Eating animals that can display affection?

[Malintent]

With most consumed meat in the US the animal was tortured for a long time before it was killed.

source, please. This seems to be hyperbolae on its face.

Is not being able to move around torture?

Is not having you injuries or illnesses addressed torture?

Is not having any mental stimulation torture?

So basically you have no source and you are just making shit up based solely on your anthropomorphizing fantasies.

OK, thank you for clearing that up. Opinion discarded.

 

[fromderinside]

Untermenche gave you his recipe. If you ignore him, leave him pinned in by his own dead ends, he'll feel tortured.

 

[untermensche]

Is not being able to move around torture?

Is not having you injuries or illnesses addressed torture?

Is not having any mental stimulation torture?

So basically you have no source and you are just making shit up based solely on your anthropomorphizing fantasies.

OK, thank you for clearing that up. Opinion discarded.

I need a person with a brain and life experience to have a source for this.

 

[untermensche]

Untermenche gave you his recipe. If you ignore him, leave him pinned in by his own dead ends, he'll feel tortured.

I feel tortured having to read your worthless posts.

Dealing with you on any philosophical topic is like dealing with a naive child.

 

[LordKiran]

The evidence does not support this bizarre and hugely immodest claim.

So I forgot about this thread for a bit. 50/50 on it now though. I liked it better when it was about the topic and not explaining the fundamentals of morality to Unter, so I'm going to take this comment and answer in a way that ties back into the primary topic.

I also think what Unter does here but in a somewhat different way. I think that humans and their capacity for higher reasoning does put us above most other animals but by that same token also allows us to circumvent our instincts in a way other animals cannot. I don't think I've ever heard of an animal outside of humankind going against its instinctual desire to survive and procreate the way people do with consistent regularity. Only humans (As far as I know) commit suicide for example.

In light of this, some would argue that because we are better than them we are right to consume them or at the very least are not wrong for doing so. I disagree at least to a certain extent. Right and wrong have nothing to do with it to my mind. It has more to do with practicing what you want to be.

IF: you desire to be a 'good' person with compassion, empathy, patience, love, understanding ect.

THEN: You must practice those things. Humanbeings are not anymore good than they are evil, because humans are fluid. We can't ever be those things because the capacity for both is inherent to us, we can only practice them. People cannot be compassionate or empathetic. They can practice compassion and empathy though. Ultimately it is as Jungian psychology suggests. We believe what we act as. The human being's desire to be consistent and not suffer the great dissonance that comes with believing and acting in two different fashions is among your strongest of impulses. Nobody wants to live a lie.

So all of this is to say:

1. You can only be as "good" as you consistently practice "good" things
2. Arguments that "Good" practices should be reserved for humans is an argument who's logical impetus comes from it being the natural prioritization
3. This natural prioritization is rendered moot by human's capacity for higher reasoning and the ability to override his natural impulses.

 

[Malintent]

Is not being able to move around torture?

Is not having you injuries or illnesses addressed torture?

Is not having any mental stimulation torture?

So basically you have no source and you are just making shit up based solely on your anthropomorphizing fantasies.

OK, thank you for clearing that up. Opinion discarded.

I need a person with a brain and life experience to have a source for this.

OK. When you find one to help you out, I will be happy to read the support for your statement:

With most consumed meat in the US the animal was tortured for a long time before it was killed.

Cute how you tried to pivot to what humans feel when challenged about what you say animals feel, and then complain that it is obvious what humans feel so you shouldn't have to provide any source... and by "cute" I mean "dishonest".

 

[untermensche]

I agree with what you say.

But we have natural empathy to guide us to be "good". It is the thing we have to tell us if we are harming someone. We hear the cries of people harmed and have a natural emotional reaction to it. Unless we suppress the reaction.

We should try to create a society based around empathy and solidarity instead of around personal accumulation and top down hierarchies.

- - - Updated - - -

I need a person with a brain and life experience to have a source for this.

