Penn & Teller: Bullsh*t

[PvtRyan]

You're wrong that killing animals in itself is ethically wrong. If you were to kill someone's dog, that would obviously be very wrong. But why, exactly? It's wrong because you're hurting the ones left behind, the ones that loved the dog. But death itself didn't hurt the dog, if it was instantaneous it wouldn't even realize it. Death is not a bad thing for the subject undergoing it, death is only a bad thing for those that are left behind. They're in the end the only ones suffering. The dog didn't suffer and is not the one you should pity.

The same goes for killing a cow, by killing it you don't rob it of its hopes and dreams and no one is hurt by it. If it were someone's pet cow, then it would be wrong, because you're causing suffering. It's not the existence of the cow, it's the existence of the cow and its relation to the rest of the world that determines whether or not suffering is caused by killing it.

So in short: death doesn't cause suffering for the subject undergoing it, suffering in live causes suffering. It's not inherently wrong to kill a cow, just to make it suffer before killing it.

care to explain exactly how? leather shoes? combine chopped up groundhog at vegetarian farms?

Everything of the animal is used and animal products are in pretty much everything. From candy to the food you give to your dog. Unless you're a vegan living in a hut in the woods, it's hard to avoid animal products.

 

[Gray Fox]

That would make it Ok for me to kill someone who has no friends.
A life's worth is not just defined by how much it effects it's surrounding, life is reason enough in itself to justify it's existence. Not only that, who says you're not hurting cows when you kill a cow, first you end the life of an animals for your own pleasure, a potentially fulfilling life, maybe not to our standards, but nonetheless a good life, second you hurt it's relatives. And most animals do feel pain when their children are killed.

Oh but wait you are right, you do not hurt anyone, because cows are separated at birth, put in small isolated boxes before the mother even gets a chance to see them. Basically to make killing animals ok we have to torture them, we have to either isolate them or put them in overcrowded cells to remove any animals characteristics from them, like love, compassion, heroism. To justify killing them.

Now only that by your reasoning I should be able kill a person who has no hopes and dreams. Hell lets just lock up all humans in small cells until they beg for death. And kill them and eat them. I mean it's not like we are robing them of their hopes and dreams.
Lets kill restarted people, they have no hopes and dreams either, lets kill totally crippled people, it;s not like they will be able to do anything anyway, or realize any of their dreams.

In short: your wrong, and reasoning that death affects the animal killed the least is completely and utter insane.

 

[Absinthe]

not the same thing the KKK works as a group ..peta members can work as individuals. many of the radical members of peta also belong to the ALF as well

KKK members can work as individuals. PETA members can work as a group. You're not making any clear distinction between the two.

"Ingrid Newkirk: We are opposed to all cruelty, so as advocates of non-violence..."

http://www.indiatogether.org/reports/peta/newkirk.htm

I cant find any quotes that directly proves she's condoning violence ..and if she is, it's probably a left over from her days in state law enforcement :E ..but meh I really dont care either way as I dont support Peta ..I support the overall cause but am ambivilent when it comes to peta. Peta does not represent animal rights groups as a whole

Newkirk flat-out refuses to condemn activists who engage in dangerous destruction of property. PETA's official statements on violence are wishy-washy, but it says a lot when your official orator is a repeat offender who explicitly supports violent measures.

"Do not be afraid to condone arsons at places of animal torture."

"If an animal abuser were killed in a research lab firebombing, I would unequivocally support that." - Gary Yourofsky

they have legal defense funds for all their activists ..the defense fund does not discriminate based on alledged crime ..monies directly given to the arsonists were without the consent of it's donors ..in other words the higher up dictate where what goes

Like the head of PETA? This just strengthens my point that PETA is accepting of violence. There should be a system of discrimination in place. If they were sincere about non-violence, then they would distance themselves from arsonists like Rob Coronado. Not paying their defense fees and giving verbal praise.

every single negative article on the internet brings up one of seven points against Peta ..you stated a few of them

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/consumer-freedom012807.htm

btw the article was written by ..

"The Center For Consumer Freedom is a nonprofit coalition supported by restaurants, food companies, and consumers"

and ...

