5 ms·

Do we really need to genocide turkeys every year to celebrate a pockmarked holiday? I'd say a thankful person would be eating something a bit more sustainable

Do we really need to genocide turkeys every year to celebrate a pockmarked holiday? I'd say a thankful person would be eating something a bit more sustainable than a turkey that's been growth-pumped like a lab animal to epic proportions. Where's the thanks in needless slaughter of sentient beings? Are we so daft that we express our thanks for our fortunate circumstances by causing suffering of others?

stirfish 5y ago
>Do we really need to genocide turkeys >genocide >Turkey Ask me how I know you're not Armenian.
missedthecue 5y ago
Do we really need to apply the term genocide to groups that aren't even human? Or is that an emotional appeal? Have you ever met a turkey in real life? Not the wild ones, the domestic breeds. They are so stupid that they will drown in their own water feeder if you don't keep an eye on them.
- codetrotter 5y ago
  > Have you ever met a turkey in real life? Not the wild ones, the domestic breeds. They are so stupid that they will drown in their own water feeder if you don't keep an eye on them. Another reason to not support the meat industry.
- goldenkey 5y ago
  Geno means race and cide means killing. The word does not have any roots in it that are specific to humans. By your logic, we shouldn't care for humans with mental disorders or low intelligence quotients. Are you implying that only smart beings can suffer? If so, back it up. Otherwise you simply are making an appeal to tradition. If we held on to appeals to tradition, we'd still be having Thanksgiving served by our family's slave(s).
- stirfish 5y ago
  >Do we really need to apply the term genocide to groups that aren't even human? No.
  - missedthecue 5y ago
    Then you do not know what a genocide is.
    - stirfish 5y ago
      If genocide to you only means "mass killing", then I can understand where you are coming from. There's no turkey culture being eradicated, no turkey books burned; only food being produced.
      - missedthecue 5y ago
        Every definition of genocide I can find online specially includes the term "people".
        goldenkey 5y ago
        The word genocide literally means racial killing from the latin geno (race) + cide (kill.) It has nothing to do with people except in how it's commonly used. Dictionaries aren't a ground truth or some ultimate reference, they are merely assistive.
        sweenycod 5y ago
        > It has nothing to do with people except in how it's commonly used I have no idea where you got this idea, but I have never read it anywhere. I think you're trying to use a literal translation of parts of a neoclassical compound. Etymology is scarcely _literal_, because words from classical languages like Greek and Latin (and even modern languages such as German) do not always _directly_ translate to English (look up the literal translation of the German word 'brustwarzen' for example). The literal translation from Spanish "de nada" to English is "of nothing" but that is not how language works. Instead, the meaning is translated to "you are welcome." Regardless, 'genocide' is not a Greek word. It is a neoclassical compound that uses with the Greek prefix genos- (race or tribe), and the Latin suffix -caedo (to kill). The word was coined in 1944 by Raphael Lemkin in his book Axis Rule in Occupied Europe where he says it is "a new term and new conception for destruction of nations" (https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml). Neoclassical compounds do not necessarily carry the full context of the sum of their parts and are generally created to have a single meaning. Similarly, Joost Meerlo coined the neologism "menticide" (mind-kill) to which he admitted that he followed the etymology used by the UN to form the legal definition of genocide (see https://www.un.org/ar/preventgenocide/adviser/pdf/osapg_analysis_framework.pdf https://www.un.org/ar/preventgenocide/adviser/pdf/osapg_anal...).
Mikeb85 5y ago
A turkey is merely a substitute good for other foodstuffs. It's not like people wouldn't eat on Thanksgiving if they didn't have a turkey. It's not like they'd go hungry for the next week without all the turkey leftovers...
sweenycod 5y ago
This is an interesting place to bring up the ethics of Thanksgiving given the demographic. However, given my primary avocation is philosophy, I'm interested in how you arrived at the ethical ideology that turkeys are indeed sentient and that they deserve a life devoid of human consumption. I am not a moral relativist and I prefer justified beliefs so I'll give you some context that you missed in your original comment. My wife and I purchase local, farm-raised, organic (free of hormones), free-range poultry and we eat turkey _once per year_. It could be argued that our abstinence of industrial turkey consumption is the ethical way to justify the one I eat on Thanksgiving. The standard treatment of animals is _arguably_ immoral in a lot of cases (certainly not all), but it depends on your view of animal consciousness, the role they play in the advancement of human life, and whether or not we have a moral and ethical duty to protect them. I'm not opposed to having ethical debates, but this seems hardly the place for it if you're interested in _authentic_ and _educated_ dialogue. Your appeal to emotion using (incorrect) words like "genocide" and "needless slaughter" suggest a strong ideology and lack of objectivity, which suggests a disinterest in philosophical pursuit of knowledge. Genocide implies the targeted extinction of a human demographic. Thanksgiving turkeys are raised _to be food_ from the beginning. I don't believe large amounts of people are hunting around for wild turkeys a few days before Thanksgiving. Also, given their role in the US economy, I think that extermination would be bad for capitalism. Bioethics considers the immorality of raising animals for food, but I have not heard of it referred to as genocide by any reputable author. One could argue that since carnivores are not unique to humans it is "natural" and therefore not unethical. Remember, just because you consider something "icky" [doesn't make it immoral](https://www.philosophyetc.net/2004/09/moral-emotions-yuk-factor.html https://www.philosophyetc.net/2004/09/moral-emotions-yuk-fac...). The opposite argument here is that humans are aware of their actions and therefore held to a higher standard. There is nothing objective about this claim since we have no access to the [qualia](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia/) and consciousness of animals.
- palae 5y ago
  Let's suppose that in a country far, far away, there is a holiday called Givingthanks where instead of turkeys, dogs are eaten. Your alter ego in that country could then write the exact same comment than you did, replacing 'turkey' with 'dog'. We would read things like: 'It could be argued that our abstinence of industrial dog consumption is the ethical way to justify the one I eat on Givingthanks' or 'Givingthanks dogs are raised _to be food_ from the beginning'. You don't see anything problematic with that?

stirfish 5y ago

>Do we really need to genocide turkeys >genocide >Turkey Ask me how I know you're not Armenian.

missedthecue 5y ago

Do we really need to apply the term genocide to groups that aren't even human? Or is that an emotional appeal? Have you ever met a turkey in real life? Not the wild ones, the domestic breeds. They are so stupid that they will drown in their own water feeder if you don't keep an eye on them.

codetrotter 5y ago
> Have you ever met a turkey in real life? Not the wild ones, the domestic breeds. They are so stupid that they will drown in their own water feeder if you don't keep an eye on them. Another reason to not support the meat industry.
goldenkey 5y ago
Geno means race and cide means killing. The word does not have any roots in it that are specific to humans. By your logic, we shouldn't care for humans with mental disorders or low intelligence quotients. Are you implying that only smart beings can suffer? If so, back it up. Otherwise you simply are making an appeal to tradition. If we held on to appeals to tradition, we'd still be having Thanksgiving served by our family's slave(s).
stirfish 5y ago
>Do we really need to apply the term genocide to groups that aren't even human? No.
- missedthecue 5y ago
  Then you do not know what a genocide is.
  - stirfish 5y ago
    If genocide to you only means "mass killing", then I can understand where you are coming from. There's no turkey culture being eradicated, no turkey books burned; only food being produced.
    - missedthecue 5y ago
      Every definition of genocide I can find online specially includes the term "people".
      - goldenkey 5y ago
        The word genocide literally means racial killing from the latin geno (race) + cide (kill.) It has nothing to do with people except in how it's commonly used. Dictionaries aren't a ground truth or some ultimate reference, they are merely assistive.
        sweenycod 5y ago
        > It has nothing to do with people except in how it's commonly used I have no idea where you got this idea, but I have never read it anywhere. I think you're trying to use a literal translation of parts of a neoclassical compound. Etymology is scarcely _literal_, because words from classical languages like Greek and Latin (and even modern languages such as German) do not always _directly_ translate to English (look up the literal translation of the German word 'brustwarzen' for example). The literal translation from Spanish "de nada" to English is "of nothing" but that is not how language works. Instead, the meaning is translated to "you are welcome." Regardless, 'genocide' is not a Greek word. It is a neoclassical compound that uses with the Greek prefix genos- (race or tribe), and the Latin suffix -caedo (to kill). The word was coined in 1944 by Raphael Lemkin in his book Axis Rule in Occupied Europe where he says it is "a new term and new conception for destruction of nations" (https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml). Neoclassical compounds do not necessarily carry the full context of the sum of their parts and are generally created to have a single meaning. Similarly, Joost Meerlo coined the neologism "menticide" (mind-kill) to which he admitted that he followed the etymology used by the UN to form the legal definition of genocide (see https://www.un.org/ar/preventgenocide/adviser/pdf/osapg_analysis_framework.pdf https://www.un.org/ar/preventgenocide/adviser/pdf/osapg_anal...).

