if I hear about Temple Grandin one more time...

Page 5 of 6 [ 91 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

starkid
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 9 Feb 2012
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,812
Location: California Bay Area

17 Dec 2012, 8:44 pm

The_Perfect_Storm wrote:

Now, could the human population be fueled entirely by vegetables? I doubt it. Many parts of the world are still struggling to feed their populations. Removing meat from the menu would be a bad idea. Your lifestyle may work for you, but it doesn't easily extend to the other 6 billion people on the planet.

False. The portions of the world that are struggling the most with starvation are already barely eating any meat. These people are nearly vegan/vegetarian out of necessity. "Removing meat from the menu" would have the most dramatic affect on the eating habits of richer countries that glut themselves on flesh, not the starving masses. It would also free up a lot of farmland, which has the capacity to produce more fruits, vegetables and/or grains than meat - excess food that could be sent to those hungry populations.

Marybird
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Apr 2012
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,818

17 Dec 2012, 10:22 pm

starkid wrote:

Marybird wrote:

I'm just talking about all the arguments you made for what you assumed to be her possible motives, including:

starkid wrote:

On the other hand, maybe she did what she did just to make the slaughterers' job easier, rather than to ease the cows' suffering.

I didn't assume anything. Why do you keep saying that? Do you understand that to assume means to believe that something is true? I do not believe that what I speculated about her motives is true; I only believe it is that it is possibly true.

Quote:

She made life much better for the cattle and alleviated so much suffering. Just ask the cattle.

You are referring to the effects of her actions; I was referring to her motivation. The fact that her actions had the effect of improving conditions for the cattle doesn't mean that improving conditions for the cattle was her motivation. I was focusing on motivation because the original poster asked a question about the logical consistency of beliefs. That is related to motivation, because our motivation to do certain things is determined by our beliefs. The effects of our actions, being only partially within our control, are not directly determined by our beliefs, and are therefore not as relevant to the consistency of our beliefs.

You don't need to "speculate" anything or make assumptions about what may possibly be motives. Miss Grandin has said that we owe the cattle respect. You can assume that is her motive.

eric76
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,660
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

17 Dec 2012, 10:28 pm

Loborojo wrote:

It is all what you believe in, dear...The native Americans saw brothers and sisters in everything...so do I and I believe. A belief which was recently proved by scientists when they see palnst come alive and grow better with classical music and 'cringe' with hardrock/heavy metal.

Have you ever listened to a Native American radio station?

Loborojo wrote:

Long time also we believed fish couldn't feel anything? Well they do actually feel pain too when that hook gets into theri mouth or cheek.

As I understand it, there are very few nerve endings in the area around the mouths where the hooks catch.

Loborojo wrote:

Plants talk telepathically (to you , that is what southa american Indians say who thus discovered plants's remedies against migraines, cancer, etc). Ever heard of the book Secrets of Plants? We are all related in this cosmos and all have a nervous system..,and about education wasted, yes, lots has been wasted by teaching us the wrong things we don't need or ever use in life, cramming our brain with nonsens, but failing to teach us how to live,like survival and how not to get lost in nature...do we learn how to orientate ourselves with the stars? NO.

Plants do not talk telepathically to anyone. Plants have no nervous system at all.

The_Perfect_Storm
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Sep 2011
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,289

17 Dec 2012, 10:28 pm

starkid wrote:

The_Perfect_Storm wrote:

We have excess food and don't ship it off to those hungry populations. This is irrelevant for the developed world, though you make a good point IF certain populations of the world will remain largely unaffected.

Would we free up enough farmland to produce more food than we receive from meat and stuff? Well I'd need to see some evidence. I doubt that you could produce vegetables faster than meat but who knows?

Now, could we just stop all meat production today and switch to vegetables by tomorrow? Not a chance. And what about all the businesses and jobs that would collapse by removing the meat industry? Do you have a solution to this?

Plus lets face it. There's a huge market for meat. Clearly people don't want what you want. How would you convince the population to do what you want them to do? You're going to have to if you want the planet to go vegan...