"The group was created in 1995 as the Guest Choice Network by Richard Berman, executive director of the public affairs firm Berman and Company, with $600,000 from the Philip Morris tobacco company.[2] The concept of the group, according to a letter by Richard Berman to Barbara Trach, who at the time was Philip Morris's senior program manager for public affairs, was "to unite the restaurant and hospitality industries in a campaign to defend their consumers and marketing programs against attacks from anti-smoking, anti-drinking, anti-meat, etc. activists ..." Its purpose, according to a planning document by Berman, was to encourage operators of "restaurants, hotels, casinos, bowling alleys, taverns, stadiums, and university hospitality educators" to "support [the] mentality of 'smokers rights' by encouraging responsibility to protect 'guest choice'."[4] Internal documents from Philip Morris reveal that it donated $2,950,000 to the Guest Choice Network between 1995 and 1998"

I view shared criticisms of PETA as a commonality. Not stemming from a point of origin. Even if the The Center For Consumer Freedom is a collection of slimeballs, that doesn't make their arguments less valid.

no they want animals to be treated ethically

"Ethically" is very subjective term. PETA's definition of it is total animal liberation. It's in Penn/Teller's video, straight from the horse's mouth. If there's a contradictory statement elsewhere, then I guess PETA can't quite decide what exactly it's fighting for.

pardon? where are you getting this idea they judge what animals can live or die? are you talking about the animals they euthanize?

Euthanizing animals is a decision-making process in which you deem which ones are to be put down and which ones aren't. Seeing as how animals don't have the ability to supply consent, the decision rests on the judgment of humans.

since when does ideology have to be fully realistic? sure their goasl are not attainable overnight but they do push public awareness and do get results

Very skewed results. The few glimmering nuggets of gold in the information they dispense is buried under fanaticism and wastes of human energy comparing chickens in cages to Jews during the Holocaust.

only on an individual level ..look the majority of animal rights groups dont bother with private farmers, why is that? because traditional farmers have to provide proper care for their animals because it's their livelihood ..not so with corporate farms that have a mass production mentality ..one or two dead animals in amonst the living is meaningless ..You will NEVER see this at a family farm:

Yes, which is why we should combat needless cruelty in corporate farms (although that ranks very low on my list of world priorities), but that is not where PETA ends.

I don't know why you're bringing up the majority of animal rights groups, because I'm focusing specifically on PETA and other extremist groups... which was the topic of the Penn/Teller episode.

animals do not have rights, they are considered property ..there's anti cruelty laws but for all intents and purposes they're property

So they're property. I can live with that. Consider it "a decrease of the animal's own inherent freedom" if you wish. This is largely semantics.

why would an animal rights group attack an animal shelter? ...peta works with animal shelters ..in fact one of the doctors who administers euthanisia is from a local shelter

Ah, my mistake. I was mixing them up with the ALF.

peta is not the only animal rights group around ..and yes they are affective as they get results ..and again i dont approve of their tactics

What is "results"? Idiocy? People running circles outside of university labs and screaming at those inside with skull masks on?

no, we are not, it that were true we'd all be eating free range ..people dont care ..I can post a horrible video that shows the inside of slaughterhouses where animals are killed in extremely barbaric ways ..one scene shows a pig being literally rendered apart while still alive ..contrary to all state animal laws ..and I can bet a good percentage of people's responses would be something to the effect of "Peta ..people eating tasty animals" or "I sure do love pork chops hyuck"

Animals in the wilderness get killed in barbaric ways.

If a corporate farm breaks the law, they should be punished. I don't know what response you expect from me. That's an issue with the justice system.

why not focus on that instead of peta? why didnt they make a Bullshit episode that dealt with the lies of the meat industry? why take on the smaller issue and ignore the bigger issue ..I'll tell you why <stern rubs forefinger and thumb together doing the universal sign for money>

Penn and Teller are in the pocket of the meat industry?

Come on, Stern. This is almost conspiracy. Their show focuses on popular myths. They chose PETA because they're visually more prominent than some faceless factory PR force.

you think we shouldnt have laws forbidding cruelty? that's the only laws on the books ..again animals have NO rights, just laws against cruelty

When did I say we shouldn't have laws?

but it is ..every single big slaughterhouse in the world uses cruel methods ..look anytime there's profit to made things like humane treatment goes by the way side as it's far too expensive when it's a factory farm ..mass production neccesitates cost cutting measures ..the real problem is factory farms ..if we went back to family farms this wouldnt be a problem ..we'd also be a lot more healthy as a result

And pretty much every predator uses cruel methods. The subject of whether or it's necessary seems a secondary issue to me. Either way, things die in ugly ways.

