Webmaster of FSTDT.com is a PETA activist

[Yahweh]

Dunno about that, but steak tastes better...

Wikipedia article on cannibalism:

New York Times reporter William Buehler Seabrook, in the interests of research, obtained from a hospital intern at the Sorbonne a chunk of human meat from the body of a healthy human killed by accident, and cooked and ate it. He reported that, "It was like good, fully developed veal, not young, but not yet beef. It was very definitely like that, and it was not like any other meat I had ever tasted. It was so nearly like good, fully developed veal that I think no person with a palate of ordinary, normal sensitiveness could distinguish it from veal. It was mild, good meat with no other sharply defined or highly characteristic taste such as for instance, goat, high game, and pork have. The steak was slightly tougher than prime veal, a little stringy, but not too tough or stringy to be agreeably edible. The roast, from which I cut and ate a central slice, was tender, and in color, texture, smell as well as taste, strengthened my certainty that of all the meats we habitually know, veal is the one meat to which this meat is accurately comparable."

 

[thaiboxerken]

Christianity. Its a fact that Christianity has profoundly influenced and shaped society, and its values are engrained in people's moral convictions today, even among atheists. The belief that there is a huge chasm seperating animals from humans is a holdover from Christianity. The belief that human interests always take precedence over animals, and that animals are nothing more than a means to achieve human ends, is a nother holdover from Christianity.

Wrong. Humans have always treated other species of animals as non-human due to the fact that the other species ARE NOT HUMAN. This has happened since before recorded history, much longer than christianity or judaism.

None of those beliefs are tied to anything rational, and they aren't defensible, no skeptic should hold those beliefs seriously.

It's entirely rational to treat non-humans differently than humans. Where do YOU draw your line about which animals can be killed or not? Mammals? Insects?

No one takes "potential person" arguments seriously.

An infant is already a person.

- no matter how you spin it, a terminally ill infant will not grow up to be a member of any society, but no one believes that terminally ill infants are should be killed for the hell of it.

I think a terminally ill infant should be euthanized, it's the humane thing to do.

- some people are so severely mentally handicapped that they will never attain the rationality necessary to participate in society, but killing the severely mentally handicapped carries the same moral consequence as killing an actual member of society.

Severly mentally handicapped people serve society in their own ways, whether it's to comfort relatives or as subjects of research, they are still HUMANS that are part of HUMAN society.

- a senial adult loses the capacity for rationality and participation in society, but its wrong to kill them on behalf of rational people.

They are still part of HUMAN society, are they not?

Potential people only have potential rights.

I agree to an extent. However, an infant is already a person.

A beings moral value depends on exactly the characteristics that they have right now, and if its wrong to kill infants, then it must be because they have a claim to moral value right now that doesn't depend on their future participation in society.

I can see where you are coming from, but a cow isn't a person.

So now, we're right back at square one: animals and human infants, having all the same mental and feeling characteristics, have all the same moral characteristics in common, so whats the moral difference between them?

The difference is that they are humans, part of OUR species. That's why we shouldn't kill them. Cows are just dumb animals that taste good.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Wrong. Humans have always treated other species of animals as non-human due to the fact that the other species ARE NOT HUMAN. This has happened since before recorded history, much longer than christianity or judaism.



It's entirely rational to treat non-humans differently than humans. Where do YOU draw your line about which animals can be killed or not? Mammals? Insects?



An infant is already a person.



I think a terminally ill infant should be euthanized, it's the humane thing to do.



Severly mentally handicapped people serve society in their own ways, whether it's to comfort relatives or as subjects of research, they are still HUMANS that are part of HUMAN society.



They are still part of HUMAN society, are they not?



I agree to an extent. However, an infant is already a person.



I can see where you are coming from, but a cow isn't a person.



The difference is that they are humans, part of OUR species. That's why we shouldn't kill them. Cows are just dumb animals that taste good.

