For atheists: is killing animals ok?

[Funkyterrance]

No offense JB but your''re ignorant.
I have actual experience with animals bred for work(draft horses) and they are more content when working than when idle.

[BigBallinStalin]

If an animal humps your leg, does that count as consent?

[Woodruff]

Nah, the belief that there is no higher power, so what does it matter? Just keep looking out for #1 cuz it all comes out in the wash right?

Oh, I thought you were being sarcastic before. You weren't being sarcastic before?

That's unfortunate, to say the least.

[Woodruff]

After he repeated his point, a friend sitting behind me whispered to me "can we f*ck them too?" in a funny manner, I almost laughed and the professor asked what was the joke, as I was about to tell him the joke, my friend beat me to it and said I was suggesting that we could f*ck animals since we could do anything with them. Obviously everybody, including many girls that didn't know me well since the course was in its first days, looked at me suspiciously.

It's a good point.
You're not allowed (in many states) to f*ck animals because they cannot legally consent to sex. Ok, that kinda makes sense.
But then why are you legally allowed to wrap an Ox in a harness and make it drag a sledge? How do they consent to brutal labor but not sex?

Because sex is icky. Geez, you godless heathens don't understand anything.

[Woodruff]

No offense JB but your''re ignorant.

Says the guy who appears to be thoroughly ignorant about atheists.

I have actual experience with animals bred for work(draft horses) and they are more content when working than when idle.

Therefore ALL animals are more content when working than when idle? My cats will be quite surprised at that determination.

[waauw]

When it comes to athiesm, anything goes. Duhhhhhh.
Any guilt regarding killing animals by an athiest is contradictory to their belief system.

boy, you're as ignorant as they get aren't you?

atheism is only about not believing in a deity, that's all. For the rest it's compatible with a lot of other things. Empathy or sympathy towards animals is among them.

[Gillipig]

I have never met an Atheist who feels that way. That includes the entire Godless Heathens usegroup here.

We always talk about how life is more precious to us because we don't delude ourselves that it's a pointless test to determine if we were created good enough for an eternity of praising Jesus.

After he repeated his point, a friend sitting behind me whispered to me "can we f*ck them too?" in a funny manner, I almost laughed and the professor asked what was the joke, as I was about to tell him the joke, my friend beat me to it and said I was suggesting that we could f*ck animals since we could do anything with them. Obviously everybody, including many girls that didn't know me well since the course was in its first days, looked at me suspiciously.

It's a good point.
You're not allowed (in many states) to f*ck animals because they cannot legally consent to sex. Ok, that kinda makes sense.
But then why are you legally allowed to wrap an Ox in a harness and make it drag a sledge? How do they consent to brutal labor but not sex?

The Godless Heathens usergroup should change name to "The Inactive Heathens", at least that's what it was last time I checked. A usergroup were everyone agrees is a boring usergroup.

[BigBallinStalin]

I have never met an Atheist who feels that way. That includes the entire Godless Heathens usegroup here.

We always talk about how life is more precious to us because we don't delude ourselves that it's a pointless test to determine if we were created good enough for an eternity of praising Jesus.

After he repeated his point, a friend sitting behind me whispered to me "can we f*ck them too?" in a funny manner, I almost laughed and the professor asked what was the joke, as I was about to tell him the joke, my friend beat me to it and said I was suggesting that we could f*ck animals since we could do anything with them. Obviously everybody, including many girls that didn't know me well since the course was in its first days, looked at me suspiciously.

It's a good point.
You're not allowed (in many states) to f*ck animals because they cannot legally consent to sex. Ok, that kinda makes sense.
But then why are you legally allowed to wrap an Ox in a harness and make it drag a sledge? How do they consent to brutal labor but not sex?

The Godless Heathens usergroup should change name to "The Inactive Heathens", at least that's what it was last time I checked. A usergroup were everyone agrees is a boring usergroup.

It can be. In the exclusive usergroups which no one but 'you know' knows about, we all agree that you're a Scandinavian Scallywag.

[jonesthecurl]

Nah, the belief that there is no higher power, so what does it matter? Just keep looking out for #1 cuz it all comes out in the wash right?

Thank you for informing me what my belief system is. I was unaware of that before. It may change my attitude now, obviously I was utterly wrong when I thought I cared about anything other than myself.
Then again, maybe you're a twit.

[thegreekdog]

Nah, the belief that there is no higher power, so what does it matter? Just keep looking out for #1 cuz it all comes out in the wash right?

Thank you for informing me what my belief system is. I was unaware of that before. It may change my attitude now, obviously I was utterly wrong when I thought I cared about anything other than myself.
Then again, maybe you're a twit.

And hey! That's why I don't read the religion threads. I don't feel all that good when people tell me what my belief system is.

[Gillipig]

I have never met an Atheist who feels that way. That includes the entire Godless Heathens usegroup here.

We always talk about how life is more precious to us because we don't delude ourselves that it's a pointless test to determine if we were created good enough for an eternity of praising Jesus.

