ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags compulsion , deception , idiocy , Nobility , ratitude , violence

Reply
Old 10th October 2017, 12:48 AM   #201
Kumar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Kumar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 13,895
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
I wrote you a fairly lengthy essay on the subject this morning. It briefly surveyed the history of humankind's symbiosis with other species. You obviously didn't read it because you're still taking the one-sided approach that any relationship with animals in which the human is not entirely deferential to the animal is somehow exploitative. So much for your claim to want to understand both sides. As I said before, you're clearly here to moralistically evangelize, only you did no more homework that crib from PETA. You obviously have no idea the pariah that PETA is among actual animal lovers. What will it take for you to critically examine your belief?
When we discuss anything from natural POV, everything should relate to it, when we discuss from social POV, everything should relate to it. When we discuss with equanimity, every side should relate to it. When we discuss for rationality and selfish intrests, everything....,. So on.
..How will you take, all introductions, breeding, feeding, nursing, loving..killíng etc.? I
__________________
To try reach to Absolute & Final(A&F) is my honest desire. Let the things be A&F or die in themselves, if odd. Just Logical & Equanimious Discussions, No commitments.

Last edited by Kumar; 10th October 2017 at 12:53 AM. Reason: Add
Kumar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th October 2017, 01:41 AM   #202
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 25,083
Originally Posted by Filippo Lippi View Post
An altruistic monkey spanking?
I think he's saying that it's OK for a monkey to spank a monkey, or a dolphin to flog a dolphin, but not OK for a human to shake a snake.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th October 2017, 03:15 AM   #203
Kumar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Kumar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 13,895
Jayutah,

I have done some homework by reading this link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meat

1. It suggest hunting and meat eating by human is long back history. I feel Peta has given some different picture. However, we need to check it, whether it was common practice and even without any scracity of Veg foods. Whether it was just hunting and eating or also breeding, farming at mass scale?

2. "Slaughter[edit]
Animals are usually slaughtered by being first stunned and then exsanguinated (bled out). Death results from the one or the other procedure, depending on the methods employed. Stunning can be effected through asphyxiating the animals with carbon dioxide, shooting them with a gun or a captive bolt pistol, or shocking them with electric current.[1]:134ff In most forms of ritual slaughter, stunning is not allowed.
Draining as much blood as possible from the carcass is necessary because blood causes the meat to have an unappealing appearance and is a breeding ground for microorganisms.[1]:1340 The exsanguination is accomplished by severing the carotid artery and the jugular vein in cattle and sheep, and the anterior vena cava in pigs".

Apart from above many cruelity practices are also indicated.

3. Health[edit]
See also: Health concerns associated with red meat
A study of 400,000 subjects conducted by the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition and published in 2013 showed "a moderate positive association between processed meat consumption and mortality, in particular due to cardiovascular diseases, but also to cancer."

Apart from above, many other health, environment and other irregularities are indicated. However some advantages are also indicated.
__________________
To try reach to Absolute & Final(A&F) is my honest desire. Let the things be A&F or die in themselves, if odd. Just Logical & Equanimious Discussions, No commitments.
Kumar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th October 2017, 03:33 AM   #204
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 25,083
Originally Posted by Kumar View Post
However, we need to check it, whether it was common practice and even without any scracity of Veg foods. Whether it was just hunting and eating or also breeding, farming at mass scale?
Why bother? It's easier just to make up the answers you want to see and then state publicly that you're going to ignore anything that disagrees with them, just like you do with homeopathy.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th October 2017, 05:08 AM   #205
Filippo Lippi
Master Poster
 
Filippo Lippi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,721
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
I think he's saying that it's OK for a monkey to spank a monkey, or a dolphin to flog a dolphin, but not OK for a human to shake a snake.

Dave
What about 'lower' forms of life? Could a monkey milk its maggot alturisticly?
__________________
"You may not know anything about the issue but I bet you reckon something.
So why not tell us what you reckon? Let us enjoy the full majesty of your uninformed, ad hoc reckon..."
David Mitchell
Filippo Lippi is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th October 2017, 05:29 AM   #206
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 20,347
Originally Posted by Kumar View Post
........we need to check it, whether it was common practice and even without any scracity of Veg foods. Whether it was just hunting and eating or also breeding, farming at mass scale?.........
You know we know the answer already, don't you? If you don't, then you need to do some more research.
__________________
The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place. The Don That's what we've sunk to here.
MikeG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th October 2017, 05:32 AM   #207
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 20,347
Originally Posted by Kumar View Post
........ Health concerns associated with red meat.