I don't think the animal cruelty issues are as widespread as you think they are. Cows bred for the purpose of being turned into food, for instance, are generally given a quick force of trauma to the head. They're not being dismembered while alive as a rule.

i dont see how ..especially since they say things that are unpopular with the overwhelming majority of people ...brainwashing implies that the brainwashee has to be somewhat supceptible to the propaganda they're ingesting

Brainwashing doesn't need to be popular to be considered thus. Perhaps many PETA supporters are susceptible to propaganda? They don't need to take over half the country by storm in order to be considered successful.

Any way, I'm also done here. Animal cruelty discussions are tiresome and dip into so many other issues like ethics, morality, universal/subjective standards, and even human biological history. It's too much for me to engage in a sustained debate, at least if we're trying to be comprehensive. :|

 

[Crushenator 500]

penn and teller = enjoyable to watch
meat = tasty to eat
poor treatment of animals = wrong

talk about some other episode now ho's

 

[Gray Fox]

penn and teller = enjoyable to watch
meat = tasty to eat
poor treatment of animals = wrong

talk about some other episode now ho's

Killing someone, is treating them wrong is it not?
So killing animals is wrong!
Meat=wrong

 

[Tyguy]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi3erdgVVTw

 

[Gray Fox]

You can do that to pretty much any group except scientist.

 

[Absinthe]

That assumes animals are morally equivalent to people.

/end

 

[Tyguy]

You can do that to pretty much any group except scientist.

any group that doesn't care what they are signing, as long as they are rebelling in some way

 

[Gray Fox]

That assumes animals are morally equivalent to people.

/end

No it doesn't.

 

[CyberPitz]

penn and teller = enjoyable to watch
meat = tasty to eat
poor treatment of animals = wrong

talk about some other episode now ho's

Please..what happened to this thread

 

[PvtRyan]

That would make it Ok for me to kill someone who has no friends.

There's always someone that cares or would care if they know about his existence. The argument is a slippery slope logical fallacy.

A life's worth is not just defined by how much it effects it's surrounding,

The value of a life (and not just life, everything is) is how much it is valued by others. There is no absolute value of a life, my dog isn't worth 1300 "lifepoints" and a human 8000, or whatever, I value my dog more than a random person I never even heard of.

life is reason enough in itself to justify it's existence.

Bull. You kill so much life every single day, and so much life is killed without you caring. You determine how much you actually care on factors like sentience, sensing of pain etc. It's wrong to cause unnecessary suffering that the subject is aware of, but that's where it ends. Life isn't sacred.

Not only that, who says you're not hurting cows when you kill a cow,

Logical deduction does.

first you end the life of an animals for your own pleasure, a potentially fulfilling life, maybe not to our standards, but nonetheless a good life,

A life that would be ended anyway, either by us or by nature. Is the animal really aware that it's 10 years before it reaches its normal life expectancy before it gets killed? That's the only thing that matters, as long as it had a good life thus far it doesn't matter at what point you kill it from the perspective of the animal.

Oh but wait you are right, you do not hurt anyone, because cows are separated at birth, put in small isolated boxes before the mother even gets a chance to see them. Basically to make killing animals ok we have to torture them, we have to either isolate them or put them in overcrowded cells to remove any animals characteristics from them, like love, compassion, heroism. To justify killing them.

How is that even relevant to my post? My post pertains to the concept of killing animals for consumption, not the real world application of that which does cause suffering.

Also, stop exaggerating and making it seem as if the farmers are out to cause as much pain and suffering to the animal as possible. Farmers are people too and *gasp* it's actually possible they care for the wellbeing of the animal. Not to mention that stress is a bad thing since it degrades the quality of the meat.

Now only that by your reasoning I should be able kill a person who has no hopes and dreams. Hell lets just lock up all humans in small cells until they beg for death. And kill them and eat them. I mean it's not like we are robing them of their hopes and dreams.
Lets kill restarted people, they have no hopes and dreams either, lets kill totally crippled people, it;s not like they will be able to do anything anyway, or realize any of their dreams.

Slippery slopes..

The "hopes and dreams" was a general reference to how aware the subject is of its existence. Don't take it literally.

In short: your wrong, and reasoning that death affects the animal killed the least is completely and utter insane.

I'm right: if you kill an animal it doesn't exist any more and is thus unable to suffer. It really is quite simple.

 

[Crushenator 500]

There's always someone that cares or would care if they know about his existence. The argument is a slippery slope logical fallacy.



