“Cows look calm, but really they are gay nymphomaniacs"

[Kontiki]

I think someone should come up with the opposite side of veggie patties and the like. By this, I mean instead of, say, broccoli, you get a chunk of meat that looks like broccoli. Or an all meat salad.

Meat with a side of meat. Mmmmmm.....

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Kontiki
By this, I mean instead of, say, broccoli, you get a chunk of meat that looks like broccoli.

Leave a steak on the counter for a couple weaks.

[Dis]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
Doesn't change my eating habits either. But over time I am coming around to the idea that eating animals is immoral and barbaric. Problem is, they are so damn tasty.

If vegitarianism became easier, more widely accepted and practiced, and if vegitarian food didn't taste so damn bad I could go for it.

It's not just that they are tasty, but they fill me up. I'd have to eat vegetables constantly to keep from going hungry. And I admit, I don't like the taste of most vegetables. I'd have to eat peanut butter and jelly sandwhiches all the time.

[OzzyKP]

Yea, that too. The one thing I like though is vegitarian Chinese food. The taste and consistency is very close to meat, and its quite good. (and filling). Of course if I ate that every day it'd get boring real quick, and I'd piss away all my limited funds.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Kontiki
I think someone should come up with the opposite side of veggie patties and the like. By this, I mean instead of, say, broccoli, you get a chunk of meat that looks like broccoli. Or an all meat salad.

Meat with a side of meat. Mmmmmm.....

Thats why I always liked the Fosters ads. You kow the one with the huge slab of beef and a sprig of parsley on top.......


SALAD

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Elok
Meh. If they do have a consciousness, it's probably rather different from mine. And such contradictions taught me long ago to value my species for its kinship to me, not for any projected ideas of theoretical cognition. A tree probably "feels" every stroke of the lumberjack's axe. Something happens to tell it, biochemically, that it is being damaged. It's a more agonizing way to die than anything used on human criminals in the civilized world. We still do it though, because it's just a tree.

True, but there are physical differences in how a tree "feels" things than animals. Trees don't have nerves, nor do they have centralized brains. I think that's so far removed as to be a non-issue.

But I dislike the hardline "we're self-aware, animals are not!" attitude, because it doesn't seem to be very realistic. First, we are animals, so such a distinction is arbitrary. Second, it seems much more reasonable, based on observation, to assume there is a gradual scale of consciousness among species. We lie at the most developed end of that scale, obviously. But it isn't all or nothing. Certainly, experiments working with primates have revealed a remarkable capacity for behavior that has traditionally been reserved for us self-aware sentients.

Trying to project ideas of "how it feels" will inevitably give you the heebie-jeebies if you think about it long and hard enough, it's just easier for some animals which are more readily anthropomorphized. That kind of vegetarianism strikes me as off-balance and overly sentimental, comparable to deciding which endangered species to save based on which one is most easily trained to do cute tricks. I reject all platforms of rights based on ability.

I'm not a (mostly) vegetarian for moral reasons, only health and preference reasons. But if there is a gradual scale of consciousness (which I believe to be the case), then there is certainly, IMO, a good rationale to differentiate animals in this regard. Society does so all the time, as we are very concerned that dogs, cats, horses, primates and other such animals are treated well, but give slightly less regard to bovine and ovine creatures, and less so to rodents, and so forth. So the precedent of differentiation is there. The reasoning behind it, however seems to be more "it's CUTE!" rather than "it's SELF-AWARE!"

Imagine all the millions of bacteria you kill when you microwave a burrito. If you heat a microbe, does it not shrivel? If you ***** it, does it not bleed cytoplasm? If you wrong it, does it not mutate to a resistant form and revenge? Suppose the burrito contains a rare and unique form of bacterium--you might be committing genocide!

Addressed above. Bacterium don't have nerves, nor brains. Consciousness does at the mimimum require a brain.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by OzzyKP


How would this apply, I wonder to youth rights?

If ability is a non-issue, then upon what basis are rights denied to youth? Shouldn't then, their common humanity warrant them equality before the law?

It doesn't apply at all to youth rights, 'cos youths are discriminated against based on age, not ability.

