Animal Liberation Movement (Animal Rights)

Post Reply New Topic

Why should the fact that I eat meat cause trouble?

I don't eat anything I don't own or was not given to me as a gift.

ruveyn

I don't think you are making arguments, that doesn't mean that what you are doing is illegitimate in an argument. Arguments have more of a structure, neither of us have been providing structure.


Oh, you have rationales as well, but you have actually been trying to undermine my reasons more than support yours in this situation.


No, it has nothing to do with that. I said earlier that neither side can really make an argument on this issue. If either side could make an argument, then we could talk more about rationality. But as it stands, nobody really has solid foundations.


Umm..... it isn't an argument. My statement in return also wasn't an argument. The issue is that nobody is creating intellectual coercive statements or anything close, therefore no arguments. I am also not being biased on this matter.

Well, ok? Saying that no animal has died for fake meat does not make it an argument. In fact, the very fact that it "might not mean anything to [me]" makes this not an argument. If it were an argument, then it would be intellectually coercive on some level, but you have admitted that this could easily not be intellectually coercive at all. Thus, it isn't an argument. It is an assertion, it is a statement, if you used it better, it could be a rationale, but it lacks sufficient foundations to be an argument.


Umm.... let's see:
1) If I was robbed, I would get you back, for doing this.
2) If I was shot in the back, then I would be dead.

Secondly, to further address the matter, you are assuming that I am being a realist about rights, as in I think that rights exist in reality. I don't think that, I think that society is a messy bloody issue, but instead, I prefer individuals over tyranny of central authorities. The problem is that our language and our intuitions are realist despite our recognition of the anti-realism of reality.

But your issue of the robbers isn't an argument, as it fails to be rationally coercive. (not only that, but the hiring of 3 guys is probably something beyond your power in the first place, as people don't like risking their lives)

THE BREAKFAST MOUSE

There is a mouse
Inside my house
Who comes outside to see.
When he comes out
I look at him
And he looks at me.

With his teeth
He mines my wall
To make his living room
And hall.
My architecture,
No conjecture,
For his pragmatic taste.
My house is just a warmer hole

To make his Winter living space
Where Summer always seems to be.
When he comes out
I look at him
And he looks at me.

The round small eyes
To take in facts
Like shiny headed ball top tacks
Regard me with but little fear.
Just let me sneeze -
He'll disappear.
But sometimes,
When I'm drinking tea,
Then he comes out.
I look at him,
And he looks at me.

Since he's the guest
And I'm the host
I sometimes offer him
Some toast
Which he accepts most gratefully.
And as he eats
I look at him,
And, he looks at me.

I do not mind,
In my house
A single solitary mouse.
But it happens frequently
Mice start their own
Community.
I cast a worried look at him,
And he looks at me.

If he brings a girlfriend home
With her suitcase, brush and comb,
To have a family,
Soon every nook and every cranny
Will fill with kids and aunts and granny!
Frankly, that's a bit too many.
Nervously, I look at him
And he looks at me.

If he over-multiplies
He'll fill the walls
With small mouse cries.
They'll gaze at me,
Near and far,
Eyes like
Russian caviar.

They'll drill my walls
Like Swiss cheese
Admitting in
The Winter breeze
And we'll cough and gasp and sneeze!
This is what I could foresee.
Panicking, I look at him
And he looks at me.

Toast in paw,
He looks at me
Trusting in humanity,
Gnawing very steadily,
Extending friendship readily.
"Oh well," I think,
"I'm sure he's single.
Let him stay and hang his shingle.
Allow this fellow to exist.
Perhaps he's a misogynist !"
My house is nice, we both agree.
I smile at him.
He grins at me.

My house is like the Earth,
You see.
There's room for him
And room for me.
But we must plan
Most carefully
So space for both of us
Is free.
I at my chair, he in his hole
Can make it very comfortably.
I wipe my mouth,
He scrubs his nose.
I nod my head to him, and he
Shows his tail to me.

My philosophy class is talking about the ethics of what we eat. It's very fascinating. We had a book by Peter Singer as a required text for the class. It's really interesting to hear what they have to say, as well as some of the reasons not to buy the cheap meat at the stores. It's too bad that people don't treat animals with respect. Even though I still eat meat, I think that animals should be treated with respect, have a good environment to live in, and good food to eat. It's interesting that the factory farms feed cows (and even fish) corn, which not only isn't their natural diet, which is fairly unhealthy for them, but it's less efficient (as it takes energy to grow and transport corn). Just a few issues that we discussed thus far. I'm doing the best I can to try to know where my food comes from, and that the animals were living healthily and being treated with respect.

