long interesting article in nytimes about animal rights

Samsa · 11-10-2002, 06:27 AM

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/10/ma...&ex=1037884270

interesting what he sas and i agree with him to a certain extent, but it still....you know. different people have different reasons for not eating meat. and he sort of lightly goes over the 'moral' like 'improving your soul' aspect...he basically says it's selfish and not the best thing for domesticated animals which may or may not be true. i mean that farm that salatin guy has, it would basically you know...i mean i don't see why the slaughter is an integral part to the working on the farm. maybe to the economic aspect but i don't see it as morally necessary or whatever. yeah. but it hink when it gets down to eating 'humanely-farmed' meat and just not eating meat it's more about like moral or personal ideas of morality i guess. and that salatin guy maintains animals don't have soulds. which is a whole other argument.

Undone · 11-10-2002, 01:49 PM

I am not sure if any of us have souls, but I'm also not sure why so many people think a god is necessary to treat others with respect?

It's like the lower rung of morality, to do things so you will be rewarded/not be punished. Eh I guess I should read the article. But later. B/c I'm not in the mood for it right now ;D.

Samsa · 11-10-2002, 09:50 PM

i think you're simplifying the issue by turning it into a 'reward/punishment' thing. but i'm not going to argue with people who. nevermind. not all religious bases for things are 'reward/punishment'-based. there's a much deeper feeling to it which at the present moment i'm not up for trying to analyze on my own or even think. i'm not going to think deeply or try to explain ti because it takes too much thought and i'm tired. but i don't see why....why you assume that it's causative and not correlative. i guess that's the issue. but maybe not i'm not thinking right now.

Undone · 11-10-2002, 10:32 PM

It was merely a thought on what I've experienced many times as an attitude. Not necessarily applying it to everyone. And anyway, apologies for it being off topic. Moving on.

I'm skimming, and I recall this as the article that is ruthless on Singer and severely butchers an idea in animal rights in comparing the intelligence of mentally challenged people and other animals. I mean it is overall better than nothing. A good start, but I wish it wasn't a book review for a book that came out quite a while ago.

Undone · 11-10-2002, 10:39 PM

I'm reading it more intently now, and I do think it has more insightful views than I was expecting, though I'm not sure if most Americans' attention spans can handle it. Non-"animal people" writing on the topic are usually given more credit, so I'm glad this particular guy wrote it.

Undone · 11-11-2002, 12:35 AM

And I totally agree with you in asking why slaughter has to be present on a farm, and it doesn't. www.farmsanctuary.com Since he goes on a huge blah blah blah thing about keeping the species alive, that's how to do it while not consuming their flesh. And that little point about the plows grinding up field mice annoyed me so much. Gah. 16 lbs of grain per 1 lb of cow right? So more field mice would be ground up that way than by just eating the grain. I can't believe that was even made into a point. At the very least it was an argument I'd NEVER heard before.

Samsa · 11-11-2002, 02:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Undone
It was merely a thought on what I've experienced many times as an attitude. Not necessarily applying it to everyone. And anyway, apologies for it being off topic. Moving on.

I'm skimming, and I recall this as the article that is ruthless on Singer and severely butchers an idea in animal rights in comparing the intelligence of mentally challenged people and other animals. I mean it is overall better than nothing. A good start, but I wish it wasn't a book review for a book that came out quite a while ago.

well he uses...i don't know. he used the utilitarian argument that if you wouldn't kill a retarded orphan why would you kill a pig. except he...you know he then mentioned 'but of course mill said it's okay to kill retards' and he also told us that mill believes it's okay to eat animals as long as the happiness outweighs the unhappiness basically, the article is actually imo quite revolutionary. it's a proponent of old-style farms as the more humane way to go about it. and i don't know. like he even admitted utilitarianism is sort of sketchy but he didn't bother to...you know. like he said it's wrong to kill retarded children no matter what the utility of it is. so exactly how, knowing mill says you can kill retards, can he still defend the 'utilitarian' farm?

Hillzy · 11-11-2002, 05:39 AM

Thanks for posting that Suze, it was an interesting read. It made me question some of my ideas a bit actually.

Samsa · 11-11-2002, 11:18 AM

well i e-maied my mum cuz she be the one who e-mailed the link to me, and she told her that u know, cows and chickens produce eggs and milkl but all pigs produce is meat and that's the only reason for their existence, so basically...like in the article it said 'if all the world were jewish no pigs were exist' and the author and that salatin guy use that reasoning to say since meat is the only reason pigs exist it's okay to eat them as long as you treat them humanely. which i dunno. i mean. i guess that's true but that's only if you view it from one perspective...i guess the 'humane' perspective but there's still the 'i don't want to eat flesh' perspective...you know. i mean death is never nice and i wouldn't want to wish it on pigs. and the whole world isn't jewish and pigs do exist...if that makes any sense.

