GENIUS FORUMS

brokenhead wrote:

mikiel wrote:It is obviously hypocritical to "chicken out" on the killing but still eat the meat.

Mikiel, what is your point? Should society have as a rite of passage a requirement that every person must at some time kill a pig if he has ever eaten bacon?

So everyone at the banquet who has not beheaded a turkey is a hypocrite. This is good to know, mikiel. You'll understand if I don't invite you to Thanksgiving this year.

Philosophically speaking, we are a society of hypocrites as regards killing and eating animals. Most folks don't give it a second thought. It's neatly packaged on a styrofoam tray covered with clear plastic...
far removed from the slaughterhouse scene.

My contribution here is a challenge to folks who are so far removed from the blood and guts of the slaughter that they don't even think about it.
This is living unconsciously in this regard.
I advocate bringing the 'cutting edge' of consciousness to the whole cycle, as presented in my posts above.
And the offhand attitute (I'm alright with the killing) is easy to say, yet the proof is in the actual killing and how one actually feels about it around the act itself... "walking the talk" as I said.

I am not here advocating that society make rules about it but that each take personal responsibility for creating a market for the killing.* (Like child porn. If you condemn the creators of it you certainly must not be a consumer... or, again you are a hypocrite.)
Again, if you can actually do it (kill the animals you eat) you are a natural carnivore. If not you are a natural vegetarian.

Sometimes, to know for sure, each for him/herself, one must go beyond the life of the mind, the concepts we entertain and "get real" about it, especially in the case of life and death... how high or low on the food chain one feels right about living.

This is not that mysterious, broke. And it's not just a mind game.

For me, the issue isn't nearly so much about whether or not to kill animals, but how you kill them and how they live before you kill them. Even to have this discussion like this, indicates the way that people are so very cut off from nature in this society.

Best book on this subject I have come across, and a very entertaining read, (subject of what has become of the food situation in America, and how it relates to our ongoing nonfreedom) is "Everything I Want To Do Is Illegal" by Joel Salatin. I consider it a kind of must read. Its a tremendous eye opener.

mikiel wrote:Sometimes, to know for sure, each for him/herself, one must go beyond the life of the mind, the concepts we entertain and "get real" about it, especially in the case of life and death... how high or low on the food chain one feels right about living.

This is not that mysterious, broke. And it's not just a mind game.

You do understand that I am not disagreeing with you, right?

It's the "get real" part I am having trouble with. If you are saying that one must "go beyond the life of the mind," you are saying that somehow everybody should have to kill at least one time the species of animal that they eat. It's the "somehow" that is leaving me blank. How would you propose this be accomplished? I'm not saying it can't be done - but I for one would have no clue how to remedy this situation.

In a civilized society, that is, and lately I'm wondering how long that's going to last. How do you get a society of "hypocrites" to stop being hypocrites?

broke:

You do understand that I am not disagreeing with you, right?

Not so much disagreeing but watering it down like one needs a "Ways and Means Committee" to set up the proper situation for each person to discover in all actual truth whether s/he is naturally a carnivore or a vegetarian. Or like if you will not work in a sewer plant or garbage disposal... you must ...?? quit shitting and creating garbage? Just beside the point was all I meant here.

It's the "get real" part I am having trouble with. If you are saying that one must "go beyond the life of the mind," you are saying that somehow everybody should have to kill at least one time the species of animal that they eat. It's the "somehow" that is leaving me blank. How would you propose this be accomplished? I'm not saying it can't be done - but I for one would have no clue how to remedy this situation.

If the principle I am advocating is compelling, each person will find their own way to find out their truth about killing animals. It's not like it requires a gov't program or something. Go to a farm and explain your quest. Keep it up 'til you find the situation necessary. It's not like the Quest for Enlightenment. Finding a farm/ranch where you can discover this for yourself is much less challenging.

But you are harping on how inconvenient this quest might be.
Sorry but this is very weak.

In a civilized society, that is, and lately I'm wondering how long that's going to last. How do you get a society of "hypocrites" to stop being hypocrites?

Well, I start at home at The Center for Conscious Unity, its 80 acre land trust, and taking very seriously my role as First Trustee and co-founder of the intentional community.