A study...... showed "a moderate positive association between processed meat consumption and mortality......
There is the important word, highlighted for you. Cured meats. Preserved meats. Bacon. Sausage. Ham.

Can you explain what this has to do with the thread subject?
__________________
The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place. The Don That's what we've sunk to here.
MikeG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th October 2017, 06:09 AM   #208
sackett
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Detroit
Posts: 5,062
B-grade foodstuff, A-grade other

Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
[hilite]....Cured meats. Preserved meats. Bacon. Sausage. Ham....
And wieners! Sausages can be ALIVE!
__________________
Fill the seats of justice with good men; not so absolute in goodness as to forget what human frailty is. -- Thomas Jefferson

What region of the earth is not filled with our calamities? -- Virgil
sackett is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th October 2017, 06:15 AM   #209
Kumar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Kumar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 13,895
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
I wrote you a fairly lengthy essay on the subject this morning. It briefly surveyed the history of humankind's symbiosis with other species. You obviously didn't read it because you're still taking the one-sided approach that any relationship with animals in which the human is not entirely deferential to the animal is somehow exploitative. So much for your claim to want to understand both sides. As I said before, you're clearly here to moralistically evangelize, only you did no more homework that crib from PETA. You obviously have no idea the pariah that PETA is among actual animal lovers. What will it take for you to critically examine your belief?
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
There is the important word, highlighted for you. Cured meats. Preserved meats. Bacon. Sausage. Ham.

Can you explain what this has to do with the thread subject?
It is very múch relevent to thread subject. If there are no odds related to meat production and use, this topic will crash.
__________________
To try reach to Absolute & Final(A&F) is my honest desire. Let the things be A&F or die in themselves, if odd. Just Logical & Equanimious Discussions, No commitments.
Kumar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th October 2017, 07:12 AM   #210
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 21,689
Originally Posted by Kumar View Post
No you perceive or calculate wrong. To me, even regular vegetarian food can also be somehow food by violence--may even be more in some sense. True food with non violence & cruelty can just be what nature offer with a purpose. May it be fallen fruits, milk from happy cows/animals somewhat like mother milk, minerals, honey droplets, nector, dead beings(?) etc.

I just want to know, why nature has not evolved us with hunting & eating tools(like hunter animals lion etc.)? Why we need to cook meat?
I realize that actually finding things out is anathema to some people, but there have been many many things written about this.

Since you are so reluctant to accept anything anyone says here, why persist in asking questions here which would be better answered with even a cursory bit of research?

Asking questions knowing already that you will dismiss the answers is entertaining for those who like to gnaw on chew toys, but it's a very inefficient way to argue.
__________________
Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding. (Samuel Johnson)

I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)
bruto is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th October 2017, 07:20 AM   #211
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 14,296
Originally Posted by Kumar View Post
I have done some homework by reading this link:
No, you haven't done any homework. You've just scrounged around desperately to find something to help you continue to believe what you already believe.

Quote:
I feel Peta has given some different picture.
You're still citing them as an authority despite all I've said. The homework I asked you to do was to research whether PETA could be considered a reliable source for the practice of keeping animals. Specifically you are basing your morality on what they tell you is moral. Are they really in a position to be considered good moral guides? Research that before you simply pontificate further in their style.

Quote:
However, we need to check it, whether it was common practice and even without any scracity of Veg foods.
No, we don't. You are simply begging the question that vegetarianism is somehow morally superior and that meat was ever only eaten when there weren't enough vegetables. You're projecting a social agenda onto history.

Quote:
See also: Health concerns associated with red meat.
No, that has nothing to do with whether animals are graciously offering themselves up as sacrifices to humans. The question was why animals do what they do, not whether the result of that is good for humans. You need to shed yourself of this stilted rhetoric before you can have a meaningful discussion about diet or food policy.

