• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Eating animals that can display affection?

untermensche said:
It is possible to torture a human in an attempt to extract information.

It is impossible to get information from a pig by torturing it.

Pigs are deliberately tortured in the US for profit. Not for information.

You should have been able to understand things like this a long time ago. But I understand some are rather slow and I must be patient.
Click to expand...

What mechanism produces profit from the intentional infliction of pain? If I take a pig and kick it in the nuts, where or from whom do I collect my profits?

"... deeds which unknowingly or negligently inflict pain without a specific intent to do so are not typically considered torture."

I understand that you feel that learning anything is beneath you, but I really do urge you to try to learn the English language; it is extraordinarily effective for communication, as it is very widely spoken.
 
There are many ways to deliberately torture an intelligent animal like a pig.

Overcrowding.

Lack of exercise.

Lack of mental stimulation.

Neglect of medical needs.

Again, an adult should not need this explained.
 
untermensche said:
There are many ways to deliberately torture an intelligent animal like a pig.

Overcrowding.

Lack of exercise.

Lack of mental stimulation.

Neglect of medical needs.

Again, an adult should not need this explained.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the tips. I look forward to a profitable business as a pig torturer, just as soon as you explain how deliberately hurting pigs creates profits.

Obviously I'm not sufficiently adult to grasp how these are profitable as deliberate and intentional acts. I was of the childish opinion that they were unintended side effects of the (apparently unprofitable) pork meat industry.
 
You do seem to have troubles.

You own dogs yet do not understand the need of exercise and mental stimulation for health?

What a shame.
 
untermensche said:
You do seem to have troubles.

You own dogs yet do not understand the need of exercise and mental stimulation for health?

What a shame.
Click to expand...

What I don't understand is how to profit from being deliberately cruel to pigs.

You seem confident that it is possible, but as usual, incapable of providing any details.

It's almost as though you were simply wrong, but so desperate to avoid admitting to a minor error that you are prepared to make a total fool of yourself.

Why a simple admission of a minor error is more embarrassing to you than acting the clown for page after page, I don't know - that's between you and your psychotherapist.

But your pathetic attempt to move the goalposts is noted.
 
You are not serious.

You can make a greater profit by overcrowding and by not allowing exercise or providing mental stimulation.

You can make a profit through deliberate torture.

That is why it is done. Pure greed.

If you can't understand this that is nothing unusual.
 
Every animal that lives in social groups is capable of showing affection. The body language and signals of affection allow animals to live in close proximity to each other and not feel threatened. When an animal shows affection for a human, they have transferred their social instincts onto another species. Sometimes this works out well for both species, and we call them "pets". As a general rule, people do not kill and eat their pets, at least not until the very end.

Interspecies affection is not a natural thing. It's a learned behavior which happens when an animal's natural life is interrupted and humans take the place of animal parents.

This makes the "affectionate animal exclusion" a strange construction, but not any less valid than any other rule of social interaction. One of the basic rules of every human society is "Don't kill those in your group." It's really not so strange that some would be reluctant to eat animals that have been accepted as members of the group. What is strange is declining to eat animals that are capable of affection, but don't know that well.
 
Affection? Pigs crammed into individual pens often show signs of affection to those who are so incarcerating them. It may be a defense or reaction to intolerable conditions. More likely it is because the don't know the conditions are intolerable. They gain weight and they readily are prodded from cages to channels where they are lead to be slaughtered. Really hard to call that torture unless one is a PETA member.
 
fromderinside said:
Affection? Pigs crammed into individual pens often show signs of affection to those who are so incarcerating them. It may be a defense or reaction to intolerable conditions. More likely it is because the don't know the conditions are intolerable. They gain weight and they readily are prodded from cages to channels where they are lead to be slaughtered. Really hard to call that torture unless one is a PETA member.
Click to expand...

I'll confine you to the point you can barely move.

I will deny you the ability to exercise and any mental stimulation.

I'll ignore your illnesses and injuries.

Then we will see how you feel.

The complete absence of empathy is not an argument.
 
fromderinside said:
untermensche said:
The complete absence of empathy is not an argument.
Click to expand...

Sure it is. Bronzeage and I just made it.
Click to expand...

Saying that torture is not torture because I refuse to try to understand what is going on from the standpoint of the tortured because I have no natural empathy anymore, I have destroyed that part of me, is not any kind of argument.

It is a position. An ugly sick position.

But not an argument.
 
I don't believe for an instant that you have any understanding of the physiological basis of any aspect of consciousness.

But I know for certain deliberately ignoring deliberate torture is a mental illness common to humans.
 
untermensche said:
fromderinside said:
untermensche said:
The complete absence of empathy is not an argument.
Click to expand...

Sure it is. Bronzeage and I just made it.
Click to expand...

Saying that torture is not torture because I refuse to try to understand what is going on from the standpoint of the tortured because I have no natural empathy anymore, I have destroyed that part of me, is not any kind of argument.

It is a position. An ugly sick position.

But not an argument.
Click to expand...

It seems your argument is to convince us(the editorial us) that we should include animals in our moral group, and thus give them the same group protection we give to friends and family. Why should we do this? What advantage do we gain, if we treat animals as kin, knowing they cannot reciprocate.

Even at this point in history, there are still animals which see humans prey. What do we do with them?
 
My position is that deliberate torture of helpless animals is an immoral thing for a human to do.

The only "group" in question is humans.
 
untermensche said:
My position is that deliberate torture of helpless animals is an immoral thing for a human to do.

The only "group" in question is humans.
Click to expand...

But why? For an action to be immoral, it must violate some moral code. Can this code be articulated?

Your definition of torture seems subjective and arbitrary. You claim a moral code proscribes humans from doing these things to animals, so this includes animals in the moral group. What benefit accrues to humans for this behavior?
 
Bronzeage said:
untermensche said:
My position is that deliberate torture of helpless animals is an immoral thing for a human to do.

The only "group" in question is humans.
Click to expand...

But why? For an action to be immoral, it must violate some moral code. Can this code be articulated?

Your definition of torture seems subjective and arbitrary.
Click to expand...

What else could it be?

Bronzeage said:
You claim a moral code proscribes humans from doing these things to animals, so this includes animals in the moral group. What benefit accrues to humans for this behavior?
Click to expand...

Benefit only accrues to those who actually give a shit about unnecessary animal suffering. There's no benefit accruing to those that don't [give a shit]. Neither point of view is objectively correct. But it can't be beyond the understanding of either side to see (not necessarily agree with) the view of the other side.
 
Morality is based on emotions not ideas.

Why should any human care that they have deliberately caused harm to some other animal?

There is no rule to appeal to.

All that can be appealed to is some sense of empathy.
 
fromderinside said:
The AntiChris said:
But it can't be beyond the understanding of either side to see (not necessarily agree with) the view of the other side.
Click to expand...

Really? You already don't buy in to objective. Still you should at least provide something beyond than some special pleading.
Click to expand...

I don't think there was anything special about my pleading ;). Moral anti-realism is not a particularly uncommon view.

Or do you have an irrefutable argument for the objectivity of moral claims up your sleeve?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom