Sunday School

Sunday School 30th January 2022

This topic contains 92 replies, has 9 voices, and was last updated by  TheEncogitationer 3 months ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 61 through 75 (of 93 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #41111

    Unseen
    Participant

    @jake

    Why not open a vegetarian discussion? I don’t see your points as having any bearing here other than as a distraction. I will argue that meat is the most natural protein source and that because of that, there is no real ethical issue with eating meat. You argue whatever the heck you want in support of eating beans.

    Rather than sprinkle contempt throughout your rebuttals, you might start providing evidence and links. Any reason for not doing that?

    I’m aware of the unclean hands concept in law. We’re not in court. This is a philosophical discussion where an argument to ignore someone alleged to have unclean hands is a fallacious distraction, an attempt to not even consider the validity of THEIR  argument.

    Let’s consider your example: “So for instance a priest may rail against coveting your neighbor’s wife in his sermons while molesting little girls and having an affair with the wife of a church goer.” How does that in any way invalidate his anti-molestation arguments? Explain, please. The arguments are the same whether delivered by a hypocrite or righteous person and need to be considered apart from that. I mean, if truth is any consideration.

    It is easier to get all of the needed amino acids by eating animal protein. To get it in plant protein, you need to work at it. Quinoa contains all the needed proteins, if you want to eat quinoa. Not me. Otherwise, you need to eat a variety of vegetables. Well, not everyone finds a variety of vegetables all that appetizing, meaning that for them staying healthy that way is an unnatural struggle.

    I’m aware that vegetarians tend to be overall healthier than the rest, but isn’t that largely due to the fact that they obsess about health and diet more than other people do? The rest of us let ourselves spend more time thinking about things other than our diet. I suspect vegetarians exercise at a greater rate as well. Is that a crazy notion?

    You claim, falsely I believe, that it is illegal for owners to kill their horses. Got a citation?

    What is true that a law banning slaughtering horses for human consumption went into effect in 2008. However, not illegal, is sending horses outside the U.S. for slaughter. Got a rebuttal for that? Here’s my source.

    Food animals are a crop. This is their only reason for existing. Unless, of course, God has other plans for them. Horses are never raised as food, at least on a commercial scale.

    But, like I said, perhaps we need an actual forum topic on the subject of vegetarianism, meat eating, etc.

    • This reply was modified 3 months, 1 week ago by  Unseen.
    #41113

    jakelafort
    Participant

    Unseen, i would be happy to participate in a discussion concerning vegetarianism but i have no intention of initiating one.

    Meat is indeed a natural source of protein. So are plants. Are you seriously going to argue that being the most natural source of protein is a sufficient basis to justify the slaughter of billions of animals? That alone negates any ethical considerations?

    I did not bring up the unclean hands doctrine as a distraction or way to ignore your arguments. On the contrary i have conceded that horse racing has serious ethical issues. I brought it up as a point of interest and as a juxtaposition to the fallacy you mentioned.

    My priest hypothetical stands for the proposition you have rightly indicated. The thing in itself is an issue irrespective of the speaker. So is the hypocrisy of the priest.

    I agree that nutrition and causation is a highly complex subject. I have read some scholarly articles that clued me into how tenuous the issue of causation is. On the other hand the evidence i have read leads me at least to believe that no meat or minimal meat diets with lots of veggies is the best way to live longer and avoid all kinds of disease.

    I apparently misunderstood the law as to an owner killing a horse. They can kill it but not sell it for meat. I knew a law had passed that had addressed the issue in USA. There are also i believe individual states that have passed cruelty to animals legislation that may apply.

    You wrote: Food animals are a crop. This is their only reason for existing. Unless, of course, God has other plans for them. Horses are never raised as food, at least on a commercial scale.

    That is harsh. When humans arbitrarily categorize and characterize oppressed as rightly having their low station then they feel justified in…fill in the blank…The enemy is subhuman so raping Gooks is ok. Jews are Untermensch and extermination is the way to handle them. Armenians are the same to Turks and on an on in war and genocide. Many slave owners looked at their chattel the same way. Natives in Canada in those Nazi Christian schools were seen in that light by their oppressors.

    #41121

    TheEncogitationer
    Participant

    Jake,

    The hunter in that Powder scene did indeed do the wrong thing there in gloating over the deer. Any shot to the center mass of the animal should be followed by a head-shot to end the animal’s suffering and ideally, the head shot should be the first and last. This is also consistent with self-defense shooting.

    The U.S. Marine motto goes one ztep further: “One Shot, One Kill.”

    Also, the comparison of race horses to Olympic Athletes is faulty. Olympoc Athletes of nations that have some value of freedom do their training and sport volitionally and for rewards like Gold, Silver, and Bronze Medals, showing up the stupid Nazi tyrants like Jesse Owens did in 1936, rubbing the noses of Soviet tyrants in it like the U.S. Hockey Team did in 1980, Wheaties promotional pay like Caitlin Jenner did in another iteration in 1976, and numerous other personal human motives.

    I reject your suggestion that justifies hunting/killing an animal if it has utility for humans. Plains Indians and bison? ok. But fat bastards who want to kill bambi and have all they need and then some? not for my money.

    So, you’re saying you support Affirmative Action Fat Bastardry (is “bastardry” even a word?) and presumably Affirmative Action for all the ill health affects you attribute to meat? That doesn’t make your position any more logically tenable or desireable.

    Whales have been hunted nearly to extinction and their carcasses had varied applications for human benefit. That fact does not justify taking their lives.

    The whales were saved from extinction because humans discovered they could substitute petroleum and its many derivatives for whale blubber as fuel, and as a reult, got much more versatile and efficiently used fuel to boot.

    Perhaps that is the route Vegans should go if they want more adherants. If I could get the exact nutrition of meat fed into my body and the exact taste and texture of meat implanted in my brain without ill effects, I’m game for that.

    I am not gonna sugar coat horse racing and say there are no moral issues. There are. On the other hand it is not equitable to lump all issues of animal rights without contemplating the nature and severity of the issues.

    One thing I’ve noticed about discussions of human rights versus “animal rights” is this: When people speak of human rights, they mean rights for all humams, regardless of “race,” “ethnicity,” national origin,,sex, gender, orientation, handicap, religion, politics, or other irrelevant traits.

    No one, however, speaks of “animal rights” to include rights for pythons, tarantulas, aphids, or hookworms. “Animal rights” are only for animals with some kind of sentimental attachment for human beings or which are easily anthropomorphized.

    Judging from the Austin Powers character, the real Fat Bastard is more interested in indiscriminate consumption without even race winnings or a vanity trophy to show for it. This guy is neither fish nor fowl on the question of rights:

    • This reply was modified 3 months, 1 week ago by  TheEncogitationer. Reason: Italics and elimination of redundancy
    • This reply was modified 3 months, 1 week ago by  TheEncogitationer. Reason: I made space, ate the '8's, and eyed the 'i's
    #41124

    Unseen
    Participant

    Unseen, i would be happy to participate in a discussion concerning vegetarianism but i have no intention of initiating one. Meat is indeed a natural source of protein. So are plants. Are you seriously going to argue that being the most natural source of protein is a sufficient basis to justify the slaughter of billions of animals? That alone negates any ethical considerations?

    You seem to be making a false distinction of animals and non-animals with humans being non-animals. In nature, creatures eat other creatures. For us to eat some creatures and not others is not exceptional in nature.

    I did not bring up the unclean hands doctrine as a distraction or way to ignore your arguments. On the contrary i have conceded that horse racing has serious ethical issues. I brought it up as a point of interest and as a juxtaposition to the fallacy you mentioned.

    How do you define distraction?

    My priest hypothetical stands for the proposition you have rightly indicated. The thing in itself is an issue irrespective of the speaker. So is the hypocrisy of the priest.

    I’ve addressed this already.

    I agree that nutrition and causation is a highly complex subject. I have read some scholarly articles that clued me into how tenuous the issue of causation is. On the other hand the evidence i have read leads me at least to believe that no meat or minimal meat diets with lots of veggies is the best way to live longer and avoid all kinds of disease.

    As I said, maybe the health benefits evident in the vegetarian “lifestyle” (obsession?) aren’t attributable to just eating lots of veggies, but are more due to an exercise involving more exercise, maintiaining a healthy weight, etc., and not just the diet. In fact, perhaps ironically, has lilttle at all to do with their food choices other than avoiding processed food, overly salty foods, overly fatty foods, and so on.

    I apparently misunderstood the law as to an owner killing a horse. They can kill it but not sell it for meat. I knew a law had passed that had addressed the issue in USA. There are also i believe individual states that have passed cruelty to animals legislation that may apply.

    Yes you did, people in Canada, Mexico and elsewhere eat horsemeat bought from American horse owners, including race course owners.

    You wrote: Food animals are a crop. This is their only reason for existing. Unless, of course, God has other plans for them. Horses are never raised as food, at least on a commercial scale. That is harsh. When humans arbitrarily categorize and characterize oppressed as rightly having their low station then they feel justified in…fill in the blank…The enemy is subhuman so raping Gooks is ok. Jews are Untermensch and extermination is the way to handle them. Armenians are the same to Turks and on an on in war and genocide. Many slave owners looked at their chattel the same way. Natives in Canada in those Nazi Christian schools were seen in that light by their oppressors.

    Definition of anthropomorphism: Anthropomorphism is a literary device that can be defined as a technique in which a writer ascribes human traits, ambitions, emotions, or entire behaviors to animals, non-human beings, natural phenomena, or objects.

    You know, I love my cat, but I harbor no illusion that were she in nature, she’d be out killing small animals and birds. As it is, cute little chickens and lambs and other animals are slaughtered to make her cat food. I suppose I should feel terrible about that.

     

    • This reply was modified 3 months ago by  Unseen.
    • This reply was modified 3 months ago by  Unseen.
    #41128

    jakelafort
    Participant

    Enco,

    The point of the Powder link is to awaken fat bastards to the reality of the suffering of animals. That bald electric guy used his powers to make the fat bastard feel what the deer was feeling as he lay dying. I agree it is better to eliminate/reduce suffering of the victim but disagree that alone justifies the execution.

    I did not compare olympic athletes and horses except to illustrate the shared drive to compete.

    You wrote…So, you’re saying you support Affirmative Action Fat Bastardry (is “bastardry” even a word?) and presumably Affirmative Action for all the ill health affects you attribute to meat? That doesn’t make your position any more logically tenable or desireable.

    No clue what you are getting at. Sorry but i left my crystal ball at my neighbor’s place.

    You wrote: The whales were saved from extinction because humans discovered they could substitute petroleum and its many derivatives for whale blubber as fuel, and as a reult, got much more versatile and efficiently used fuel to boot.

    Perhaps that is the route Vegans should go if they want more adherants. If I could get the exact nutrition of meat fed into my body and the exact taste and texture of meat implanted in my brain without ill effects, I’m game for that.

    I am glad to know you will be a consumer of lab grown meat. As to nutrition you have a great deal to learn. I do as well but in the land of the blind the one eyed man is king. Sorry for that cliche. BTW REG linked some pretty simple and informative links about nutrition in one of his recent posts.

    More Enco: One thing I’ve noticed about discussions of human rights versus “animal rights” is this: When people speak of human rights, they mean rights for all humams, regardless of “race,” “ethnicity,” national origin,,sex, gender, orientation, handicap, religion, politics, or other irrelevant traits.

    No one, however, speaks of “animal rights” to include rights for pythons, tarantulas, aphids, or hookworms. “Animal rights” are only for animals with some kind of sentimental attachment for human beings or which are easily anthropomorphized.

    The all humans part of human rights is a modern development. Historically we were not all human so our rights were not extended to all.

    That is not a terrible point you’ve made about animals and their protection being tied into their sentimental attachment. Cats and dogs are an example of pets who are by many of us treated like gold while the livestock that are on a par are slaughtered in numbers that make the holocaust look like a day’s work and fucked over lifelong and we mostly do not give a crap. But the attachment is also because the animals close to us have personalities and we relate to them. I don’t think there is much of that in worms and spiders. It is also true as fellow mammals that there is a consanguinity that is more deeply felt. The easy/peezy lemon squeezy of enabling suffering of animals is the anthropomorphic card. I reject it. It is a residue of religion seeping into the greater culture in which humans are posited as special creation and animals are for our exploitation. If you have mammals as pets and or you read about animal behavior you will realize how wrong it is to dismiss their value and likeness by falsely relegating them to status of religious others. Evolution would not make much sense if there were a jump between species that was so great that the sense of self and the experiences were unrecognizable between cousins.

    #41129

    jakelafort
    Participant

    Unseen, as to your first point i thought you said this is a philosophical discussion. Being natural being tantamount to ethical would negate ethics.

    How do i define distraction? The following i got from a dic. def…a thing that prevents someone from giving full attention to something else. I am good with that definition. Were i writing a brief or doing scholarly work i would adhere to the required format. But i perceive this forum as a place to exchange ideas challenge ourselves and others and entertain. As such it is interesting to have ideas lead to ideas to ideas to ideas…

    You wrote: Yes you did, people in Canada, Mexico and elsewhere eat horsemeat bought from American horse owners, including race course owners.

    Most race horses upon retirement go to the owner’s farm or are adopted as riding horses or sometimes used in dressage. The owners who sell and know the reality that the horses will end up in slaughterhouses are muther fuckerz. That is not indicative of the sentiments of a great many and i dear say majority of horse people who are aghast at that outcome.

    You wrote: You know, I love my cat, but I harbor no illusion that were she in nature, she’d be out killing small animals and birds. As it is, cute little chickens and lambs and other animals are slaughtered to make her cat food. I suppose I should feel terrible about that.

    You are correct. Nature is indifferent to suffering.

    #41130

    jakelafort
    Participant

    Just had an impossible burger from Costco. Yeah the onions tomato and pickle souped it up. Even so tasted indistinguishable from the real thing. Although maybe it has been so long that i forgot how it should taste.

    Any of you had it? If so, opinion?

    #41131

    I recently had the meatless one from TGI Friday’s and it was very good. Tasty and reasonably priced. I would prefer it anytime over a processed meat one. I was impressed even more given that I was in Newark airport at the time! I think it is also called “The impossible burger”, unless that is a generic name rather than a trademark. I can’t think of a valid reason why a regular meat eater would not be satisfied with one. It is also easier to digest.

    I have heard good reports about the Costco one from a carnivore who is considering vegetarianism. I will try it in April.

     

     

    #41132

    jakelafort
    Participant

    Just checked Reg and TGI Friday has the beyond meat burger which is also vegan. Have had that one and it is decent but i prefer impossible burger. Burger King carries it and calls it has an impossible whopper. No lie there.

    Having turned veggie it is really cool to have an i can’t tell the difference burger. Even if i changed course and went back to eating meat i would choose the vegan option since the taste is so similar.

    #41133

    Unseen
    Participant

    Unseen, as to your first point i thought you said this is a philosophical discussion. Being natural being tantamount to ethical would negate ethics.

    Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t get this point. Can anyone explain it to me?

    How do i define distraction? The following i got from a dic. def…a thing that prevents someone from giving full attention to something else. I am good with that definition. Were i writing a brief or doing scholarly work i would adhere to the required format. But i perceive this forum as a place to exchange ideas challenge ourselves and others and entertain. As such it is interesting to have ideas lead to ideas to ideas to ideas…

    “Exchanging ideas” for you apparently means illogical and ad hominem/tu quoque arguments that your opponent is a hypocrite. BTW, I plead guilty to the occasional hypocrisy. It’s part of what defines me and all of us as human.

    You wrote: Yes you did, people in Canada, Mexico and elsewhere eat horsemeat bought from American horse owners, including race course owners.

    Most race horses upon retirement go to the owner’s farm or are adopted as riding horses or sometimes used in dressage. The owners who sell and know the reality that the horses will end up in slaughterhouses are muther fuckerz. That is not indicative of the sentiments of a great many and i dear say majority of horse people who are aghast at that outcome.

    You say that but, oh so typically, offer no evidence. Surely there must be some statistics(?). Besides, “most” can mean 51%. Businesses have an obligation to their owners/shareholders to maximize profits. Some horses may be able to pull their weight post-racing, but many won’t. What Is the owner obligated as a capitalist to do then?

    You wrote: You know, I love my cat, but I harbor no illusion that were she in nature, she’d be out killing small animals and birds. As it is, cute little chickens and lambs and other animals are slaughtered to make her cat food. I suppose I should feel terrible about that.

    You are correct. Nature is indifferent to suffering.

    And that is my excuse, I guess.

    #41134

    Unseen
    Participant

    Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:
    I recently had the meatless one from TGI Friday’s and it was very good. Tasty and reasonably priced. I would prefer it anytime over a processed meat one.

    Interesting, ground meat for you is “processed” (I’ll grant that grinding is a kind of process, but how in the world is artificial meat to be regarded as non-processed food?).

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dducpxqvlJc

    I find it ironic that many of the same people who railed and railed against processed food now want us to dump 100% natural beef burgers to adopt a highly-processed food of their choice.

    But, I want to remind y’all that veggie burgers seemingly come already cooked and are only browned/charred for serving. However, people like me like medium or rare burgers. Got anything for us?

    Also, to get your feet back on planet Earth, let me remind you that the meat department of the supermarket is not the Ground Meat Department. What about steak? beef ribs? roasts? stew meat? Granted, a lot of the beef sold ends up as burgers, but far from all of it.

    Then,  what about chicken (I can’t get enough wings)? pork? turkey? and—since I’m a big fan of Middle Eastern food, lamb? Salmon? Cod? Lobster?

    I was impressed even more given that I was in Newark airport at the time! I think it is also called “The impossible burger”, unless that is a generic name rather than a trademark. I can’t think of a valid reason why a regular meat eater would not be satisfied with one.

    I like to bite into a burger and taste blood, so there’s something for your imagination to work on.

    • This reply was modified 3 months ago by  Unseen.
    • This reply was modified 3 months ago by  Unseen.
    #41137

    jakelafort
    Participant

    Unseen, why ask whether anyone can explain it when i wrote it?

    In other words if ethics can be reduced to natural order equals ethical then ethics is a worthless pursuit. It is in areas of exigency and great suffering that ethics is required. Is any system of ethics sensible if it has double standards? Ethics requires reason one would hope. What kind of an ethical system looks the other way when the outcome is self-serving? It is that very poor logic which is used by oppressors to justify the oppression. It is observed in social Darwinism, in slavery, in colonialism.

    You already claimed i used tu quoque and i made a rebuttal which you have not countered. You only claim i have been illogical. How so?

    I question whether such statistics are available. My conclusion is based on tens of thousands of hours devoted to horse racing. I have read countless articles about horse racing and people involved in horse racing and observed owners and trainers at race tracks.

    I would say most owners as capitalists and compassionate humans are very happy to have their steeds adopted. The overhead in keeping a race horse is quite high. So when they no longer can race simply ending the monthly nut by having their charge adopted is a good business/human decision. Retired race horses that end up on farms make the new owners happy. Riding horses are expensive.

    As to hypocrisy i think it is very much a part of being human. It took me a long time to stop eating meat. I was as a child a big time reader and had ideas and thoughts that were fairly atypical and i thought at a young age i should stop eating meat. But i loved it and it took me decades. Even now i continue to eat fish and seafood. I know there is a lot of information about fish intelligence. I refuse to read it. I love fish. So hypocrisy is an autocracy when its interests are not aligned with the maligned.

    #41138

    jakelafort
    Participant

    Unseen, i am not aware of any fake burger that will come out rare unless you undercook it. And i doubt it will be good. But the impossible burger has that taste of blood you seek. It is reasonably juicy.

    #41139

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    Being natural being tantamount to ethical would negate ethics. … Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t get this point. Can anyone explain it to me?

    I have heard some Muslims say that their God is a pragmatic God, i.e., He just says yes to whatever you were going to do anyway.  This is not ethics, it’s just doing whatever we feel like.  Ethics on the other hand is doing the right thing whether we feel like it or not.

    #41140

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    His lies hurt people.

    JP should have chosen a different mascot for his crusade against woke authoritarianism, because that’s what it was, and probably still is (although I don’t follow him on the internet now).  It was never a crusade against transgender rights, or even the pronouns issue.  He/we didn’t understand enough about transgender issues to make a proper stand or statement about any of it.

    Yes, this ignorance, and dragging vulnerable people into an already polarised debate, was wrong.  However, it’s disingenuous to say that JP started it.  This was, or seemed to be at first glance, an occasion when woke authoritarianism put the toe of its jack boot over an acceptable line.

    This self-righteous authoritaranism gives wokeness its bad name.  JP has been right to call it out.

Viewing 15 posts - 61 through 75 (of 93 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.