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

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

Previous topic | Next topic

CuriousKitten
Velociraptor

Joined: 19 Mar 2012
Age: 65
Gender: Female
Posts: 487
Location: Deep South USA

16 Dec 2012, 4:59 pm

cathylynn wrote:

humans don't need to eat meat. in fact, humans live more healthily and longer of they don't eat meat.

Actually, humans are omnivores. Strict vegetarianism leads to vitamin deficiencies.

_________________
If it don't come easy . . . .
. . . .hack it until it works right :-)

Aspie score: 142/200 NT score: 64/200
AQ Score: 42
BAP: 109 aloof, 94 rigid and 85 pragmatic

CuriousKitten
Velociraptor

Joined: 19 Mar 2012
Age: 65
Gender: Female
Posts: 487
Location: Deep South USA

16 Dec 2012, 5:03 pm

Ca2MgFe5Si8O22OH2 wrote:

starkid wrote:

Ca2MgFe5Si8O22OH2 wrote:

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?

No, you're not crazy. This has bothered me, too, but I didn't bother making a post about it because I knew people who want to justify flesh-eating (even when whether or not they should eat flesh is not the point of the discussion) at all costs would just come up with a ton of illogical arguments about it, much like the incarcerating convicts analogy in this thread. 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 mean, that's what she's being paid for, right?

and thank you, I specified right up front that I don't want to debate whether or not animals have moral worth, I want to point out that pretending to care about how they are treated in mid hamburger consumption makes absolutely no sense. like, I'm a vegetarian and nearly everyone I know isn't, you don't have to agree with me, just be consistent about your own position!

you are assuming that people are pretending and don't genuinely care. That is quite an assumption.

_________________
If it don't come easy . . . .
. . . .hack it until it works right :-)

Aspie score: 142/200 NT score: 64/200
AQ Score: 42
BAP: 109 aloof, 94 rigid and 85 pragmatic

cathylynn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 24 Aug 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,045
Location: northeast US

16 Dec 2012, 5:07 pm

CuriousKitten wrote:

cathylynn wrote:

humans don't need to eat meat. in fact, humans live more healthily and longer of they don't eat meat.

Actually, humans are omnivores. Strict vegetarianism leads to vitamin deficiencies.

tell that to the seventh day adventists who outlive you. so what if they have to take B12 and D supplements. i eat meat and i take B12 and D anyway, just for good measure. i am an MD. what are your credentials?

starkid
Veteran
Veteran

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

16 Dec 2012, 5:09 pm

Ca2MgFe5Si8O22OH2 wrote:

like, I'm a vegetarian and nearly everyone I know isn't, you don't have to agree with me, just be consistent about your own position!

Many don't actually have a position, as in a logically consistent argument explaining why they are right. They have defensiveness, anger, and resistance to change, and these emotional motivations cannot be reasoned with, especially when they are not recognized. Then, of course, many people just have poor logical reasoning skills.

CuriousKitten
Velociraptor

Joined: 19 Mar 2012
Age: 65
Gender: Female
Posts: 487
Location: Deep South USA

16 Dec 2012, 5:15 pm

cathylynn wrote:

CuriousKitten wrote:

cathylynn wrote:

humans don't need to eat meat. in fact, humans live more healthily and longer of they don't eat meat.

Actually, humans are omnivores. Strict vegetarianism leads to vitamin deficiencies.

And where does the B12 come from? have they found a plant source yet?

frankly, I have little respect for the medical establishment (long story). Waving credentials in my face only makes me less inclined to accept your statements as fact.

_________________
If it don't come easy . . . .
. . . .hack it until it works right :-)

Aspie score: 142/200 NT score: 64/200
AQ Score: 42
BAP: 109 aloof, 94 rigid and 85 pragmatic

cathylynn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 24 Aug 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,045
Location: northeast US

16 Dec 2012, 5:18 pm

CuriousKitten wrote:

cathylynn wrote:

CuriousKitten wrote:

cathylynn wrote:

humans don't need to eat meat. in fact, humans live more healthily and longer of they don't eat meat.

Actually, humans are omnivores. Strict vegetarianism leads to vitamin deficiencies.

they can get B12 from yeast.

helles
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 13 Apr 2012
Age: 53
Gender: Female
Posts: 870
Location: Sweden

16 Dec 2012, 5:29 pm

eric76 wrote:

We are omnivores. There is nothing wrong with eating meat for part of our diet.

Agreed

But it bothers me that Temple G. represents me as the mathematical three dimensional thinker which I am NOT.
Besides that I think that it is great that somebody represents the AS community.

_________________
you are either a loyal friend or you aren't my friend at all

Marybird
Veteran
Veteran

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

16 Dec 2012, 5:35 pm

Ca2MgFe5Si8O22OH2 wrote:

starkid wrote:

Ca2MgFe5Si8O22OH2 wrote:

So you don't eat meat and believe that slaughtering animals is morally wrong. And you have a problem with someone making it possible for those animals to suffer less, knowing that they are going to be slaughtered any way? You would rather have them slaughtered in an inhumane way?
BTW I am not a flesh eater. But that is not the point. I am glad that the cows in those facilities are being treated beter.

Loborojo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Aug 2008
Age: 65
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 1,242
Location: Negombo

16 Dec 2012, 5:36 pm

SO, there is something we have in common with NTs...we eat meat!
Rather soon than later, we will have to stop producing cattle, because our earth is running out on meadows, and we have to deforste more Rainforest in Brazil to feed you Americans and Europeans with beef for your Mc Burgers. Plus cattel is contributing to global warming...methane!

