Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Ted Kirkpatrick and Animal Cruelty

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Jedidiah
    replied
    Read Temple Grandin. This is pretty basic stuff.

    Leave a comment:


  • pancreasman
    replied
    Originally posted by whag View Post
    I don't have a position as such. I think I'm forming a position as I analyze the opinions of people like Kirkpatrick and consider the effects of what I put into my body. Eating is one of those acceptable vices, no less tied to harm and irresponsibility as, say, smoking.

    In an ideal world, I'd love to be able to walk to a local marketplace every day and buy locally grown organic non-GMO produce and very small amounts of meat. I used to eat way too much store-bought and fast food meat, so I'm doing better.
    I must say I'm attracted to some of the newer thinking that animals which we eat should be given as happy a life as possible, killed humanely, and then their whole carcass used as much as possible.

    Leave a comment:


  • whag
    replied
    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    But what is your position? That we should not kill and eat animals?
    I don't have a position as such. I think I'm forming a position as I analyze the opinions of people like Kirkpatrick and consider the effects of what I put into my body. Eating is one of those acceptable vices, no less tied to harm and irresponsibility as, say, smoking.

    In an ideal world, I'd love to be able to walk to a local marketplace every day and buy locally grown organic non-GMO produce and very small amounts of meat. I used to eat way too much store-bought and fast food meat, so I'm doing better.

    Leave a comment:


  • whag
    replied
    Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
    You said this earlier.



    So, are basically admitting that you didn't know, and now that you simply don't care?



    Like I said earlier, it wouldn't have been about the sheep dying, but that it was put to an unjust use. Nathan(you keep saying Samuel) would also have needed to make some kind of parallel to Bathsheba. Therefore this is not evidence that this was a pet, nor that this was a common thing to happen. You're taking a story that's intended to help parallel stealing someone's wife with one stealing someone's sheep. There's obviously some hyperbole here in order to convey a point.







    Nathan's story, and again, ANE hyperbole comes into play here.








    I said I had seen people turn off their empathy and compassion towards other human beings. You said that it must be due to some "offense". I was giving you the information that that was not the case. I've seen this more than once. Hopefully the "switch" can be turned, and then locked in the other direction.



    Maybe not entirely, but I hope you weren't "entirely correct" about sacrifices of Native Americans either.

    [cite-National Geographic]Making the story even more interesting was the clear evidence of ritual human sacrifice. Archaeologists excavating Mound 72, as they labeled it, found the
    remains of 53 women and one very high status man, as well as the decapitated remains of four men who may have been on the wrong side of some sort of
    authority. The discovery belied the common belief that American Indians lived in egalitarian communities without the sorts of often brutally maintained
    hierarchies that defined many other civilizations. Was Cahokia an empire, like the Mesoamerican civilizations to the south? It was too soon to tell, but
    something spectacular had happened here, and it became clear this was a mystery worth trying to solve.[/cite]

    Source.
    Clearly, we were wrong about burnt offerings and parables. I think you're wrong about the parable being hyperbole. People in the ANE were accustomed to the concept of livestock as pets. David believed the story of a man who loved a sheep like it was his daughter was true. That's what you aren't getting.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cerebrum123
    replied
    Originally posted by whag View Post
    It doesnít matter that itís a parable or what the point was. I didnít say it was real and didnít say the parable made a particular point.
    You said this earlier.

    Originally posted by whag View Post
    I know exactly what they're about. Unless you're arguing that the pet lamb's owners didn't have a semblance of love for their lamb and the shepherd didn't have compassion for his trapped lamb, you don't have a point. There's nuance in these stories.

    snip
    So, are basically admitting that you didn't know, and now that you simply don't care?

    I didnít say David was upset about the sheep, though he was secondarily (not primarily), as you admit. My point was that sheep were valued like daughters. Itís an even better illustration of ANE people loving animals than i initially thought.
    Like I said earlier, it wouldn't have been about the sheep dying, but that it was put to an unjust use. Nathan(you keep saying Samuel) would also have needed to make some kind of parallel to Bathsheba. Therefore this is not evidence that this was a pet, nor that this was a common thing to happen. You're taking a story that's intended to help parallel stealing someone's wife with one stealing someone's sheep. There's obviously some hyperbole here in order to convey a point.

    Youíre right. I stand corrected.


    I stand corrected. Samuelís parable better demonstrated that sheep could be pets and deeply loved.
    Nathan's story, and again, ANE hyperbole comes into play here.

    I extrapolated too much.


    I donít know what youíre talking about.

    I said I had seen people turn off their empathy and compassion towards other human beings. You said that it must be due to some "offense". I was giving you the information that that was not the case. I've seen this more than once. Hopefully the "switch" can be turned, and then locked in the other direction.

    Leviticus 1:9 but its entrails and its legs he shall wash with water. And the priest shall burn all of it on the altar, as a burnt offering, a food offering with a pleasing aroma to the Lord.Ē

    Like I said, Adrift wasnít entirely correct. Some sacrifices wasted all the meat.
    Maybe not entirely, but I hope you weren't "entirely correct" about sacrifices of Native Americans either.

