Re: Bring me your... cloned???

[Guest guest]

>

> ,

> It shouldn't be too hard to understand.

I'm sure I have no difficulty understanding anything

that you can understand. Maybe even _more_ than you

can understand, but for the sake of argument let's just

say that I can understand at _least_ as much as you can.

Shall we? Afterall, it's amazing what wonders sleeping

more than four hours a night can do for the brain. :-)

> I can cite myself as an example of someone who is very

> insensitive to the suffering to animals.

I'll keep this admission in mind in evaluating the rest

of what you say.

> Further, not only do I not object to the idea of animals as

> property, in the same sense we apply to inanimate objects, . . .

Should that really come as any surprise in light of

your admission? Had you told me that you were very

sensitive to the suffering of animals, but felt that

they could properly be property regardless, because

of devastatingly logical arguments A, B and C, _then_

I would have been impressed. I'm not sure how you

hoped to help your argument prefacing as you did.

Maybe you just wanted to share something personal

about yourself with us, like I did.

> . . .but I hasten to point out that it is a historical fact that

> they **are** property. You doubt whether they " can be " , yet it

> is obvious that they **are**. Let's separate facts from

> judgements.

So I phrased it awkwardly. Don't pretend not to understand

what I'm really saying is that I feel they shouldn't be, not

that they aren't.

> Now, as far as why this position shouldn't be hard for you to

> understand, note that there is no obvious moral distinction

> between eating wild and domesticated animals.

Is there any moral distinction between failing to feed a

child you brought into the world, and failing to feed the

child of someone on the other side of the world? I have

my own beliefs about what is moral that are bound to differ

in at least some ways from yours. So how is it you prepose

to dictate to me what are and aren't proper moral distinctions?

> A tiny number of people like yourself might propose some arcane

> and convoluted distinction,

Are you playing dumb? Do really not understand that I'm

personally uncomfortable with the idea of killing domestic

_or_ wild animals? In any case I'm not proposing any sort

of distinction, convoluted or otherwise, that I expect you

or anybody else to observe. I was talking about _my_

feelings and life choices, nobody else's. I don't really

care what _you_ eat, including your own mother or children

if that's what you want to do.

> but why should we take this any more seriously than the laughably

> naive arguments of vegans against eating any animal foods?

I don't care what you take seriously. I'm not trying to

convert you or anybody else to my way of thinking. Where

did you get that idea? I simply gave Tom another person's

perspective on cloning, since he seemed unable to see it as

anything but something out of a horror movie.

> I don't have time to get into this topic, as it would be like

> opening dozens of massive vats of worms, . . .

Apparently you _did_ have time to get into this topic, hence

your post. It's more likely you just hope to have the last

word by adding proviso.

> . . . but I just want it to be known that I have strong

> ideological objections to the whole spectrum of vegetarian

> morality.

Why do you want it known? Are you running for office or

something?

> Your's is a fringe viewpoint that I don't take seriously at all.

I can see that you don't take it seriously at all, not

even seriously enough to want to post what you did here.

I have to wonder why you did. In any case, maybe I will

someday leave the fringe and join you in the mainstream

eating raw guts and insects. Oh but wait a minute, that's

a fringe activity too, isn't it? It must have felt good

there for a minute though, didn't it - getting to feel

like the normal one hurling stones at the weirdo, instead

of the other way around?

> I just wanted to register this position, that's all.

Oh is that all? Well consider it registered. By the

way, what's your stand on abortion? I'm going to have

to know this if you want me to vote for you.

[Guest guest]

>>>>You will be assimilated.

---->no, if i go there, i will *actively* assimilate myself, not BE

assimilated - it's not something one gets passively assimilated into.

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

“The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times.” --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

[Guest guest]

None of my problems with this topic would ever have arisen had it been

that simple. (By the way, I used the word " natural " strictly in the

basic sense of " occuring normally in nature " , and your comparing it to

something social like the perception of homosexuality in a society is

silly.)

There are problems with what you wrote below. We're all a part and a

product of the culture we grow up in and our peers have direct

influence on us whether we like it or not. I believe that if any group

of people push for progress along an avenue such as that (cybernetic

humans), it will quickly force everyone to assimilate. By virtue of

*you* becoming a cyborg, you are by that act directly threatening me.

You have made yourself superior to me, which is essentially a

challenge and a threat to me. It demands that I change myself to

conform or defer to you and face the consequences. So I don't buy that

bit about individual aspirations. This is why it is a question

affecting humanity in its totality.