OK. When you find one to help you out, I will be happy to read the support for your statement:

With most consumed meat in the US the animal was tortured for a long time before it was killed.

Cute how you tried to pivot to what humans feel when challenged about what you say animals feel, and then complain that it is obvious what humans feel so you shouldn't have to provide any source... and by "cute" I mean "dishonest".

I didn't pivot anywhere.

I made a statement and backed it up. Animals are confined to the point they cannot move. Their illnesses and injuries are ignored. They get no mental stimulation. They are tortured.

Ignoring what I said completely is foolishness.

What is your point in doing it?

 

[fromderinside]

I didn't pivot anywhere.

I made a statement and backed it up. Animals are confined to the point they cannot move. Their illnesses and injuries are ignored. They get no mental stimulation. They are tortured.

Ignoring what I said completely is foolishness.

What is your point in doing it?

You did pivot as Malintent wrote.

For instance here is UN definition and information around torture:   United Nations Convention against Torture

Definition:

For the purpose of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions.

Feel free to find any of your claims in this convention. The very first is "intentionally inflicted on a being (my word) for such purposes as .... information .... confession..... punishing for an act .....intimidating ......coercing ...... discrimination ...... with acquiescence of the public/ It does not include pain or suffering arising from inherent, or incidental to, lawful sanctions or practices (my squaring the circle).

You did not cite any legal basis for your claims oofr animal torture. Feel free to cite anything from this document in support of your claims.

run, run, runaround .....

 

[fromderinside]

Untermenche gave you his recipe. If you ignore him, leave him pinned in by his own dead ends, he'll feel tortured.

I feel tortured having to read your worthless posts.

Dealing with you on any philosophical topic is like dealing with a naive child.

Poor you. Did you not write torture was being ignored, penned in? Do you not go adhom every time you feel either?

 

[untermensche]

Untermenche gave you his recipe. If you ignore him, leave him pinned in by his own dead ends, he'll feel tortured.

I feel tortured having to read your worthless posts.

Dealing with you on any philosophical topic is like dealing with a naive child.

Poor you. Did you not write torture was being ignored, penned in? Do you not go adhom every time you feel either?

I tried to enlarge the discussion beyond your comments about me.

They are worthless and childish.

The issue and only issue is what would constitute torture of a pig.

Not being allowed to move around and not given any mental stimulation is what I have claimed is tortuous.

Are you claiming it is not?

 

[bilby]

Untermenche gave you his recipe. If you ignore him, leave him pinned in by his own dead ends, he'll feel tortured.

I feel tortured having to read your worthless posts.

Dealing with you on any philosophical topic is like dealing with a naive child.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

 

[untermensche]

Untermenche gave you his recipe. If you ignore him, leave him pinned in by his own dead ends, he'll feel tortured.

I feel tortured having to read your worthless posts.

Dealing with you on any philosophical topic is like dealing with a naive child.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

Childish nonsense.

It is a struggle to imagine what soup in the mind would cause one to bother to post that.

Again and again.

The issue and only issue is what would constitute torture of a pig.

Not being allowed to move around and not given any mental stimulation is what I have claimed is tortuous.

Are you claiming it is not?

 

[bilby]

The evidence does not support this bizarre and hugely immodest claim.

So I forgot about this thread for a bit. 50/50 on it now though. I liked it better when it was about the topic and not explaining the fundamentals of morality to Unter, so I'm going to take this comment and answer in a way that ties back into the primary topic.

I also think what Unter does here but in a somewhat different way. I think that humans and their capacity for higher reasoning does put us above most other animals but by that same token also allows us to circumvent our instincts in a way other animals cannot. I don't think I've ever heard of an animal outside of humankind going against its instinctual desire to survive and procreate the way people do with consistent regularity. Only humans (As far as I know) commit suicide for example.

It is almost invariably false to describe any behaviour as unique to humans.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_suicide

In light of this, some would argue that because we are better than them we are right to consume them or at the very least are not wrong for doing so. I disagree at least to a certain extent. Right and wrong have nothing to do with it to my mind. It has more to do with practicing what you want to be.

