Sarah Palin and Holy War in Iraq?

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
My belief system has been pretty much set in stone since I was 4 years old.

Post of the decade!

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
My belief system has been pretty much set in stone since I was 4 years old.

Classic!

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
Except that I said I would intervene if I saw a child torturing a dog in my presence. That eliminates me from the indifferent crowd. I should have found a better word to describe my feelings towards animals. How about "racitly concerned about cruelty to animals, but placing it VERY low on the barometer of important concerns in our society"? That's a better description.

Fine, but this is now a claim about the allocation of limited resources, not a claim about the moral status of animals. Consider the following analogy: Suppose I live in a despotic community where a vicious pogrom is carried out on members a particular immigrant community. Suppose, further, that my family is in dire economic straits, and I am forced to navigate this world with my attention focused primarily on feeding my family and ensuring their safety. In such a world I may well claim that the situation of the immigrant community occupies little of my attention. I could even be justified in devoting limited attentional resources to their situation, given the tenuous situation of my family. But this has very little to do with the moral status of the immigrant community; on whether they have rights, etc. Perhaps it is the case that modern society has troubles that, in competition for our attentional resources, not only do but should win out over the plight of animals. It still does not follow that we need not care for animals when the opportunity arises, and your responses to my hypothetical scenario indicate that you agree. I contend that there are many, many ways you can care for animals without sacrificing your ability to attend to other more pressing societal concerns. Moderate changes in lifestyle can have a large impact on the way in which animals are treated in our culture. They can experience joy and suffer, they can love in a manner, they can enter into nourishing relationships with us, become dependent on us for their welfare, and we can find ourselves easily deeply caring for them. It is as though we and other mammals are primed with the capacity to enter into caring relationships with each other. I think this is an important moral fact about us and about mammals. I think we owe them better, even if there are others to whom we more pressingly owe more. Do you agree?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Post of the decade!

Well...thank you, Doc. Glad you liked it! 🙂

Originally posted by bbarr
Fine, but this is now a claim about the allocation of limited resources, not a claim about the moral status of animals. Consider the following analogy: Suppose I live in a despotic community where a vicious pogrom is carried out on members a particular immigrant community. Suppose, further, that my family is in dire economic straits, and I am forced to navi ...[text shortened]... them better, even if there are others to whom we more pressingly owe more. Do you agree?

I don't see this as in any way a fair analogy. I would NEVER sit idly by when a person or group of people were being systematically eliminated (a pogrom, right?). It is an axiom to me that human life is so much more important than any animals' as to be incalculable.

As for "moderate changes" to lifestyles, one would have to tell me what moderate is. I would agree to never harpoon a whale for sport. I would not agree to become a vegetarian--that would be a radical change. I would not vote to stop using animals for scientific research. It depends on what you call moderate.

Lastly, I am convinced that animals do not love nor experience joy. Suffer, yes. And the rest of your statements need a qualifier -- SOME.
Indeed, SOME of us "easily, deeply care" for animals and SOME of us have "the capacity to enter into caring relationships" with other animals (I think you were speaking of mammals, though). But some (many) of us do not. I don't put humans on the same plane as other animals, regardless of their order, species, etc. They are animals: we are humans. And I believe they are on this earth for us, not in spite of us.

Originally posted by TheSkipper
Classic!

And thank you too, Skip! 🙂

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
Your opinion of the requirements of living in a "normative community" is your opinion only--I do not share it and find it arrogant that you would express it as factual.


I've already recognized that my terminology (indifferent) wasn't the best choice of words. Let it go already. To repeat: I oppose cruelty to animals, and I WOULD place concern about ual journey". My belief system has been pretty much set in stone since I was 4 years old.

Your opinion of the requirements of living in a "normative community" is your opinion only--I do not share it and find it arrogant that you would express it as factual.

I've never understood this criticism. Yes, of course I think my opinions (those that I feel comfortable categorizing as truth-apt) are "factual" because I think they are true; and because I think that to say a proposition is true, to first order, is to say that it is correspondent with facts about the world. So if this really is an instance of my being "arrogant", so be it.