I disagree.


Again, I disagree.


For many things in life there are no solid foundations. Hence people argue about them. Physics might be an exception, but even there, there's different theories over which physics people argue, making this argument and that.


I disagree. I think I am making intellectual coercive statements and therefore presenting arguments. You simply fail to accept or recognize them as such.
It's like me saying: You're stupid. And no matter what you say, even if you beat Einstein, I can still say: "You're stupid."
Just because you fail to accept or recognize intellectual coerciveness, does not mean something is not an intellectual coercive thought / argument.


This I think is the heart of this little "argument" we're both having here, it is where I think you are mixing things up. Saying that no animal has died for fake meat makes it an argument, and a very important one as such, for all those people who care about animals. You might not be one of them (obviously), and thus, for YOU, that might not be an "argument", or more specifically, not an argument that you accept as relevant (for you), but that does not mean it is not an argument per se.
We live in a society with humans having rights as you like to boast, such as your right to bear arms, but not animal rights.
Then tell me: For Nazis, a Jew's right to live, simply because he was a human being, was not an argument. Nazis simply didn't accept that argument and murdered Jews.
Now tell me, saying that Jews deserve not to be murdered, simply because they are humans, is NOT an argument simply because Nazi's didn't accept it as intellectual coercive?
For Nazis, Jews were an inferior race. For them, it was intellectual coercive to murder them.
Don't you see that your way of argumentation is identical to what Nazis used to excuse, or rather "explain" their murdering of Jews?
Wouldn't you agree that this is an argument indeed, and a problematic one for your arguments presented so far (because it renders them intellectual non-coercive)?
(I mean IF you were / are honest...) Or do you simply lack the intellectual power / abilities to perceive the intellectual coerciveness of this? Maybe we should simply consider that?
Just because Nazis thought Jews were an inferior race, telling them that they are human beings like others, and that thus, they have human rights like others, was NOT an argument for Nazis.
So does that make it NOT an argument IN GENERAL, to say Jews should not be murdered because they are human beings and thus entitled to human rights?
Just because something is NOT an argument FOR YOU, or for anyone else, does NOT make it NOT intellectual coercive. You're failing to accept, or understand the intellectual coerciveness of an argument does not mean it's not intellectual coercive.
Have you ever taken into consideration that your own intellect might be limited and that thus, you don't understand perfectly intellectual coercive arguments? Or is that a possibility that has slipped your supposedly "intellectual coercive" mind entirely?


I disagree. It is intellectual coercive, you just fail to accept the intellectual coerciveness of it. That's a difference. And I can't remember having "admitted that this could easily not be intellectually coercive at all". If you're implying what I said about that animal rightists perhaps being a little "boinkers", you are jumping to intellectual non-coercive conclusions. Just because someone is "boinkers" does not mean he or she cannot make intellectual coercive arguments. If you are an Aspie, you're a little "boinkers". That doesn't mean you cannot make intellectual coercive arguments.
You should judge arguments by their content value, not by their origin.


So you say. I disagree entirely. This isn't an argument, but simply your opinion. Your opinion is that all I say aren't any arguments because none of it is intellectual coercive as you deem. That's your opinion. I disagree, but you are entitled to your own opinion. Just like I am to mine.
Now was that intellectual coercive?


Now *I* think you're becoming a little more intellectual coercive.
You're admitting, that you don't "believe" in human rights either. That makes it coercive that you wouldn't "believe" in animal rights either.
Now THAT's a whole different issue.
I'm glad I could help you reach this conclusion. It's very different from what you started out with, namely your belief that you have rights as a human and that you support human's rights, such as your right to bear an arm (a right of humans, if not a "human right", which exists only in the USA).

I really don't think Animals should be granted rights because, if they are, there is no way of knowing how far it would go.

PETA has literally stated that they want all pets banned outright because they believe that if you have any kind of pet you are enslaving it. (I have a Dog, and he is happy, but should I be arrested simply because he is in my house and has a collar and an I.D tag on it? (these are VERY important, since the pet can be indentified if he/she gets lost, but is found by someone later on))

They also say that wearing fur, leather, silk, and other materials that come from Animals is "unethical", will we start passing laws that prohibit us from wearing clothes made out of these materials? Or tell everyone that they can't eat eggs, bacon, fish, etc, etc, because they come from Animals? I really don't think we should allow Animal rights groups to tell us how to live our lives.

That's stupid and ridiculous about PETA if it's true. Why is there so much insanity around this issue? Why do people go to such extremes? There need to be standards of practice like what we see for people so animals are at least treated humanely. What is so difficult to understand about that?

