Pigs as organ donors

[Shaker]

You are giving animals the capacity to have feelings and concerns they do not have.

What is your basis for this assertion?

The cow does not worry that it is on a farm and might one day be killed for food.

It does not think at all, apart from eating grass.

As before: do you know this, or prefer to think it?

They are animals, that are not humans.

I know what speciesism is: repetition doesn't defend it or justify it, it's just repetition.

They are food.

Not to me. They have no need to be.

Given that, and the fact they CAN feel pain, I would like them to be converted to food, painlessly.

Which isn't going to happen, is it?

[BeRational]

What is your basis for this assertion?

[quotw]The cow does not worry that it is on a farm and might one day be killed for food.

It does not think at all, apart from eating grass.
As before: do you know this, or prefer to think it?

[uote]They are animals, that are not humans.
I know what speciesism is: repetition doesn't defend it or justify it, it's just repetition.
Not to me. They have no need to be.Which isn't going to happen, is it?

You are asserting they have fears so you have the burden of proof.
The default position is that they do not until shown to do so.

I understand that you draw the line about what is food in a different place to me. We disagree, but I am not wrong and neither are you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mClv6S3BK60

[torridon]

You are giving animals the capacity to have feelings and concerns they do not have.

The cow does not worry that it is on a farm and might one day be killed for food.

It does not think at all, apart from eating grass.

They are animals, that are not humans. They are food.
Given that, and the fact they CAN feel pain, I would like them to be converted to food, painlessly.

I think you are morphing into Alan Burns

[BeRational]

I think you are morphing into Alan Burns

I take that as a serious insult!

In what way is my position not reasonable.

You cannot say animals have the reasoning capacity that we do, unless you can demonstrate this.

Can you?

[Rhiannon]

BeRat,

Dogs and pigs have similar emotional intelligence and we know that the emotional intelligence in dogs is similar to that of a child aged around two-two and a half.

[Shaker]

You are asserting they have fears so you have the burden of proof.
The default position is that they do not until shown to do so.

As far as I'm aware (and concerned) it has been shown.

By this I don't mean that the animals killed for food have long-range fears of the far future in the way that humans are aware of death (their own; that of others) at some unspecified point not-now-but-yet-to-come. That might be the case, but there's no evidence of it.

On the other hand it's surely obvious that animals have proximate, right-now fears. To deny this is to deny the evidence of your senses - including the behaviour of animals in slaughterhouses, or a group of cows spooked by a barking dog and so forth.

[BeRational]

BeRat,

Dogs and pigs have similar emotional intelligence and we know that the emotional intelligence in dogs is similar to that of a child aged around two-two and a half.

Do they make plans and fear death?

What is emotional intelligence?

Of course dogs and cats work well with us, as they have evolved to be what we want, so they can react to our feelings.

Human beings are omnivores, and we have evolved that way, our genes make us ideally adapted to eat meat as part of our diet.
I am speciesist, and I arbitrarily draw that line, which I understand you may not.

But, so what?

[Rhiannon]

Some friends of mine raised a calf whose mother has died. Their daughter in law slept in his stable at night because he cried for her for weeks. This wasn't a hunger thing - all his physical needs were met. He used to lie with his head in her lap crying.

[Rhiannon]

Do they make plans and fear death?

What is emotional intelligence?

Of course dogs and cats work well with us, as they have evolved to be what we want, so they can react to our feelings.

Human beings are omnivores, and we have evolved that way, our genes make us ideally adapted to eat meat as part of our diet.
I am speciesist, and I arbitrarily draw that line, which I understand you may not.

But, so what?

Dogs and pigs feel emotions such as pleasure, fear and love in the same way that a young child does.  They don't feel guilt.

[BeRational]

As far as I'm aware (and concerned) it has been shown.

By this I don't mean that the animals killed for food have long-range fears of the far future in the way that humans are aware of death (their own; that of others) at some unspecified point not-now-but-yet-to-come. That might be the case, but there's no evidence of it.

On the other hand it's surely obvious that animals have proximate, right-now fears. To deny this is to deny the evidence of your senses - including the behaviour of animals in slaughterhouses, or a group of cows spooked by a barking dog and so forth.

I grant that they have immediate fears, as of course they would, as it helps survival.

That's why I would like them despatched in a way that caused no fear and no pain so that they are converted to food in a humane way.

That, this is not what happens all the time everywhere, is not something I am happy with, and would like to see changed.

But, that is true for lots of things, that I also still take part in or use.

I travel by car, and I know people die in cars.

[Shaker]

You cannot say animals have the reasoning capacity that we do, unless you can demonstrate this.

Can you?

It's not about reasoning.

Reasoning isn't the morally relevant category because if it were, in the name of consistency we would eat humans with diminished (or nonexistent) reasoning capacities: babies, the severely brain damaged, demented elderly people and so forth.

The morally relevant quality is the ability to suffer, a stance that goes by the clumsy name of sentiocentrism - sentience is the central morally relevant issue. Hence Jeremy Bentham's famous quote:

The question is not, can they reason? Nor, can they talk? But, can they suffer?

[floo]

Do they make plans and fear death?

What is emotional intelligence?

Of course dogs and cats work well with us, as they have evolved to be what we want, so they can react to our feelings.

Human beings are omnivores, and we have evolved that way, our genes make us ideally adapted to eat meat as part of our diet.
I am speciesist, and I arbitrarily draw that line, which I understand you may not.

But, so what?

Whilst being a vegetarian probably won't do you any harm, the more extreme veganism can be a problem , I have heard, especially if it is inflicted on children.

