Page 3 of 5 [ 77 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

01 Jun 2008, 11:36 pm

D1nk0 wrote:
skafather84 wrote:
D1nk0 wrote:
MR_BOGAN wrote:
I have never heard of anyone eating cats before, only racist asian jokes about people eating cats.

People eat dogs in Korea :?
In Indian cattle are considered sacred I think. People all over the world eat beef, same agument I guess.


Ive heard some stories of muslim guerilla's eating the flesh of hindus they killed :lol:



claims of cannibalism is much more frequent than actual acts of cannibalism and is normally used as a political device to dehumanize an enemy. not saying that it never occurs but stories like your own seem to be more likely political than it is actual fact.


What about Jeffrey Dahmer? :lol:
I admit that I have a world view which is based almost entirely on power and the struggle for it and has very little room for empathy. But since WHEN are you a psychiatrist skafather84? Same for YOU twoshots?
I honestly am very cynical towards psychology and have FAR more respect for neurology and neuropsychiatry which seeks to understand how the brain directs behaviour and uses PHYSICAL EXPERIMENTATION rather than just statistical analysis.



quit being a troll, as*hole.

edit: done under the analyst of you asking questions unrelated then expressing a negative opinion and redirection (the cannibalism one and then asking about psychology just so you can say that you don't believe in it).



Last edited by skafather84 on 02 Jun 2008, 12:48 am, edited 1 time in total.

twoshots
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Nov 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,731
Location: Boötes void

01 Jun 2008, 11:37 pm

Apple_in_my_Eye wrote:
You can't get to morality by pure reason. For every elegant solution there is an elegant rebuttal; and lots of horrors with very elegant justifications. Appealing to feelings about intellectual constructs is also a sentimentalism.

This is true. But there is a difference between a raw assertion and a reasoned assertion. Moral debates are essentially absurd, but it is the central conceit of philosophy that we should be able to actually have them rather than yelling out or perspective and expecting everyone else to care.

Although it is my stance that strong emotions need the absence of thought to thrive, and I find strong emotions distasteful. The act of eating a cat, though one may dislike it, is ambiguous when one accounts for the particular way that different people arrive at the morality of the situation, and as it is (generally) a more ad hoc moral opinion, it is also therefore less central to people's moral systems and therefore highly unstable. As constructs go, it's a pretty lousy one.


_________________
* here for the nachos.


Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

01 Jun 2008, 11:44 pm

I don't eat meat. As an AS I find myself, in general, much easier with animals than with people. I don't consider animals a inferior creatures. But I am aware of the nature of life and do not hide from myself the perennial cruelties imposed on life by the natural order of things. On that basis I compliment Fred on his thread to expose the way we live. Domesticated farm animals raised for food are no less living creatures than cats. It is important we understand what we do and how we live. Hypocrisy has its uses and I appreciate that it has saved the lives of many wonderful creatures but, on occasion, it is wise to look at reality.



Last edited by Sand on 02 Jun 2008, 12:17 am, edited 1 time in total.

D1nk0
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2007
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,587

01 Jun 2008, 11:59 pm

Given the emotional attatchment people have to their pets I must say that this particular subject matter and the way it was presented in the OP is EXTREMELY PROVOCATIVE :evil: and twoshots, you really shouldnt be suprised that others including myself have a strong emotional reaction to it! I suspect that Mr. Fred2670 probably KNEW this and created it just to get people riled up. Just because emotions can be irrational Does NOT mean that they are always irrational! I find it somewhat amusing yet midly irritating that many people online try to pretend that they have no emotional bias or sway at all. :P



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

02 Jun 2008, 12:30 am

I have had many different kind of pets throughout my life and in accepting them as pets they became a part of my family. I have accepted tropical fish, lizards, rats, mice, seagulls, cats, dogs, hedgehogs, a muskrat, a praying mantis, and even had a rather dismaying attempt with a large American cockroach and in each case I attempted and was reasonably successful in understanding them and giving what they needed and desired. The idea of harming them or causing them distress was totally repellent but I do not kid myself as to how the world works.



Apple_in_my_Eye
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,420
Location: in my brain

02 Jun 2008, 12:59 am

twoshots wrote:
This is true. But there is a difference between a raw assertion and a reasoned assertion. Moral debates are essentially absurd, but it is the central conceit of philosophy that we should be able to actually have them rather than yelling out or perspective and expecting everyone else to care.

Although it is my stance that strong emotions need the absence of thought to thrive, and I find strong emotions distasteful. The act of eating a cat, though one may dislike it, is ambiguous when one accounts for the particular way that different people arrive at the morality of the situation, and as it is (generally) a more ad hoc moral opinion, it is also therefore less central to people's moral systems and therefore highly unstable. As constructs go, it's a pretty lousy one.


I see the difference as just how far from postulates one starts. Reductionism isn't always helpful. Complex intellectual frameworks inevitably seem to lead to conclusions that are ludicrous or abhorrent. If people decide that they want to engage in that particular game, that's fine, but I don't personally see it as having meaning too much outside of the game.

That does leave a problem in how to articulate moral stances, though. I guess I need to modify my previous statement and say that it can help to communicate moral stances in a compact fashion -- just that it's tempting to incorrectly view that the amount of 'compactification' as reflecting a better moral stance.

In my view the many paths (to deciding about eating cats) are due to language and human conceptual frameworks being poor represenations of the actual thought. I think the underlying truth is about bonding, what it means to be alive, projection, death, life, evolution, etc. etc. (as best it can be put to words) Everybody knows what 'it' is, but as soon as you go to put it to words, it's not quite that anymore. (a bit OT, but: maybe this is why in some religeons the name of g-d can't be written)

I know that to talk to anybody else about moral views requires language; it's just easy to get so bound to that that the view of the original thing is lost.

