Alkahest wrote:

Bullshit. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/02/18/halal-kosher-slaughter-banned... http://thenews.pl/1/9/Artykul/121177,Scientists-claim-kosher-and-halal-a... http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17972-animals-feel-the-pain-of-rel... Shechita is just another primitive custom engaged in by violent savages more concerned with upholding the sanctity of their bronze age delusions than with animal welfare. Of course, the moment anyone dares voice a complaint the predictable cries of "anti-Semitism!" can be heard from every reactionary moron with a larynx. Anyone who touches that filth is no friend of mine. And anyone who supports such atavistic barbarism has no right to call themselves a transhumanist.

Well, thank you so much for letting me know what you think of me. Very much appreciated. Apparently I'm a "violent savage" who "supports atavistic barbarism". Please, don't hold back, especially since your first response to telling me something that I was raised with--that it is more humane, that the animal does not feel pain--is bullshit. Now, maybe I'm wrong in believing that. It was, afterall, what I was taught as a child. But do you really think that calling me names and accusing me of such things when I'm trying to agree with you that minimizing pain in animals is a worthwhile endeavor--even if I'm apparently wrong in the method by which to achieve that goal--is going to achieve anything other than antagonize, infuriate and inflame? Haven't you ever heard of the "backlash effect"? So, yeah, I'm not going to call you an anti-Semite, although, given your so strongly-voiced opinion that shows an utter and total lack of respect, understanding and willingness to do anything other than condemn, rather than to try and reach out to teach, educate or convince in a respectful manner, I have to wonder what other aspects of my culture you thoughtlessly characterize as being violent savagery and atavistic barbarism. Pro-tip: Calling someone names, especially names like that, is not a good way to get on their good side, get them to agree with you, or, most especially, get them to listen to you. You say that you are no friend of mine because of how I was raised and what I was taught through no fault of my own? Alright. Please note that the feeling is mutual.

Alkahest wrote:

Wow, those are some fantastic arguments. It's a good thing the mods around here don't abuse their power to silence critics. I forget, how many more times can I criticize you before I'm banned? Oh, and you actually paying lip service to some wishy-washy animal welfare idea just makes your behavior worse. Actions have consequences, and we have a moral obligation to care about those consequences. Can you really say that you have thought about the consequences of your actions?

You can criticise me or anybody as many times as you like. But you'll have to do it in a more polite tone if you want to avoid being banned. And just because I'm withdrawing from this conversation as a poster because I don't like being personally attacked, accused of being a monster and being told that I lack a moral compass doesn't mean that I, when wearing the moderator hat, have the option of letting such statements go when they violate the rules of the forum. But you're right in one sense--that I am definitely biased against you now, and, even when dealing with such clear-cut examples of flaming and personal attacks, I need to step back and hand this off to one of the other mods. But here's the thing: you are attacking me personally, repeatedly, and in terms that make me sound like a monster. I am upset with you because of the things that you've accused me of. I did read those links, and I did some more research myself, and there is a whole debate on the topic, and discussions on how humane it is, how it can be made more humane to make up for perceived and real lacks, and so forth. However, your tone tells me that talking with you further is going to be a mistake, that it is very likely that this very post is a mistake, and that, really, I should deescalate and withdraw, which I plan to do so. Congrats, you won an argument on the Internet--but not by the persuasiveness or superiority of your arguments, but by screaming so loudly at the other person that they had to withdraw because they were getting upset. And attacking someone else like that is in violation of the rules of the forum, and, unfortunately, the person that you were getting upset to the point that his hands are shaking is also the person in charge of enforcing those same rules. Clearly, we need more than just me to handle this place, but, given how people act around here, I doubt that anyone else is going to be willing to step up. (Please, somebody, anybody prove me wrong!) To everyone else, I'm sorry about this and any appearance of bias in the moderator posts. If there are any questions, I'll answer them later. For the meantime, I'm going to be offline for a while, trying to get my hands to stop shaking and my heart to stop pounding, and I'm handing this off to someone else, and, if they find that I was incorrect in handing down either of the strikes above, I will support their rescindation. Ironically, though, there is an old Jewish joke about treating other people with decency that I feel that the punchline is appropriate for this circumstance. Alkahest, you are very, very very concerned about what food goes in to your mouth, if it was morally and decently harvested. But are you also equally so concerned about what comes out of your mouth when you speak?

Fine. Now that I'm back at my computer, I can get into this with you properly.

Alkahest wrote:

Oh, so it's perfectly acceptable to torture animals as long as people in general aren't made aware of it?

"Torture" implies the sadistic and deliberate infliction of pain (or mental anguish, but for these purposes you're clearly talking about physical pain, so we'll talk about that,) for purpose related to the pain; EG, a sadist cutting on someone because it makes them feel good, or an ice-cold torture technician/red-hot Jack Bauer attempting to extract information from someone. You use a loaded word like "Torture," you'd better be prepared to back it up with some evidence that the deliberate and knowing infliction of pain is part of what's going on.

Quote:

It's not unethical to pay for it, just to post pictures of it?