Once again, you've simply latched onto someone else's rhetoric and are refusing the look at it critically.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th October 2017, 07:21 AM   #212
fagin
Illuminator
 
fagin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: As far away from casebro as possible.
Posts: 4,839
Originally Posted by Kumar View Post
It is very múch relevent to thread subject. If there are no odds related to meat production and use, this topic will crash.
Gambling is bad, Kumar. Or did you mean something else?
__________________
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda
fagin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th October 2017, 07:22 AM   #213
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 25,083
Originally Posted by sackett View Post
And wieners! Sausages can be ALIVE!
So, morally, where are we on strangling a sausage?

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th October 2017, 07:25 AM   #214
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 14,296
Originally Posted by Kumar View Post
It is very múch relevent to thread subject.
No, it isn't. The topic of the thread is what motivates animals to sacrifice themselves for food. Laying aside the many absurdities with that argument, which we've already discussed, the effects of diet preferences on the health of the eater has nothing to do with the alleged attitudes of the food animals. That you think they are related simply reveals that your true purpose here is to preach against eating meat.

Quote:
If there are no odds related to meat production and use, this topic will crash.
The point you missed is that your off-topic conclusion doesn't follow from the facts. You're trying to say that meat makes people sick. The study you cited shows a correlation between processed meat and health. You want to attribute the effect to meat, but you don't consider the effect of the processing.

This is the sort of sloppy reasoning you get from people like PETA. Why haven't you taken a critical approach to their findings?
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th October 2017, 07:31 AM   #215
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 20,372
Originally Posted by Kumar View Post
Even then, others are slaughtered in front of them, still their behavior seems not change.
They still do not realize they are going to be slaughtered.

In nature, animals gravitate to where the food is. Sometimes one is killed by a predator. Does that make the rest stay away? - of course not.

Hans
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th October 2017, 08:10 AM   #216
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 21,689
According to some sources, cooking food increases its caloric efficiency and keeps it edible for longer, and because we get more punch from cooked food and need to spend less time foraging and hunting we grow bigger brains. Those allow us to make tools instead of growing them on our bodies, to create art, and to amuse each other with zany ideas.

Or, to put it in snarky form, it is possible that if we did not cook we might be too stupid to look stuff up on Google.

Take a walk on the wild side, and massacre a couple of coffee beans.
__________________
Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding. (Samuel Johnson)

I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)
bruto is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th October 2017, 08:49 AM   #217
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 14,296
Originally Posted by Kumar View Post
2. Slaughter
Animals are usually slaughtered by being first stunned...
And what methods does PETA use when they kill animals? Are PETA's reasons for systematically euthanizing animals (including, in a few extreme cases, kidnapped family pets) in their care congruent with your ideals?

When beef cattle are slaughtered, there is a purpose. The meat goes to feed people. The skin goes to form durable coverings and protections, and so forth. All these are morally tolerable purposes because another organism benefits directly from it. This is the food chain. This is the basis of all life on Earth. When PETA kills otherwise adoptable rescue animals simply because they are morally opposed to adoption and pet-keeping, is that an equally noble purpose? Are the little puppies and kittens expressing gratitude, compulsion, idiocy, or nobility for staying with their PETA "rescuers" until they're led en masse to the execution chamber? Are they happy to sacrifice their lives so that PETA can continue to solicit donations and make their founders feel important?

This is the group you are relying upon to teach you morals and to place human behavior and history in a moral context. You are using that moral viewpoint as the basis for your questions, discussion, and debate. I've tried several times to get you to address the hypocrisy of your source, but you simply refuse. I suppose it's because you also embrace the hypocrisy, after which it becomes supremely arrogant of you to argue a supposedly superior moral attitude from that position.

Quote:
Apart from above many cruelity practices are also indicated.
And the rest of us here are quite able to see the difference between actual cruelty and the abstraction of raising and keeping animals. You are not. You see only a false dichotomy between PETA's extreme notion of total deference to animals, and everything else, which you characterize as savagery and barbarism.

Again, why is your thinking so limited?
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th October 2017, 09:07 AM   #218
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 21,689
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
....<snip>....

Again, why is your thinking so limited?
Oh Jay, are you sure you really want the answer to that?

Wislawa Szymborska once knocked on a stone's front door. The stone, though it could not answer, was a poet by comparison with some.
__________________
Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding. (Samuel Johnson)

I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)
bruto is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th October 2017, 12:10 PM   #219
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 20,372
Originally Posted by Kumar View Post
Sorry. Simply, Are those animals not Idiots who misunderstand their owners by over believing them, who initially nurse & love them but slaughter ultimately? Can't say, if those poor animals also feel that their owners being human are senior most among all beings so will consider them like guardian or parents?
No, they are not idiots. They simply do not have the sufficient intelligence to see through things. .... Which reminds me of certain present company ...