The value of a life (and not just life, everything is) is how much it is valued by others. There is no absolute value of a life, my dog isn't worth 1300 "lifepoints" and a human 8000, or whatever, I value my dog more than a random person I never even heard of.



Bull. You kill so much life every single day, and so much life is killed without you caring. You determine how much you actually care on factors like sentience, sensing of pain etc. It's wrong to cause unnecessary suffering that the subject is aware of, but that's where it ends. Life isn't sacred.



Logical deduction does.



A life that would be ended anyway, either by us or by nature. Is the animal really aware that it's 10 years before it reaches its normal life expectancy before it gets killed? That's the only thing that matters, as long as it had a good life thus far it doesn't matter at what point you kill it from the perspective of the animal.



How is that even relevant to my post? My post pertains to the concept of killing animals for consumption, not the real world application of that which does cause suffering.

Also, stop exaggerating and making it seem as if the farmers are out to cause as much pain and suffering to the animal as possible. Farmers are people too and *gasp* it's actually possible they care for the wellbeing of the animal. Not to mention that stress is a bad thing since it degrades the quality of the meat.



Slippery slopes..

The "hopes and dreams" was a general reference to how aware the subject is of its existence. Don't take it literally.



I'm right: if you kill an animal it doesn't exist any more and is thus unable to suffer. It really is quite simple.

greg

 

[PvtRyan]

greg

 

[Gray Fox]

There's always someone that cares or would care if they know about his existence. The argument is a slippery slope logical fallacy.

That is because your whole argument is a ****ing logical fallacy. I was just deducting it to it's fullest extent.

The value of a life (and not just life, everything is) is how much it is valued by others. There is no absolute value of a life, my dog isn't worth 1300 "lifepoints" and a human 8000, or whatever, I value my dog more than a random person I never even heard of.

The same can be said for the value of anything. And yet we humans make laws that do just that, they set a value for something. And for the very good reason because otherwise we would have chaos, your reasoning also does not provide a stable and just basis for morality.

Bull. You kill so much life every single day, and so much life is killed without you caring. You determine how much you actually care on factors like sentience, sensing of pain etc. It's wrong to cause unnecessary suffering that the subject is aware of, but that's where it ends. Life isn't sacred.

Weather I care or not for a particular life has no bearing on it's worth thanks again to the law. And that was created especially because as humans we recognized that it was unfair and unjust that someones very basic rights should be determined by the whim of others.

Logical deduction does.

Wrong, logical deduction says you do hurt me. You hurt me while the killing is going on, and you hurt on the basis of justice, basis of worth, basis of potential, and though I cannot feel any other hurt then the first it does not make the any more wrong.

A life that would be ended anyway, either by us or by nature. Is the animal really aware that it's 10 years before it reaches its normal life expectancy before it gets killed? That's the only thing that matters, as long as it had a good life thus far it doesn't matter at what point you kill it from the perspective of the animal.

Your life is going to end anyway, either by us or by nature. Are you really aware that it's 10 years before you reaches your normal life expectancy before you get killed? That's the only thing that matters, as long as you had a good life thus far it doesn't matter at what point someone kills you from the perspective of yourself.

Well I for one would prosecute and lock up anyone that would kill you.

How is that even relevant to my post? My post pertains to the concept of killing animals for consumption, not the real world application of that which does cause suffering.

Also, stop exaggerating and making it seem as if the farmers are out to cause as much pain and suffering to the animal as possible. Farmers are people too and *gasp* it's actually possible they care for the wellbeing of the animal. Not to mention that stress is a bad thing since it degrades the quality of the meat.

It shows that to achieve a state where in no one cares for the cow, we have to effectively use torture. Hence your reason for justifying it's killing are wrong if you believe quality of life matter. Because the moment you give them a quality live they are going to do what animals do, like mate, care for their children form bonds, get angry. They are going to care for each other, and each others life.
Farmers are cruel human beings weather by nature or nurture, lacking the very essence of what we humans consider human, the very thing that we think puts us above animals. Intelligence, justice, high morality. They put money above all else, or society forces them to do that, the cruel and unethical, but legal treatment of animals is a logical conclusion to that.

Slippery slopes..

The "hopes and dreams" was a general reference to how aware the subject is of its existence. Don't take it literally.