    [cite-National Geographic]Making the story even more interesting was the clear evidence of ritual human sacrifice. Archaeologists excavating Mound 72, as they labeled it, found the
    remains of 53 women and one very high status man, as well as the decapitated remains of four men who may have been on the wrong side of some sort of
    authority. The discovery belied the common belief that American Indians lived in egalitarian communities without the sorts of often brutally maintained
    hierarchies that defined many other civilizations. Was Cahokia an empire, like the Mesoamerican civilizations to the south? It was too soon to tell, but
    something spectacular had happened here, and it became clear this was a mystery worth trying to solve.[/cite]

    Source.

    Leave a comment:


  • One Bad Pig
    replied
    Originally posted by Tassman View Post
    It's not an ad hoc explanation but knowledge based on the observation of living organisms in the natural world.
    From observation, we indeed know that we are a social species. Observation does not tell us why or how we are a social species, however.
    We are a social species, along with most other simians, because we have evolved as social species via chance mutations (i.e. natural selection) over eons. Just as many other creatures have evolved to live in isolation or have a large brain or a strong sense of smell or live in water or live on land etc, via the same process.
    I am familiar with the general theory of evolution via natural selection, thanks. You're extrapolating from the physiological to the psychological realm, which is chancy because we don't have a very good grasp of how those interrelate.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sparko
    replied
    Originally posted by whag View Post
    I'm not making a point but just started a discussion.
    But what is your position? That we should not kill and eat animals?

    Leave a comment:


  • whag
    replied
    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    Still not getting what point Whag is trying to make. Yes, we do care for animals. And, yes we do kill and eat animals, too. The two are not mutually exclusive.
    I'm not making a point but just started a discussion.

    Leave a comment:


  • whag
    replied
    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    then it has no real meaning.
    Maybe it's a necessary part of existence and needn't be remedied.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sparko
    replied
    Still not getting what point Whag is trying to make. Yes, we do care for animals. And, yes we do kill and eat animals, too. The two are not mutually exclusive.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sparko
    replied
    Originally posted by whag View Post
    Suffering is a relative term.
    then it has no real meaning.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tassman
    replied
    Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
    It's a very usfeul thing, that natural selection.
    Not "useful" as such, merely established fact.

    It can explain just about anything - from the shape of our faces, to why we are social, to why we have moral values, to why some people have different moral values, to why we are altruistic...
    What it explains is why we are the way we are, i.e. a social species, and why we are genetically predisposed towards cooperative community behavior. This is demonstrably the case - from our complex social structures with towns and cities, to team sports, to theatrical productions and symphony orchestras. ALL activities requiring a high degree of cooperative behaviour. And such cooperative behaviour is found in every corner of the world. It's instinctive.

    (except when we're not)...
    ...which is explained by the tribal nature of more primitive societies whereby altruism is displayed within the tribe but often not beyond it.

    Just great, natural selection. And it's all down to chance.
    Correct, itís all down to the chance, random mutations which favour survival and to the incremental changes over eons. This as opposed to the god-did-it hypothesis!

    Your smug attempt at mocking sarcasm is noted.

    Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
    Different cultures certainly see the same animals very differently.

    The SE Asian culture I live in values dogs a lot less than most Western cultures - stray dogs aren't really cared for - a few kind souls feed them etc.

    Snipped.
    Stray dogs in Buddhist countries like Thailand are left in the temple grounds for the monks to care for as opposed "putting them down", which we tend to do in the West. This is unacceptable for Buddhists.
    Last edited by Tassman; 12-11-2014, 05:35 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • MaxVel
    replied
    Different cultures certainly see the same animals very differently.

    The SE Asian culture I live in values dogs a lot less than most Western cultures - stray dogs aren't really cared for - a few kind souls feed them etc. Rats are acceptable as food - these are 'field rats' that mainly eat rice etc, not so much city rats. Rabbits are pets, the idea of eating them is unthinkable to people here - but then there is no wild rabbit population here.

    WHen I was in France, many people wanted to know if New Zelanders ate our national animal (a kiwi) - of course we don't! They're rare, and a protected species. But the French national animal is a rooster, so it makes sense to eat your national animal (to them).

    Leave a comment:


  • MaxVel
    replied
    It's a very usfeul thing, that natural selection. It can explain just about anything - from the shape of our faces, to why we are social, to why we have moral values, to why some people have different moral values, to why we are altruistic (except when we're not)...

    Just great, natural selection. And it's all down to chance.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tassman
    replied
    Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
    To me, this seems to be a personification, if not deification (in the Platonic sense), of evolution, and an ad hoc, at best, explanation for why we are a social species.
    It's not an ad hoc explanation but knowledge based on the observation of living organisms in the natural world.

    We are a social species, along with most other simians, because we have evolved as social species via chance mutations (i.e. natural selection) over eons. Just as many other creatures have evolved to live in isolation or have a large brain or a strong sense of smell or live in water or live on land etc, via the same process.

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by seer, Today, 01:10 PM
7 responses
26 views
0 likes
Last Post Sparko
by Sparko
 
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 01-09-2022, 05:51 AM
182 responses
788 views
0 likes
Last Post rogue06
by rogue06
 
Started by Seeker, 12-08-2021, 11:31 PM
474 responses
2,747 views
0 likes
Last Post Seeker
by Seeker
 
Started by seer, 10-11-2021, 07:32 PM
472 responses
3,038 views
1 like
Last Post shunyadragon  
Started by seer, 10-06-2021, 06:21 PM
334 responses
2,044 views
0 likes
Last Post seer
by seer
 
Working...
X