efforts while I am unemployed as we just can't afford it now.

Two veal operations.  Operation A has small fenced areas right next to a busy county road.  Each area is spotlessly clean.  There is a plastic shelter in each area large enough the calf can easily get inside.  The calves are obviously healthy, kicking around, enjoying the sun.  Operation B is well off of any main roads.  The calves are confined to a plastic shelter with no space to run and are not allowed in the sun.  They are standing in their own feces and have been long enough to literally eat the skin off of their lower legs - the part of the leg that is always covered in muck.  Operation B finally got enough complaints that the state shut them down - the county has no jurisdiction over farming or ranching in that particular state.  IMNSHO, Operation B not only should have been fined and their right to raise veal taken away, they too should wind up in a special area of hell.

In Japan, as I am sure you know, there is special beef that is raised on sake mash, massaged, not allowed to move around, but kept spotlessly clean until the steer is slaughtered with a minimum of pain and fuss.  Because that makes the beef more tender.  I see no problem with this method.

Puppy mills should have very strict and draconian inspections.  Because it is so easy to skimp on necessary vet care and socialization of the pups.  Individual breeders of dogs who sell on contracts, provide vet care, never have more than one litter at a time, are probably okay to license, and maybe inspect every other year.  Why?  Because I have experience with both and I can tell you that one is more humane and likely to remain more humane than the other.  Pet hoarders are mentally ill and should not be allowed any pets.  Why?  Because they are ill and often do not have the funds to care for the animals nor to even realize they are not caring for the animals properly.  My experience.  Sandycane has told us she rescues animals as well - her experience is not to be diminished just because it is her personal experience.

Yes, it is largely arbitrary, dependent on local morals and standards of cleanliness, and the attitudes of the people involved vary widely.  Each county has different animal abuse laws.  But I think we can all agree that some abuse is senseless and actually counterproductive to the goals stated by the owners of the operation.  It is that pyramid of self justification again.  A person starts out with good intentions then makes a bad decision, does a little self justification, then proceeds to make another bad decision.  We need animal abuse laws to help these people get back on track or to at least stop them from abusing any more animals.

I think it is pretty arbitrary of you, Blake, to insist all animal operations are abusive.  There is a difference between whacking an octopus with a racket and offing little octopi for tako salad (a Hawaiian dish, not at all like the taco salad based on Mexican cuisine).  There is a difference between a ranch where the livestock are treated with care and one where they are abused and/or neglected.  Yes, it is a matter of degree.  Yes, we can all disagree on some points, but I think we would all agree on others.  And our local animal control laws express that balance of opinion.

Thank you cj, again, for expressing my thoughts and feelings so well.

I just found an article and book on this subject...One is a book by Carole Pateman and the other a review of a book by Martha Nussbaum : Frontiers of Justice: Disability, Nationality, Species Membership.

Nussbaum hits the nail squarely on the head regarding a 'social contract' and how it should include animal rights:

 

 

"Just because you don't have a fully functioning mind doesn't mean you don't deserve to be treated with respect. Analogously, just because an animal has immediate, practical intelligence rather than self-conscious reaction doesn't mean it doesn't deserve to be treated with dignity. Our choices effect the lives of non-human species every day, and often cause them enormous suffering. Animals are not simply part of the furniture of the world; they are active beings trying to live their lives; and we often stand in their way. That looks like a problem of justice"

 From Ms. Nussbaum's book:

"These commonalities sometimes inspire sympathy and moral concern, although they are more often treated obtusively.'

That would be YOU, Blake.

 

 

 

How's it going? Hope all well.

What if the stated goal of the operation is abuse?  How are you to say that's unacceptable?

What if the goal of the operation isn't abuse, but is itself a wholly unnecessary goal and inextricably linked to certain abuses?

I think you can see where I'm going.

We could mandate with reasonable objectivity that facilities do not cause unnecessary abuse as per efficient pursuit of their "stated goals".  But what of those goals themselves?

Are there not some goals less worthy than others?

Medical animal testing may save people's lives, but what does the manufacture of foie gras do that's so essential? Hmm?

Yes, if you want to make an omelet, you have to break a few eggs- but you completely avoid the most important question here: do we really *need* to be making omelets?  The abuse that occurs from that is just as much chosen as any other- no matter how great or small it may be.





I'm not insisting that any of them are or are not objectively abusive- I'm insisting that it's an opinion, and that my opinion is no less valid than yours, is no less valid than the opinion of the sadistic dog-fighter.

There is one opinion that might be a little more relevant to the question, though- the ones who are actually suffering the abuse.