---

Is this simply a moral argument for you? "Well it's the right thing to do so we must do whatever it takes to achieve this".

From what I understand, Grandin is revered for significantly reducing the pain and suffering of animals in the slaughterhouses. To me, that's amazing. That's a big achievement. I believe forcing the world to give up meat would be impossible at this time.

Last edited by The_Perfect_Storm on 17 Dec 2012, 10:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Marybird
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Apr 2012
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,818

17 Dec 2012, 10:30 pm

Ca2MgFe5Si8O22OH2 wrote:

my therapist gave my family a book titled "Solutions for Adults with Asperger Syndrome" by Juanita P. Lovett, PhD.

I have no objection to the book, (actually I recommend it) but this is like the 5th time someone has brought up Temple Grandin as a famous "high achieving" aspie, and it drives me nuts.

her success is based on understand and empathizing with animals, which she utilized to create environments that were less overstimulating. this produced passive cattle so they could be slaughtered with less effort. she is praised for creating "humane slaughterhouses".

as I see it, there are two options here:

1) cattle are not morally significant, and killing them is ok.
2) cattle are morally significant, and you shouldn't be killing them at all.

point of logic: caring about treating something humanely is an implicit acknowledgement of its moral significance and ergo incompatible with a mindset that endorses its slaughter.

--

so ok, I'm a vegetarian aspie, and I don't want to trot out all the arguments here, but I really don't understand why people who feel no moral compunction against killing and eating an animal feel like slaughtering it nicely is somehow praiseworthy. am I crazy here? I feel like both meat-eaters and vegetarians ought to agree that either an animal is a thing and you don't invest time and money in treating things you are about to kill humanely, or an animal is not a thing and that "humane slaughter" is a contradiction in terms...

You are using faulty logic to make your argument.

IMO all living things are significant, therefore if omnivores want to include meet in their diet, we owe it to the animals to respect them and see to it that they are slaughtered nicely and don't suffer.

Caring about treating someone humanely is not the same thing as a mindset that endorses their slaughter.
It seems that you are saying they should be treated inhumanely because they are being slaughtered, even though we cannot stop the slaughtering.

starkid
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 9 Feb 2012
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,812
Location: California Bay Area

17 Dec 2012, 11:26 pm

Marybird wrote:

You don't need to "speculate" anything or make assumptions about what may possibly be motives. Miss Grandin has said that we owe the cattle respect. You can assume that is her motive.

People say they respect animals, but think it's ok to kill or exploit them just because they want to. Her idea of respect is not necessarily what I consider to be respect, so I cannot assume that she "respects" the animals.

I understand now what you were asking me before. Sorry about the confusion; I didn't read well.

cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

17 Dec 2012, 11:47 pm

Ca2MgFe5Si8O22OH2 wrote:

What drives me nuts is "esteemed" academics who claim things without checking the facts. Temple Grandin was never "diagnosed" with Aspergers as she was born with a speech delay and would have been considered autistic.

It's bad enough that the general public (and some Aspies) need educating on autism but it becomes frustrating when you continuously find ignorance in the academic world from people who are supposed to be "experts".

Rascal77s
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Nov 2011
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,725

18 Dec 2012, 12:05 am

starkid wrote:

Marybird wrote:

You don't need to "speculate" anything or make assumptions about what may possibly be motives. Miss Grandin has said that we owe the cattle respect. You can assume that is her motive.

I think having pets is wrong because it is basically slavery. The reality is there's about a snowball's chance in hell that I can actually do anything about pet ownership and the fallout that results. So here I am the owner of two cats and two dogs that I got off the street. They maybe slaves but at least they didn't die in a shelter. Sometimes doing the right thing can only be done by doing something wrong.

Verdandi
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,275
Location: University of California Sunnydale (fictional location - Real location Olympia, WA)

18 Dec 2012, 12:06 am

starkid wrote:

So it would have been better for her, when she discovered what conditions were like in slaughterhouses, to leave things as they were instead of trying to improve conditions for the cattle, because of this false dichotomy that says that if she's not against killing or exploiting them then she can't actually be respectful?