Arguing that even if a cow for instance has the same intelligence as a human baby, the cow should not have the same rights simply because it's a cow is nothing more than "human chauvinism" as Carl Sagan would say. It makes about as much sense as saying someone should treat someone of their own race better than someone of another race simply because they're of the same race.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Yes, I'm a human chauvinist. Feel free to demonstrate why or how it's wrong.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Yes, I'm a human chauvinist. Feel free to demonstrate why or how it's wrong.

Because you're basing how you treat individuals on their species and not on what actually matters, their ability to appreciate how you're treating them.

If scientists engineered a dolphin to be as smart as a human being would you treat the dolphin worse than you threat humans simply because it's a dolphin? Why? Just because it's not a dolphin? Your mentality is similar to that of racists. Even when proven that those of other races have the same thoughts and feelings and intelligence as anyone else of their race, they still prefer to treat them lower simply because they aren't the same race.

We should treat other species based on how they can or can't appreciate how we treat them. If they are ants for instance and have little or no comprehension of anything then we should care less about how we treat then than we would of a dog or a cat or a dolphin for instance. Saying "It doesn't matter how smart something is, if it's not human then I don't care" simply makes no sense from a biological standpoint.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Because you're basing how you treat individuals on their species and not on what actually matters, their ability to appreciate how you're treating them.

Species does matter.

If scientists engineered a dolphin to be as smart as a human being would you treat the dolphin worse than you threat humans simply because it's a dolphin? Why? Just because it's not a dolphin? Your mentality is similar to that of racists. Even when proven that those of other races have the same thoughts and feelings and intelligence as anyone else of their race, they still prefer to treat them lower simply because they aren't the same race.

Except that dolphins aren't as smart as humans. Dolphins haven't really rallied for equal rights either.

We should treat other species based on how they can or can't appreciate how we treat them.

So.. based on intelligence?

If they are ants for instance and have little or no comprehension of anything then we should care less about how we treat then than we would of a dog or a cat or a dolphin for instance. Saying "It doesn't matter how smart something is, if it's not human then I don't care" simply makes no sense from a biological standpoint.

Do you apply this reasoning to humans as well? Is it ok to kick a baby if it really doesn't understand what's going on?

 

[delphi_ote]

Species does matter.

Why?

 

[thaiboxerken]

Why?

Why not?

 

[Miss Whiplash]

Wikipedia article on cannibalism:

Honey-butter is good, too.

Those poor oppressed bees. Oh, the humanity!

 

[thaiboxerken]

All of those bees, slaves to the human race....

 

[Jeremy]

Since when is morality logical? Is there some magical law determining that everything must be treated "ethically"?
It seems to me that morality is rooted in biology, in which case preference for your own species was obviously advantageous.
So, the difference between a baby and a meal is the natural feelings of protection towards one, and hunger towards the other.

There is no moral imperative, only human psychology.

 

[strathmeyer]

What about it? Are you implying that the horrors of the holocaust is undermined by that comparison? Do you really think its more desirable to be a chicken or veal calf at a slaughterhouse than a Jew or homosexual at a concentration camp?

Nazis needed the flesh of Jews and homosexuals in order to survive, and this had been part of the natural order for thousands of years? Color me shocked!

How come every member of PETA I meet is so bad at common sense?

 

[thaiboxerken]

Somehow, I don't think chickens think about their "holocaust" all that much.

 

[fuelair]

If you truly believe that animals should have the same (or even similar) rights as people, we have nothing further to discuss on that point.
If you believe that supporting only the claimed non-violent part of a group that uses violence against humans/human property because they wuv the widdle animals is o.k., we have nothing further to discuss on that point.
I will temporarily accept - until I have time to check (because either that is wrong - or a similar group has killed and I have mixed them up - because any group that promotes violence against people or property over animal rights deserves elimination) that ALKMA has not killed - but they have committed arson and other assaults and I would still love to see their butts in jail. And if I ever can i.d any of them, I will do my best to get them there.