Recently one of the residents wanted to raise chickens for eggs, but she had never killed a chicken. Since I grew up on a homestead with all kinds of farm animals (and was a macho "big game hunter"), I have exposed her to the "head-lopping" end of raising chickens "for eggs"... theoretically for openers.
She doesn't like the idea, so, so far we are still a vegetarian community... with a big herd of deer, roaming freely, which we have come to love. It is *not* a rule that we are a vegetarian community! It is up to each resident. Freedom is our key word. And Freedom absolutely requires personal responsibility.

Gotta go... back to the "farm."

mikiel wrote:You are splitting hairs over my use of the word hypocrite.

No, really, I'm not. I gave you a reasonable alternative: that people who eat meat without being willing to kill it are possibly in denial of or ignorant of the consequences of their actions. Why not take that alternative? Your "hypocrisy" argument is flawed.

mikiel wrote:I'm guessing that if you polled 100 people, 98 of them would agree that to eat meat when you will not kill the animal is hypocricy.

That particular fallacy is known as an "Appeal to Popularity", and moreover, your appeal is unsubstantiated.

mikiel wrote:You say,"Hypocrisy is preaching one thing and doing another."
It's not just about words here ("preaching.")
It's about walking the talk.

Erm, you're saying exactly the same thing that I am. I used "preaching"; you used "talk". I used "doing"; you used "walking". What exactly are you arguing against?

mikiel wrote:If you say, "I'm willing to kill what I eat" your intent may blow up in your face when the chicken's head is on the block and you raise the axe... or you look into those big cow eyes at point-blank range with finger on the trigger.

Sure, that might happen, but saying that is not a requirement of being a meat-eater! You're arguing that a willingness to eat meat implies a willingness to kill animals, but this does not logically follow.

mikiel wrote:It is obviously hypocritical to "chicken out" on the killing but still eat the meat.

No, it's not, because the willingness to eat meat does not entail that one be also willing to kill the animal that provides the meat. If you think that it does, then you need to explain why.

Let's recap: one logical fallacy, one non-argument, one false implication. All of that formal debating experience doesn't seem to have payed off too well, does it?

"Let's recap":
mikiel wrote:
It is obviously hypocritical to "chicken out" on the killing but still eat the meat.

(g-o-l):
No, it's not, because the willingness to eat meat does not entail that one be also willing to kill the animal that provides the meat. If you think that it does, then you need to explain why.
If you are unwilling to kill the animal but willing to eat the meat that your hired killers slaughter for you, then you are a hypocrite. This by my definition of one who has an idea in his head ("killing animals is ok") but is unwilling to 'walk the talk.' That's all I "need to explain." And your mental masturbation on the subject has "hypocricy" in a mental concept category conveniently isolated from real life activity.

g-o-l:

Let's recap: one logical fallacy, one non-argument, one false implication. All of that formal debating experience doesn't seem to have payed off too well, does it?

There is no logical fallacy but in your arbitrary mind set of concepts divorced from the reality to which they refer.

The argument is cogent for folks who know that eating meat requires a blood and guts willingness to kill the 'food' animals. This is what predation is... even if you never give a thought to the killing as long as you can remain hypocritically far removed from the reality of the slaughterhouse from which your meat came.

"... one false implication"... somewhere in your well insulated mental boundary between the killing and the eating...

It ("All of that formal debating experience") paid off fairly well if you followed my follow-up above.
I welcome your further foolishness on how a carnivore who will not kill his own meat is not a hypocrite. You just dig yourself deeper into absurdity the more you define hypocricy in your own way obviously avoiding the real-life, life-and-death issue here at hand.

Keep pumping... choking that mental chicken... it will eventually cum to you.

mikiel wrote:It is obviously hypocritical to "chicken out" on the killing but still eat the meat.

"It is obviously hypocritical to have no part in one's conception but still to live." That's an equivalent statement.

We frequently take advantage of effects which we had little to no ultimate involvement in the causes of - that doesn't make us hypocrites, it just makes us members of a society in which tasks and labour are specialised.

mikiel wrote:If you are unwilling to kill the animal but willing to eat the meat that your hired killers slaughter for you, then you are a hypocrite. This by my definition of one who has an idea in his head ("killing animals is ok") but is unwilling to 'walk the talk.'