Mikeb85 5y ago

A turkey is merely a substitute good for other foodstuffs. It's not like people wouldn't eat on Thanksgiving if they didn't have a turkey. It's not like they'd go hungry for the next week without all the turkey leftovers...

sweenycod 5y ago

This is an interesting place to bring up the ethics of Thanksgiving given the demographic. However, given my primary avocation is philosophy, I'm interested in how you arrived at the ethical ideology that turkeys are indeed sentient and that they deserve a life devoid of human consumption. I am not a moral relativist and I prefer justified beliefs so I'll give you some context that you missed in your original comment. My wife and I purchase local, farm-raised, organic (free of hormones), free-range poultry and we eat turkey _once per year_. It could be argued that our abstinence of industrial turkey consumption is the ethical way to justify the one I eat on Thanksgiving. The standard treatment of animals is _arguably_ immoral in a lot of cases (certainly not all), but it depends on your view of animal consciousness, the role they play in the advancement of human life, and whether or not we have a moral and ethical duty to protect them. I'm not opposed to having ethical debates, but this seems hardly the place for it if you're interested in _authentic_ and _educated_ dialogue. Your appeal to emotion using (incorrect) words like "genocide" and "needless slaughter" suggest a strong ideology and lack of objectivity, which suggests a disinterest in philosophical pursuit of knowledge. Genocide implies the targeted extinction of a human demographic. Thanksgiving turkeys are raised _to be food_ from the beginning. I don't believe large amounts of people are hunting around for wild turkeys a few days before Thanksgiving. Also, given their role in the US economy, I think that extermination would be bad for capitalism. Bioethics considers the immorality of raising animals for food, but I have not heard of it referred to as genocide by any reputable author. One could argue that since carnivores are not unique to humans it is "natural" and therefore not unethical. Remember, just because you consider something "icky" [doesn't make it immoral](https://www.philosophyetc.net/2004/09/moral-emotions-yuk-factor.html https://www.philosophyetc.net/2004/09/moral-emotions-yuk-fac...). The opposite argument here is that humans are aware of their actions and therefore held to a higher standard. There is nothing objective about this claim since we have no access to the [qualia](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia/) and consciousness of animals.

palae 5y ago
Let's suppose that in a country far, far away, there is a holiday called Givingthanks where instead of turkeys, dogs are eaten. Your alter ego in that country could then write the exact same comment than you did, replacing 'turkey' with 'dog'. We would read things like: 'It could be argued that our abstinence of industrial dog consumption is the ethical way to justify the one I eat on Givingthanks' or 'Givingthanks dogs are raised _to be food_ from the beginning'. You don't see anything problematic with that?