For those interested in evidence counter to some of the info from what the PETA character(s) above said/say/claim the following might be edifying - and took about 6 minutes to locate/collect:

http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/Ecoterrorism.asp?

LEARN_Cat=Extremism&LEARN_SubCat=Extremism_in_America&xpicked=4&item=eco


http://epw.senate.gov/hearing_statements.cfm?id=237820


http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/2779


http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/2779


http://usconservatives.about.com/b/a/237215.ht


http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002752813_ecoindictments21m.html


http://www.furcommission.com/attack/historical.html (notice 9/12/97 re: PETA member
claim)

 

[delphi_ote]

Why not?

You've asserted that it matters when making an ethical decision. Why does it matter?

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

If only every PETA member I met didn't make stupid comparisons to the Nazis, maybe intelligent discussion would be possible and I might gain an iota of respect of PETA...

Oops, there I go day dreaming .

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Species does matter.

Species does matter as far as intelligence goes in most cases. Some species are more intelligent than others. However you're arguing that humans have some "inherent" right apart from their intelligence that deserves them some differential treatment from the other species. If a dolphin is as smart as a human child then why treat them differently? Just because they are a difference species? How does that have anything to do with the treatment of them? I don't see the connection.

Except that dolphins aren't as smart as humans.

Dolphins have the intelligence of human toddlers.

Dolphins haven't really rallied for equal rights either.

Neither have toddlers.

So.. based on intelligence?

Yes.

Do you apply this reasoning to humans as well? Is it ok to kick a baby if it really doesn't understand what's going on?

I do apply it to humans.

Babies feel pain and thus suffer because of it. I would not kick a baby nor would I kick any other animal as intelligent as a baby.

I used the same reasoning in supporting Terry Schaivo's feeding tubes be removed.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Since when is morality logical? Is there some magical law determining that everything must be treated "ethically"?
It seems to me that morality is rooted in biology, in which case preference for your own species was obviously advantageous.
So, the difference between a baby and a meal is the natural feelings of protection towards one, and hunger towards the other.

There is no moral imperative, only human psychology.

1. You're arguing that since morality is rooted in biology that there is no imperative to refrain from causing pain to others of another species. This also means that there is no moral imperative to refrain from hurting individuals of the same species. So why try to stop people who do? Why bother? If some psychopath has no feeling of protection towards a toddler then is his decision to murder the toddler justified? Would you argue that?
2. Many people do have natural feelings to prevent harm towards other species, so if the only justification for preventing harm to someone of the same species is the "feelings" then that would apply to the feelings people have to protect other species.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

For the record, I don't believe that any other species should have the same rights as humans. I believe that the "rights" of life should be determined by the individuals ability to appreciate it's rights. A dolphin isn't smart enough to appreciate the right to speech or the right to vote and therefore should not be afforded that right. However a dolphin is smart enough to appreciate not being tortured or slaughtered and should be afforded that right. If you try to prevent a dolphin from voting then the dolphin won't know the difference. But if you try to hurt a dolphin then it will immediately know the difference.


P.S., I don't support P.E.T.A either. I support "Prevention of cruelty to animals" but not the organization known as "PETA".

 

[Babbylonian]

Oh, please stop with the dolphin nonsense. While it's interesting that a dolphin might have the same measurable intelligence as a human toddler, it's yet another irrelevant argument. The human toddler will only be an infant/toddler for, what, 4 years out of a 70+-year lifespan? The dolphin, on the other hand, is maxed out intelligence-wise. It's never going to work on differential equations and it's never going to work on cures for dolphin diseases.

I'm all for nature, it being the foundation for our existence, but that includes my nature of enjoying using meat to nourish myself. Until cows can figure out how to either a) protect themselves from being killed by humans and/or b) not be so tasty, I'm going to continue enjoying beef in its many forms. The same goes for pigs, chickens, shrimp, deer, lobster, salmon, sheep, etc. - and, yes, that would include dolphins if I found out they tasted good in addition to being mildly entertaining...