4 ms·

The thought that so many people find such novelty in the carcases pigs sickens me. Given the way many pigs are 'farmed' I'd say a more accurate description woul

by dejb 18y ago

The thought that so many people find such novelty in the carcases pigs sickens me. Given the way many pigs are 'farmed' I'd say a more accurate description would be 'Tortureprenuers'. One day, within our lifetimes, this will seem about as funny as slavery or child molestation and the stench of it will never be removed from those who promoted it.

unalone 18y ago
The thing about slavery/child molestation? They're offenses against human beings. Animals are different. We can argue about animal rights at some point, sure, but let's have the argument when you're not comparing human pain to animal pain and when you're not making up stupid words like "torturepreneur."
- dejb 18y ago
  It was not a statement of direct equivalence and I stand by the comparison. Do you believe that animals have a lesser capacity for feeling than children? Their is intellectual capacity is at a similar level. Doesn't it make sense that they have the same capacity to feel pain as a child? Where do you draw the line at being OK with causing extreme pain to other beings? We where surprised to find that we shared so much DNA with other animals and it seems likely that we will find that the neural processes have a lot in common as well. My guess is that we will find that animal consciousness is much like our own with an obviously reduced inferential capacity. The comparison with slavery is valid in the sense something that was once considered normal (or more likely 'unpleasant but convenient/necessary') can become abhorrent. There were probably a lot of people who knew deep down that it wasn't right but it was so convenient. In the history books those that promoted slavery don't tend to come off so well. The difference now is that the pace of change is faster and our lifespan may also grow considerably. As for the term 'torturepreneur', I thought was an apt response to the title.
  - ars 17y ago
    By your comparison you think you are increasing the status of animals, but really you are decreasing the status of humans. And once you make humans into animals humans no longer care about such things - animals sure don't. There is a massive and fundamental difference between animals and humans that no amount of comparing "DNA similarity or neural processes" is going to bridge. When peta runs ads about humans also being meat, then think people will stop eating animals. But actually what happens is that people think about eating humans. Do not try to increase animals to the level of humans - it does not work, and it's incorrect. Instead increase the level of humans even higher, and emphasize the difference to animals even more.
    - dejb 17y ago
      I am stating reality as I see it and then deriving my morals from that view of reality. Your argument starts from a desired result (the 'elevation of humans') and works back toward reality from there. Humans are meat. That is reality. Even if the consequences of realising this was rampant cannibalism it wouldn't change that fact. To me the thing that separates humans from animals is also the thing that would make us not want to torture them. We are able to model reality in more detail and to do this we need to be able to consider each situation from all perspectives. Considering reality from the view of an animal in pain would cause any empathetic being some degree of pain. Those that block this or just can't see this part of reality have a second rate existence in my view and are frankly little better than animals.
      - ars 17y ago
        Leaving aside for the moment your assumption that eating animals is equal to torturing them (which is not true). Your request is to view the world from the point of view of the animal. Well animals do not care in the slightest about the pain of another animal. So I reject that idea. I prefer to view the world from the point of view of a human. And humans do care, but to a human an animal is food, and a human is not. To an animal everything is food, there is no category "not food". So by saying humans are meat (and therefor food), you are basically advocating for humans to act as animals.
deleted 18y ago
[deleted]

by dejb 18y ago

unalone 18y ago

The thing about slavery/child molestation? They're offenses against human beings. Animals are different. We can argue about animal rights at some point, sure, but let's have the argument when you're not comparing human pain to animal pain and when you're not making up stupid words like "torturepreneur."

dejb 18y ago
It was not a statement of direct equivalence and I stand by the comparison. Do you believe that animals have a lesser capacity for feeling than children? Their is intellectual capacity is at a similar level. Doesn't it make sense that they have the same capacity to feel pain as a child? Where do you draw the line at being OK with causing extreme pain to other beings? We where surprised to find that we shared so much DNA with other animals and it seems likely that we will find that the neural processes have a lot in common as well. My guess is that we will find that animal consciousness is much like our own with an obviously reduced inferential capacity. The comparison with slavery is valid in the sense something that was once considered normal (or more likely 'unpleasant but convenient/necessary') can become abhorrent. There were probably a lot of people who knew deep down that it wasn't right but it was so convenient. In the history books those that promoted slavery don't tend to come off so well. The difference now is that the pace of change is faster and our lifespan may also grow considerably. As for the term 'torturepreneur', I thought was an apt response to the title.
- ars 17y ago
  By your comparison you think you are increasing the status of animals, but really you are decreasing the status of humans. And once you make humans into animals humans no longer care about such things - animals sure don't. There is a massive and fundamental difference between animals and humans that no amount of comparing "DNA similarity or neural processes" is going to bridge. When peta runs ads about humans also being meat, then think people will stop eating animals. But actually what happens is that people think about eating humans. Do not try to increase animals to the level of humans - it does not work, and it's incorrect. Instead increase the level of humans even higher, and emphasize the difference to animals even more.
  - dejb 17y ago
    I am stating reality as I see it and then deriving my morals from that view of reality. Your argument starts from a desired result (the 'elevation of humans') and works back toward reality from there. Humans are meat. That is reality. Even if the consequences of realising this was rampant cannibalism it wouldn't change that fact. To me the thing that separates humans from animals is also the thing that would make us not want to torture them. We are able to model reality in more detail and to do this we need to be able to consider each situation from all perspectives. Considering reality from the view of an animal in pain would cause any empathetic being some degree of pain. Those that block this or just can't see this part of reality have a second rate existence in my view and are frankly little better than animals.
    - ars 17y ago
      Leaving aside for the moment your assumption that eating animals is equal to torturing them (which is not true). Your request is to view the world from the point of view of the animal. Well animals do not care in the slightest about the pain of another animal. So I reject that idea. I prefer to view the world from the point of view of a human. And humans do care, but to a human an animal is food, and a human is not. To an animal everything is food, there is no category "not food". So by saying humans are meat (and therefor food), you are basically advocating for humans to act as animals.

deleted 18y ago

[deleted]