Thanks for the intellectual conversation, . Now it's back to the

work-week so I won't have as much time to post, but feel free to keep

this discussion going.

Tom

>

> The human race shouldn't have any _common_ aspiration.

> We're individuals and each have our _own_ aspirations.

> Don't try to keep me from mine, and I won't try to keep

> you from yours. Is it a deal?

>

>

[Guest guest]

IMHO 's response is overdefensive and belligerent, especially the

quote below. Come on, Suze was not touting her status as a WAPF

chapter leader (a position that anyone can assume by simply writing

the WAPF and agreeing to do a few simple duties). You're construing it

entirely the wrong way and your biting sarcasm is not appreciated.

Tom

> > as a WAPF chapter leader, . . .

>

> That's lovely for you! I'm guessing that some sort of

> brightly colored sash or shiny badge comes along with

> that position?

[Guest guest]

--- In , " lucientj " <cassiusdio@g...>

wrote:

>

> IMHO 's response is overdefensive and belligerent,

> especially the quote below. Come on, Suze was not touting

> her status as a WAPF chapter leader (a position that anyone

> can assume by simply writing the WAPF and agreeing to do a

> few simple duties). You're construing it entirely the wrong

> way and your biting sarcasm is not appreciated.

I'm sorry that you don't appreciate my wit, but Suze

expressed contempt for the posting of anything not

relevent to her grand mission in life, a mission she

chose to descriptively encapsulate by alluding to her

role as the leader of some " Wildly Angry Premenstrual

Females " (that's what WAPF stands for, right?). That,

in my mind, is what invited the sarcasm about the title.

I'm just curious, but were you as offended by her attack

on me, to which the comment in question was but a reaction,

as you were to my sarcasm, or did the fact that she was

arguing on your side make that easier to ignore?

[Guest guest]

At 04:31 PM 11/2/2003, you wrote:

> I'm only saying that I

>don't understand those that are completely insensitive to the

>suffering of animals, or who would have us believe that animals

>can be property in the same way that an inanimate object can be.

I think a lot of people who eat animals are ALSO sensitive

to them. Many farmers are rather empathetic to the

animals they raise. I can say from my point of view

having raised many animals, that trying to let them

live " a long natural life " is heart wrenching.

At some point they get sick with something or

another, or ill and feeble, and THEN my empathy really

kicks in. When the chickens get slow, a coyote

eats them, which in some ways is the kindest

end they could have.

Sensitivity to animals is not always the best thing

for them. My chickens are out in the snow and

I feel sorry for them -- it's 28 degrees out -- but

if I kept them warm they would get ticks and

not be near as healthy, and if you warm the henhouse

that's bad for them too. Quite possibly the fact

I'm in a warm house isn't all that good for me

either -- stress is good for an organism up to

a certain point.

As for property: when you have animals, they

are " property " in the sense any dependent is.

Farm animals cannot care for themselves,

their breeded has made them very much dependent

on humans. So the farmer really does have

life/death control over the animal in ways that

aren't true for say, a barn cat that is pretty much

on it's own. Every meal is pretty much controlled

by the farmer, for better or worse.

Right now my thoughts about eating meat are

more along the lines of " Stranger in a Strange

Land " or what is attributed to some of the First

People -- eating an animal IS a sort of bonding,

and should be done with a sort of respect

and care that we don't usually give, because

we don't want to think about it.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

,

In a message dated 11/3/03 2:14:49 PM Eastern Standard Time,

Idol@... writes:

> While I suppose there's some wiggle room in how you define the object of a

> moral act (or moral restraint) are you really sure about that? What if

> someone is guaranteed to pass on a horrible, crippling genetic disease to

> his/her potential offspring, and therefore refrains from reproducing?

So what are you saying? You were humane to who? What if you had five

crippled kids, were you humane to the other 15 or 20 you had the potential to

produce? Would that make having five kids under the same circumstances an act

of

humanity?

But most importantly, who are you (or me) to decide for the unborn child that

she or he is incapable of happiness?

I personally would opt to not have the kids if I knew they were going to be

horribly crippled, but this isn't because I know they'll be incapable of

happiness, but rather because it would much more hard for ME to provide for them

and

to reap the satisfaction one gets from producing and raising a child, but

that is in no way noble on my part but is on the contrary selfish and a sign of

weakness which I admit to.