Again we come back to retardo's. They may not have the same right as the rest of us, but they are granted the very basic ones. No reason why animals, many of them that are more useful and exhibit more intelligence should not.

I'm right: if you kill an animal it doesn't exist any more and is thus unable to suffer. It really is quite simple.

I'm right: if you kill a human it doesn't exist any more and is thus unable to suffer. It really is quite simple.

 

[Qonfused]

So I hear those Penn & Teller guys are pretty cool.

 

[Gray Fox]

So I hear those Penn & Teller guys are pretty cool.

I hear Trent Reznor supports PETA

 

[Absinthe]

Nobody's perfect.

 

[Qonfused]

I hear Trent Reznor supports PETA

I hear you're pretty gay.

 

[Gray Fox]

I hear you're pretty gay.

I hear you like that :naughty:

Nobody's perfect.

We should all strive to be like nobody then

BTW I see a lack of explanation about why my reasoning assumes animals are morally equivalent to humans.
And more importantly why the fact that they are not means they should not even get the basic rights, because again I point to retardo's.

 

[Qonfused]

 

[PvtRyan]

That is because your whole argument is a ****ing logical fallacy. I was just deducting it to it's fullest extent.

It's a logical fallacy? You may think it's wrong, but there's nothing fishy about the logic. I don't use any strawmen, slippery slopes, ad hominems, etc.

But your comment about killing someone without friends isn't a correct deduction because that's not what I say in my argument. Even if the person doesn't have any friends, that doesn't mean nobody cares or would care if they knew about him. Say there was a homeless guy, without family or friends. Does that mean he can be processed into yummy for my tummy steaks? No, because he has all the properties to be valued by someone.

The same can be said for the value of anything. And yet we humans make laws that do just that, they set a value for something. And for the very good reason because otherwise we would have chaos, your reasoning also does not provide a stable and just basis for morality.

Nothing provides a good basis for absolute morality. Laws are just that, they say what punishment you get for not following them but following them doesn't mean you're a moral person. Morality is decided by the individual but thankfully we all have the same general idea on it, which comes forth from our sense of empathy that we have as a social species. Laws are just generalizations of the ideas that most of us share, people who do not have those ideas we lock up because they make the rest of us unhappy.

Absolute values for things are terrible. Nowhere does the law say your mother is more valuable to you than a random person, but I hope you do value your mother more than that random guy. But then again, we've just established that the law doesn't prescribe morality, just rules to keep society orderly.

Weather I care or not for a particular life has no bearing on it's worth thanks again to the law. And that was created especially because as humans we recognized that it was unfair and unjust that someones very basic rights should be determined by the whim of others.

Yet the law was created by others and your fate is at the whim of others thanks to the law. You can get sentenced to death in some countries for carrying a few grams of drugs. The law is also heavily influenced by the zeitgeist, what was considered acceptable once isn't any more. Again: law provides no morality, only human reasoning and empathy do, which always will be a product of the individual.

Wrong, logical deduction says you do hurt me. You hurt me while the killing is going on, and you hurt on the basis of justice, basis of worth, basis of potential, and though I cannot feel any other hurt then the first it does not make the any more wrong.

I don't understand, I hurt you by doing what?

Your life is going to end anyway, either by us or by nature. Are you really aware that it's 10 years before you reaches your normal life expectancy before you get killed? That's the only thing that matters, as long as you had a good life thus far it doesn't matter at what point someone kills you from the perspective of yourself.

Well I for one would prosecute and lock up anyone that would kill you.

Well, I am aware of how my life is expected to go and what I wish to do with it. But indeed, if I suddenly were to die, I wouldn't really be the victim, I'm no longer there to care about it, my family and friends would be. In life, I wish to be protected because I'm conscious about my existence and hopes and dreams for the future.

It shows that to achieve a state where in no one cares for the cow, we have to effectively use torture. Hence your reason for justifying it's killing are wrong if you believe quality of life matter. Because the moment you give them a quality live they are going to do what animals do, like mate, care for their children form bonds, get angry. They are going to care for each other, and each others life.

But to give them quality of life, they have to exist in the first place. Would a cow with a quality life and a destiny to become a steak be better off than not existing at all? A cow with a good life has no qualms about ending up as packaged meat because it is not aware of it.

