Speciesism

[pood]

You should get Sunny a soundboard

 

[Bomb#20]

There is no morality or ethics in the food chain.

Ok, so we should <rest snipped>

In other news, everything has a cause; therefore there must be an Uncaused Cause.

Once an argument goes off the logic rails, whatever comes after can't fix it.

 

[Bomb#20]

We have to practice speciesism or what would be called that if animals practice it. To not do so would be to die...

... of kuru.

 

[Bomb#20]

It would be great if we didn't eat meat, but we did evolve to get a lot of our protein from animals and it would be hard to keep a pet dog as a vegan as they are primarily meat eaters, being so closely related to wolves. We could all decrease our consumption of meat and support more humane ways of raising and killing the animals that we eat. That would help not only the animals but our own environment along with other animals species who's habitats our bad habits are helping destroy.

An awful lot of the earth's surface is currently used for raising meat animals and the plants we feed to meat animals. If we didn't eat meat, or if we all decreased our consumption of it, then an awful lot of land would be freed up for other purposes. What do you think we should do with it? Turn it into lawns, perhaps?

 

[southernhybrid]

It would be great if we didn't eat meat, but we did evolve to get a lot of our protein from animals and it would be hard to keep a pet dog as a vegan as they are primarily meat eaters, being so closely related to wolves. We could all decrease our consumption of meat and support more humane ways of raising and killing the animals that we eat. That would help not only the animals but our own environment along with other animals species who's habitats our bad habits are helping destroy.

An awful lot of the earth's surface is currently used for raising meat animals and the plants we feed to meat animals. If we didn't eat meat, or if we all decreased our consumption of it, then an awful lot of land would be freed up for other purposes. What do you think we should do with it? Turn it into lawns, perhaps?

It could be given back to the wildlife that we took it from, and we could certainly use more parks and nature sanctuaries. So many animals are endangered due to our actions. If we let things go back to nature, the air would likely be cleaner and some endangered animals could thrive again. I never said we had to stop eating meat. I said we should cut back on our consumption of meat, not only to help the planet, but we would likely be healthier too, statistically speaking. Surely you know that eating a lot of beef is a big risk factor for heart disease. So, what would you suggest we do with all of that land?

Plus, we could use some of that land to grow healthier foods for humans. I don't have all the answers, but I do know that raising cattle and eating a lot of meat aren't healthy for us or for the planet. Growing some other foods in great abundance aren't healthy for the planet either. Corn comes to mind. Maybe we grow too much corn. I'm sure you've read about "corn sweat." but there are probably ways, assuming we get rid of politicians who deny science, to improve how we grow things.

 

[southernhybrid]

You should get Sunny a soundboard

The book I mentioned discussed things like that. The woman who wrote it had a great sense of humor. She said before too long, our dogs will be asking for their own iPads.

 

[Bomb#20]

It would be great if we didn't eat meat, but we did evolve to get a lot of our protein from animals and it would be hard to keep a pet dog as a vegan as they are primarily meat eaters, being so closely related to wolves. We could all decrease our consumption of meat and support more humane ways of raising and killing the animals that we eat. That would help not only the animals but our own environment along with other animals species who's habitats our bad habits are helping destroy.

An awful lot of the earth's surface is currently used for raising meat animals and the plants we feed to meat animals. If we didn't eat meat, or if we all decreased our consumption of it, then an awful lot of land would be freed up for other purposes. What do you think we should do with it? Turn it into lawns, perhaps?

It could be given back to the wildlife that we took it from, and we could certainly use more parks and nature sanctuaries.

Yeah, that's what I thought. I'm thoroughly familiar with the morality that says it's bad for a human to kill and eat a chicken but it's good for a human to help a fox kill and eat a chicken; I just don't understand it.

So many animals are endangered due to our actions. If we let things go back to nature, the air would likely be cleaner and some endangered animals could thrive again. I never said we had to stop eating meat. I said we should cut back on our consumption of meat, not only to help the planet, but we would likely be healthier too, statistically speaking. Surely you know that eating a lot of beef is a big risk factor for heart disease. So, what would you suggest we do with all of that land?

Oh, I'm all over letting it go back to nature, but then I don't think it would be great if we didn't eat meat. Predators are a part of nature; without them the suffering in nature would be worse; and if we're going to allow predators I don't see why we shouldn't be one of them.

 

[Bronzeage]

It would be great if we didn't eat meat, but we did evolve to get a lot of our protein from animals and it would be hard to keep a pet dog as a vegan as they are primarily meat eaters, being so closely related to wolves. We could all decrease our consumption of meat and support more humane ways of raising and killing the animals that we eat. That would help not only the animals but our own environment along with other animals species who's habitats our bad habits are helping destroy.