This is black and white, all or nothing thinking. Marybird pointed out this flaw earlier in this thread - realistically, the slaughter is not going to stop any time soon. Is it better to do nothing or is it better to do as much is possible to improve conditions? Do you want her to take a public stance that happens to agree with your ideology and condemn the entire meat industry?

Verdandi
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,275
Location: University of California Sunnydale (fictional location - Real location Olympia, WA)

18 Dec 2012, 12:08 am

cyberdad wrote:

Ca2MgFe5Si8O22OH2 wrote:

She should be described as having been diagnosed with autism, as that's what she was diagnosed with.

I think the delineation between "autistic" and "Asperger's" is pretty arbitrary, though, and far more is made of it than is actually the case.

suboc-1
Hummingbird

Joined: 18 Jan 2012
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 22

18 Dec 2012, 12:21 am

I didn't read this entire thread but I am also tired of Grandin. She is not the genius in animal management she thinks she is and she is not particularly special in her ability to understand animals. I find her self righteous and hypocritical. Perhaps people think she is an animal genius because the average person doesn't know much about animals in general, either that or I'm just a genius in understanding animals like her. :roll:

btbnnyr
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 May 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,359
Location: Lost Angleles Carmen Santiago

18 Dec 2012, 12:27 am

I just remembered that I do have a problem with Temple Grandin. I wish that Temple Grandin would stop writing about cows in her books about autism. I find cows really boring, so I have to skip over the parts about cows in her books, but I am autistic, and I hate incompleteness, so it really bothers me to skip a chapter in a book, like when I read Thinking In Pictures, after I skipped the chapter about cows, I just didn't feel right reading the book anymore.

starkid
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 9 Feb 2012
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,812
Location: California Bay Area

18 Dec 2012, 12:29 am

Rascal77s wrote:

If you took those animals in to help them (rather than to have live entertainment in your home or a living status symbol, like some pet owners) I don't see that you did anything wrong. You did the best you could within a corrupt system. You didn't support the animal exploiting pet industry by paying for them. Some of us vegans tend to call people like that guardians, not pet owners.

cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

18 Dec 2012, 12:47 am

Verdandi wrote:

I think the delineation between "autistic" and "Asperger's" is pretty arbitrary, though, and far more is made of it than is actually the case.

We still have Aspergers societies in Australia where membership is restricted to parents of children "diagnosed" with Aspergers. For many in these societies there is selective (or proactive) ignorance in order to delineate their children from the realm of autism. I somehow imagine a world (created by their parents) of "little professors" wearing spectacles doing advanced calculus while concurrently playing chess. I also imagine the head of office of the Aspergers society with a large picture of Hans Asperger overseeing their exclusive societies. Old Hans will be rolling in his grave come January 1st.

Last edited by cyberdad on 18 Dec 2012, 12:52 am, edited 1 time in total.

cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

18 Dec 2012, 12:51 am

suboc-1 wrote:

Temple Grandin doesn't ask to be the "Mother Teresa" of animal welfare. The general public have a curiosity over her ability to overcome her personal obstacles to make a place for herself in mainstream society. As with television, if you don't like the program, then change the channel. Temple remains a beacon of hope for many of us with HFA kids.

suboc-1
Hummingbird

Joined: 18 Jan 2012
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 22

18 Dec 2012, 12:56 am

Rascal77s wrote:

That is completely anthropomorphizing animals. Dogs and cats are domesticated animals, they were bred to be owned and are healthiest/happiest when they have a owner who can provide shelter and companionship.

It is also important to note that even animals like a pet rat that was not bread to be owned is still fine to keep because they are not longing to be free, they do not think like us and they do not have the same needs.

Page 5 of 6 [ 91 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next

Jump to:

if I hear about Temple Grandin one more time... Post Reply New Topic

if I hear about Temple Grandin one more time...