[Spiffor]

http://www.apolyton.net/forums/showt...hreadid=130161

[Last Conformist]

Boris Gudonov wrote:
Second, it seems much more reasonable, based on observation, to assume there is a gradual scale of consciousness among species. We lie at the most developed end of that scale, obviously.

Obviously? While I'd think we do have the most developed consciousness of all animals, I don't see how it's obvious we've got a more developed one that chimps or dolphins. Being brighter presumably doesn't necessarily imply being more self-aware.

[Odin]

I am annoyed by the specieist "animals have no emotions, they are atomatons" argument. When an animal is slaughtered it should be done humanely. I've heard that meat from a cow that was not stressed when it was put down tastes better than meat from a stressed cow.

[Elok]

Eh, if we loved human beings for their intelligence, Stephen Hawking would be the most popular man on earth, followed by Marilyn from Parade magazine. But we don't and they ain't. Chimpanzees, aside from rough "intellectual" ability, are not especially human in character at all; from what I've read, they're nasty, vicious animals. Even more than people are, I mean. The societies they form operate on a level not far above that of a wolfpack. It's all built on threat and dominance, even in bonobos where the threat is sublimated into displays of kinky sex.

They have the ability to form signs and understand their linguistic equivalence, but they do not "speak" in the same way people do, only repeat symbols they have learned in order to get what they want. They have little imagination or creativity, in which we're miles ahead of them. They "use tools" in the form of twig-fishing, but they've apparently been doing it the exact same way for most of five million years or so, without innovation. They probably developed the method by pure trial and error long ago and have passed it along, unchanged except by accident, ever since.

Early hominids were much the same, progressing veeeery slowly. Oldowan tools-rough cobbles-lasted a good while, and even Homo erectus, one of our most recent ancestors, kept using the same model of Acheullean hand-ax for over a million frigging years. In a thousandth of that time span, humanity went from the iron age to space flight. It takes more than a raw scale of intelligence to be human.

Or, to put it this way, your common raven has a remarkable level of reasoning ability. And I mean actual reasoning. I don't think it's quite proven that they actually envision the problem, think of possible solutions, decide on one and carry it out, but it's undeniable that they're pretty close to chimps or dolphins in terms of intellect. They're also vicious, brutal animals who live by cheating and extortion much of the time. And due to their immense cunning, they're just about everywhere in the world, and frequently pests to boot. Crows are only a little less intelligent. Does a corvid deserve more consideration, rights-wise, than a cow or a sheep? What about border collies, which are very smart (even if they are more than a little prone to neurosis)? Should an animal's worth be determined more by its raw cognitive ability than any other condition?

WRT Ozzy's question, minors do have equal rights; however, as by legal consensus they are not qualified to make decisions for themselves, that right reverts to guardians. Straightforward enough. Whether or not a child does have the power of informed consent by a certain age is open for debate, but the question of equality of rights is consistently answered in any case.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Elok

Early hominids were much the same, progressing veeeery slowly. Oldowan tools-rough cobbles-lasted a good while, and even Homo erectus, one of our most recent ancestors, kept using the same model of Acheullean hand-ax for over a million frigging years. In a thousandth of that time span, humanity went from the iron age to space flight. It takes more than a raw scale of intelligence to be human.

But for the big black obelisk thingy there go I.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Odin
I am annoyed by the specieist "animals have no emotions, they are atomatons" argument. When an animal is slaughtered it should be done humanely. I've heard that meat from a cow that was not stressed when it was put down tastes better than meat from a stressed cow.

A true specificist, like me, would accept that animals have emotions (or at least reactions closely analoguous to human emotions - let's not start the definition game), but killing them is acceptable anyway, because they plain count the way humans do.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Regarding cleanly killed animals and taste of the meat, I can affirm that is the case. You shoot a deer and take it with one shot verses shoot it and trackit for miles until it bleeds to death, you'll have a good (to my estimation at least) venison vs. an especially gamey one for the deer that has had a strong shot of adrenaline coursing through its system.

Hence the reason why beef is killed as quickly as possible.

[Odin]

I find it funny that the veggie-hippies get mad about us killing animals. HELLO!!!, animals eat other animals all the time. I don't see the veggie-hippies protesting when a troup of chimps catch and eat a monkey.