An awful lot of the earth's surface is currently used for raising meat animals and the plants we feed to meat animals. If we didn't eat meat, or if we all decreased our consumption of it, then an awful lot of land would be freed up for other purposes. What do you think we should do with it? Turn it into lawns, perhaps?

Lawns are a less conspicuous form of conspicuous consumption, but still conspicuous consumption. As it is, I pay a man to keep mine under control and if not for city ordinances, I would be happy to watch it return to a wild condition.

 

[southernhybrid]

It would be great if we didn't eat meat, but we did evolve to get a lot of our protein from animals and it would be hard to keep a pet dog as a vegan as they are primarily meat eaters, being so closely related to wolves. We could all decrease our consumption of meat and support more humane ways of raising and killing the animals that we eat. That would help not only the animals but our own environment along with other animals species who's habitats our bad habits are helping destroy.

An awful lot of the earth's surface is currently used for raising meat animals and the plants we feed to meat animals. If we didn't eat meat, or if we all decreased our consumption of it, then an awful lot of land would be freed up for other purposes. What do you think we should do with it? Turn it into lawns, perhaps?

It could be given back to the wildlife that we took it from, and we could certainly use more parks and nature sanctuaries.

Yeah, that's what I thought. I'm thoroughly familiar with the morality that says it's bad for a human to kill and eat a chicken but it's good for a human to help a fox kill and eat a chicken; I just don't understand it.

So many animals are endangered due to our actions. If we let things go back to nature, the air would likely be cleaner and some endangered animals could thrive again. I never said we had to stop eating meat. I said we should cut back on our consumption of meat, not only to help the planet, but we would likely be healthier too, statistically speaking. Surely you know that eating a lot of beef is a big risk factor for heart disease. So, what would you suggest we do with all of that land?

Oh, I'm all over letting it go back to nature, but then I don't think it would be great if we didn't eat meat. Predators are a part of nature; without them the suffering in nature would be worse; and if we're going to allow predators I don't see why we shouldn't be one of them.

Once more....I never said we shouldn't eat any meat. I said we should eat less meat.

Maybe we should go back to doing more hunting and eating deer. In many places, there is a huge over population of deer and deer do a lot of damage to plants and sometimes even wander into farm areas. While there are ways to keep the deer population down, I see nothing wrong with killing and eating deer meat, aka venison, as long as the hunting is done correctly so that the deer die quickly and none are left to die slowly while suffering. I have only eaten deer meat once in my life and I didn't care for it, but then I'm not crazy about beef, lamb or pork, other than organically raised pork tenderloin, which I haven't eaten in about a year. I only buy humanely raised chicken to eat, and I usually prefer tofu when I'm out eating Asian food if that's an option. I do eat fish about twice a week. I'll say it again. We simply need to cut back on our consumption of meat, especially red meat, not stop eating meat all together. Being a vegan is a choice that nobody is forcing on anyone.

 

[Jarhyn]

It would be great if we didn't eat meat, but we did evolve to get a lot of our protein from animals and it would be hard to keep a pet dog as a vegan as they are primarily meat eaters, being so closely related to wolves. We could all decrease our consumption of meat and support more humane ways of raising and killing the animals that we eat. That would help not only the animals but our own environment along with other animals species who's habitats our bad habits are helping destroy.

An awful lot of the earth's surface is currently used for raising meat animals and the plants we feed to meat animals. If we didn't eat meat, or if we all decreased our consumption of it, then an awful lot of land would be freed up for other purposes. What do you think we should do with it? Turn it into lawns, perhaps?

It could be given back to the wildlife that we took it from, and we could certainly use more parks and nature sanctuaries.

Yeah, that's what I thought. I'm thoroughly familiar with the morality that says it's bad for a human to kill and eat a chicken but it's good for a human to help a fox kill and eat a chicken; I just don't understand it.

So many animals are endangered due to our actions. If we let things go back to nature, the air would likely be cleaner and some endangered animals could thrive again. I never said we had to stop eating meat. I said we should cut back on our consumption of meat, not only to help the planet, but we would likely be healthier too, statistically speaking. Surely you know that eating a lot of beef is a big risk factor for heart disease. So, what would you suggest we do with all of that land?

Oh, I'm all over letting it go back to nature, but then I don't think it would be great if we didn't eat meat. Predators are a part of nature; without them the suffering in nature would be worse; and if we're going to allow predators I don't see why we shouldn't be one of them.

Once more....I never said we shouldn't eat any meat. I said we should eat less meat.