Your implication is still false. "Killing animals is OK" does not imply "I am willing to kill animals". Someone whose position is "It is OK in general to kill animals for food but I personally find the process of slaughter too emotionally disturbing to participate in" is not a hypocrite. That individual's inability to personally kill does not contradict their belief in the acceptability of animal slaughter in general.

Here's an analogous situation: a person who flies in planes is tacitly affirming that "Solving difficult maths and engineering problems is OK" (because that's how the plane got built), but that doesn't imply that s/he should be capable of solving those problems.

Anyhow, I agree that people who eat meat but cannot kill animals have good cause to consider whether they should be vegetarians.

mikiel wrote:There is no logical fallacy but in your arbitrary mind set of concepts divorced from the reality to which they refer.

Oh, but I pointed out the specific logical fallacy: appeal to popularity. You claimed (without justification) that a high percentage of the general public would support your view, implying that therefore it is correct. It's a textbook case of that particular fallacy.

WARNING; This will be repetitive and boring to those who already get my point. Just to publicly embarrass g-o-l for his/her "logic" so divorced from common sense reality.

guest_of_logic wrote:

mikiel wrote:It is obviously hypocritical to "chicken out" on the killing but still eat the meat.

"It is obviously hypocritical to have no part in one's conception but still to live." That's an equivalent statement.

Is it really? Are you in high school or college level logic/debate classes?
Folks have no choice in their birth but everyday choice in their ethics/ conscience of diet and involvelvement in killing animals out of appetite for the flesh. It is not a necessity for survival after all. Ask any vegetarian.

We frequently take advantage of effects which we had little to no ultimate involvement in the causes of - that doesn't make us hypocrites, it just makes us members of a society in which tasks and labour are specialised.

And we shit into a sewer system without working in the processing plant or on the sewer maintenance crew, as Broke blurted out so obviously beside the point here in question.

mikiel wrote:If you are unwilling to kill the animal but willing to eat the meat that your hired killers slaughter for you, then you are a hypocrite. This by my definition of one who has an idea in his head ("killing animals is ok") but is unwilling to 'walk the talk.'

Your implication is still false. "Killing animals is OK" does not imply "I am willing to kill animals". Someone whose position is "It is OK in general to kill animals for food but I personally find the process of slaughter too emotionally disturbing to participate in" is not a hypocrite. That individual's inability to personally kill does not contradict their belief in the acceptability of animal slaughter in general.

So it's all in your head. If I say "killing animals for food is ok" then the proof of my talk is in the act of killing them. You are still engaged in mental masturbation... All it creates is empty words with no integrity to back them up with the action ethically required by such "consent."

Here's an analogous situation: a person who flies in planes is tacitly affirming that "Solving difficult maths and engineering problems is OK" (because that's how the plane got built), but that doesn't imply that s/he should be capable of solving those problems.

Such bullshit! Not even close to "analogous" to willingness to kill the animals you eat. This is SO OBVIOUS!

Anyhow, I agree that people who eat meat but cannot kill animals have good cause to consider whether they should be vegetarians.

"have good cause to consider" becoming vegetrian?? But you have a special hedge against calling such will-not-kill but will-eat carnivores hypocrites! Why is that? Because you qualify but will not accept the 'truth-in-labeling' of yourself as such a hypocrite?

mikiel wrote:There is no logical fallacy but in your arbitrary mind set of concepts divorced from the reality to which they refer.

Oh, but I pointed out the specific logical fallacy: appeal to popularity. You claimed (without justification) that a high percentage of the general public would support your view, implying that therefore it is correct. It's a textbook case of that particular fallacy.

I "guessed" without factual claim that 98 out of 100 would agree with my argument. I could be wrong. Probably not. It really is quite obvious.
I know it will not be an unbiased/fair judgement, but you clearly lose this one.

No, really... I was on a panel of debate judges (of my fellow graduate students)and we were in accord on almost all judgemts of the winners and losers of high school champioship debates at state level... the level where my "championship" credentials were established.