[torridon]

I take that as a serious insult!

In what way is my position not reasonable.

You cannot say animals have the reasoning capacity that we do, unless you can demonstrate this.

Can you?

Pretty much what Alan would say.

Animals can't read books, yeah, yeah.

A cow is a mammal and a human is a mammal, we share the same basic mammalian brain structure and functionality and the presumption is we share the same set of six or seven basic emotions, unless evidence to the contrary is found. What differentiates humans is a layer of additional neocortex giving us more advanced abstract reasoning and language capacities.

But we are still animals.

[BeRational]

Dogs and pigs feel emotions such as pleasure, fear and love in the same way that a young child does.  They don't feel guilt.

Dos do look guilty sometimes, but if could be that they have evolved to look like that by our reaction.

[BeRational]

Pretty much what Alan would say.

Animals can't read books, yeah, yeah.

A cow is a mammal and a human is a mammal, we share the same basic mammalian brain structure and functionality and the presumption is we share the same set of six or seven basic emotions, unless evidence to the contrary is found. What differentiates humans is a layer of additional neocortex giving us more advanced abstract reasoning and language capacities.

But we are still animals.

We are still animals that have evolved to eat other animals, we agree.

Other animals are food, just as they will kill and eat other animals for their food.

so what?

[Shaker]

Human beings are omnivores, and we have evolved that way, our genes make us ideally adapted to eat meat as part of our diet.

This always comes up, usually sooner rather than later. It doesn't help your case, though; it tells us what we're able to eat, not what we should. It's a fact, not a value.

I am speciesist, and I arbitrarily draw that line, which I understand you may not.

But, so what?

So it causes/contributes to needless suffering.

[Shaker]

We are still animals that have evolved to eat other animals, we agree.

Other animals are food, just as they will kill and eat other animals for their food.

so what?

Torridon has told you:

What differentiates humans is a layer of additional neocortex giving us more advanced abstract reasoning and language capacities.

One of those abstract reasoning capacities - arguably the most important - is a theory of mind: extrapolation from our own mental and physical states (which is all we ever know or ever can know) to those of others, which in humans - hopefully - entails an awareness of when we're causing suffering to something that isn't us.

[torridon]

We are still animals that have evolved to eat other animals, we agree.

Other animals are food, just as they will kill and eat other animals for their food.

so what?

Speciesism is just a dilute form of racism.

You are related to that cow in the field, just as you are related to that black man from Uganda, just more distantly.

If we can eat a whole cow with no conscience pangs, perhaps it would be ok to take a quick nibble of a passing Ugandan.

[Bramble]

BTW do you refuse to take all meds which have been tested on animals?

This is a challenge routinely put to those who disagree with the ethics of using animals as experimental subjects - often, I suspect shut them up and close the debate. But let's imagine the experimental work that led to the discovery of insulin was carried out not on dogs but on humans by Nazi scientists during WW2. Would it follow that only those who agreed with forced experiments on human subjects should take insulin to avoid charges of hypocrisy? Or would it better honour the suffering of those who died during the research that we make insulin available to all who need it? If the latter then why should medications formerly tested on animals become ethically out of bounds to those who disagree with the use of animals in medical research, providing the subsequent manufacture of such drugs does not involve ongoing testing?

[Sriram]

So are you saying if you needed a donor organ to save your life you wouldn't accept one?

If an organ is available by chance due to an accident or conscious donation.....I would accept. Certainly I wouldn't want anyone or anything killed specifically for me.

And the idea of 'growing' or breeding pigs only for organ donation is appalling. Like taking the organs of a mentally retarded child. How about breeding mentally retarded children specifically for organ donation?! 

[BeRational]

Speciesism is just a dilute form of racism.

You are related to that cow in the field, just as you are related to that black man from Uganda, just more distantly.

If we can eat a whole cow with no conscience pangs, perhaps it would be ok to take a quick nibble of a passing Ugandan.

I disagree that it is racism.

I can easily eat animals, and treat all humans equally so this shows you are wrong.

Are you saying that if you ate cows, you would also eat humans?

[BeRational]

If an organ is available by chance due to an accident or conscious donation.....I would accept. Certainly I wouldn't want anyone or anything killed specifically for me.

And the idea of 'growing' or breeding pigs only for organ donation is appalling. Like taking the organs of a mentally retarded child. How about breeding mentally retarded children specifically for organ donation?!

I arbitrarily draw the line at humans (and perhaps other animals like apes, elephants etc).

So, for me this is a non question. As soon as you introduce humans, then my answer in most cases is NO, they are not food, and not a resource to be exploited against their wishes.

[Shaker]

I disagree that it is racism.

The argument is that it's indicative of the same sort of mindset - prejudice based upon arbitrary and irrelevant difference(s).

[BeRational]

The argument is that it's indicative of the same sort of mindset - prejudice based upon arbitrary and irrelevant difference(s).

The difference to me at least, is not irrelevant. They are not humans, they are my food.

You are also related remotely to EVERY living thing on the planet, but you eat vegetables who are after all, distant cousins.

So you have drawn a different arbitrary line to me.

So what?

[floo]

If an organ is available by chance due to an accident or conscious donation.....I would accept. Certainly I wouldn't want anyone or anything killed specifically for me.

And the idea of 'growing' or breeding pigs only for organ donation is appalling. Like taking the organs of a mentally retarded child. How about breeding mentally retarded children specifically for organ donation?!

Pigs aren't humans, so I have absolutely no problem with that at all, I cannot see the difference between eating pork and using a pig's organ to replace one of my own.