Europe, Boring Until it's Not

[Speaker to Animals]

When did this thread turn into vegan conversion therapy?

Vegetarians and pescatarians are lovely people, while maybe not crazy about you eating your steak, mostly maintain a live and let live attitude. Vegans are annoying as fuck, demanding that humans go against their natural eating habits.

I'm a big proponent of treating our feed ethically, mostly by letting them be themselves while we wait for them to be food. The way we treat some animals is pretty terrible. Not a good enough reason to stop eating a healthy diet.

Pescatarians are okay. Eating only fish as your meat source is actually pretty good for you.

The Rock achieved his physique eating mostly cod.

[Montegriffo]

When did this thread turn into vegan conversion therapy?

Started with a dairy farm in Bungay UK getting death threats from (mostly American) vegans.

[Speaker to Animals]

When did this thread turn into vegan conversion therapy?

Started with a dairy farm in Bungay UK getting death threats from (mostly American) vegans.

Gas them for us. Thanks.

[BjornP]

Our queen's husband, Henrik (or Henri, given he's French) since the 60's or so died today. Media and most people resented him for complaining about his status all the time, which he kept wanting to be more equal to our queen's. Last year, in a public missive from the court, he declared that he would not allow himself to be buried next to the queen at the royal mausoleums in Roskilde, where the monarchs and their spouses have been buried next to each other for the last five centuries. If you've seen "The Crown" think Prince Phillip, just complaining much more publicly... and never getting what he want, either. Of course, now the same media that has mocked, and chastised him on the front page, are devoting several pages and airtime to telling us what a swell guy he wants.

[TheReal_ND]

Our queen's husband,

Hmmm. Wat?

[JohnDonne]

You have no idea what my position is because you never bothered to ask. To you, I'm just some meaningless person who is to be coerced into some universal all-encompassing "ethics" that you dreamed up in your dorm room.
I'm just telling you that you don't have the right to coerce me. You can go on and live your life as you choose. I don't see any harm in it. But you don't get to force me into following your unnatural diet.

You don't see harm in the vegan lifestyle, that's good, unfortunately the vegan point of view by its nature sees harm in animal slaughter, so it's not a live and let live philosophy, as I keep saying.

You may feel that by arguing with me you're being threatened with coercion, but the fact is a law prohibiting murder is coercive in the exact same way that a hypothetical law prohibiting animal slaughter would be coercive. You are happy to coerce your fellow citizens into respecting the rights of human people. In the same way I would welcome legislation coercing humans to not harm animals. So you are wrong to say you can't be forced to not harm animals, such a law would be perfectly constitutional.

Is it ethical for a human to own a dog? Or a cow? If so, is it ethical to castrate either of them?

Is it ethical for a human to take antibiotics?

The first two questions really depends on circumstance, but in an ideal world persons would not be owned by other persons and they wouldn't be forcibly castrated. That doesn't mean I would argue against it in every case.

The third question I don't understand. Are you suggesting that I think bacteria are sentient? I don't believe that, hastur mentioned something about it, you might ask him.

[JohnDonne]

The premium you place on consistency is what I was arguing against. I am arguing that it is unethical to treat humans and animals consistently. In, fact, I would argue that it is unethical to even sacrifice an iota of human pleasure for the sake of a chicken or cow.
I am consistently humanist, and a hedonist.

You may be a humanist, but you fail to outline what makes your standard different than bigotry.

For if consciousness takes a complete back seat to the ethical primacy of species, why not to race and skin color? In rigging the game to turn up human you validate the arbitrary means by which you rig it, and thus jeopardize the foundations of why we value any sentient life.

Exactly. I am bigoted in favor of humans. I believe this to be an ethical form of bigotry. It does not follow that all forms of bigotry are ethical.

This isn't arbitrary, in the sense that it is whimsical, random, or irrational. I view the difference between humans and other animals as being as obvious as the difference between animals and plants, and place the burden of proof on those who want me to believe there is no difference.

So you admit bigotry, interesting. You are correct that it doesn't follow that all forms of bigotry are unethical, but I would say it follows that a bigot by definition is obstinately constrained by their prejudices.

Nukedog is a bigot as well, his bigotry is not arbitrary according to him either.

You say I have the burden of proof when I make an equivalence between humans and animals. I have provided that proof and you accepted it earlier in the thread. I said animals are persons, I cited their analogous behavior and causal structures. You accepted that but said you make a distinction between animal persons and human persons.

Personhood is the basis of my equivalence.

You are making a distinction in that equivalence, that places the burden of evidence back onto yourself.

Every distinction has a basis, if your distinction is not arbitrary but rational, what is the basis for your distinction and how is it ethically relevant?