Farmers are cruel human beings weather by nature or nurture, lacking the very essence of what we humans consider human, the very thing that we think puts us above animals. Intelligence, justice, high morality. They put money above all else, or society forces them to do that, the cruel and unethical, but legal treatment of animals is a logical conclusion to that.

lol

Again we come back to retardo's. They may not have the same right as the rest of us, but they are granted the very basic ones. No reason why animals, many of them that are more useful and exhibit more intelligence should not.

You can't kill retards because they're loved and valued by their family and friends. You would cause suffering.

Intelligence and usefulness are bad ways to determine value, there's plenty of dumb and useless people who are still highly valued by others. In the end, the value of something is the value others assign to it. There is simply no other way to determine value, and certainly not through arbitrary things like intelligence or usefulness.

I'm right: if you kill a human it doesn't exist any more and is thus unable to suffer. It really is quite simple.

Correct. But are you trying to make a point with this or something? By killing that human you cause suffering to others, by killing a cow you cause no suffering because there is nothing that values the cow on an emotional level.

 

[The Brick]

Take this crap to politics will ya? This is about the show here.

 

[CyberPitz]

Take this crap to politics will ya? This is about the show here.

YES
PLEASE...Back to the show!

 

[-Psy-]

How the **** guys? Can't you keep on-topic for at least a few posts? Sheesh.

 

[PvtRyan]

Funny how you're all talking about wanting to talk about the show but no one is talking about it.

And what is there to say? "It's a fun show"? Any other comments will inevitably lead to discussions about the content of the show, like the above discussion.

 

[MiccyNarc]

I liked their show on BS exercise devices and supplements.

 

[Qonfused]

Funny how you're all talking about wanting to talk about the show but no one is talking about it.

And what is there to say? "It's a fun show"? Any other comments will inevitably lead to discussions about the content of the show, like the above discussion.

It was fine until Stern came in.

 

[PvtRyan]

It was fine until Stern came in.

Aww... no you're gonna make him feel unwanted

There there Sternie, we still sort of like you.

 

[Gray Fox]

It's a logical fallacy? You may think it's wrong, but there's nothing fishy about the logic. I don't use any strawmen, slippery slopes, ad hominems, etc.

But your comment about killing someone without friends isn't a correct deduction because that's not what I say in my argument. Even if the person doesn't have any friends, that doesn't mean nobody cares or would care if they knew about him. Say there was a homeless guy, without family or friends. Does that mean he can be processed into yummy for my tummy steaks? No, because he
has all the properties to be valued by someone.

So has a cow, and so has a pig. BTW now you completly changed your argument, since now you're talking about potential. And infact it helps me more then you.

Nothing provides a good basis for absolute morality. Laws are just that, they say what punishment you get for not following them but following them doesn't mean you're a moral person. Morality is decided by the individual but thankfully we all have the same general idea on it, which comes forth from our sense of empathy that we have as a social species. Laws are just generalizations of the ideas that most of us share, people who do not have those ideas we lock up because they make the rest of us unhappy.

Absolute values for things are terrible. Nowhere does the law say your mother is more valuable to you than a random person, but I hope you do value your mother more than that random guy. But then again, we've just established that the law doesn't prescribe morality, just rules to keep society orderly.

I'm not talking about absolute morality. I'm talking about equal morality. Laws provide equal morality. I'm glad the law does not care of I value my mom more then I do your mom. And while you cannot determine anything as complex as laws and morality in the absolute that doesn't give credence to your wild ideas that someones worth is the subject of the whim of others. And laws are not whim, they are made after years of building on pas experience and debate. Not on someones feelings. The law also enforces morality.

Yet the law was created by others and your fate is at the whim of others thanks to the law. You can get sentenced to death in some countries for carrying a few grams of drugs. The law is also heavily influenced by the zeitgeist, what was considered acceptable once isn't any more. Again: law provides no morality, only human reasoning and empathy do, which always will be a product of the individual.

Law is the product of the reasoning and empathy of society as a whole, not just someones whim. My fate is therefore not on the whim of others, at least not trough the law.
But this does not however help your argument nor mine. It is simply stating how a system that could swing both our ways work. It is irrelevant, for this debate.

I don't understand, I hurt you by doing what?

When you hypothetically killed me.

Well, I am aware of how my life is expected to go and what I wish to do with it. But indeed, if I suddenly were to die, I wouldn't really be the victim, I'm no longer there to care about it, my family and friends would be. In life, I wish to be protected because I'm conscious about my existence and hopes and dreams for the future.