I love animals and often feel more empathy for them than people.

But in the argument of worth, although I think its true that everything is equal if you come from an unbiased viewpoint, I am a human. As a human I have a bias towards my fellow humans, and next in line of loyalty are other domesticated animals like dogs.

Umm.... no. People argue over things because there are somewhat solid foundations, from which something can be constructed. So, people have this or that theory, which they support using their facts, which are solid, and using these facts they go to war with other theories which often are inconsistent with these facts or at least have issues in dealing with these facts. In this case though, there aren't really facts to dispute.


No. You've practically denied that you've made intellectually coercive statements at many points during this exchange. Not only that, but even the term "intellectually coercive statement" is probably being too lenient on what an argument really is, because an argument is a structure that is more like itself than anything else. I merely used "intellectual coerciveness" as a property that is beneficial to look at. But, an argument is like a trap, so in order to argue with someone, you've got to trap them with some structure. There are no structures used though. Instead, I think I recognized the term I should be using: syllogism. Arguments aren't statements, they tend to be syllogisms of some form. Y'know: 1) Socrates is a man. 2) All men are mortal. 3) Therefore Socrates is mortal. I am not trying to say that arguments are necessarily limited to that form, but nothing that has been done has even come close to approximating it.

Umm.... I am not failing at this, I think you're failing to recognize what the real matter at hand is about what an argument really is. You *aren't* being intellectually coercive, I have no reason to be persuaded at all by your statements. I can literally just dismiss them at will, because they don't even attempt to trap me. I suppose they could be arguments if you used additional premises but you aren't doing that. I mean, I suppose that these are "arguments" in a layman's sense, but not really arguments in a deeper sense.


No, it really doesn't. "No animal has died for fake meat" is just a statement of fact. I have no reason to have my mind changed by that, as such a fact has no relationship to me or what I believe. So, no intellectual coerciveness.

In any case, arguments aren't supposed to be subjective. They're supposed to be objective, as arguments are attempts to find matters of fact. Now, I suppose we could just make it "irrelevant", but... it lacks a lot of the structure that is needed to really be intellectually coercive in the first place. It only seems that way because of the hidden premises that people have, but hidden premises cannot be assumed.


Umm...... ok? I think you ignored my last statement, but whatever. A Jew's right to live because he was a human being ISN'T an argument. It is nothing. You don't know what an argument is, and to a person who knows what an argument is(but who hasn't thought on the matter recently), it can be hard to explain but kind of obvious. But here's wikipedia's term: "In logic, an argument is a set of one or more meaningful declarative sentences (or "propositions") known as the premises along with another meaningful declarative sentence (or "proposition") known as the conclusion. A deductive argument asserts that the truth of the conclusion is a logical consequence of the premises; an inductive argument asserts that the truth of the conclusion is supported by the premises." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument

So, you keep on saying that I am just being an elitist, but you don't actually know what I am talking about.


No, it is not an argument because it ISN'T intellectually coercive. Too many hidden premises.


No, it wasn't. Intellectual coerciveness is only a property of arguments. Possibly facts in an environment where the arguments are known. But "intellectually coercive" isn't a statement about states of affairs. *Something* must be coercing for intellectual coerciveness to take place, and that something must be a logical framework that forces people to certain conclusions.


I don't think I am making arguments. I also think that there is more to the Nazis than you are thinking about, and if one accepts all of the premises of many Nazis, then it would likely be rational to kill Jews.

I don't think that you've made an argument either, at best you've made an argumentum ad Hitlerum, an appeal to Hitler. Now, the problem is that this is a fallacy. And I don't usually count fallacies as valid arguments.


No, you don't know what you are talking about. This isn't a matter of my ability either, likely not even yours, you've just had probably so little exposure to argumentation that you don't know what you are doing, while you think you do because you think "Well, I've seen arguments!" but.... you likely have not ever really dealt with philosophical/academic rigor or seen it.


The notion that Jews are human beings, that human beings have rights, therefore Jews have rights is an argument. It is the first case where I see an argument might take place.

It still is an argument, however, the Nazis have a more nuanced view of humanity and denied human rights. So, it could reasonably be interpreted that 1 or 2 took place, and it could even reasonably be argued that Nazis actually didn't violate any notion of this, because Jews were also seen as destructive for people, so a Nazi could say "Jews have rights, rights do not trump the general welfare of society, Jews are a threat to the general welfare of society, therefore we can do whatever is necessary to Jews in order to protect society"


One can structure the set of premises given into an argument in this case(but only because I am assuming that the statement of human rights goes earlier in the structure than you put it in your writing. If someone just gave this to me out of order like you did, and with missing premises, then I would not accept that as an argument).