Chris

_______

[Guest guest]

> >

> >

> > How is it a non-sequitor? I can see you arguing that to conclude

> > the former from the latter is a non-sequitor but I dont' see how

> > there can be any gap in the logic when there was no logical

> > reasoning within each unit, but only between each unit.

>

> Oh this one made me dizzy! What I thought you were saying is

> that meat might have the same amount of calcium in its cell

> walls even it is wasn't exercized, but then that same calcium

> would have no reason for being there (even though it was), and

> that it would be so sad if all that calcium sat around with

> nothing to do. That's what I considered a confusing non-

> sequitur. If you come back with something to this, my head's

> going to explode! :-)

Cool. Don't forget to send pictures!

Anyway, no I was saying the Ca is stored in the smooth endoplasmic

reticulum (animal cells don't have cell walls; smooth ER is inside the

cell), and since lack of muscle contraction would subvert the purpose

of the Ca storage, the Ca storage would possibly or likely, but not

necessarily, not occur.

> Look, I'm just going to simplify this (hopefully) and give

> you that the whole process might be difficult, might be a

> long time in coming, and may never be embraced by any large

> number of people, or ever be profitable for anybody either.

> My only real point was that it's theoretically possible and

> not immoral.

Ok, I don't see any reasonable moral objection to it.

> > The compassion is, but the logic that compassion leads to

> vegetarianism is a

> > non-sequitor. The additional fault of vegetarianism is the utter

> leap of

> > logic that to have compassion on an animal means not to kill it,

> which is a bona

> > fide absurdity, case in point, overpopulation of deer.

>

> If there's really a compassionate reason to kill an animal,

> I've not forbidden it. But if it should ever become possible

> to have meat without killing animals, then what would be so

> compassionate about still doing it?

Well, it would be, but let me first clarify that my point was NOT that

killing animals is compassionate, but that the act of not killing

animals is NOT compassionate.

Beyond that, because test tube meat will never replace the need for

population control among wild animals, many of whom must die by a

predator or face the greater of two evils (from their perspective):

overpopulation-induced starvation.

> Exercizing humanity for the mere sake of exercizing humanity

> is not a moral requisite. It's when we _don't_ exercize

> humanity toward an object that deserves it, that it's a

> moral concern.

But you can't exercise humanity toward an object that doesn't exist,

is my point.

If there were only one human-being in the

> world, it would not matter that he or she were not exercizing

> humanity toward anyone. We are not moral for our own sake,

> but for the sake of the potential victim of immorality.

And you are arguing that by preventing the existance of this potential

victim, you are exercising humanity upon this victim, who exists as an

object due to its potential to be an object.

By this logic, you could justify massive genocide of any given

population or all populations, since you would prevent the birth of

more people than you would initiate the early death of, and therefore

prevent more deaths than you would initiate the early arrival of, with

a net exercise of humanity.

It

> is only when there are two or more beings and one does harm

> to the other, that any question of morality comes up.

Right. If one being isn't born, you can't be moral towards it.

> You're

> saying that a cow that fails to be born is a cow that we humans

> have failed to show kindness to. That makes no sense.

I'm not exercising a moral judgment upon the lack of kindness shown to

the non-existant object, I'm simply countering the moral judgment that

views it as an exercise of humanity toward a potential object to

prevent its birth.

IOW I'm saying by doing so you have not exercised positive morality

but have simply eliminated the chance to either act negatively or

positively and eliminated the existence of any morality whatsoever (as

you have said, the existence of two beings is a requisite for

morality)and therefore one cannot argue that it is " humane " to

undercut the existance of farming.

> > This is more

> > analagous to saying we should not prevent the birth of humans for

> the sake of

> > avoiding death, which is a perfectly logical statement, but NOT

> analogous to

> > saying we should not control the timing and frequency of births in

> order to

> > afford better lives to ourselves or our offspring.

>

> I'm saying that if it's wrong to not produce more cows,

> since no cow can be happy until it actually exists, then

> it's no less wrong to not have as many children as quickly

> as possible, so they can all start enjoying existence.

I never said it was *wrong* to *not* produce cows, I was pointing out

the *lack of rightness* in the act of not producing cows. Thus, a

proper analogy is that you cannot claim to have exercised

positive morality towards your unborn offspring by refusing to

procreate by supposedly preventing their inevitable suffering, when

these offspring simply to not exist and therefore cannot be an object

of your positive morality.

> > > >How is a cow that does not exist living a better life than one

> > > >who lives on pasture until the time of slaughter?