Maybe we should go back to doing more hunting and eating deer. In many places, there is a huge over population of deer and deer do a lot of damage to plants and sometimes even wander into farm areas. While there are ways to keep the deer population down, I see nothing wrong with killing and eating deer meat, aka venison, as long as the hunting is done correctly so that the deer die quickly and none are left to die slowly while suffering. I have only eaten deer meat once in my life and I didn't care for it, but then I'm not crazy about beef, lamb or pork, other than organically raised pork tenderloin, which I haven't eaten in about a year. I only buy humanely raised chicken to eat, and I usually prefer tofu when I'm out eating Asian food if that's an option. I do eat fish about twice a week. I'll say it again. We simply need to cut back on our consumption of meat, especially red meat, not stop eating meat all together. Being a vegan is a choice that nobody is forcing on anyone.

Tofu, especially the former kind fried well, is so good.

The Thai place near us has Tofu of the kind I like, though they tend to have a really hard time being consistent on the whole "try to make me cry, please; seriously, tell the guy in back 'as spice as they will make it'."

I liked an Agedashi Tofu dish near where we used to live, too, but they closed up shop when the chef got bored.

It was my favorite dish of all time.

The only meat I really actually like, that I would choose every time, is fish. I love fish. Sushi, fried, baked... Salmon especially. Sorry fishes, but imma eat you. Squids too. Not octopus tho.

 

[southernhybrid]

I love Thai food with tofu as well. It's the protein I always choose when we eat Thai food out. I also love

salmon and it's the one thing we make that my fussy grandson likes as well, so if we invite the family

for dinner, it will be for salmon. Although I'm not a fan of beef, my husband makes a fantastic beef and

broccoli stir fry with beef tenderloin that I will eat. I will only eat beef about once a week and never in a

restaurant.

 

[Bomb#20]

Once more....I never said we shouldn't eat any meat. I said we should eat less meat.

Sounds like we're all on the same page then; I only took exception to the "It would be great if we didn't eat meat" bit.

I do eat fish about twice a week.

Arctic char, mmm!

 

[bilby]

In many ways, humans are the worst animals on earth

Indeed. We are terrible at most of the things we attempt. We can barely swim at all, need mechanical assistance with flying and burrowing, and are fairly poorly camouflaged. Bees and ants are FAR better at cooperation; Most large mammals are physically stronger; And we don't even cope well with exposure to sunlight.

But we are quite accomplished at endurance running, throwing projectiles, and thinking things through. Most of us never really do any of those things though, despite having evolved to fit that set of niches.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

There is no morality or ethics in the food chain.

Ok, so we should not use any technology. It's unnatural, and according to this argument, we should go by what is natural. Better get off this forum and the internet then. And I hope you like eating totally raw meat, and biting directly into an animal carcass. It is the natural state of things. Oh, and you can't use human languages either, so don't even bother replying, unless it's a grunt.

I think you are trying to say something, but it's not coming through.

Well it should be pretty obvious what I'm getting at given I literally wrote it out.

What you have written is an obvious non sequitur.

What you are making is an obvious appeal to nature to fallacy. If you're so into logic, fucking look it up. And ultimately there's no logical reason we should base our actions on nature.

 

[pood]

There is no morality or ethics in the food chain.

Ok, so we should not use any technology. It's unnatural, and according to this argument, we should go by what is natural. Better get off this forum and the internet then. And I hope you like eating totally raw meat, and biting directly into an animal carcass. It is the natural state of things. Oh, and you can't use human languages either, so don't even bother replying, unless it's a grunt.

I think you are trying to say something, but it's not coming through.

Well it should be pretty obvious what I'm getting at given I literally wrote it out.

What you have written is an obvious non sequitur.

What you are making is an obvious appeal to nature to fallacy. If you're so into logic, fucking look it up. And ultimately there's no logical reason we should base our actions on nature.

All he said was that there are is no morality or ethics in the food chain, which is true. Where did he say anything about basing our actions on nature?

If you think he was saying that humans should therefore have no morality or ethics with respect to food consumption, I didn’t infer that.

 

[pood]

Leaned a new word today. Not a new topic historically .

Speciesism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Speciesism (/ˈspiːʃiːˌzɪzəm, -siːˌzɪz-/) is a term used in philosophy regarding the treatment of individuals of different species. The term has several different definitions.[1] Some specifically define speciesism as discrimination or unjustified treatment based on an individual's species membership,[2][3][4] while others define it as differential treatment without regard to whether the treatment is justified or not.[5][6] Richard D. Ryder, who coined the term, defined it as "a prejudice or attitude of bias in favour of the interests of members of one's own species and against those of members of other species".[7] Speciesism results in the belief that humans have the right to use non-human animals in exploitative ways which is pervasive in the modern society.[8][9][10] Studies from 2015 and 2019 suggest that people who support animal exploitation also tend to have intersectional bias that encapsulates and endorses racist, sexist, and other prejudicial views, which furthers the beliefs in human supremacy and group dominance to justify systems of inequality and oppression.[11][12]