Samsa · 11-11-2002, 01:07 PM

also what about that argument that veganism kills more animals because of the tractors cutting up field mice etc? for one i have trouble with that statistic in the first place. for one i doubt veganism would cause much more cultivation of fields...well would it? i don't know what people would supplant their diet with but i doubt it would be 100% wheat. plus, you know. you're going to kill animals no matter what you do. maybe that's an argument against vegetarianism but i don't think it is -- i mean for one thing, isn't there a difference between purposefully and consciously causing harm and harm resulting from basically uncontrollable conditions?

11-10-2002, 06:27 AM	#1
Samsa Banned Location: A theater near you Posts: 7,929	long interesting article in nytimes about animal rights http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/10/ma...&ex=1037884270 interesting what he sas and i agree with him to a certain extent, but it still....you know. different people have different reasons for not eating meat. and he sort of lightly goes over the 'moral' like 'improving your soul' aspect...he basically says it's selfish and not the best thing for domesticated animals which may or may not be true. i mean that farm that salatin guy has, it would basically you know...i mean i don't see why the slaughter is an integral part to the working on the farm. maybe to the economic aspect but i don't see it as morally necessary or whatever. yeah. but it hink when it gets down to eating 'humanely-farmed' meat and just not eating meat it's more about like moral or personal ideas of morality i guess. and that salatin guy maintains animals don't have soulds. which is a whole other argument.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

11-10-2002, 01:49 PM	#2
Undone Apocalyptic Poster Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 1,335	I am not sure if any of us have souls, but I'm also not sure why so many people think a god is necessary to treat others with respect? It's like the lower rung of morality, to do things so you will be rewarded/not be punished. Eh I guess I should read the article. But later. B/c I'm not in the mood for it right now ;D.

11-10-2002, 09:50 PM	#3
Samsa Banned Location: A theater near you Posts: 7,929	i think you're simplifying the issue by turning it into a 'reward/punishment' thing. but i'm not going to argue with people who. nevermind. not all religious bases for things are 'reward/punishment'-based. there's a much deeper feeling to it which at the present moment i'm not up for trying to analyze on my own or even think. i'm not going to think deeply or try to explain ti because it takes too much thought and i'm tired. but i don't see why....why you assume that it's causative and not correlative. i guess that's the issue. but maybe not i'm not thinking right now.

11-10-2002, 10:32 PM	#4
Undone Apocalyptic Poster Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 1,335	It was merely a thought on what I've experienced many times as an attitude. Not necessarily applying it to everyone. And anyway, apologies for it being off topic. Moving on. I'm skimming, and I recall this as the article that is ruthless on Singer and severely butchers an idea in animal rights in comparing the intelligence of mentally challenged people and other animals. I mean it is overall better than nothing. A good start, but I wish it wasn't a book review for a book that came out quite a while ago.

11-10-2002, 10:39 PM	#5
Undone Apocalyptic Poster Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 1,335	I'm reading it more intently now, and I do think it has more insightful views than I was expecting, though I'm not sure if most Americans' attention spans can handle it. Non-"animal people" writing on the topic are usually given more credit, so I'm glad this particular guy wrote it.

11-11-2002, 12:35 AM	#6
Undone Apocalyptic Poster Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 1,335	And I totally agree with you in asking why slaughter has to be present on a farm, and it doesn't. www.farmsanctuary.com Since he goes on a huge blah blah blah thing about keeping the species alive, that's how to do it while not consuming their flesh. And that little point about the plows grinding up field mice annoyed me so much. Gah. 16 lbs of grain per 1 lb of cow right? So more field mice would be ground up that way than by just eating the grain. I can't believe that was even made into a point. At the very least it was an argument I'd NEVER heard before.

11-11-2002, 05:39 AM	#8
Hillzy Apocalyptic Poster Location: Posting Rules You may post new threads You may post replies You may post attachments You may edit your posts Posts: 4,184	Thanks for posting that Suze, it was an interesting read. It made me question some of my ideas a bit actually.

11-11-2002, 11:18 AM	#9
Samsa Banned Location: A theater near you Posts: 7,929	well i e-maied my mum cuz she be the one who e-mailed the link to me, and she told her that u know, cows and chickens produce eggs and milkl but all pigs produce is meat and that's the only reason for their existence, so basically...like in the article it said 'if all the world were jewish no pigs were exist' and the author and that salatin guy use that reasoning to say since meat is the only reason pigs exist it's okay to eat them as long as you treat them humanely. which i dunno. i mean. i guess that's true but that's only if you view it from one perspective...i guess the 'humane' perspective but there's still the 'i don't want to eat flesh' perspective...you know. i mean death is never nice and i wouldn't want to wish it on pigs. and the whole world isn't jewish and pigs do exist...if that makes any sense.

11-11-2002, 01:07 PM	#10
Samsa Banned Location: A theater near you Posts: 7,929	also what about that argument that veganism kills more animals because of the tractors cutting up field mice etc? for one i have trouble with that statistic in the first place. for one i doubt veganism would cause much more cultivation of fields...well would it? i don't know what people would supplant their diet with but i doubt it would be 100% wheat. plus, you know. you're going to kill animals no matter what you do. maybe that's an argument against vegetarianism but i don't think it is -- i mean for one thing, isn't there a difference between purposefully and consciously causing harm and harm resulting from basically uncontrollable conditions?