Pigs as organ donors

[BeRational]

I don't think I was the one who referred to using dinner plates from the bottom of the stack in case they're sad at not being so used (#101).
I don't consider suffering to be arbitrary. What you think of suffering we can't tell, since I asked you (#116) but you didn't respond.
Suffering is the top, bottom, centre, be-all and end-all of my position. I have no need or desire to eat even so-far mythical suffering-free meat, but that's a side issue.

As I have previously said (#118) 
Nothing like favourite colour (#118) - do you read nothing?
Not to anybody who by their own admission doesn't care about suffering, no.
Contradiction in terms to me.

Why do you mention suffering when I have shown that this is irrelevant to your position.

When asked if you would eat an animal that had not suffered, you still said no. So suffering is not why you do not eat meat.

You are not being logical there.

It is EXACTLY like a favourite colour as it is OPINION.

Worse though, you think I should share you arbitrary position.

I don't. So what? Why is this important to you.

If you care about suffering I am with you, and totally agree that animals raised for food should not suffer.

[Shaker]

Why do you mention suffering when I have shown that this is irrelevant to your position.

When asked if you would eat an animal that had not suffered, you still said no. So suffering is not why you do not eat meat.

You are not being logical there.

It is EXACTLY like a favourite colour as it is OPINION.

Worse though, you think I should share you arbitrary position.

I don't. So what? Why is this important to you.

If you care about suffering I am with you, and totally agree that animals raised for food should not suffer.

OK, you clearly can't follow any points put to you - I'm either having to repeat something I've previously written or (for the same reason) refer you to a prior post by post number, because you are showing all the signs of dumb incomprehension in asking questions already answered or raising points already addressed. I really don't have time for this - I've said what I've said as well as I'm able on a phone and with limited time, but I don't think you've been reading anything or at any rate comprehending it.

Seriously - after making sure your plates are not feeling left out, change your user name. It's inappropriate.

[BeRational]

OK, you clearly can't follow any points put to you - I'm either having to repeat something I've previously written or (for the same reason) refer you to a prior post by post number, because you are showing all the signs of dumb incomprehension in asking questions already answered or raising points already addressed. I really don't have time for this - I've said what I've said as well as I'm able on a phone and with limited time, but I don't think you've been reading anything or at any rate comprehending it.

And now you are just being insulting.

You say suffering is the reason you do not eat meat. Then illogically say you would not eat meat that did not suffer.

Can you not see that the two sentences do not agree with each other, and you are not logical.

You are not being honest about your reason for not eating meat, and it is preference.

Why should I care about your preference?

[Shaker]

I never for one picosecond imagined that you did care. By your own admission caring is not close to the top of your list of priorities.

[BeRational]

I never for one picosecond imagined that you did care. By your own admission caring is not close to the top of your list of priorities.

Again just insult?

My position is reasoned and logical, your seems to be hysterical.

I am not trying to force my opinion on you, why are you trying to do that to me?

[Shaker]

Again just insult?

My position is reasoned and logical, your seems to be hysterical.

Your position seems to be founded on nothing but a stroppy teenager's "So what?", sad crockery and asinine comparisons with favourite colours.

As for hysterical: don't use words you don't understand.

I am not trying to force my opinion on you, why are you trying to do that to me?

Because I care about that thing which you do not, viz. non-human suffering.

[BeRational]

Your position seems to be founded on nothing but a stroppy teenager's "So what?", sad crockery and asinine comparisons with favourite colours.

As for hysterical: don't use words you don't understand.Because I care about that thing which you do not, viz. non-human suffering.

As I explained my morality extends to humans and NOT to animals.

Having said that, I do care about animal suffering.

You reason for not eating meat, is not just due to suffering as I have shown.

I would like all meat to have lived a happy life, and been killed without suffering, and think we should work towards that.

I am guessing that you would still not agree with that?

[Shaker]

As I explained my morality extends to humans and NOT to animals.

You've asserted this. Not explained it.

Having said that, I do care about animal suffering.

Except when you don't (q.v. #83).

You reason for not eating meat, is not just due to suffering as I have shown.

You didn't have to show it - I said so (#118, #124).

I would like all meat to have lived a happy life, and been killed without suffering, and think we should work towards that.

I am guessing that you would still not agree with that?

Correct.

[BeRational]

You've asserted this. Not explained it.

Except when you don't (q.v. #83).
You didn't have to show it - I said so.
Correct.

That my morality is for my species is an arbitrary position I take. It needs no more explanation than that. My reasoning for eating meat then follows.

You make a big thing about suffering which is odd, because I agree with you. I do not want the animals to suffer.
I then have no problem eating them, where you do, so suffering is NOT the reason you do not eat meat.