After he repeated his point, a friend sitting behind me whispered to me "can we f*ck them too?" in a funny manner, I almost laughed and the professor asked what was the joke, as I was about to tell him the joke, my friend beat me to it and said I was suggesting that we could f*ck animals since we could do anything with them. Obviously everybody, including many girls that didn't know me well since the course was in its first days, looked at me suspiciously.

It's a good point.
You're not allowed (in many states) to f*ck animals because they cannot legally consent to sex. Ok, that kinda makes sense.
But then why are you legally allowed to wrap an Ox in a harness and make it drag a sledge? How do they consent to brutal labor but not sex?

The Godless Heathens usergroup should change name to "The Inactive Heathens", at least that's what it was last time I checked. A usergroup were everyone agrees is a boring usergroup.

It can be. In the exclusive usergroups which no one but 'you know' knows about, we all agree that you're a Scandinavian Scallywag.

Oh you have NO IDEA about the super ultra secret usergroup where we talk behind your back! Virtually all of us are there, even users thought to have quit the site long ago are still there. Natty Dread posted a funny prose concerning your eating habits just yesterday. We all laughed and pointed.


It seems I have slipped, sorry guys, I didn't mean to tell him, I can only hope you will forgive me .

[jonesthecurl]

Nah, the belief that there is no higher power, so what does it matter? Just keep looking out for #1 cuz it all comes out in the wash right?

Thank you for informing me what my belief system is. I was unaware of that before. It may change my attitude now, obviously I was utterly wrong when I thought I cared about anything other than myself.
Then again, maybe you're a twit.

And hey! That's why I don't read the religion threads. I don't feel all that good when people tell me what my belief system is.

You know, he might NOT be a twit. He might be a toilet-head. Like Asimov.

[Metsfanmax]

No offense JB but your''re ignorant.
I have actual experience with animals bred for work(draft horses) and they are more content when working than when idle.

So as a thought experiment: suppose we could breed a group of human slaves such that they were actually happier when working than when idle, so as to justify human slavery. Would breeding these humans be ethical?

[thegreekdog]

Nah, the belief that there is no higher power, so what does it matter? Just keep looking out for #1 cuz it all comes out in the wash right?

Thank you for informing me what my belief system is. I was unaware of that before. It may change my attitude now, obviously I was utterly wrong when I thought I cared about anything other than myself.
Then again, maybe you're a twit.

And hey! That's why I don't read the religion threads. I don't feel all that good when people tell me what my belief system is.

You know, he might NOT be a twit. He might be a toilet-head. Like Asimov.

I'm just saying... there is a pretty large amount of hypocrisy in your original statement. I'm not defending FT, just pointing out the hypocrisy. Carry on.

[Gillipig]

No offense JB but your''re ignorant.
I have actual experience with animals bred for work(draft horses) and they are more content when working than when idle.

So as a thought experiment: suppose we could breed a group of human slaves such that they were actually happier when working than when idle, so as to justify human slavery. Would breeding these humans be ethical?

You are actually both right in a way. Humans domesticated the horse about 6 000 years ago. There's no reson to believe the horse willingly got domesticated as one can argue was the case for dogs (wolves). So most likely we just caught horses (enslaved them) and made the ones that resisted the least repoduce. After several thousand of years of evolution, eventually we had horses that enjoyed being enslaved. So funky, yes horses enjoy slaving for humans, and mets, yes you can call it slavery if you will.

[BigBallinStalin]

Why do people assume animals* have the conscious decision-making skills to decide these matters?
Some see an animal, associate it with something or someone else they love, and then apply similar standards (e.g. "Can it give consent?"). It doesn't make sense. Consent is a concept which applies to humans.


*I think dolphins may be the only exception, but if their "consciousness" is equivalent to a human one-year old, then that would be stretching it.

[nietzsche]

Why do people assume animals* have the conscious decision-making skills to decide these matters?
Some see an animal, associate it with something or someone else they love, and then apply similar standards (e.g. "Can it give consent?"). It doesn't make sense. Consent is a concept which applies to humans.


*I think dolphins may be the only exception, but if their "consciousness" is equivalent to a human one-year old, then that would be stretching it.

[Metsfanmax]

Why do people assume animals* have the conscious decision-making skills to decide these matters?
Some see an animal, associate it with something or someone else they love, and then apply similar standards (e.g. "Can it give consent?"). It doesn't make sense. Consent is a concept which applies to humans.


*I think dolphins may be the only exception, but if their "consciousness" is equivalent to a human one-year old, then that would be stretching it.

There are a number of species whose level of self-consciousness far exceeds a human infant, and who think in many ways like humans do. There is no shortage of examples; for example, monkeys and apes that lie about having an erection, or gorillas that use sign language, or birds that pass the mirror test.

I'm not sure precisely what "these matters" are that you refer to, but there is an abundance of evidence in the literature to suggest that animal species do have conscious decision-making skills.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

But then why are you legally allowed to wrap an Ox in a harness and make it drag a sledge? How do they consent to brutal labor but not sex?