I'm not sure how to get around such "arrogance" without losing all the effect in argumentation. To be honest, I think the defense "well, that's just your opinion" is no defense at all. It offers no reasons one way or any other to anyone involved, and I see its function as something of a conversation stopper offered up by persons who have no good argument left.

I oppose cruelty to animals, and I WOULD place concern about said cruelty quite far down on the list of things society needs to be concerned about

First, opposing "cruel" treatment of animals is simply a minimal consideration as far as anyone should be concerned.

Second, bbarr already put together a nice response to your stance that the treatment and consideration of animals should be low on the list of priorities. Even if you are justified in placing such considerations below certain other considerations regarding human affairs, that in itself does not address the question of the moral status of animals; and it certainly doesn't mean that there aren't a number of things we can do (even without great effort or sacrifice) to improve our treatment of and interactions with animals.

I still find your views to be rigorously speciesist, and I think they are to that extent very ugly. Of course, there may be some facets of human affairs that you can justifiably lavish with your attention (even if it means sacrificing some attention toward matters regarding non-humans), but the justification for this certainly won't merely lie in considerations regarding species membership; or in more or less arbitrarily regarding humans as the uncontested darlings of the cosmic order; or any other such nonsense.

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
I don't see this as in any way a fair analogy. I would NEVER sit idly by when a person or group of people were being systematically eliminated (a pogrom, right?). It is an axiom to me that human life is so much more important than any animals' as to be incalculable.

As for "moderate changes" to lifestyles, one would have to tell me what moderate is. ...[text shortened]... mals: we are humans. And I believe they are on this earth for us, not in spite of us.

I would agree to never harpoon a whale for sport. I would not agree to become a vegetarian--that would be a radical change. I would not vote to stop using animals for scientific research.

This is something I am interested in. What do you mean when you say that becoming a vegetarian would be a "radical change"? Why should this be such a lofty request of us? I understand generally that we have evolved to eat meat as part of our diet; and part of that includes having infixed in us motivators to eat meat. For instance, I think many types of meat simply taste good, and I cannot seem to do anything about that. On the other hand, we don't need meat, specifically, to survive or maintain sufficient health. I could understand justifiably rejecting vegetarianism if it were the case that we needed meat to survive. But, failing that, and giving due consideration to the animals, I don't see why vegetarianism should be such a radical or unreasonable prescription. Do you have some insight here? Could you elaborate on those factors that make vegetarianism so "radical"?

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]Your opinion of the requirements of living in a "normative community" is your opinion only--I do not share it and find it arrogant that you would express it as factual.

I've never understood this criticism. Yes, of course I think my opinions (those that I feel comfortable categorizing as truth-apt) are "factual" because I think they are true; a ...[text shortened]... s as the uncontested darlings of the cosmic order; or any other such nonsense.[/b]

1. I don't see the statement "That's just your opinion" to be a "stopper". I think it's a civilized way to disagree. As for "losing all the effect in argumentation", I for one don't LIKE arguing. Debating civilly---fine.

2. If believing humanity to be the darlings of the cosmos makes me a "speciesist(?)", then I proudly plead guilty. 😉

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]I would agree to never harpoon a whale for sport. I would not agree to become a vegetarian--that would be a radical change. I would not vote to stop using animals for scientific research.

This is something I am interested in. What do you mean when you say that becoming a vegetarian would be a "radical change"? Why should this be such a lofty ...[text shortened]... insight here? Could you elaborate on those factors that make vegetarianism so "radical"?[/b]

Well, since you asked....I see animals as being placed here on earth by God for us to use (for food, shelter, clothing,etc.). I'm sure you don't agree, but that's really the crux of my saying that a vegeterian diet would be drastic FOR ME. As you said, many find that the taste of meat is pleasant. I'm one of them. It's not my favorite food, but I sure wouldn't want it removed from my menu. Also, you said that we don't need meat to survive. I know for a fact that there are people with medical conditions who MUST eat meat, or they will either get very sick and.or die. There is just not enough protein in a bushel of beans and a zillion injections for their bodies to get those precious amino acids that a big ol' steak provides with ease.
But I see your point. For most of us, meat is not a requirement for existence. If I were a proponent of animal rights, I might agree with you. But "giving due consideration to the animals" (and I'm speaking STRICTLY about using animals for food here--so don't go back to the cruelty thing), I just don't understand the phrase at all. It's like looking at my breakfast of crispy bacon and country ham and thinking "that stuff has rights." To me, it just doesn't.