Now look at a clean solution,,,the production of insects! In Holland they haves started insect farms...it is clean, healthy (proteins by the millions) doesn't cost much, no antibiotics and hormones needed for production, doen't need land for big farms...They have been selling insects on the market in Thailand for the past 2 years, a huge success! Silkworms, tarantulas, spiders, cockroaches..and all freshly produced....
that is the future..ans we will be healthiere and we will be able to feed the entire world....tadaaaa

_________________
Your Aspie score: 152 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 48 of 200
You are very likely an Aspie

Sharkgirl
Deinonychus

Joined: 18 Aug 2011
Age: 50
Gender: Female
Posts: 335
Location: Under The Sea

16 Dec 2012, 5:43 pm

oh tarantulas are so cute I could never eat one - but i could have one as a pet.

_________________
Never, Never, Never Give Up

seaturtleisland
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 22 Feb 2012
Age: 31
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,243

16 Dec 2012, 6:00 pm

[quote="Marybird"]You cannot stop the slaughtering of cattle. Millions of people eat beef and you cannot force them to become vegetarians.quote]

I agree with this. If we could shift 90% of the people on earth to a vegetarian diet it would stop the slaughtering of cattle because there would be no market for it but if that can be done at all it can't be done in an instant. At the moment, maybe not in the future, people want to eat meat and they can't be forced to stop. Because these people make up the market, manufacturers are going to want to produce meat in these slaughterhouse facilities. Before the system can change, the people who make up the system need to change.

There is always something that can be done. Eliminating the slaughterhomes is ideal but if that ideal can't be reached we need to do the next best thing. If we can't stop animals from being slaughtered at least we can prevent them from being tortured.

What Temple Grandin has done is reach a compromise. Yes you can have the two extremes but different people have different opinions and finding a middle ground is not hypocrisy. It is recognizing your position while being able to take into account and not step on the view points of others. If Temple Grandin found a way to eliminate the cattle industry she would've been crushing several hundred million people's own values under her boots. She wouldn't have been able to do that anyway whether you like it or not because the massive amount of meat consumers wouldn't let her.

Not everything can be perfect and ideal but there is always a compromise and there is always a next best thing. Treating the cattle humanely is the next best thing. It is the compromise.

AgentPalpatine
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 9 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,881
Location: Near the Delaware River

16 Dec 2012, 6:18 pm

Deleted by author, mis-understood OP's intent

Loborojo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Aug 2008
Age: 65
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 1,242
Location: Negombo

16 Dec 2012, 6:26 pm

Sharkgirl wrote:

oh tarantulas are so cute I could never eat one - but i could have one as a pet.

But cows are cute too, and veals, but you could eat those>

_________________
Your Aspie score: 152 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 48 of 200
You are very likely an Aspie

Loborojo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Aug 2008
Age: 65
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 1,242
Location: Negombo

16 Dec 2012, 6:27 pm

seaturtleisland wrote:

Marybird wrote:

You cannot stop the slaughtering of cattle. Millions of people eat beef and you cannot force them to become vegetarians.quote]

I agree with this. If we could shift 90% of the people on earth to a vegetarian diet it would stop the slaughtering of cattle because there would be no market for it but if that can be done at all it can't be done in an instant. At the moment, maybe not in the future, people want to eat meat and they can't be forced to stop. Because these people make up the market, manufacturers are going to want to produce meat in these slaughterhouse facilities. Before the system can change, the people who make up the system need to change.

There is always something that can be done. Eliminating the slaughterhomes is ideal but if that ideal can't be reached we need to do the next best thing. If we can't stop animals from being slaughtered at least we can prevent them from being tortured.

What Temple Grandin has done is reach a compromise. Yes you can have the two extremes but different people have different opinions and finding a middle ground is not hypocrisy. It is recognizing your position while being able to take into account and not step on the view points of others. If Temple Grandin found a way to eliminate the cattle industry she would've been crushing several hundred million people's own values under her boots. She wouldn't have been able to do that anyway whether you like it or not because the massive amount of meat consumers wouldn't let her.

Not everything can be perfect and ideal but there is always a compromise and there is always a next best thing. Treating the cattle humanely is the next best thing. It is the compromise.

Aren't Aspeis notorious for not compromising?

_________________
Your Aspie score: 152 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 48 of 200
You are very likely an Aspie

Sharkgirl
Deinonychus

Joined: 18 Aug 2011
Age: 50
Gender: Female
Posts: 335
Location: Under The Sea

16 Dec 2012, 6:42 pm

no im a vegetarian too

_________________
Never, Never, Never Give Up

starkid
Veteran
Veteran

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

16 Dec 2012, 6:48 pm

seaturtleisland wrote:

Not everything can be perfect and ideal but there is always a compromise and there is always a next best thing. Treating the cattle humanely is the next best thing. It is the compromise.

You are missing the point. The point the original poster was trying to make is that wanting the cows to be treated better pre-slaughter and simultaneously holding the opinion that it's ok to slaughter them is (or appears to be) logically inconsistent. If Temple Grandin (or anyone else) thinks that it's inhumane to slaughter them, and the attempt at more humane treatment pre-slaughter was truly a compromise (one step toward achieving better treatment for the cows), that is a logically consistent approach to the treatment of the animals. On the other hand, thinking that it is ok that they are treated poorly in one case (slaughtered), but not ok that they are treated poorly in another case (how they are handled pre-slaughter) are two attitudes that appear to contradict one another.

I don't know Temple Grandin's motives, maybe you do from watching her videos or something. But, if she doesn't actually care how the cows are treated outside of her area of expertise (for example, if she doesn't care if they are eventually killed), then what she did was not a compromise. A compromise would be a conscious decision as a middle way between two competing positions on animal welfare. Maybe she doesn't care about the overall question of animal welfare, and thus did not have a conscious decision to make, and thus her acts are not the sort of compromise you are talking about.

Page 2 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...