It's fucking disgusting and upsetting, and it's calculated to be exactly that: upsetting to people, people who do not expect to get images of literally slaughtered animals shoved right in their faces. That is, in fact, fucking unethical.

Quote:

Yeah, I see no problem with that logic. Way to stand up for the weak, there.

I'm standing up for everyone else on this forum who's following this thread and didn't expect to find themselves shocked, disgusted, upset and possibly nauseated by having pictures of slaughtered animals shoved in their faces.

Quote:

Actions have consequences. Those pictures show the consequences of buying kosher meat.

Right, and a pile of literal shit in a toilet bowl is the inevitable consequence of eating, yet nobody wants to see a picture of the gigantic dump I took a few hours ago. You're being fucking disingenuous, Alkahest. You know exactly what you're doing, you're using shock-and-disgust tactics right out of the PETA playbook, and you know what? [b]It's not making you any friends.[/b] It's not making your point, it is, in fact, turning people [i]against[/i] you, even if they think you might have a point in that the Kosher rules for animal slaughter could probably do with an update based in the scientific method.

Alkahest wrote:

Give me a single reason why anyone would ever want to slit the throat of a conscious sentient being.

Because they want or need to kill it in a manner which is efficient, fast, painless, and as humane as they can conceive of without the benefit of modern science or technology, and reckon that slicing the throat is the fastest way to get it to bleed out (and hence, die.)

Quote:

How the fuck is that not torture?

Because it isn't. By that definition, anyone who's ever slit the throat of an enemy in a knife-fight is a torturer, but that's not the definition of torture we use. That's an attempt to dispatch something as fast as possible with the tool at hand - a knife.

Quote:

Is someone forcing you to do it? No. Does it benefit anyone in any way? No.

Wrong. It puts delicious, delicious venison, or beef, or bacon (well, not bacon, because there's no such thing as kosher bacon, but you get the idea,) on the table of people who are hungry and want to eat.

Quote:

Does it inflict excruciating pain for no reason whatsoever? Yes.

The reason is to put meat on the table. Or to dispatch an enemy in hand-to-hand combat, whatever. That is not "no reason," that is, in fact, a reason.

Quote:

That is fucking torture.

No, it is not.

Alkahest wrote:

I was unaware that we lived in a society without modern technology.

We don't. When the rules for kosher slaughtering of critters were laid down, they did. And unfortunately, as with all things back in the dirt farming days, the only way to get the common folk to understand and obey things like "you should kill animals you're going to eat as humanely as possible (and also don't eat this, this, and this, because they tend to carry diseases that survive cooking and will straight-up murder your ass,)" is to couch it in religious terms, that it will offend the Great Spaghetti Monster, or will be pleasing to the glittery faeries or whatever, if you do it X way. And then that never gets updated, 'cause that would be blasphemy. Or at the least, sacrilege. But they are [i]trying[/i] to slaughter the critters as humanely as possible. Which is not nothing.

Quote:

And the weakness of your argument in support of animal exploitation has already been exposed.

The only weakness is that I can't define the exact line because I am not a goddamned philospher or neuroscientist. And I'm not sure it can be a hard and fast rule anyway. But I will tell you this: until all deer and cattle start holding conversations with us, I [i]am[/i] certain they lay way south of that line. Honestly, some measure of judgement call will probably be necessary if we come across things that we're not sure are sapient because they haven't invented processed tools yet.

Alkahest wrote:

How can you be so sure that this imaginary "line" would be below your own level of... whatever the hell "sapience" is supposed to be? Why shouldn't a super-intelligent AI just kill you if you get in its way, or if it would think it was fun? You're an inferior creature, after all. And inferior creatures are there for the pleasure of their superiors, according to your moral logic.

A: Because I'm cognizant enough to actually be discussing these matters with you. B: Because I have (as a species, mind you,) many, many megatons of force that say I am not to be trifled with nor considered a trivial thing of no consequence.

Animals are delicious, and I don't really care for their suffering much. I mean, I'd be willing to maybe pay an extra five cents per pound of beef... Maybe. If I was having a good day. I don't care that you think animals have rights, or deserve anything. I want to eat them, I have the power to eat them, and I will exercise that power. My stomach is a graveyard. And when the super-AIs come, to which we are even less than cattle? The naive view for me would be to hope that they're kinder than I am. The smarter view would be for me to realize that the cows' needs and desires? Mostly fulfilled. They have food, mates, live their lives. It's honestly not too different from what most of humanity experiences. And the ruthless view? My preference? I'd be one of the AIs. And then the fun really begins. *cough* I'm only about 50% joking in this post. But seriously- I do not care much for animals, especially ones I do not know. I care for animals I know - much like I care for people I know. As a minor side-note, I'm mildly miffed by Shadow and others trying to protect "me" from those pictures of meat. Certainly, you're free to request to not have those in this forum, and it's certainly not the place for those pictures, but I believe you should stand up for yourself- not "everyone" who was "disgusted". Your own desires and feelings are sufficient argument (as are the rules of this forum), and there's no need to bring in others, especially when they have not expressed any desire for your protections. I appreciate the sentiment, however. :)