So I don't think it's a lousy construct; it's just one that isn't easily put forth -- in terms of the language and the set of common constructs we have to communicate.



skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

02 Jun 2008, 12:59 am

Sand wrote:
The idea of harming them or causing them distress was totally repellent but I do not kid myself as to how the world works.



i love you.

but seriously, i respect that statement so much. it's something that the peta and a.l.f. activists just don't comprehend.



psych
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Nov 2005
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,488
Location: w london

02 Jun 2008, 1:09 am

Ive done a little bit of googling on the subject & the OPs method is a LOT more humane than some traditional techniques! 8O



cruxdust
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 11 Sep 2007
Age: 33
Gender: Female
Posts: 42

02 Jun 2008, 6:46 am

D1nk0 wrote:
Given the emotional attatchment people have to their pets I must say that this particular subject matter and the way it was presented in the OP is EXTREMELY PROVOCATIVE :evil: and twoshots, you really shouldnt be suprised that others including myself have a strong emotional reaction to it! I suspect that Mr. Fred2670 probably KNEW this and created it just to get people riled up. Just because emotions can be irrational Does NOT mean that they are always irrational! I find it somewhat amusing yet midly irritating that many people online try to pretend that they have no emotional bias or sway at all. :P


The way in which you all jumped down Fred's neck upon reading only the title and first post of this thread (the second post MAKES IT CLEAR that he was talking about catfish, and yes, I know Aspies are bad at reading between the lines, but some of you are right hateful little sods without EVEN CONSIDERING the possibility of ulterior meanings) highlights the fact that you'd much rather attack someone than consider their point of view- and you've done the same- created threads with racist titles to provoke people and draw them in. Hypocrite of the day, I think.



Kilroy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Apr 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,549
Location: Beyond the Void

02 Jun 2008, 9:23 am

MissConstrue wrote:
Kilroy wrote:
Fred2670 wrote:
hundreds

I prefer to "skin" them rather than "scald" them
because it doesnt parboil the meat, which in my
opinion should be either baked or deep fried.



okay so like do you live in the deep south or china :lol:

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=PF0OjrFIVWY


I like that band.


me too lol, you can hear the lyrics right lol



Micze
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 31 May 2008
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 34

02 Jun 2008, 9:31 am

Image



slowmutant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,430
Location: Ontario, Canada

02 Jun 2008, 10:53 am

Sand wrote:
I don't eat meat. As an AS I find myself, in general, much easier with animals than with people. I don't consider animals a inferior creatures. But I am aware of the nature of life and do not hide from myself the perennial cruelties imposed on life by the natural order of things. On that basis I compliment Fred on his thread to expose the way we live. Domesticated farm animals raised for food are no less living creatures than cats. It is important we understand what we do and how we live. Hypocrisy has its uses and I appreciate that it has saved the lives of many wonderful creatures but, on occasion, it is wise to look at reality.


The cattle industry does not equal animal cruelty and we are all quite aware of this.

The Cattle Industry is one thing, but torturing / killing animals for one's own sick pleasure is quite another. For this BS logic to hold, wouldn't the cat-killer have to process and consume the carcass after ripping it apart? That would certainly be no mean feat. I doubt any aminal sadist could be bothered. No, the creep would probably just bury the cat in a garbage bag.

Don't believe me? Ask Temple Grandin if cows are killed and mutilated just for fun. I guarantee she will have an interesting answer. Dr. Grandin is responsible for the improvedly humane slaughter of cows.

Would a cat really be that good to eat, anyway?



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

02 Jun 2008, 11:15 am

Whether killing is done for sadistic or commercial reasons, if you think there is not extreme suffering involved you are indeed gullible. I have seen videos of the type of activity that commercial slaughtering requires and performs and it involves tearing trachea from living animals, Skinning live and conscious animals, brutally whacking terrorized animals in such a way as to require several attempts, etc. Beyond that the jobs are poorly paid and workers who are horribly injured in the process slip around in blood covered floor and are rarely compensated for their injuries. That's why I applauded Fred shoving in your face the realities of that end of the food industry, whether he was serious or not.

Temple Grandin is professionally involved in a process she considers inevitable and she probably does her best to keep the animals calm before they are slaughtered but a kindly concentration camp guard during the holocaust that assured the Jews they were merely going for a shower is in somewhat the same position. Grandin is realist enough to know she cannot stop the slaughter but I can only feel it is nothing but a dirty job that may make the animals feel not so frightened.



slowmutant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,430
Location: Ontario, Canada

02 Jun 2008, 11:21 am

What does skinning cats have to do with the cattle industry? They are not the same. How arew they same? Is there an entire inustry devoted to skinning cats? BY the way I have a pretty good idea how slaughterhouses work. I understand it isn't a day-spa for the cows. You try to shock me, but you can't.



Speckles
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 2 May 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 280

02 Jun 2008, 11:26 am

Hmm, here's a harder arguement for vegtarians.

If we stopped eating meat, we'd actually have to slaughter pretty much all farm animals. We wouldn't be able to afford to keep them, we'd need the land that is used to produce their food for growing crops for humans to meet the new demand. We could probably keep a few small herds for historical purposes, but ultimately most would have to die. How do you feel about that?



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

02 Jun 2008, 11:34 am

To assume that humanity could be persuaded to become totally vegetarian is a cloud cuckoo land assumption on the level that we could all become animal lovers. We know well it won't happen. The meat industry is a powerful organization and it has the overwhelming bulk of the public on its side. Economics might do it if current technological projects gain any success in producing bulk meat in vats instead of animals but I don't see this happening soon. If it happens it will happen gradually and probably there will always be people who prefer eating animals which might become a luxury for the rich.