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

Post Reply New Topic

False dichotomy, is it? Tell me, is it respectful if I come over and kill you right now? I'll do it nicely: quick, painless, no torture beforehand. I'm tired of this half-assed double-standard of an argument in which killing is perfectly ok...as long as it's anything but humans. When I talk about killing, I talk about killing ALL animals. If you honestly believe that killing anything purely for personal gain can be respectful, then I'll take you seriously. Otherwise, the burden is on YOU to justify why it can be respectful for some and not for others. Only then would it make any sense for me to talk to you about respectful killing of cows. You are talking about some animals. I am talking about all. We aren't starting from common ground, so the discussion is pointless.

No, you're just missing the point, much like so many others have in this thread. The original post, and all I have been discussing, is about the logical consistency of beliefs. That's why I keep talking about Temple Grandin's motivation, NOT the outcome of her actions. I understand the cows are now more comfortable before the slaughter, but that's not nearly as relevant to her beliefs as her actual motivations. A person who didn't care about the cows' comfort and just wanted to make the job easier could have had the same effect. Do you see? Her beliefs, not how her work has impacted the cows is what I have been discussing all along. Just because I haven't discussed it doesn't mean I think it's totally insignificant. It's just not relevant in this discussion.

None of your questions has any relevance to my position, which is about motives and beliefs NOT what will happen or continue to happen in the immediate future. Questioning her respect implies nothing about what actions I think she should or should not take. I can discuss a person's morals without delineating a plan for how they should act. I don't care what she takes a stand against.

Yes, it is a false dichotomy, not a double standard.

I didn't say killing is perfectly okay. I don't recall anyone else did either. This is why it's a false dichotomy: You're presenting it as either "killing is perfectly okay" or "you're completely against it." In the real world, we have to live with the reality that various kinds of animals are slaughtered for meat, and in that reality, finding a way to make the systems more humane is a laudable goal. Are you seriously arguing it should be all or nothing? Just let inhumane practices continue without protest or stop the killing entirely? That's the false dichotomy. You have no room for middle ground in your argument.




No, you missed my point. And now you're shifting the goalposts to exclude information that does not fit with your complaints. The consequences of her actions are at least as important as her motivations - which, I might add, she has written about extensively. Her motivations regarding cattle are not a mystery.



I suspect that if you didn't care that you wouldn't be in this conversation casting aspersions at people for not holding your particular stance.

What will happen or continue to happen is quite relevant to motivation. Someone who understands a utopian ideal (say, the end of all slaughter of animals for meat) is not achievable may shape their intentions and motivations to match what is actually possible.

I understand this, but these people are wrong to do so.

Entirely overrated and no better than the disabled society.

I am finding it amusing that your subject expresses your distaste of hearing about temple grandin however the result of your post is more discussion of her - ironic and humorous.

What is the big difference between death by slaughter and death by any other reason?

I just remembered I also have a problem with Temple Grandin. She has all those cute cowgirl shirts and I don't have any. I wish I had at least 1 cowgirl shirt.

I think that I could read about cows if I wore one of those cowgirl shirts.

Her beliefs are not the same as your beliefs.

Within her belief system she does show them respect. I take her statements at face value!

starkid equates slaughtering animals with murdering humans.

That was a question, not an accusation. I've lost track of what is even being discussed here, but there is some fundamental difference in attitude or opinion that makes what you are saying seem irrelevant to what I am saying. I still don't know what it is, but I was trying to tease it out.


Having a moral position (in one's mind) is not the same thing as dealing in the real world. Related, but not the same. I'm not actually talking about an "all or nothing" position (since some killing is ok in my mind), but yes, a person's moral position can be all or nothing. I make no such claims about actions.





I don't know what mean.


Maybe, but I haven't read anything she wrote.


You're wrong.