I'm now done with this topic.

mikiel wrote:

It is obviously hypocritical to "chicken out" on the killing but still eat the meat.

and

This by my definition of one who has an idea in his head ("killing animals is ok") but is unwilling to 'walk the talk.'

If that argument is valid, and I say "having sex for money is ok", but am unwilling to do it myself, I'd be a hypocrite.

Are you happy with that conclusion?

-

mikiel wrote:mikiel: It is obviously hypocritical to "chicken out" on the killing but still eat the meat.

guest_of_logic: "It is obviously hypocritical to have no part in one's conception but still to live." That's an equivalent statement.

mikiel: Folks have no choice in their birth but everyday choice in their ethics/ conscience of diet and involvelvement in killing animals out of appetite for the flesh. It is not a necessity for survival after all.

No analogy is perfect, but you've ignored the part that matches: namely that one thing is caused by another thing but that the person who benefits from that thing does not take any part in its cause. In the analogy, "killing meat" is equivalent to "conception", and "eating meat" is equivalent to "living". It's clear from this analogy that to benefit from something does not require that one perform or even be capable of performing or even willing to perform the action which causes that something.

mikiel wrote:And we shit into a sewer system without working in the processing plant or on the sewer maintenance crew, as Broke blurted out so obviously beside the point here in question.

The point is that you're not a hypocrite for not being willing to do so.

mikiel wrote:If I say "killing animals for food is ok" then the proof of my talk is in the act of killing them.

And/or in the act of accepting that others kill them.

Sher's post makes obvious the fallaciousness of your reasoning. To hold that something is acceptable does not imply that one be actually willing to engage in that something, else every woman who believes that prostitution is acceptable must be willing to prostitute herself.

guest_of_logic: Here's an analogous situation: a person who flies in planes is tacitly affirming that "Solving difficult maths and engineering problems is OK" (because that's how the plane got built), but that doesn't imply that s/he should be capable of solving those problems.

mikiel: Such bullshit! Not even close to "analogous" to willingness to kill the animals you eat. This is SO OBVIOUS!

If it were so obvious then you surely could have provided an argument to that effect, but instead you just bluster. Those championship debating skills are coming to the fore once again... not.

guest_of_logic: Anyhow, I agree that people who eat meat but cannot kill animals have good cause to consider whether they should be vegetarians.

mikiel: "have good cause to consider" becoming vegetrian?? But you have a special hedge against calling such will-not-kill but will-eat carnivores hypocrites! Why is that? Because you qualify but will not accept the 'truth-in-labeling' of yourself as such a hypocrite?

Not only are your debating skills weak, but you seem to have a problem with comprehension and recall too. Somehow you missed that in my first post to this thread I wrote "By the way, I'm a vegetarian".

mikiel: There is no logical fallacy but in your arbitrary mind set of concepts divorced from the reality to which they refer.

guest_of_logic: Oh, but I pointed out the specific logical fallacy: appeal to popularity. You claimed (without justification) that a high percentage of the general public would support your view, implying that therefore it is correct. It's a textbook case of that particular fallacy.

mikiel: I "guessed" without factual claim that 98 out of 100 would agree with my argument. I could be wrong. Probably not. It really is quite obvious.

It's a fallacy because even if your guess were true - that many people agreed with you - this does not prove that you are right. In certain parts of the world the majority used to believe that the Earth was flat. Was that proof that the Earth was indeed flat?

mikiel wrote:I know it will not be an unbiased/fair judgement, but you clearly lose this one.

Uh, that's quite a delusion that you've got going on there.

[aside]It's funny how a man with no ego is so interested in ideas of winning and losing...[/aside]

mikiel wrote:No, really... I was on a panel of debate judges (of my fellow graduate students)and we were in accord on almost all judgemts of the winners and losers of high school champioship debates at state level... the level where my "championship" credentials were established.

The proof is in the pudding. Your pudding is looking quite flat and flavourless.

mikiel wrote:I'm now done with this topic.

I've heard that one before.

It is up to the individual as 2 whether they should eat meat. I love animals but eat meat and if that makes me a hypocrite fine.

Also i think it is an imposition and an intrusion to ones life if someone judges them in a negative and self righteous way