Logic: Sadly lacking on here

[Tycho- Taylor's Version]

Why of course, I also think they should have the same rights as us.

Can I question how you justify this? I ask because Singer is fairly well known for his not-so-generous position on cognitively incapacitated humans.

 

[KrazyKanadian]

Meh, I assume domestic cats are better off in domestic environments.

That's a poor assumption. Also, what does it matter where they are better off. If we wanted to do the whole 'humane' thing, why not give them a chance?

 

[KrazyKanadian]

Fightdonttween is owning Mae in this argument. I enjoyed it.

 

[KrazyKanadian]

They're invasive because they breed like crazy. A feral cat would be lucky to make it 2 years on its own.

Is this some sort of a joke?

Hell, have you never been out of the country? There are plenty of cats and dogs without owners in plenty of places, and they do just fine, and they would also do so here.

 

[Michaelangelo]

That's a poor assumption. Also, what does it matter where they are better off. If we wanted to do the whole 'humane' thing, why not give them a chance?

How is it a poor assumption? A cat's mortality increases under the care of a human. Whereas it doesn't have to fear for accidents, disease and being malnourished.

 

[gabelh]

I avoided your first thread and I should probably avoid this one but goddamn I grow weary of the nonsensical ideals of vegetarians/vegans being bandied about in an effort to make them feel superior to other people. I was a vegetarian for nearly 2 years and I started down that road for two reasons; A.) I was fairly hefty at the time and felt like cutting most of the fat out of my diet was a good idea, B.) I felt pretty bad for factory farmed animals and the way they were treated.

Ultimately, I didn't like the way I felt as a vegetarian and found I was sickly with enough regularity that it was jarring since I was rarely sick previously. I also was working out very regularly - in an effort to curb that whole heftiness thing - but didn't feel like I was ever making appreciable strides in strength or muscle growth. Mostly, though, I just missed meat like you can't imagine. Steaks, bacon, burgers, ribs... succulent, tasty meats.

Do I enjoy the lifestyles of factory farmed animals? No, I do not. How do I reconcile it? Well, there are several measures: First, we are omnivores and are biologically designed for the task of processing nutrients from both plant and animal sources. I feel I physically perform at my optimum when consuming around 1g of protein per lbs. of lean body mass daily. I've tried flexing these numbers a lot over the last 7 years and I genuinely like the way I feel and function keeping my macros for protein in this neighborhood - which is much easier to do with a meat inclusive diet. I would also much rather get my protein from real animal sources rather than synthetic vegetarian/vegan friendly sources which can be comprised from a variety of chemical experiments.

Secondly, I would buy free range, grass fed, happy living every-damn-thing if I could afford it. However, I cannot. The cost differential means I have to make exceptions for things like chickens. Know what's delicious and more ecologically friendly? Red-Bird chicken products. Know what's obscenely expensive to eat in quantities? Red-Bird chicken products. I can't afford the alternatives for every meat/dairy product that I consume and since non-free range poultry isn't treated great and non-roaming dairy cattle isn't treated great I'm not about to start prioritizing one life form over another. I try to buy as much as I can that gives me the good feels for how it was raised but I'm not about to go Jason Sudeikis in Portlandia over it, either.

Thirdly, the last point about animal prioritization. Let's be real, if cows as we know them - just as an example - weren't being farmed for food there would be no cows because they would be brutally murdered and eaten in the wild. Unless people were keeping them as pets, which would be pretty ridiculous unless you were just trying to keep dairy cows around for milk production, which eventually would lead to exactly where we are now. Either way, the purpose for the mass production of these animals is to feed people. Coming from a place where I've tried the non-meat way to consume my macro nutrient needs for what I feel is my optimal physical performance/health, I would rather deal with the ugly truth and balance my ethics with my pocket book on what I buy/eat for food.