> > >

> > > That's silly! The " non-existent " don't writhe in agony until

> > > someone decides to bring thim into this world!

> >

> > Yes, but they aren't happy either?

>

> A rock's not happy either, but it's not _unhappy_. The

> non-existent don't suffer and they don't have an inherent

> right to be brought into existence.

I agree with this. But so what? The rock is not a beneficiary of

anyone's altruism simply because it doesn't suffer. If it can't

suffer, it can't be a beneficiary of anything that requires sentience.

I find it quite odd that you think you are capable of claiming whether

a cow who exists has a net excess of suffering or happiness. Does a

cow have no pleasure centers in its brain? I don't have any idea how

you could quantitatively measure this, but I highly doubt if there

were a method, that a cow who lived on pasture for a year and then was

slaughtered would have more stimulations of pain than pleasure during

that time period.

Now, if there were an excess of pleasure stimulations, you could say

that bringing the cow into existence was an act of humanity by

increasing both the total and net pleasure experienced both by all

creatures and this one creature. However, even if there were a net

excess of pain, which I find utterly impossible, you cannot claim that

you exercised humanity by preventing the existance, because the cow

did not exist as a beneficiary of this humanity.

> > What basis of judgment to you have to pontificate about

> > what state of mind a cow is in while on pasture?

>

> I wasn't trying to pontificate, and I don't care what a

> cow's state of mind is. I'm not sure how we got to this.

How on earth can you claim to care about the suffering of the cow but

simultaneously claim to not care what the cow's state of mind is?

> > I didn't claim to be doing a cow any favor, I claimed that you

> > aren't doing cows any favor by not breeding them for slaughter.

>

> What?!?!?!? Are you messing with my head to have fun? (-:

No, but that does sound like fun. Nevertheless I find the

conversation with no games sufficiently amusing.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Chris-

While I suppose there's some wiggle room in how you define the object of a

moral act (or moral restraint) are you really sure about that? What if

someone is guaranteed to pass on a horrible, crippling genetic disease to

his/her potential offspring, and therefore refrains from reproducing?

>you cannot claim to have exercised

>positive morality towards your unborn offspring by refusing to

>procreate by supposedly preventing their inevitable suffering, when

>these offspring simply to not exist and therefore cannot be an object

>of your positive morality.

-

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/3/03 9:28:14 PM Eastern Standard Time,

cassiusdio@... writes:

> You're reading way too much into her

> words. If she'd said " That's a totally impractical and utterly

> ridiculous suggestion! I can't believe you said that! " , then I'd agree

> with you,

This wouldn't really be a personal attack either. I can think something is

utterly absurd while respecting the person who thinks it, which would lead be

to have trouble believing the person was saying it. I've said awfully stupid

things in the past, and consider myself intelligent, so why should I put it

past any of my intelligent friends?

Granted, you can say that with more tact, and I usually try to, but it's

still an attack on the *idea* the person is putting forward and not the person.

Unlike " You're an idiot, " for example.

Chris

[Guest guest]

: it didn't dawn on me that her response could be taken as an

attack, honestly. Looking back over it, I don't see anything

inflammatory about it. Her use of the words " totally impractical " to

describe an idea you'd put forth is, as far as I can tell, just a

statment of her disagreement. You're reading way too much into her

words. If she'd said " That's a totally impractical and utterly

ridiculous suggestion! I can't believe you said that! " , then I'd agree

with you, but a simple statement of disagreement means nothing more,

no matter how blunt. (Bluntness is a wonderful thing IMO, even though

it can hurt a little sometimes.) That said, who knows, maybe she hates

your guts. But if that were so, it'd be admirable of her to be so

civil and amicable in discussion with you.

I don't really see myself on Suze's " side " and not on yours. Just

because you and I have been engaged in a unrelated discussion doesn't

mean we're on opposite sides, and I don't really see any major

factions here that would justify association with sides...but I have

only been around here for about a month!

Tom

> >

> > IMHO 's response is overdefensive and belligerent,

> > especially the quote below. Come on, Suze was not touting

> > her status as a WAPF chapter leader (a position that anyone

> > can assume by simply writing the WAPF and agreeing to do a

> > few simple duties). You're construing it entirely the wrong

> > way and your biting sarcasm is not appreciated.

>

> I'm sorry that you don't appreciate my wit, but Suze

> expressed contempt for the posting of anything not

> relevent to her grand mission in life, a mission she

> chose to descriptively encapsulate by alluding to her

> role as the leader of some " Wildly Angry Premenstrual

> Females " (that's what WAPF stands for, right?). That,

> in my mind, is what invited the sarcasm about the title.