This is again completely different then what you said earlier. Your earlier argument involved the lack of ability to see in the future, your new one involves imagination and planning. But to answer it, lack of imagination and high intelligence does not mean someone or something should not have the basic right to live a life protected from intentional harm by others. And your using arbitrary distinctions to point out what a worthy life is and what isn't. You have to give a basis and arguments that support why you value some characteristics so much.

But to give them quality of life, they have to exist in the first place. Would a cow with a quality life and a destiny to become a steak be better off than not existing at all? A cow with a good life has no qualms about ending up as packaged meat because it is not aware of it.

First the bioindsutry cannot give cows a good life without the price of meat skyrocketing and making stock farming unprofitable.
But to assume it could happen I still disagree with you.
Since unawares of ones destiny does not suddenly make that destiny right.
And it's pretty clear a cow does not want to be killed, so yeah the cow does care if it will become steak, because that would mean it needs to die.
The question that should be asked here is, is it moral to inflict such pain and injustice on an animal for you pleasure.

lol

Go to hell

You can't kill retards because they're loved and valued by their family and friends. You would cause suffering.

Intelligence and usefulness are bad ways to determine value, there's plenty of dumb and useless people who are still highly valued by others. In the end, the value of something is the value others assign to it. There is simply no other way to determine value, and certainly not through arbitrary things like intelligence or usefulness.

And yet you just used those two to show why your life is so much more valuable then a cows.
Plus again this isn't really an argument to allow the meat industry to exist. Since by definition if I managed to convince the majority this was wrong, they would care. Killing animals would therefore be wrong since it would inflict pain on the majority which cares from them.

In fact it would make the meat industry wrong now at this time, the only reason it exist is because it is so adept at sheltering itself from the main public. Ask an average joe if he would rather kill his own animals or just become a vegetarian, most would simply because vegetarians. Because they do not have the hart to kill an animal just because hey like the taste of meat. Thats 600 million years of evolution in their guts telling them it's wrong. The meat industry survives by letting the only interaction between you and the animal be a nicly packages peace of meat, not flesh, but meat.
It therefore survives under false pretenses and it's clear that what it does hurts most people.

Correct. But are you trying to make a point with this or something? By killing that human you cause suffering to others, by killing a cow you cause no suffering because there is nothing that values the cow on an emotional level.

I don't know I assumed you were trying to make a point, I assumed you were trying to reason why the meat industry should continue to exsist. I just took your arguemnt and applied it to a human.

And again your argument that it doesn't cause suffering and is therefore Ok is completely retarded, remember thats why you decided to change it above, and base it of characteristics that you assigned an arbitrary value to.

But to take it apart again. If I kill a human that nobody knows about, nobody suffers ( well he does, just like the cow does, but hey I'm feeling nice so I'll skip that) therefore it is ok to kill someone that no one knows about. Furthermore the only reason no one suffers when a cow is killed is because the existence and the killing of the cow is so sheltered. Normal folks do not get to see what is going on in person, and it's relatives do not know about it since the cow was isolated form the beginning of it's life. So to satisfy your morally restarted idea of when killing is wrong and when it is not, one has to apply methods that are inhumane and thus torture.

You also have to ask yourself why is there such a big fuzz over the dead peacock, why did the police arrest the man that killed him? Why do people make such a big fuzz when animals are killed near them, animals which they did not personally know?

In short: your arguments either contradict themselves, are full of holes, are changed on a whim, do not prove your point but merely try to state the working of a system, and are the moral equivalent of social Darwinism.

 

[The Brick]

There we go again.

 

[MiccyNarc]

I'm glad the PETA movement will never go mainstream. Animals can't speak for themselves, which is why the movement will never take off. So, I'll continue eating my tasty animals day in and day out, drinking my milk, and enjoying mankind's dominance over lesser species.

Oh, and for the record, if you really cared about animals, you'd kill yourself, because any minute you live you will be infringing on some animal's life, whether it's bacteria, roaches, whatever.

 

[PvtRyan]

I'll respond tomorrow.

 

[CptStern]

So, I'll continue eating my tasty animals day in and day out, drinking my milk, and enjoying mankind's dominance over lesser species.

thanks for proving me right ...

I can bet a good percentage of people's responses would be something to the effect of "Peta ..people eating tasty animals" or "I sure do love pork chops hyuck"

 

[MiccyNarc]

Mmmmmm pork chops. *licks lips*

 

[Absinthe]

Go to hell

You do realize that a response like his is somewhat understandable when you accuse farmers of practically being the spawns of Satan, right?