Hans
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th October 2017, 03:20 PM   #220
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 21,689
Originally Posted by Kumar View Post
Sorry. Simply, Are those animals not Idiots ....<snip>
Long answer erased, because what is the point? So....

No they're not idiots. They're animals. They do not understand in the way we do, and such terms as arrogance, idiocy, ignorance and obstinacy, so applicable to humans, do not apply.

When a bee stings an enemy it disembowels itself and dies. Try to parse the idea of idiocy here before going too much further down the bottomless rabbit hole.
__________________
Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding. (Samuel Johnson)

I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)
bruto is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th October 2017, 09:04 PM   #221
Kumar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Kumar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 13,895
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
They still do not realize they are going to be slaughtered.

In nature, animals gravitate to where the food is. Sometimes one is killed by a predator. Does that make the rest stay away? - of course not.

Hans
Yes but what animals can perceive about him, who give food and nurse them?
__________________
To try reach to Absolute & Final(A&F) is my honest desire. Let the things be A&F or die in themselves, if odd. Just Logical & Equanimious Discussions, No commitments.
Kumar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th October 2017, 09:08 PM   #222
Kumar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Kumar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 13,895
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
And what methods does PETA use when they kill animals? Are PETA's reasons for systematically euthanizing animals (including, in a few extreme cases, kidnapped family pets) in their care congruent with your ideals?

When beef cattle are slaughtered, there is a purpose. The meat goes to feed people. The skin goes to form durable coverings and protections, and so forth. All these are morally tolerable purposes because another organism benefits directly from it. This is the food chain. This is the basis of all life on Earth. When PETA kills otherwise adoptable rescue animals simply because they are morally opposed to adoption and pet-keeping, is that an equally noble purpose? Are the little puppies and kittens expressing gratitude, compulsion, idiocy, or nobility for staying with their PETA "rescuers" until they're led en masse to the execution chamber? Are they happy to sacrifice their lives so that PETA can continue to solicit donations and make their founders feel important?

This is the group you are relying upon to teach you morals and to place human behavior and history in a moral context. You are using that moral viewpoint as the basis for your questions, discussion, and debate. I've tried several times to get you to address the hypocrisy of your source, but you simply refuse. I suppose it's because you also embrace the hypocrisy, after which it becomes supremely arrogant of you to argue a supposedly superior moral attitude from that position.



And the rest of us here are quite able to see the difference between actual cruelty and the abstraction of raising and keeping animals. You are not. You see only a false dichotomy between PETA's extreme notion of total deference to animals, and everything else, which you characterize as savagery and barbarism.

Again, why is your thinking so limited?
Whatever wrong one is doing, do not entitle other to do that. So can't be compared or made example. I am not sure if peta do that cruelty as you told. Please give evidence.
__________________
To try reach to Absolute & Final(A&F) is my honest desire. Let the things be A&F or die in themselves, if odd. Just Logical & Equanimious Discussions, No commitments.
Kumar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th October 2017, 09:11 PM   #223
Kumar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Kumar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 13,895
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
Long answer erased, because what is the point? So....

No they're not idiots. They're animals. They do not understand in the way we do, and such terms as arrogance, idiocy, ignorance and obstinacy, so applicable to humans, do not apply.

When a bee stings an enemy it disembowels itself and dies. Try to parse the idea of idiocy here before going too much further down the bottomless rabbit hole.
If not such or if animals have no feeling or cognition, how they can become pet animals?
__________________
To try reach to Absolute & Final(A&F) is my honest desire. Let the things be A&F or die in themselves, if odd. Just Logical & Equanimious Discussions, No commitments.
Kumar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th October 2017, 09:13 PM   #224
Kumar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Kumar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 13,895
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
No, they are not idiots. They simply do not have the sufficient intelligence to see through things. .... Which reminds me of certain present company ...