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

You may be a humanist, but you fail to outline what makes your standard different than bigotry.

For if consciousness takes a complete back seat to the ethical primacy of species, why not to race and skin color? In rigging the game to turn up human you validate the arbitrary means by which you rig it, and thus jeopardize the foundations of why we value any sentient life.

Exactly. I am bigoted in favor of humans. I believe this to be an ethical form of bigotry. It does not follow that all forms of bigotry are ethical.

This isn't arbitrary, in the sense that it is whimsical, random, or irrational. I view the difference between humans and other animals as being as obvious as the difference between animals and plants, and place the burden of proof on those who want me to believe there is no difference.

So you admit bigotry, interesting. You are correct that it doesn't follow that all forms of bigotry are unethical, but I would say it follows that a bigot by definition is obstinately constrained by their prejudices.

Nukedog is a bigot as well, his bigotry is not arbitrary according to him either.

You say I have the burden of proof when I make an equivalence between humans and animals. I have provided that proof and you accepted it earlier in the thread. I said animals are persons, I cited their analogous behavior and causal structures. You accepted that but said you make a distinction between animal persons and human persons.

Personhood is the basis of my equivalence.

You are making a distinction in that equivalence, that places the burden of evidence back onto yourself.

Every distinction has a basis, if your distinction is not arbitrary but rational, what is the basis for your distinction and how is it ethically relevant?

You point out similarities between animals and humans, and ignore the differences. Just as you point out the differences between plants and animals, and ignore the similarities. I could also describe the similarities between humans and stones, but we would agree that those similarities don't prove that stones and humans require equivalent ethical considerations.

As far as bigotry goes. It is typically the people that view humans as nothing more than another animal on an unbroken continuum that rationalize treating some humans like animals.

[JohnDonne]

You're mixing subjectivity with morality.

It's not like I didn't call it the second I saw you say, "ethically."

There's no way for you determine when a fetus is sentient any more than you prove a lobster wants to live.

I'm not mixing anything, a subjective viewpoint is where value comes from, else you are but as a rock, a non-person.

So even after I addressed your point before you made it, you still use the tired argument that abortion can never be justified because we can never be sure when sentience begins. I pointed out to you that we don't need to know when abortion begins, because we can be quite certain where it doesn't exist, it's where causal structures are not present. Yet you made the argument anyway.

This is why alarms need to go off any time someone starts talking about ethics.

Ethics are subjective, and always find a way to excuse whatever horrific shit the individual wants to excuse.

Gas pumper here can invent whatever rationale he needs to defend what he does, and condemn you. If the arguments fall through, the judgement never changes. Instead he just invents new rationales.

Watch and see.

You didn't address anything I said.

"Ethics are subjective" is partially true, but they also seem partially based in evolution and biology. That does not mean Darwinian ethics are "correct," principles operate independently and are not necessarily constrained by evolutionary origin.

Anyway, are you that foolish that you want to go down the relativist rabbit hole, you don't see how that would backfire when you have an ethical argument for something?

[JohnDonne]

Exactly. I am bigoted in favor of humans. I believe this to be an ethical form of bigotry. It does not follow that all forms of bigotry are ethical.

This isn't arbitrary, in the sense that it is whimsical, random, or irrational. I view the difference between humans and other animals as being as obvious as the difference between animals and plants, and place the burden of proof on those who want me to believe there is no difference.

So you admit bigotry, interesting. You are correct that it doesn't follow that all forms of bigotry are unethical, but I would say it follows that a bigot by definition is obstinately constrained by their prejudices.

Nukedog is a bigot as well, his bigotry is not arbitrary according to him either.

You say I have the burden of proof when I make an equivalence between humans and animals. I have provided that proof and you accepted it earlier in the thread. I said animals are persons, I cited their analogous behavior and causal structures. You accepted that but said you make a distinction between animal persons and human persons.

Personhood is the basis of my equivalence.

You are making a distinction in that equivalence, that places the burden of evidence back onto yourself.

Every distinction has a basis, if your distinction is not arbitrary but rational, what is the basis for your distinction and how is it ethically relevant?

You point out similarities between animals and humans, and ignore the differences. Just as you point out the differences between plants and animals, and ignore the similarities. I could also describe the similarities between humans and stones, but we would agree that those similarities don't prove that stones and humans require equivalent ethical considerations.

As far as bigotry goes. It is typically the people that view humans as nothing more than another animal on an unbroken continuum that rationalize treating some humans like animals.

You are implying that the similarities I point out between animals and humans have no relevance.

Do you disagree that personhood is ethically relevant?