Cliffs:
Was a vegetarian for 2 years, didn't care for my overall health or quality of life as it applied to food choices.
I don't struggle with the ethics of farming animals to feed people as I believe animal protein is something the human body handles very well and we're biologically designed to consume it as well as vegetables.
I buy whatever better-lifestyle animal products I can but find the cost to be an impossible hurdle to clear for all of my protein fulfilling animal products.
If not for farming most of these creatures, they'd likely be getting murdered/eaten by other predators until they didn't really exist, any more. Sad day for everyone, imo, and not what I'd call a superior way to die.

 

[Mae]

I am using your own logic. I do not agree with this idea. But you are the one who wants to equate animals to humans, hence I am using the human concept of slavery to show how your logic is flawed. We both discriminate against animals, just in different ways.

I do not think animals are equal to humans. If you still are that confused on this subject, I don't know what to say.

Wait, why do we need people to adopt these animals in the first place? I understand that tame dogs can't really survive in the world (they would be pack animals without a pack), but cats can. Their natural hunting and survival instincts remain intact. People are killing cats because they simply don't want them around.

You have to consider the animals survival instincts and also the environment they will be placed in. Releasing millions of animals will drastically change things. Again, I think it is horrible we kill millions of pets a year. I wish people would educate themselves and stop buying, but rather adopting. But due to peoples ignorance and selfishness, we continue to kill millions of pets every year.

Going back to your idea of equality to humans. You as a human, what would you prefer? Given freedom and the chance to fend for yourself. Or castration and imprisonment, where you are fed.

You don't even have to answer, because the humane answer is freedom. That's why we don't go around neutering poor people.

I agree the animal would prefer to reproduce then to not reproduce. But if doing so caused many more animals to suffer, then we need to look to see if it is worth it. Is losing the ability to reproduce detrimental to the animal? Of course not.

Really? "bred to interact with humans." How can you say with a straight face that this is not slavery? If the animal has free will, why do people keep dogs on leashes? Why do they keep them from going outside? That is not something you do with a free creature. Just because you treat a slave nicely does not mean it isn't slavery.

Dogs have been bred because humans found them particularly useful. That doesn't mean that other animals aren't capable of being domesticated in the same way. Tigers wouldn't serve a useful purpose for us.

It is not slavery. Humans have used dogs to our need, but dogs enjoy living with us, and choose to do so. If you seriously cannot understand the difference between holding a human in slavery against their will, versus keeping a pet that enjoys living with you, then you need more help than I thought...

And people keep their dogs on leashes for a couple of reasons. One, dogs often run when they see another dog, and if they don't have a leash, it is easy for them to get hit by a car and die. Also, dogs may run way ahead on a walk into areas you aren't sure are safe, so you keep the leash.

Then you are contradicting yourself. You have already said you believe that species membership is not relevant and that the ability to feel pain is what gives us the right to live.

The ability to feel pain of course is not the only right to live we have. I basically adopt Singer's preference utilitarian ethical outlook.

 

[Mae]

Can I question how you justify this? I ask because Singer is fairly well known for his not-so-generous position on cognitively incapacitated humans.

The same way Singer does, since he is a preference utilitarian. Just because you lack the ability to feel pain does not mean you have no preferences to be considered. Singer usually is attacked for his view of those in comas, though this is often due to misunderstandings.

 

[Mae]

Fightdonttween is owning Mae in this argument. I enjoyed it.

If by "owning" you mean asking 1000 questions until I explain to him everything in Singer's books and everything about preference utilitarianism, then sure...Every question and objection he has brought up has already been answered (in writing), I just have to sit here and wait for the objections so I can explain why it is not solid reasoning....

 

[CardonaLJ**]

This shit is still around??!!

I thought it've been wastelanded by now.

Oh well back to my regular scheduled shenanigans

 

[casualfan]

Dogs are kept in leashes for the safety of those around them, not the other way around.

 

[Mae]

Dogs are kept in leashes for the safety of those around them, not the other way around.

Yes, this is another solid reason to have leashes.