Hans
If they have no feeling or cognition, how they become pet animals?
__________________
To try reach to Absolute & Final(A&F) is my honest desire. Let the things be A&F or die in themselves, if odd. Just Logical & Equanimious Discussions, No commitments.
Kumar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th October 2017, 09:16 PM   #225
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 14,296
Originally Posted by Kumar View Post
Whatever wrong one is doing, do not entitle other to do that. So can't be compared or made example.
You don't get it, do you. You're citing as a moral authority an organization well known for its hypocrisy. The point is not that one should do what the other can do. The point is that when one is preaching what is styled as a moral absolute, hypocrisy effectively kills that argument.

Quote:
I am not sure if peta do that cruelty as you told. Please give evidence.
You were happy to do your homework when it was about decrying the use of animals. Now do the homework you were supposed to do. I'm not taking up the slack for you until you demonstrate some critical thinking on your own. I've given you enough to get started. The rest is up to you.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th October 2017, 09:17 PM   #226
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 14,296
Originally Posted by Kumar View Post
If they have no feeling or cognition, how they become pet animals?
Straw man.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th October 2017, 09:29 PM   #227
Kumar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Kumar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 13,895
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
N



No, we don't. You are simply begging the question that vegetarianism is somehow morally superior and that meat was ever only eaten when there weren't enough vegetables. You're projecting a social agenda onto history.



No, that has nothing to do with whether animals are graciously offering themselves up as sacrifices to humans. The question was why animals do what they do, not whether the result of that is good for humans. You need to shed yourself of this stilted rhetoric before you can have a meaningful discussion about diet or food policy.

.
I think, I mentioned something odd also about normal vegetarian food as also violence food. When we kill one seed, we kill its whole generation. Except fruits, waste/superflous products of plants, milk from happy animal, mineral, nector, honey droplets etc., all other should be food by violence. Depending on our nature and basic needs, Nature has given us many many products(mostly all for our basic needs) for its purpose without cruelty or violence provided we maintain nature and natural harmony. Moreover, when we resist killing of one being, we attract killing of other as well as cause disharmony in nature. Because who need to take food will have to take either one or other at the cost of former. So just leave your emotion that I am one sided or PETA sided.
__________________
To try reach to Absolute & Final(A&F) is my honest desire. Let the things be A&F or die in themselves, if odd. Just Logical & Equanimious Discussions, No commitments.
Kumar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th October 2017, 09:31 PM   #228
Kumar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Kumar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 13,895
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
You don't get it, do you. You're citing as a moral authority an organization well known for its hypocrisy. The point is not that one should do what the other can do. The point is that when one is preaching what is styled as a moral absolute, hypocrisy effectively kills that argument.



You were happy to do your homework when it was about decrying the use of animals. Now do the homework you were supposed to do. I'm not taking up the slack for you until you demonstrate some critical thinking on your own. I've given you enough to get started. The rest is up to you.
As you have claimed about cruelty by PETA, you should only give evidence.
__________________
To try reach to Absolute & Final(A&F) is my honest desire. Let the things be A&F or die in themselves, if odd. Just Logical & Equanimious Discussions, No commitments.
Kumar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th October 2017, 09:34 PM   #229
Kumar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Kumar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 13,895
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Straw man.
"A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument which was not advanced by that opponent."
__________________
To try reach to Absolute & Final(A&F) is my honest desire. Let the things be A&F or die in themselves, if odd. Just Logical & Equanimious Discussions, No commitments.
Kumar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th October 2017, 09:43 PM   #230
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 14,296
Originally Posted by Kumar View Post
As you have claimed about cruelty by PETA, you should only give evidence.
Have you even read the Wikipedia page on PETA? In fact have you done any reading on the organization you're citing as moral authority except to read their propaganda?

Please give actual answers to these questions. They are not rhetorical.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th October 2017, 09:44 PM   #231
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 14,296
Originally Posted by Kumar View Post
"A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument which was not advanced by that opponent."
Yes, that is correct. It derives from the notion of attacking a man made of straw rather than an actual potent enemy. Now go back and read his post and yours and tell me why your response constitutes a straw man fallacy.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th October 2017, 09:46 PM   #232
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 14,296
Originally Posted by Kumar View Post
I think, I mentioned something odd also about normal vegetarian food as also violence food.
Yes, you define all means of obtaining sustenance as violence. It's one of the most notably absurd things about your argument. You appear to have a moral compunction against all life on Earth. Good luck with that.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th October 2017, 10:13 PM   #233
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,604
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
They still do not realize they are going to be slaughtered.