You really think it makes a big difference to the octopodes?




Wonderful, a lesser of two 'evils'- why don't we all start up a kiddie sex farm where the rapists use lube and lay off the cattle prods a little?  That totally justifies the action as moral.

Seriously, I can imagine an even *lesser* 'evil'- I bet you can too.  It's just that nobody wants to deal with the implications of that.

There is no legitimate argument for these farms existing at all beyond consumer demand for the taste of meat.  That taste is no objectively different from any other fetish, be that foie gras or baby sex.




Ohhh, so if you want to have sex with animals, you need their consent, but if you just want to kill them, then you don't.

Wonderful, another special exception to add to the list of universal moral mandates.

Apparently bodily autonomy doesn't mean enough to have a say in whether one will live or die, but it does grant one choice in sexual partners?

Personally, I'd rather be raped than murdered- I don't know about you- I think it would be more than fair to stay on the safe side and say that the same probably applies to most species.

But no- we don't care what they want, we only care what we want.  Because not as many people want to have sex with animals, we'll make that abhorrent and abusive, but because so many people want to eat them, we'll make killing them A-O.K.




And yet you argue with me on that point?  Because that *is* my point- and particularly this:



That's exactly what I'm trying to do by arguing that we be more consistent in our approach to respecting the autonomy of other living things- rather than granting special exceptions when we want to taste them.  Just because the majority wants to do something that harms animals, doesn't make it any more right than what the minority wants to do that harms animals- recognition of this can serve to foist an uncomfortable matter into the mind and encourage re-evaluation of our own actions as they relate to animal treatment.

You recognize your inconsistency- why don't you acknowledge consistency as a possible solution, or at least a step in the right direction?




So, lets all take care to maintain the status quo and respect the arbitrary will of the majority no matter how inconsistent, irrational, or harmful it may still be, because it justifies our moral stagnation.

In other words:

'Don't rock the boat Blake- we feel uncomfortable when you point out our contradictions.  We don't like to be encouraged to re-evaluate our moralities and face up to those conflicting actions we take.'?



Hey, I saw some interesting quotes recently:




Interestingly, he became a vegetarian later in his life (I'm not sure what year this quote is from, I just saw it on a forum somewhere... I wonder where...)





That's a wonderful quote- if only the people saying that kind of thing would live up the the implications instead of choosing hypocrisy out of personal convenience...

Now if only I could remember where I found that... hmm...

 

I am, and I don't currently ask anybody to act in accordance with my opinions- I just ask for consistency in acting in accordance with their own.

 

I don't believe people have the right to ignorance.  It's not 'evil' that is the cause of most suffering, but willful ignorance on the part of those who don't want to be inconvenienced by their own culpability.

If people didn't have the luxury of brushing off the pain they cause with illogical rationalizations, they might actually have to confront their own actions with the moral regard due to them and seriously consider whether their beliefs justify those actions, or if they aren't really being just as bad as those they criticize.

 

If somebody wants to campaign for animal rights, that's awesome, but they had damn well better hold themselves to what those standards represent before they look to imposing them on others.

As I've expressed formerly, I'm not so sure that a society based purely on a raw social contract where baby sex factories are A-O.K. is necessarily a good thing. 

Holding ourselves to a higher moral standard can be respected, even if it's not pragmatic in any other way, but let that standard adhere to at least a semblance of rationality and objectivity, rather than the whim of the majority's fancy and convenience. 

As it stands these people live by a farcical and internally contradictory standard that serves as nothing more than a codification of the collective's illogical rationalizations; an authority set to ensure the stagnation of moral progress for years to come.  Trying to eliminate the resultant suffering while feeding into the willful ignorance that causes it is counterproductive.

You can polish a turd as much as you want, but it's still a turd.

Given the general quality of idiocy and self-delusion that humans express, it might be unlikely that society can aspire to being much more than a polished turd- but as people who claim to make some attempt at being rational, I think we can do a bit better than that, personally.  For all of our impotence in acting upon society at large for change, there is one thing we do have complete control over- ourselves.

It's remarkably easy to do what one believes is the right thing once one stops avoiding that conclusion with broken logic.

 

But how deep does the rabbit hole go?

In your morality is it the higher orders that are aware of pain that you resist harming through abuse - including eating? What about living plants? If we take universal ultruism to the ultimate conclusion - and harm nothing - can we still exist?

You obviously have a balancing point in your own system. Where is it? What plant and animal products can we use given - and i say this without application of tongue to cheek - that we could probably get by on navy beans in tomato sauce and whichever fruits and veg we could discover whose seeds prefer a little digestion with their distribution?