Subject:
|
Re: Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line))
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 22 Jul 2000 14:40:35 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1596 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
Sorry about this first bit, but I want to get it squared away.
Through the comment:
> Lighten up Chris; I was being facetious.
It sounds like you think I'm being less than congenial.
Through the comments:
> Oh, brother. I always marvel at the cleverness of that answer.
> You've demonstrated that you don't care to
> confront this in any consistent framework, so I guess I'll let you go.
It seems to me that you're not being fully congenial. But in other bits you
seem to be completely reasonable and willing to discuss interesting stuff.
Maybe you're just frustrated with me, and edgyness is slipping through. If
that's it, that's fine, but I would appreciate knowing. But if you are going
to become abusive (and I'm not suggesting that I think that) I'd rather just
stop. Otherwise I'd rather continue the conversation at least until we
actually hit irreconcilable differences.
> > > and titling vegetarianism "superior" is arbitrary and inconsistent.
> >
> > Maybe somewhat arbitrary, but not, I would say inconsistent.
>
> Since you're arbitrarily deciding what does and doesn't qualify as sentient,
First, my morals don't hinge on the vernacular sentience that I prefer or the
dictionary definition. If we're talking about the dictionary definition, I
don't think that it's at all arbitrary. I am saying that for something to be
sentient, it must be mildly self-aware. Technically it must sense to be
sentient. For an organism to sense it must have one or more sense organs. A
sense organ is "a specialized organ or structure, such as the eye, ear, tongue,
nose, or skin, where sensory neurons are concentrated and which functions as a
receptor." That just doesn't seem arbitrary to me. I just looked up arbitray
to make sure, and since I have a reason that I can defend, rather than basing
it on whim, it's not arbitrary.
> I'd say you're being inconsistent. You've demonstrated that you don't care to
> confront this in any consistent framework, so I guess I'll let you go.
Thanks for your confidence.
> > I tend to think of nerves and some kind of processor as being needed to • really
> > consider it sensation. But maybe it's fuzzier than that. I'm not sure your
> > plant-based examples count. A rock gets hot when the sun shines...is the • rock
> > sensing the sun?
>
> But the rock is not changing anything in its internal makeup to respond to
> the sun, other than simply getting warmer. The plant's body is reacting to a
> specific stimulus and responding in a reflexive manner, in much the same way
> that a animal subjected to pain will flinch or cry out.
True, but the animal will _decide_ to avoid that stimulus in the future.
Ant-burdened trees do not attempt to figure out new chemicals to secrete. They
just lucked into that strategy and it worked for species replication.
> > > Given these facts, how can one distinguish between animals'
> > > sentience and that of plants;
> >
> > Well, we can clearly state that plants don't _know_ anything about their
> > surroundings. They don't feel pain. They don't have purpose or drive. They
> > autonomically react to chemical etc. stimuli.
>
> Crying out in pain is a similarly autonomic response in an animal, as is the
> hormonal response to estrus.
Yes, but those autonomic responses are all the plant has. Not so for the
animals.
> If that's you're sentience-escape-clause,
How did I imply that sentience is my north star for what to eat?
> I'd say it applies at least as well to animals as to plants.
Given my statement that the animals have more than autonomic responses, I think
that I can pretty safely disagree.
> In addition, if we
> breed animals with no brains or pain receptors, are we then free to slay them
> for food, since they won't feel pain or know anything about their
> environments?
Yes. Absolutely.
> Using your criterion, I'd imagine you'd be comfortable
> consuming a brain-dead human who felt no pain and knew nothing of his
> environment.
I am comfortable with that being done. I would choose not to participate, but
not out of moral qualms.
> > The line between the two kingdoms would be as arbitrary as the lines that I'm
> > complaining about, but I don't think that my actual line is.
>
> "Suffering" is still a dangerously nebulous word. I accept and respect your
> preferential choice to be a vegetarian, but I don't accept that there's some
> clear-cut or self-evident reason not to eat meat.
What makes any reason clear-cut or self-evident? For those of us who accept
that causing needless pain is bad, I think that it is clear cut. For those who
enjoy, or simply don't care, about the pain of others, then I guess not. I
guess by definition, since we don't all agree on it, it isn't self-evident.
> > > > > I'd rather we just grew beef and chicken muscle in vats but we're
> > > > > not there yet.
> > >
> > > That's what we do now, while it's still attached to the cows and chickens!
> >
> > I think you probably know what we're talking about.
>
> Lighten up Chris; I was being facetious. I'm actually greatly intrigued by
> the notion of vat-grown food, as well as its implications for organ production
> for transplantation.
Me too. That's just super cool, and the technology required would lead to all
kinds of innovation. My fear, however, is that we've already harnessed the
best way to produce meat and there is little economic incentive to produce it
in vats.
Chris
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
149 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