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
Well, since you asked....I see animals as being placed here on earth by God for us to use (for food, shelter, clothing,etc.). I'm sure you don't agree, but that's really the crux of my saying that a vegeterian diet would be drastic FOR ME. As you said, many find that the taste of meat is pleasant. I'm one of them. It's not my favorite food, but I sure and country ham and thinking "that stuff has rights." To me, it just doesn't.

I see animals as being placed here on earth by God for us to use (for food, shelter, clothing,etc.).

Supposedly god can do anything that is logically possible, correct? So aren't there any number of ways that god could have provided for our basic sustenance that would not involve the killing/suffering of other sentient beings; and ways that wouldn't be so open to the exploitation of other sentient beings?

I really don't care to debate from within a perspective of what the bible says (because I frankly could not care less about what the bible says, principally because the bible never offers any considered argument for its prescriptions). However, when the bible seems to indicate that god granted to humans dominion over the fish of the sea and the foul of the air and the cattle of the earth; blah blah blah; that seems nevertheless consistent with the following type of prescription.

That we, as humans who possess in certain ways a more advanced and reflective psychology, have the ability (unlike the animals) to stand back from base desires and inclinations and to act from our practical identities. This grants us the ability, and the responsibility, to act from reasons that encompass not only our own interests but also the interests of other species. I don't see why these parts of genesiac readings cannot be interpreted figuratively as simply a reflection of this fact about the world. Thus, it is not about big daddy granting us license to "use" animals however we see fit; on the contrary, it is that the nature of our mentality, whether we like it or not, entrusts us with interests beyond our own.

As I said, I don't really care what the bible says, and I am not chiefly interested in trying to change your mind from within a biblical perspective (besides, a lot of the OT seems like blood-lusting nonsense that is beyond salvaging). Rather, I would urge you to consider the deliverances of compassion. In our dealings that also involve the interests of other species, what are some ways that we can improve on our current practices and thereby manifest compassion?

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
I don't see this as in any way a fair analogy. I would NEVER sit idly by when a person or group of people were being systematically eliminated (a pogrom, right?). It is an axiom to me that human life is so much more important than any animals' as to be incalculable.

As for "moderate changes" to lifestyles, one would have to tell me what moderate is. ...[text shortened]... mals: we are humans. And I believe they are on this earth for us, not in spite of us.

We're animals too.

Originally posted by LemonJello
...I really don't care to debate from within a perspective of what the bible says (because I frankly could not care less about what the bible says, .....

There are two useful points here from the Bible:

1. it suggests that it is better to be a vegetarian than a meat-eater.
2. In the picture painted of the kingdom to come, there is harmony among all creatures .. no killing, hurting, destroying.

Christians who are sufficiently evolved and aware of their environment dont have a problem understanding this. I am somewhat taken aback by PFs stance here but maybe I should not be.

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]I see animals as being placed here on earth by God for us to use (for food, shelter, clothing,etc.).

Supposedly god can do anything that is logically possible, correct? So aren't there any number of ways that god could have provided for our basic sustenance that would not involve the killing/suffering of other sentient beings; and ways that wou ...[text shortened]... e some ways that we can improve on our current practices and thereby manifest compassion?[/b]

Well, how about not killing endangered species? I mentioned I'm in favor of protecting the whales---the ones that are threatened or endangered, anyway. I'm all for saving creatures from extinction, IF that extinction is propogated by man solely for sport or profit.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
We're animals too.

And there's where we disagree. No prob.