IF: you desire to be a 'good' person with compassion, empathy, patience, love, understanding ect.

THEN: You must practice those things. Humanbeings are not anymore good than they are evil, because humans are fluid. We can't ever be those things because the capacity for both is inherent to us, we can only practice them. People cannot be compassionate or empathetic. They can practice compassion and empathy though. Ultimately it is as Jungian psychology suggests. We believe what we act as. The human being's desire to be consistent and not suffer the great dissonance that comes with believing and acting in two different fashions is among your strongest of impulses. Nobody wants to live a lie.

I would say that the existence of religion is just one of the more obvious refutations to this claim. The evidence is very strong that almost everybody strives to live a lie.

People have a self image that most are unable to live up to; and they resolve this by lying - to themselves and to others - pretty much constantly.

So all of this is to say:

1. You can only be as "good" as you consistently practice "good" things
2. Arguments that "Good" practices should be reserved for humans is an argument who's logical impetus comes from it being the natural prioritization
3. This natural prioritization is rendered moot by human's capacity for higher reasoning and the ability to override his natural impulses.

Your premise that there is a universally agreed meaning to the word 'good' is deeply flawed, rendering your argument moot. Human are not in the least consistent; Nor do they prioritize other humans over non-human entities.

'Good' means looking out for your friends' interests. How we define and rank our friends is the main determinant of what therefore constitutes 'good' behaviour. If you own a pet dog, you are likely to embrace dogs as friends, and to be repulsed by those who see them as food.

If you are a member of a cannibal tribe, you regard humans form other tribes as 'not friends', and therefore as a viable food source. If you were a Roman citizen in the third century CE, You might afford 'friend' status to all other citizens, while considering slaves and the unconquered tribes outside the Empire as subhuman, and fair game for enslaving or killing for entertainment. If you were a Spanish Inquisitor, you would afford 'friend' status only to devout Catholics, and consider heresy to render a person unworthy of personhood - to the extent that it becomes the act of a good and noble person to torture them into recanting their heresies.

Empathy is the way we react to the people (and other living beings) that we choose to include in our tribe. Humans are good at inclusivity - people can be moved to tears by the death of a houseplant. They are also good at exclusivity; The same man who cries when his petunias die, can be perfectly happy working as a guard at a death camp.

Even inanimate objects can be accepted by humans as part of 'us', while most humans remain 'them'; If you scratch someone's car, they may well act to protect it as though it were their child that you were harming, and many would see nothing inconsistent in wanting to cause you serious injury in retaliation.

 

[bilby]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

Childish nonsense.

It is a struggle to imagine what soup in the mind would cause one to bother to post that.

Have you considered that I might be hoping that you would read the link, and learn something about yourself from it? Perhaps you might even attempt to understand how it relates to your behaviour in the posts to which it is a response?

Again and again.

If at first you don't succeed...

The issue and only issue is what would constitute torture of a pig.

Not being allowed to move around and not given any mental stimulation is what I have claimed is tortuous.

Are you claiming it is not?

That is FAR from the only issue; Your claim is irrelevant; and No. (in that order)

 

[untermensche]

That is FAR from the only issue; Your claim is irrelevant; and No. (in that order)

That was the issue I was discussing with others when you rudely butted in with your nonsense.

The issue and only issue is what would constitute torture of a pig.

Not being allowed to move around and not given any mental stimulation is what I have claimed is tortuous.

Are you claiming it is not?

 

[bilby]

That is FAR from the only issue; Your claim is irrelevant; and No. (in that order)

That was the issue I was discussing with others when you rudely butted in with your nonsense.

The issue and only issue is what would constitute torture of a pig.

Not being allowed to move around and not given any mental stimulation is what I have claimed is tortuous.

Are you claiming it is not?

Yes, I am. Have been for some time.