In nature, animals gravitate to where the food is. Sometimes one is killed by a predator. Does that make the rest stay away? - of course not.

Hans
Originally Posted by Kumar View Post
Yes but what animals can perceive about him, who give food and nurse them?

It's kind of implicit in Hans's post.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th October 2017, 10:20 PM   #234
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,604
Originally Posted by Kumar View Post
If they have no feeling or cognition, how they become pet animals?

I think you're confusing pet animals with judges. Judges have to pass the rigorous judging examinations, but there is no such requirement for pet animals. You never, ever, hear a cat saying, "I could have been a pet animal, but I never had the Latin."
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th October 2017, 11:05 PM   #235
Kumar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Kumar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 13,895
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Yes, you define all means of obtaining sustenance as violence. It's one of the most notably absurd things about your argument. You appear to have a moral compunction against all life on Earth. Good luck with that.
No, not true. Life is also possible without odds. We existed since millions of years. Can't claim, it is only due to our work. Nature has done it mostly. I doubt any immorarility by nature. Fullfilling basic natural needs should not be an issue but greed, luxury or otherwise can be.
__________________
To try reach to Absolute & Final(A&F) is my honest desire. Let the things be A&F or die in themselves, if odd. Just Logical & Equanimious Discussions, No commitments.
Kumar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th October 2017, 11:29 PM   #236
Kumar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Kumar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 13,895
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Have you even read the Wikipedia page on PETA? In fact have you done any reading on the organization you're citing as moral authority except to read their propaganda?

Please give actual answers to these questions. They are not rhetorical.
I am not bothered about them. I just gave their one link. If Í give a wikipedià link, it does not mean I own it. Moreover when I say with equanímity and natural harmony, all forms of life are important to me not just animals. I dont feel they are concerned simílarily with all forms of life. Even They may advocate for few species of blooded animals but not all esp those used for food.
Probably, they do not oppose cruelty for food but oppose for greed, luxury n entertainment. Frankly, if we want to decreasé cruelty n violence, these should be decreased overall not just on one speci which will also be quite odd.
__________________
To try reach to Absolute & Final(A&F) is my honest desire. Let the things be A&F or die in themselves, if odd. Just Logical & Equanimious Discussions, No commitments.
Kumar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th October 2017, 11:38 PM   #237
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,604
Originally Posted by Kumar View Post
No, not true. Life is also possible without odds. We existed since millions of years.

And during all that time we ate living beings which died as a result.

Quote:
Can't claim, it is only due to our work. Nature has done it mostly.

The way animals die in nature is rarely pleasant.

Quote:
I doubt any immorarility by nature.

"Nature" is not an entity that is capable of morality.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th October 2017, 11:46 PM   #238
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,604
Originally Posted by Kumar View Post
I am not bothered about them. I just gave their one link.

You quoted them to support your argument.

Quote:
If Í give a wikipedià link, it does not mean I own it.

It doesn't even mean that you have read it.

Quote:
Moreover when I say with equanímity and natural harmony, all forms of life are important to me not just animals.

Should you not stop killing them, then?
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th October 2017, 11:50 PM   #239
Kumar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Kumar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 13,895
All,
We had good discussions in this thread. Thanks. I think, I can conclude now. Idiócy: on part of those animals, who do not leave even if set free. They overestimate their owners like their godfather, who nurse, feed and show lóve towards them but got killed by them ultimately. 2. Compulsion: Those who always kept in captivity. I feel gratitude and nobility do not apply in this case. Ok?
__________________
To try reach to Absolute & Final(A&F) is my honest desire. Let the things be A&F or die in themselves, if odd. Just Logical & Equanimious Discussions, No commitments.
Kumar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2017, 12:04 AM   #240
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,604
Originally Posted by Kumar View Post
All,
We had good discussions in this thread. Thanks. I think, I can conclude now. Idiócy: on part of those animals, who do not leave even if set free. They overestimate their owners like their godfather, who nurse, feed and show lóve towards them but got killed by them ultimately. 2. Compulsion: Those who always kept in captivity. I feel gratitude and nobility do not apply in this case. Ok?

"Good discussions" do not involve repeating your initial premises, having ignored all the well argued and supported objections to them. You are taking a "one sided approach".
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:57 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.