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

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

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

17 Dec 2012, 3:25 pm

I was one various times in my past lives, I lived with them and I was adopted by one tribe in Brazil...and they have been my obsession since I was 9, so that makes me an authority when it comes down to talking Native American history...

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

neecerie
Tufted Titmouse

Joined: 25 Nov 2012
Age: 54
Gender: Female
Posts: 40

17 Dec 2012, 5:07 pm

cathylynn wrote:

they can get B12 from yeast.

Yeast is not a plant, its a fungal micro-organism. So if you want to be fussy about it, its not 'vegan' or even vegetarian either. All large complex organisms are eukaryotes, including animals, plants and fungi. The group also includes many unicellular organisms.

Deciding at what -level- an organism becomes an 'animal' seems rather difficult at best

and honestly, if you have to -supplement- your diet to make up for things that your body needs, surely that is an indicator that your diet could be better optimized to provide ALL the body's requirements? What did humans do before the nice lab made us supplements? We went out and ate what our bodies needed....if there was a difficiency, we ate to fill that...etc.

btbnnyr
Veteran
Veteran

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

17 Dec 2012, 5:09 pm

I have no problem with Temple Grandin.

Oren
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 67
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,058
Location: United States

17 Dec 2012, 5:11 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...

This was addressed long before you had this thought... It's a tenet of Judaism to slaughter food animals humanely, and exactly how it should be done.

_________________
Semi-Savant

starkid
Veteran
Veteran

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

17 Dec 2012, 5:21 pm

neecerie wrote:

Yeast is not a plant, its a fungal micro-organism. So if you want to be fussy about it, its not 'vegan' or even vegetarian either.

What?! Fungi is both vegan and vegetarian. It is ANIMALS that we do not consume, as in members of the animal kingdom.

Last edited by starkid on 17 Dec 2012, 5:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

starkid
Veteran
Veteran

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

17 Dec 2012, 5:22 pm

Oren wrote:

This was addressed long before you had this thought... It's a tenet of Judaism to slaughter food animals humanely, and exactly how it should be done.

Temple Grandin practices Judaism?

starkid
Veteran
Veteran

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

17 Dec 2012, 5:28 pm

Marybird wrote:

Why are you assuming things about her motives? That doesn't make sense.

What are you talking about? Don't you see the "ifs" and "maybe" in the post you quoted? When someone says, "if this is true" or "maybe this is true" that means that person is NOT assuming.

TPE2
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Oct 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,461

17 Dec 2012, 6:13 pm

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?

Death is unavoidable, suffering not.

starkid
Veteran
Veteran

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

17 Dec 2012, 6:29 pm

TPE2 wrote:

Death is unavoidable, suffering not.

Except we aren't talking about death, we are talking about slaughtering animals, which is easily avoidable. They are not the same thing; they are not even the same kind of thing. One is an event that occurs to all living things, the other is an act.

Marybird
Veteran
Veteran

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

17 Dec 2012, 7:43 pm

starkid wrote:

Marybird wrote:

Why are you assuming things about her motives? That doesn't make sense.

What are you talking about? Don't you see the "ifs" and "maybe" in the post you quoted? When someone says, "if this is true" or "maybe this is true" that means that person is NOT assuming.

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

starkid wrote:

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.

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

seaturtleisland
Veteran
Veteran

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

17 Dec 2012, 7:49 pm

starkid wrote:

TPE2 wrote:

Death is unavoidable, suffering not.

Why don't you go tell all the beef companies to stop slaughtering cattle and when they listen you can say the slaughtering of cattle is avoidable.

Loborojo
Veteran
Veteran

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

17 Dec 2012, 8:13 pm

It is like praising the Kapo in teh concentration camp that he has found a way of not torturing the Jews for so long until they got gassed. It was a humane apporaach, at least they didn't suffer until they were gassed.

A good analogy? :oops:

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

starkid
Veteran
Veteran

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

17 Dec 2012, 8:17 pm

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.

Last edited by starkid on 17 Dec 2012, 8:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

starkid
Veteran
Veteran

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

17 Dec 2012, 8:19 pm

seaturtleisland wrote:

starkid wrote:

Why don't you go tell all the beef companies to stop slaughtering cattle and when they listen you can say the slaughtering of cattle is avoidable.

You're mixing up "avoidable" and "preventable." When I said that it was avoidable, I meant that each individual person could avoid slaughtering cows, not that people could prevent other people from slaughtering cows.

The_Perfect_Storm
Veteran
Veteran

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

17 Dec 2012, 8:29 pm

Ca2MgFe5Si8O22OH2 wrote:

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.

The people that push for more humane conditions for slaughter or whatever are people that understand that the world wants to continue eating meat. Minimizing the pain and suffering that these creatures experience is a step in the right direction, in a world with fewer options.

Now, personally I believe that cattle are morally non-significant in the sense that it is absolutely okay to consume them for food. At the same time I believe we shouldn't needlessly torture them any more than necessary. It's a compassion thing I guess, though the hard truth is that these animals need to die in order to be harvested.

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.

In a morally ideal world sure, we wouldn't kill animals for food. But... that's not the world we live in.

Cuckooflower
Deinonychus

Joined: 4 Oct 2012
Age: 37
Gender: Female
Posts: 348

17 Dec 2012, 8:34 pm

She annoys me because I'm jealous of her. She had an easy life for an Aspie, growing up in the countryside with horses etc. Aspie heaven. She wasn't bullied much or anything.
So I find her annoying.

I prefer Rudy Simone, she has a bit more grit.

Sorry if that's irrelevent, just a thought.

_________________
Dime quienes son tus amigos y te diré quien eres

Page 4 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...