If it was 100% certain that all animals killed for meat were happy and content, and did not suffer, you would still NOT eat them.

So what is the real reason?

[Shaker]

That my morality is for my species is an arbitrary position I take. It needs no more explanation than that.

Well, yes it does.

My reasoning for eating meat then follows.

As we often tell the theists here, nothing follows from a non-explanation.

You make a big thing about suffering which is odd, because I agree with you. I do not want the animals to suffer.

Again (#116) why not?

I then have no problem eating them, where you do, so suffering is NOT the reason you do not eat meat.

It is the main reason. The predominant reason. The no. 1 reason. Not the sole reason. There is a difference between 'main' and 'only'.

(This cow is very small, Dougal, whereas that cow is big but far away ...).

[BeRational]

Well, yes it does.
As we often tell the theists here, nothing follows from a non-explanation.
Again (#116) why not?It is the main reason. The predominant reason. The no. 1 reason. Not the sole reason. There is a difference between 'main' and 'only'.

(This cow is very small, Dougal, whereas that cow is big but far away ...).

But you would not eat meat even if there was no suffering.

My morality extends to my species, and is a line I draw. It is arbitrary and needs no more than that.

You kill and eat other living things, so you draw the line in a different place.

So what?

Neither line can be shown to be true and the other false. They are both preferences, nothing more.

You seem to think your preference is the only correct one, but cannot say why.

[Shaker]

OK, that's enough of your witless shit.

If anybody wants me, I'll be in the kitchen asking my cereal bowls if they're more or less satisfied with how life is going in general at the moment.

[BeRational]

OK, that's enough of your witless shit.

If anybody wants me, I'll be in the kitchen asking my cereal bowls if they're more or less satisfied with how life is going in general at the moment.

Witless shit!

Way to lose the argument.

[Shaker]

Witless shit!

Way to lose the argument.

If was lost the first time you demonstrated your dull incomprehension of something already spelled out for you.

[Enki]

Just as a thought experiment.
What do you think you might do if you woke up in hospital after having had a serious heart attack and found that you had been given a pig heart transplant?

Pig's heart valves have been used in surgery on humans for over a generation. Indeed, an acquaintance of mine had a pig's heart valve inserted circa 1970 and lived to a ripe old age. What finally killed him was cancer.

[BeRational]

If was lost the first time you demonstrated your dull incomprehension of something already spelled out for you.

I think it is clear who is shrill hysterical and dim!

[Shaker]

I think it is clear who is shrill hysterical and dim!

I think it's clear that torridon's #52 was bang on the money; not so much rinse and repeat as mince and repeat.

[Enki]

True, but a plant doesn't feel pain, you have to have a brain and consciousness to experience that.

Also a plant doesn't have a nervous system.

[BeRational]

I think it's clear that torridon's #52 was bang on the money; not so much rinse and repeat as mince and repeat.

I disagree.

Your position is purely subjective as is mine.

The difference is, that I do not try to say your position is wrong.

[Robbie]

If anybody wants me, I'll be in the kitchen asking my cereal bowls if they're more or less satisfied with how life is going in general at the moment.

Oh  , you do that too! Kindred spirit. Since being vegetarian my big blue enamelled oval roaster is severely neglected so I call it my "Thing of beauty".

Went out for lunch to a cafe with friend, read the Sun.
Big article on pigs as organ donors, it's hot news.

[SusanDoris]

I have not followed this thread but looked in on a few posts on page one and this last page. I note that Shaker did not answer the question about what he would do if he woke to find he had a porcine valve.

Like a very large number of people, I have no intention of stopping eating ham, bacon and pork, and am very grateful to the pig whose valve means my heart works very well nowadays.

[Shaker]

I have not followed this thread but looked in on a few posts on page one and this last page. I note that Shaker did not answer the question about what he would do if he woke to find he had a porcine valve.

I saw the early question, and replied that it's not even a serious question - in real life it simply just doesn't work like that. It just doesn't.

Otherwise, playing along with somebody's absurd conception of a thought experiment, sue the bastards to the soles of their shoes and the bottom of their bank accounts for every last copper coin for inflicting upon me a medical procedure to which I did not give and would not have given my consent.

[Robbie]

Maybe nice to be alive and able to sue? Can't see how that would achieve anything when what's done is done.

[floo]

I saw the early question, and replied that it's not even a serious question - in real life it simply just doesn't work like that. It just doesn't.

Otherwise, playing along with somebody's absurd conception of a thought experiment, sue the bastards to the soles of their shoes and the bottom of their bank accounts for every last copper coin for inflicting upon me a medical procedure to which I did not give and would not have given my consent.

And of course you would expect the organ to be removed immediately!

[Shaker]

And of course you would expect the organ to be removed immediately!

By then the damage is done.

I prefer damage not to be done.