The argument would go like this:
1) Human rights exist and are extended to all humans(premise)
2) Jews are humans(premise)
3) Jews have human rights (derived from 1 & 2)
4) Human rights preclude unjust execution (premise)
5) Therefore Jews should not be unjustly executed (derived from 3 & 4)


I am not failing at all. You're failing to understand what is going on.


Umm..... no. Why? Well, I know argument structure somewhat well. Not only that, but my mind is not highly limited, but rather the opposite. Finally, you've just started using terms I used as buzzwords, meaning that you don't know what you are talking about.


I am not making arguments. People do jump to intellectual but non-coercive conclusions all of the time though, so you can't fault me for that. I am also not saying anything about "boinkers" or anything like that. Additionally, usually layman's labels of "insanity" have less to do with neurological defect and more to do with disconnection between oneself and one's reality.


There's no content. That's the judgement.


No, it wasn't intellectually coercive.


No, I am not being intellectually coercive at all. I am correcting misstatements.


Umm.... ok?


I *didn't* change my mind. If you noticed, what I said was "I don't think that". Now, a lot of the matter is language and thought processes, our language and thought processes favor realism very heavily, which means that if you want to say something, I am very likely to have to mangle with a language that is realist, and thought processes of other people that are realist.

However, past statements of mine partially reveal this pre-existing attitude: "neither side has been presenting arguments. Neither side can.". *sigh* Look, I am just not going to deal with you. Ok?

Awesomelyglorious, it seems to me, you seem to be not only unable to bring forward an argument for your position(s), as you keep repeating yourself, but unable to have a conversation per se, let alone participate in a discussion in a meaningful way. Having a conversation or a discussion means communicating in a reciprocal manner. You seem incapable of this. What you are doing is repeatedly broadcasting your thoughts like a radio station, like a jamming transmitter it seems here, without being able to react to or listen to what others, such as I, are saying.
I'm sorry if I or what I said has upset you. That was not my intention.

Umm.... what have I said?

"neither side has been presenting arguments. Neither side can."

Now, this seems perfectly valid.

*sigh* If you want me to attempt, then I'll do so.

1) It is legitimate to abort fetuses. (premise)
2) The underlying reason is that fetuses lack sufficient human characteristics. (premise)
3) Therefore, it is legitimate to kill creatures that are sufficiently lacking in human characteristics. (from 1 and 2)
4) Most animals are not human to a great extent. (premise)
5) Therefore it is legitimate to kill animals. (from 3 & 4)

1) Human societies are creations of humans for the sole purpose of promoting welfare of tribe members. (premise)
2) Only humans have sufficient capability to truly be members of human societies. (premise)
3) Therefore human societies have the sole purpose of promoting welfare of humans in those societies. (from 1 and 2)
4) Human welfare can be expressed in the satisfaction of human desires (premise)
5) Therefore human societies exist to allow satisfaction of human desires (from 3 and 4)
6) Desires to control the actions of other members of the tribe against their will are illegitimate unless major negative consequences are the result. (premise)
7) Therefore, if a member of the human society desires a non-human creature destroyed, then so long as there are no unusual negative consequences, it should be allowed. (from 5 & 6)

(please note that 3 is not a clear line on what constitutes a human society, only what sorts of beings can be a member. Also note that human societies are the only relevant ones for the question.)

How about this one then?

1) Ethics is the study of finding consistency in human standards of proper conduct. (premise)
2) Human standards of proper conduct are inconsistent by nature. (premise)
3) Therefore ethical arguments are all invalid. (from 1 and 2)
4) Arguments for and against animal rights are ethical arguments. (premise)
5) Arguments for and against animal rights are all invalid. (from 3 and 4)

So, ok, now I have created 2 reasonably solid arguments for killing animals, and one argument on how this whole debate is bunk. Are you satisfied?

I'd pick a certain part of this apart, but I'm enjoying entertaining the notion your adversaries in this debate might employ reasoned argument themselves.

You can go right ahead. My last argument is a perfectly good argument saying that the first two are bunk, so I won't be insulted to any extent.

Thanks, but I'm gonna hang back and see how this one turns out

Subhuman animals have no rights.

Silly Rabbit. Rights are for people.

ruveyn

Considering the present status of society, once you remove the hubris there is nothing that can be considered subhuman unless you are thinking about the people in undersea craft in the navy. Even viruses can outwit our best antibiotics.