> I'm just curious, but were you as offended by her attack

> on me, to which the comment in question was but a reaction,

> as you were to my sarcasm, or did the fact that she was

> arguing on your side make that easier to ignore?

>

>

[Guest guest]

Good point, Chris. I think the example I gave could be taken either

way. The writer should be more tactful (avoid the exclaimation points,

at least) but the addressee needs to not have a hair trigger when it

comes to the slightest suggestion that they're wrong. Have a little

bit of tolerance, give people the benefit of the doubt, and forgive

people's minor transgressions. We're not out to get one another.

Tom

> In a message dated 11/3/03 9:28:14 PM Eastern Standard Time,

> cassiusdio@g... writes:

>

> > You're reading way too much into her

> > words. If she'd said " That's a totally impractical and utterly

> > ridiculous suggestion! I can't believe you said that! " , then I'd

agree

> > with you,

>

> This wouldn't really be a personal attack either. I can think

something is

> utterly absurd while respecting the person who thinks it, which

would lead be

> to have trouble believing the person was saying it. I've said

awfully stupid

> things in the past, and consider myself intelligent, so why should I

put it

> past any of my intelligent friends?

>

> Granted, you can say that with more tact, and I usually try to, but

it's

> still an attack on the *idea* the person is putting forward and not

the person.

> Unlike " You're an idiot, " for example.

>

> Chris

[Guest guest]

,

So what you're saying is that you are morally comfortable with

killing animals, but not emotionally comfortable? I'm sure that is

not so rare in our species, but it shouldn't have much effect on your

food choices, beyond simply not participating in slaughters, etc,

since morality is based on intellectual considerations. Obviously

many traditional cultures have carefully prescribed rituals and

guidelines for slaughtering animals to minimize the emotional stress

and give moral reassurance. My own outlook is based on a similar

conceptualization of the larger scheme of nature that the act of

slaughter is part of, and a strong sensitivity towards the fine

balances of nature; when I said I was very insensitive to the

suffering of animals, I didn't mean to imply that I'm some kind of

crude, heartless brute, just that this is only one small part of a

complex system of biological interactions, and that in the vast

majority of cases I don't have an emotional response to animal

suffering (partially because the vast majority of cases don't involve

any first-hand experience; when I'm taking care of cats or something

I'm very sensitive to the suffering of those specific animals in

those specific situations, but this is a very tiny sample of cases

and i have social relationships with those animals.) Given my

voluminous postings on this list, I don't think that many people will

misinterpret my original statement, but rather assume that a much

more nuanced view lies behind it.

As far as your ostensible conflict between emotions and morality, I

can note that I don't generally get emotional about something I find

morally acceptable (like killing animals for food), whereas I almost

obligatorily get emotional about something I find morally

unacceptable (like the government's oppression of raw milk). I feel

that my emotions and morality are in harmony for the most part,

although I'm sure there are exceptions, and I'm not suggesting

there's anything " inferior " or " wrong " about the conflict you may

experience, just making an observation.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@ :

> Are you playing dumb? Do really not understand that I'm

> personally uncomfortable with the idea of killing domestic

> _or_ wild animals? In any case I'm not proposing any sort

> of distinction, convoluted or otherwise, that I expect you

> or anybody else to observe. I was talking about _my_

> feelings and life choices, nobody else's. I don't really

> care what _you_ eat, including your own mother or children

> if that's what you want to do.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

it's not just some kind of " just my... " situation; i can't argue with

your feelings, but a person's morality is certainly open to

criticism. you can't just say " this is my morality; do whatever you

want and leave me alone " because we interdependent and people's moral

choices can affect others. obviously you're not harming anyone by

making a moral distinction regarding animal consumption, but if this

distinction exists than it can be put under the lights for

examination and either adopted or rejected by others. it's an

abstract intellectual entity, not something that can only exist

inside your individual brain.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@ :

In any case, maybe I will

> someday leave the fringe and join you in the mainstream

> eating raw guts and insects. Oh but wait a minute, that's

> a fringe activity too, isn't it?

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

I shouldn't even be responding to your unwarranted rant about

weirdo/fringe/mainstream/etc, since I'm obviously not seeking

gratification from aligning myself with some conception of normality,

but just for the record eating guts and insects is certainly not a

fringe activity, since these have been staple foods for our species

from the early days.

Mike