Your disregard for the correct use of the English language routinely gets you into pointless discussions that boil down to 'untermensche is misusing a word, and will defend his error to the grave'. It's seriously fucking tiresome.

'Torture' is not applicable in this context. It's cruel; But it's NOT torture. And cruelty to your outgroup is not immoral. (come to that, nor is torture, as the example of the Spanish Inquisition clearly demonstrates).

 

[Bronzeage]

Natural empathy is something you develop towards members of your group. Unless they are abusive.

People that have been abused have an excuse to have trouble with empathy.

It takes a moral person, a person who desires to be moral, to extend these feeling to all people, and to other animals.

What many people do instead is work to kill these feelings in themselves with practice.

- - - Updated - - -

Sure you do.

You just prefer to pretend that your code is some kind of natural empathy.

Empathy is not a code of any kind.

Have you ever once been right?

It seems what you are calling "natural empathy" is a learned behavior, not an actual natural trait. I don't think you were born empathetic and certainly for the first couple years, had no empathy at all for the people around you.

 

[untermensche]

Natural empathy is something you develop towards members of your group. Unless they are abusive.

People that have been abused have an excuse to have trouble with empathy.

It takes a moral person, a person who desires to be moral, to extend these feeling to all people, and to other animals.

What many people do instead is work to kill these feelings in themselves with practice.

- - - Updated - - -

Sure you do.

You just prefer to pretend that your code is some kind of natural empathy.

Empathy is not a code of any kind.

Have you ever once been right?

It seems what you are calling "natural empathy" is a learned behavior, not an actual natural trait. I don't think you were born empathetic and certainly for the first couple years, had no empathy at all for the people around you.

It does not have to be learned.

It can be tested and empathy emerges in humans almost universally. If they have not been abused in some way.

The question is: What does the human do with their empathy? Allow it to grow and guide behavior? Or kill it? A human can do either or something in between. I believe the will plays a part in how moral we behave. And if empathy is not our guide strange codes of morality can emerge. A person could beat up a homosexual and believe they are behaving morally. They used to lynch black people for disobeying moral codes like the prohibition of race mixing. And they felt very moral in doing so. Because they had a code and were not guided by normal human empathy.

Humans that are abused are all special psychological cases so I do not include them in "normal". Their development has been altered. Both Stalin and Hitler suffered severe physical abuse as children.

 

[untermensche]

That is FAR from the only issue; Your claim is irrelevant; and No. (in that order)

That was the issue I was discussing with others when you rudely butted in with your nonsense.

The issue and only issue is what would constitute torture of a pig.

Not being allowed to move around and not given any mental stimulation is what I have claimed is tortuous.

Are you claiming it is not?

Yes, I am. Have been for some time.

Your disregard for the correct use of the English language routinely gets you into pointless discussions that boil down to 'untermensche is misusing a word, and will defend his error to the grave'. It's seriously fucking tiresome.

'Torture' is not applicable in this context. It's cruel; But it's NOT torture. And cruelty to your outgroup is not immoral. (come to that, nor is torture, as the example of the Spanish Inquisition clearly demonstrates).

You claiming that torture must be deliberate and it must be for the intention of getting information is laughable.

Torture is what happens to an animal.

A momentary discomfort is not torture. Discomfort that never ends is.

 

[bilby]

Yes, I am. Have been for some time.

Your disregard for the correct use of the English language routinely gets you into pointless discussions that boil down to 'untermensche is misusing a word, and will defend his error to the grave'. It's seriously fucking tiresome.

'Torture' is not applicable in this context. It's cruel; But it's NOT torture. And cruelty to your outgroup is not immoral. (come to that, nor is torture, as the example of the Spanish Inquisition clearly demonstrates).

You claiming that torture must be deliberate and it must be for the intention of getting information is laughable.

Torture is what happens to an animal.

A momentary discomfort is not torture. Discomfort that never ends is.

Never ends?

I thought infinity was against your religion.

I guess hyperbole isn't though.