ESOCommunity

Do you know what solipsism is?

Solipsism = the position that anything outside your self is unknowable.

In this case of discussing the status of other (non-human) animals, I called solipsism this idea that you can't pass any judgement on the true nature of the inner/mental world of non-human animals, because you don't have access to it and so you will judge it based on human cognitive and affective templates. I disagreed with this position, because we are all subject to evolutionary constraints, and this can be clearly seen in behaviour, even if you ignore mental experiences.

So, how intelligent is Metis? .....could we?

musketjr wrote: you kill many more plants to produce meat than if you were to eat the plants directly.

You obviously have never worked on a ranch or in a feed lot have you? Grazing or feeding with hay doesn't kill any plants. Grass grows from the crown -- grazing or haying utilizes only the leaves -- it's like mowing your yard. I believe I mentioned this once before.

Basically what I'm saying is that in nature nobody can offer any species a good conduct guarantee and promise it will be respected. Evolution just doesn't give you any rights, so why should you give other non-human animals rights, based on your human customs which only apply on an intra-species level. Laws should never apply on an inter-species level. There's no basis for that.

When we regulate to avoid animal abuse (which is necessary to some extent), we just do it to spare some people's feelings or for practical reasons. Realistically that's why animal rights exist. Other than that there's no real basis for an absolute concept of animal rights, simply because, when it comes to written laws, the regulating authority are humans.

Dolan wrote:Solipsism = the position that anything outside your self is unknowable.

In this case of discussing the status of other (non-human) animals, I called solipsism this idea that you can't pass any judgement on the true nature of the inner/mental world of non-human animals, because you don't have access to it and so you will judge it based on human cognitive and affective templates. I disagreed with this position, because we are all subject to evolutionary constraints, and this can be clearly seen in behaviour, even if you ignore mental experiences.

The quote is saying that we err in making value judgements using us (and by inference the qualities and capabilities which constitute human-ness) as the normative standard. E.g., if human intelligence is the baseline, other animals are inferior. It's arrogance and a de facto pre condition for oppressing them.

Dolan wrote:@musketjr
Maybe if you took the time to actually develop an argument, your position would be taken more seriously.

I agree.

Metis wrote:

musketjr wrote: you kill many more plants to produce meat than if you were to eat the plants directly.

You obviously have never worked on a ranch or in a feed lot have you? Grazing or feeding with hay doesn't kill any plants. Grass grows from the crown -- grazing or haying utilizes only the leaves -- it's like mowing your yard. I believe I mentioned this once before.

I actually feel insulted by participating in this chain of replies with you. Seriously.

You think grass and dried grass are how livestock are fed? Get a grip, and do some research before you glibly participate in a discussion about a topic of this seriousness because you insult people like me, as well as the readers.

Noting that animals have more intelligence than we tend to give them credit for doesn't necessarily preclude us eating them. A good many human cultures didn't mind eating other humans, not to mention other animals.

-- deleted post --

musketjr wrote:I actually feel insulted by participating in this chain of replies with you. Seriously.

You think grass and dried grass are how livestock are fed? Get a grip, and do some research before you glibly participate in a discussion about a topic of this seriousness because you insult people like me, as well as the readers.

You are falling back on the argumentative fallacy that groups like feminists and creationists use in lieu of logic, namely claiming that facts "insult" them.

I worked on farms and ranches for five years. All of our cattle were either grazed or fed hay exclusively. Two miles from where I sit is a feedlot that sends thousands of cattle to slaughter each year. If you look out over the feed storage area, what will you see? Hay. In fact, don't take my word for it -- I'll show you.



If you grew up in a city apartment you might not know what you are see there. Here is a closeup:

You've gone from 'plants tho', to legitimizing cannibalism, to denying the scale (as if it's all grazing and dried grass, no intensive fattening or grains; the majority of grain grown across the world is used in meat production) of these industries.

If you keep going, you might conform to every trope in this:

iNcog wrote:

ark.cade.race.champ wrote:So, how intelligent is Metis? .....could we?

Hi,

It doesn't take a genius to figure out who you are, you're welcome back since the one week is over but please, keep it clean.

Who am I? I don't know what you're talking about.

That being said, I think you are right. I'm really fed up with the all the fucking dumbasses who just recklessly insult others.

Thanks for the picture of hay. Although from my time on an animal sanctuary I do know what it looks like. Seems you worked in the killing side of things, whereas I worked in the compassion side of things.

ark.cade.race.champ wrote:
Who am I? I don't know what you're talking about.

You do realize that admins of forums have access to your IP address, don't you?

musketjr wrote:You've gone from 'plants tho', to legitimizing cannibalism, to denying the scale (as if it's all grazing and dried grass, no intensive fattening or grains; the majority of grain grown across the world is used in meat production) of these industries.

If you keep going, you might conform to every trope in this:

Very nice.

However, you forgot that Metis is a scientist and would have a test tube on his desk.
Therefore he is right, duh.

Metis wrote:

ark.cade.race.champ wrote:
Who am I? I don't know what you're talking about.

You do realize that admins of forums have access to your IP address, don't you?

I still don't know what you guys are talking about.

However, judging by your comment maybe you should focus your scientific research on computers and stuff?

musketjr wrote:Thanks for the picture of hay. Although from my time on an animal sanctuary I do know what it looks like. Seems you worked in the killing side of things, whereas I worked in the compassion side of things.

Maybe it's just me but I'd say that people are more concerned with eating the 308 million tonnes of meat produced per year than they are with sanctuary animals. It's all well and good to pity the poor animals and it's definitely beneficial to keep up genetic diversity by preventing species from going extinct. However, such sentiments are the purview of the well-fed. How long do you think sanctuaries for animals last in a starving city? During the siege of Stalingrad, some people were surviving on wallpaper and rats, 2000 were later arrested for eating people. The only reason that the zoo was able to keep its star hippo was that they fed it... hay.

Was not really interested in this thread when it was first posted but I recently discovered the subreddit r/likeus and found some really interesting stuff.

http://i.imgur.com/GAWJJ4E.gifv

https://i.imgur.com/ndAoYQg.gifv

http://i.imgur.com/VEbMcIj.gifv

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meiU6TxysCg

-- deleted post --