*skim-reads*Well, that looks like nonsense. It utterly ignored the differences between persons and non-persons - comparing animal husbandry to the holocaust is only going to be plausible if you think that farm-animals are persons, or Jews non-persons. Both of these would be false.
The language is loaded, therefore question-begging.
Also, this paper ignores all the important philosophical work that's been done on animal welfare in the last 40 years - it doesn't even cite Singer or Rachels, who would be plausible allies, let alone give a hearing to those who think that nonhumans are of little to no moral importance.
How does stuff like this pass peer-review, grumble grumble.
Right: I'm off to spend an afternoon doing real philosophy. Dispassionately. With arguments.
(The language is loaded, therefore question-begging.
Also, this paper ignores all the important philosophical work that's been done on animal welfare in the last 40 years - it doesn't even cite Singer or Rachels, who would be plausible allies, let alone give a hearing to those who think that nonhumans are of little to no moral importance.
How does stuff like this pass peer-review, grumble grumble.
Right: I'm off to spend an afternoon doing real philosophy. Dispassionately. With arguments.
Enzyme is powered by sunlight,
Mon 18 Apr 2011, 14:24,
archived)
that's some impressive skin reading, you seem to have missed all the points and taken it to be about something that it isn'tthe holocaust comment I made is a very tiny comparison made almost as an aside, its not what the blokes paper is about.
(
HappyToast Groat froth,
Mon 18 Apr 2011, 14:28,
archived)
I imagine the rationale is the same for most things people consider unpleasant.So long as it's not going on under your nose and there's offical sanction, it's okay, even when it's not. That said, pigs aren't animals and they're very tasty, whereas jewish people aren't tasty and complain more
(
Smallbrainfield,
Mon 18 Apr 2011, 14:37,
archived)
I'm reading it in a bit more detail at the moment.There's a lot of highly morally loaded language in there, and precious little argument to support it. And there remains a big, big, big problem along the lines that comparing treatments of different kinds of animal in this way is only ever going to be more than empty formalism if there is some serious sense in which the animals are morally comparable. That doesn't seem to be established here.
I simply don't buy the argument - not least because the important bits are left out.
(I simply don't buy the argument - not least because the important bits are left out.
Enzyme is powered by sunlight,
Mon 18 Apr 2011, 14:37,
archived)
I skimmed your commentsand they sound like, "I like meat, they're animals, shut up".
(
mofaha ┐( ˘_˘)┌ ʅ(́◡◝)ʃ,
Mon 18 Apr 2011, 14:47,
archived)
Pigs have a lot to answer forI mean, pork chops are vile.
(
arrangedletters,
Mon 18 Apr 2011, 14:50,
archived)
I skimmed your postIt sounded like 'comments..sound..meat'. Coincidentally the new album by Nine Inch Nails.
( Smallbrainfield,
Mon 18 Apr 2011, 14:51,
archived)
I skimmed my stone across your pondand now we're caught in a sexual allegory :(
( arrangedletters,
Mon 18 Apr 2011, 14:53,
archived)