As a term, speciesism first appeared during a protest against animal experimentation in 1970. Philosophers and animal rights advocates state that speciesism plays a role in the animal–industrial complex,[13][14] including in the practice of factory farming, animal slaughter, blood sports (such as bullfighting, cockfighting and rodeos), the taking of animals' fur and skin, and experimentation on animals,[15][16][17] as well as the refusal to help animals suffering in the wild due to natural processes,[18][19] and the categorization of certain animals as alien, non-naturalized, feral and invasive giving then the justification to their killing or culling based on these classifications.[20]

Notable proponents of the concept include Peter Singer, Oscar Horta, Steven M. Wise, Gary L. Francione, Melanie Joy, David Nibert, Steven Best, and Ingrid Newkirk. Among academics, the ethics, morality, and concept of speciesism has been the subject of substantial philosophical debate.[26] Carl Cohen, Nel Noddings, Bernard Williams, Peter Staudenmaier, Christopher Grau, Douglas Maclean, Roger Scruton, Thomas Wells, and Robert Nozick have criticized the term or elements of it.

All critters and plants and microbial life can and do at ti9es exploit other forms of life.

If it is untactful to exploit other species for our benefit, exactly where is that ethics written?

I have watched video Orca's hunting seals on floating ice. Group hunting.

Some dolphins have learned to herd fish into shallow water where they then have a feast,

Grizzlies are territorial.

Wolves hunting in collaborative groups.


Why should we be considered any different?

The question goes to what ethics and morality are, and the basis for it.

The basis is intersubjective human consensus that some activities are wrong or harmful. Humans have the ability to inject ethics into their role in the food chain.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

There is no morality or ethics in the food chain.

Ok, so we should not use any technology. It's unnatural, and according to this argument, we should go by what is natural. Better get off this forum and the internet then. And I hope you like eating totally raw meat, and biting directly into an animal carcass. It is the natural state of things. Oh, and you can't use human languages either, so don't even bother replying, unless it's a grunt.

I think you are trying to say something, but it's not coming through.

Well it should be pretty obvious what I'm getting at given I literally wrote it out.

What you have written is an obvious non sequitur.

What you are making is an obvious appeal to nature to fallacy. If you're so into logic, fucking look it up. And ultimately there's no logical reason we should base our actions on nature.

All he said was that there are is no morality or ethics in the food chain, which is true. Where did he say anything about basing our actions on nature?

If you think he was saying that humans should therefore have no morality or ethics with respect to food consumption, I didn’t infer that.

Cool, then it's entirely irrelevant, if it has nothing to do whatsoever with how we should behave. The OP's topic, by the way, was about how we should behave.

 

[pood]

There is no morality or ethics in the food chain.

Ok, so we should not use any technology. It's unnatural, and according to this argument, we should go by what is natural. Better get off this forum and the internet then. And I hope you like eating totally raw meat, and biting directly into an animal carcass. It is the natural state of things. Oh, and you can't use human languages either, so don't even bother replying, unless it's a grunt.

I think you are trying to say something, but it's not coming through.

Well it should be pretty obvious what I'm getting at given I literally wrote it out.

What you have written is an obvious non sequitur.

What you are making is an obvious appeal to nature to fallacy. If you're so into logic, fucking look it up. And ultimately there's no logical reason we should base our actions on nature.

All he said was that there are is no morality or ethics in the food chain, which is true. Where did he say anything about basing our actions on nature?

If you think he was saying that humans should therefore have no morality or ethics with respect to food consumption, I didn’t infer that.

Cool, then it's entirely irrelevant, if it has nothing to do whatsoever with how we should behave. The OP's topic, by the way, was about how we should behave.

Then you should address your objections to Steve.

 

[Bronzeage]

There is no morality or ethics in the food chain.

Ok, so we should not use any technology. It's unnatural, and according to this argument, we should go by what is natural. Better get off this forum and the internet then. And I hope you like eating totally raw meat, and biting directly into an animal carcass. It is the natural state of things. Oh, and you can't use human languages either, so don't even bother replying, unless it's a grunt.

I think you are trying to say something, but it's not coming through.

Well it should be pretty obvious what I'm getting at given I literally wrote it out.

What you have written is an obvious non sequitur.

What you are making is an obvious appeal to nature to fallacy. If you're so into logic, fucking look it up. And ultimately there's no logical reason we should base our actions on nature.

I think this is less of a logic problem and more of a reading comprehension problem. It's plain to see you do not understand my original post and I freely admit I don't see any sense in your response.