To an ox dragging a plow is not that brutal. They hardly notice. The same for horses and pulling carts.

It's a mutually beneficial symbiosis. Animals are provided with feed, shelter, and protection. Humans are provided with work.

-TG

[Gillipig]

But then why are you legally allowed to wrap an Ox in a harness and make it drag a sledge? How do they consent to brutal labor but not sex?

To an ox dragging a plow is not that brutal. They hardly notice. The same for horses and pulling carts.

It's a mutually beneficial symbiosis. Animals are provided with feed, shelter, and protection. Humans are provided with work.

-TG

The same arguments were put forth in the 19th century describing the pro's with human slavery.

[BigBallinStalin]

(1) Some monkeys and apes can lie. One gorilla may know sign language, but that is in dispute. Very few species pass the mirror test (which humans pass at 18 months, which isn't a great feat considering the range that comes with the conscious decision-making of humans).

So, where's the ability to give consent?

We wouldn't expect an 18 month year old child to be capable of giving consent. A four year old might be able to lie, but that's not a good enough standard. So why do some insist that only a few kinds/all animals* should be held to similar standards of conduct?

• *what about insects? Or all living organisms? Why only apply the standards arbitrarily?

[Gillipig]

If you could explain to any animal that you were about to kill it for it's skin/meat/tusks/eyeballs or whatever, and ask it if you have permission to do so, it would doubtlessly tell you "No, I'd rather live."
This is not pushing human values onto an animal, because all animals have survival instincts. It doesn't want to die just so someone can do something with their corpse. We don't have the pigs, cows, sheep's, chicken's, fishes and whatever else we slaughter's permission to kill them. Some animals may enjoy working for humans but that's only because we've domesticated them (enslaved them and breed them so ruthlessly that they've started enjoying being slaves). So of course what we're doing is morally wrong, but, we should still continue doing it. It's one thing to recognize we're treating animals like shit, and it's another to say we should stop doing it.

[BigBallinStalin]

If you could explain to any animal that you were about to kill it for it's skin/meat/tusks/eyeballs or whatever, and ask it if you have permission to do so, it would doubtlessly tell you "No, I'd rather live."

It would say... nothing. Because it's a dumb animal--to put it bluntly. It doesn't understand these concepts, so why do humans expect animals to understand these concepts? Why do they hold them to the same standards?

And if so, then why stop with the animals? Where's the concern for the Mighty Pine Beetle, which destroys forests--thus is counterproductive to stemming global warming, or the fungi which destroy our crops, thereby ruining the livelihood of millions of poor people around the world? Surely, if the beetles and fungi could 'speak', they would say, "you don't have my permission to exterminate me." (reductio ad absurdum FTW).

This is not pushing human values onto an animal, because all animals have survival instincts. It doesn't want to die just so someone can do something with their corpse. We don't have the pigs, cows, sheep's, chicken's, fishes and whatever else we slaughter's permission to kill them. Some animals may enjoy working for humans but that's only because we've domesticated them (enslaved them and breed them so ruthlessly that they've started enjoying being slaves). So of course what we're doing is morally wrong, but, we should still continue doing it. It's one thing to recognize we're treating animals like shit, and it's another to say we should stop doing it.

You're talking about consent (giving permission). It has yet to demonstrated that animals (other than 'normal' humans) possess that ability.

Your argument rests upon your personifying the animals (i.e. false anthropomorphism). You give them human characteristics (e.g "No, I'd rather live." And implied: 'Yes, I understand the meaning of those words), and with that assumption, roll to your conclusion. It's a faulty assumption.

[jonesthecurl]

Nah, the belief that there is no higher power, so what does it matter? Just keep looking out for #1 cuz it all comes out in the wash right?

Thank you for informing me what my belief system is. I was unaware of that before. It may change my attitude now, obviously I was utterly wrong when I thought I cared about anything other than myself.
Then again, maybe you're a twit.

And hey! That's why I don't read the religion threads. I don't feel all that good when people tell me what my belief system is.

You know, he might NOT be a twit. He might be a toilet-head. Like Asimov.

I'm just saying... there is a pretty large amount of hypocrisy in your original statement. I'm not defending FT, just pointing out the hypocrisy. Carry on.

I may (and do) question what people believe, especially when they shove it in my face and tell me that I'm damned. But I don't think you'll find me telling people what they believe. Failing to see any hypocrisy here.

[thegreekdog]

I may (and do) question what people believe, especially when they shove it in my face and tell me that I'm damned. But I don't think you'll find me telling people what they believe. Failing to see any hypocrisy here.

I haven't read all of your religious-themed posts, but it appears to me that you paint all religious people with the same brush; if a person is religious, you believe them to have certain characeristics or to believe certain things. I will never understand the vehement animosity of atheists towards religious people, whether those religious people are vocal about their religion or not. I will certainly also never understand why atheists group all religious people into the same bucket as ignorant and intolerant people.