Let me make this clear. You're accusing farmers of being devoid of any moral fabric. You describe them as money-sucking, soulless sadists lacking humanity. Farmers.

Think about it...

 

[Dog--]

I haven't followed this argument at all (only read one of the short posts), but who's ever arguing that eating meat is wrong, are wrong.


BTW, on topic, I just watched an episode where they were debating the true-ness of the bible/10 commandments. A Topic that has been in the politics sections almost a billion times!

 

[Gray Fox]

You do realize that a response like his is somewhat understandable when you accuse farmers of practically being the spawns of Satan, right?

Let me make this clear. You're accusing farmers of being devoid of any moral fabric. You describe them as money-sucking, soulless sadists lacking humanity. Farmers.

Think about it...

They torture and kill thousands of sentient beings throughout their lives, their work and your justification for eating meat, requires you to discard everything humans consider, well so human about themselves, everything we believe that sets us apart from animals.

If someone treated your dog like that what would you call him/her, and more importantly why? Because it's your property, or because he/she is a dog. A loving sentient being, that feels pain, pleasure, is curious, gets angry, gets sad. Bonds with you, love's you.

And tell me what if you let your dog go, and never see it again, now if someone hypothetically killed your dog then you would not care since you would not know about it. Do you believe in that case it would be alright to kill it or not?

I'm glad the PETA movement will never go mainstream. Animals can't speak for themselves, which is why the movement will never take off. So, I'll continue eating my tasty animals day in and day out, drinking my milk, and enjoying mankind's dominance over lesser species.

Oh, and for the record, if you really cared about animals, you'd kill yourself, because any minute you live you will be infringing on some animal's life, whether it's bacteria, roaches, whatever.

I bet you also wonder why PETA uses violence against idiots like you.
I also bet you don't know, that you just said to everyone that cares for humans to kill themselves, because we also fall in to the animal kingdom.

 

[MiccyNarc]

Gray fox, humans are the only animals that give a flying shit about other species of animals. Other predatory species couldn't care less about the well being of their prey.

By killing and eating animals we act on our evolutionary instincts.

I'm at the top of the goddamn food chain, and I love it up here.
And as long as we're talking animal kingdom terms here: you know what we meat eaters call vegetarians like you? Prey.

Tell me, fox, how is eating animals at all out of place in the natural order of the world? Humans certainly weren't the first to do it.

 

[Gray Fox]

Gray fox, humans are the only animals that give a flying shit about other species of animals. Other predatory species couldn't care less about the well being of their prey.

Therefore it's logical to expect a greater moral justification from humans then animals. Therefore should humans that do not exhibit any more moral fiber then other animals be given the same right as humans?
Butwhat do we do? We do the opposite we hurt our prey much more then other animals, and we do not hurt it for food, we hurt it for pleasure. I say we hurt it for pleasure because in our modern society we have all the means and knowledge to comfortably survive without eating animal flesh, or is it meat?

By killing and eating animals we act on our evolutionary instincts.

Same can be said for when we kill another human being for our own gain, when we rape a woman. When we fight for animal rights. Why do you think those people at the fast food restaurant were so nice to the peacock, why do you think they called the police when it was being hurt. They knew instinctively that it was wrong what was happening, they knew without higher thought that it was wrong. Do you think they would have reacted the same if it was killed for food? Our instincts tell us when killing is right and when it is wrong, that is why the farm industry secludes itself from the outside word.

Further more using instinct as an justification for something is inherently wrong, proof of that being the rape and kill scenario I mentioned. It requires moral justification.

I'm at the top of the goddamn food chain, and I love it up here.

Me too. I love not having to worry about being eaten. i love the fact I can show compassion to animals, I love the fact I'm so advanced I can survive without killing animals. So why not use my position at the top to improve the lower echelons.

And as long as we're talking animal kingdom terms here: you know what we meat eaters call vegetarians like you? Prey.

You would love me,I eat a shit load of fruit and taste really sweet.

Tell me, fox, how is eating animals at all out of place in the natural order of the world? Humans certainly weren't the first to do it.

Like with my previous arguments I say to you. How is killing members of my own species wrong, how is raping members of my own species wrong, we humans were certainly not the first to do it, and animals do it too? Nothing is wrong when you apply social Darwinism, but when you decide to build a society based on rights, and morality you cannot hide behind nature from the repercussions of your actions