Hot dog!Follow

Yes, because doing so is a means of giving you credit for saying something intelligent: Kavekk is all like, "Whoa man, some of this crap is unethical but how are they different?" and I was all, "well they aren't, but both suck" and then you're like, "Roller-coasters are radical man!" Do you not want me to think that you can say something intelligent? That's kind of weird and I'm not sure where the self-loathing comes from, but okay man. I can dig it.



Then let's clarify, because something sure isn't clear. I think that such a notion is in your post yes, but not explicitly. Natural appeals are vestigial and pernicious and arguments resulting from them are necessarily anthropomorphic, regardless of whether or not the person actually realizes it. The only actual question I have is whether or not you were making a naturalistic appeal, because if you were not, then you would not be being all messed up. It certainly seemed that you were using nature to dismiss ethical notions, but if you were not, then please, correct me, because if that is the case, I have misinterpreted your point.

Wait...



What does this have to do with objections to eating meat? Honestly, what? Should I not care about animals because they can't care about me in the same way? Woe before I derive conclusions from that principles, because they are dire, so again, clarify.

Edited, Aug 19th 2009 6:58am by Pensive

You've managed to perfectly describe lots of retarded people; you still wouldn't eat them. Moral relevance isn't determined by your higher functions or ability to feel emotion. Otherwise, I could kill every newborn in the world and there would be nothing wrong with it. Since I know the only recourse here is to go with human potential I'll talk about that some. Potential for actions is obviously dumb to consider: we can't derive relevance from just actions, otherwise we could kill all of the homeless dudes. The other potential is mental development and happiness I guess (never seen anyone make a really good case for this.) Animals can have this as well, just not to the same degree.

It's asinine to suggest that animals can't feel emotions. What they can't feel is comprehensible or human emotions, and thus describing them with English (or any language really) is just doomed to failure. They do exhibit plenty of behaviors that are indicative of functions like emotions, and should be respected for it so long as they feel pain and have some sort of consciousness that can order all of their **** together. Does it make sense to say a cat "loves" me? Not really. It does make sense to use the word "love" to allude to the general disposition that a cat might have toward me, verified through its behavior, in comparison to a boar that wants me for lunch? Yeah.

So what? Why are you attempting to judge a ******* lion? You don't have to have the ability to act ethically in order to be worthy of ethical consideration.



That is what I said yes, that it makes no sense to say that a cat can love. I don't know if you're further making your point of intentionally misunderstanding each other or actually misunderstanding without realizing it, but I'm going to answer seriously anyway. Cat's don't love. It's ******* ridiculous to infer though, that because a cat doesn't love, that it doesn't have recognizable or comprehensible phenomenology. It's defeatist and harmful to just stop trying to understand things just because they're ineffable; many of our own emotions are exactly that.

My fiance and I recently switched over to a mostly vegetarian diet. We didn't do it because of a perceived wrongness with eating animals, nor did we do it because we felt it would be healthier. We did it because meat is ******* expensive!

Chicken, beef and pork are the big three in most places in America, and we used to have one of them with every meal in some form or another. Our grocery costs usually ran us about $125-150 a week. A package of three chicken breasts costs about $6 where we live. An eggplant, on the other hand, costs about $1. A 1lb package of 93% lean ground beef costs anywhere from $3-$5 depending on market value, whereas 1lb package of tofu costs about $2.

Since we're buying mostly fruits and vegetables now, our grocery costs are down to $95-$115 a week. For the first couple of weeks it was difficult to make the transition. I suppose I was so used to having meat all the time that it was difficult to see a plate full of veggies as a meal. Now that I've gotten used to it's not bad at all. We still eat meat once a week or so, since we both agree that we like meat too much to give it up entirely. When we go out to eat I still order burgers and steaks and whatnot. I also have to agree with Paulsol; ever since switching over to a mostly vegetarian diet, I've noticed that I've had more energy, sleep better, and feel all-around healthier.

All in all, the change has been great for us money-wise. We're saving about $100 a month more than when we ate meat every night, which gives us $100 more to put towards our house fund.

Yes, but now you're eating tofu instead of beef.

NOT WORTH IT!

zepoodle is being retarded again. That's not what Pensive even means--he's referring to our ability to have ethics when thinking about how we treat animals. This is all about reinforcing social values and what values we choose to have. The reason we protect dogs is because they are attached to humans and by our western social values, killing members of our household randomly has a social prohibition. It's the same way with cats. Violating that social prohibition brings up alot of feelings about other social prohibitions that a person would potentially violate. We call it unethical because you know,that's our social structure..

Domesticated cats are raised to be attached to humans--I had a professor who studied alot about domestication and his theory was like their development would stop before they became like adult wild animals, so they stayed docile and attached to humans. My cat ******* loves me and you can **** off with your self-righteous ********* They are bred that way. To use some behavior that can be ****** up to us around the ways animals treat each other and act like that should change the way that we think about our own behavior and ethical code is ******* idiotic.

I'd explain it more but I'm kind of drunk.

Nonsense? Bullsh*t. Values don't transcend cultural rules for the most part. There is nothing wrong with protecting animals because of your social values and keeping some boundaries and social rules in society. It's the same way that people get worried about someone killing their pets. It's not some transcendent thing that killing your pets is wrong but more like that fear that if they are willing to cross that social boundary, you worry about their ability to violate other boundaries.

You know, in certain cultures and certain periods of history, you could have killed your retarded children. Or expose your daughters to the elements, hoping they die, if you wanted a son. You could have locked up your mentally ill relatives in cages--in Bedlam, you could have bought a stick to poke them for a small fee. Really the only reason we don't do it now is because our social values have changed.





Edited, Aug 19th 2009 10:50pm by Annabella

No, they just violate your own social prohibitions.



Ethical treatment of the mentally ill? Oh hell, yes it is. The same with the treatment of children. We look at the ways that people act all the time to try to predict their ability to stay within certain norms.

Edited, Aug 19th 2009 11:16pm by Annabella

No, I don't think you've thought very deeply about social values. I mean, I'm not saying anything especially profound, trickybeck. This is postmodernism social constructionism 101.

Edited, Aug 19th 2009 11:24pm by Annabella

I disagree with the idea that you have objectivity.

And by the way, the only thing I was talking about in terms of Pensive was this line:


The rest was my view.

But really, we see pets really different and that has entirely with our fears of social violations.


Edited, Aug 19th 2009 11:32pm by Annabella

It's bullsh*t to act like you have some clear transcendent morality where protecting all animals "capable of suffering" is less arbitrary than protecting the social group (including pets in a family).

Also, you should study actuarial studies and decide how people assess risk levels in humans. They do it exactly that way--if you violate a certain boundary, you will violate others. It's why someone who murders someone is more likely to have committed other crimes and not be someone who has been law abiding their whole lives. I mean, Jesus, that's a pretty basic idea.

Edited, Aug 19th 2009 11:35pm by Annabella

I wish I was in that ocean. Cute dog, btw.