To begin, here is what the Logic of the Talking Pig
is intended to refute:
_________________________________________________________
[...]
A variation of this argument, termed "the logic of the larder"
or "the replacement argument" is one of the oldest and best-known
justifications for the routinized raising and killing of animals
for food (see Salt 185). In basic form, it runs as follows: Killing
an animal is justified where the animal would not have existed but
for the fact that humans have chosen to raise it, where its existence
for even a short while is of positive value, and where, for every
animal that is killed, another "replacement" animal is brought into
being who would not have otherwise existed and who will enjoy its
existence as much as the one that was killed (Sapontzis 177; see
Nozick 38).
[...]
http://cla.calpoly.edu/~jlynch/fennell.htm
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
The above is based on consideration of reality and things which
do occur. Notice below that the supposed refutation--the talking
pig "logic"--changes completely to fantasy:

" This, then, is the benign attitude of the Philosopher towards the Pig;
and what shall be the reply of the Pig to the Philosopher? "Revered
moralist," he might plead, "it were unseemly for me, who am to-day a
pig, and to-morrow but ham and sausages, to dispute with a master of
ethics, yet to my porcine intellect it appeareth that having first determined
to kill and devour me, thou hast afterwards bestirred thee to find a moral
reason. For mark, I pray thee, that in my entry into the world my own
predilection was in no wise considered, nor did I purchase life on condition
of my own butchery. If, then, thou art firm set on pork, so be it, for pork
I am: but though thou hast not spared my life, at least spare me thy
sophistry. It is not for his sake, but for thine, that in his life the Pig is filthily
housed and fed, and at the end barbarously butchered.""

Let us examine the fantasy(s):

"This, then, is the benign attitude of the Philosopher towards the Pig; and
what shall be thereply of the Pig to the Philosopher?"

1. requiring that pigs are capable of replying to humans

"Revered moralist,"

2. requiring that pigs are aware of revered moralists

"he might plead,"

3. requiring that pigs understand the concept of pleading

"fit were unseemly for me, who am to-day"

4. requiring that pigs contemplate time

"a pig, "

5. requiring that pigs contemplate their own existence

"and tomorrow"

6. requiring that pigs contemplate the future

"but ham and sausages,"

7. requiring that pigs understand their bodies will be butchered
and prepared in specific ways

"to dispute with"

8. requiring that pigs understand and are capable of disputing
verbally with humans

"a master of ethics,"

9. similar to fantasy 2.. plus suggesting the pig considers that he/she
may be unworthy to dispute with "a master of ethics"

"yet to my porcine intellect"

10. requiring that pigs consider themselves to have an inferior intellect

"it appeareth that having first determined to kill"

11. requiring that pigs know humans deliberately raise them
12. requiring that pigs are aware of death
13. requiring that pigs know they can be killed
14. requiring that pigs know humans deliberately kill them

"and devour me,"

15. requiring that pigs know humans eat their dead bodies

"thou hast afterwards bestirred thee to find a moral reason."

16. requiring that pigs consider what motivates human thinking
17. requiring that pigs are aware of moral reasoning
18. requiring that recognition of the fact such pigs only exist because
humans raise them, can only be done in an attempt "to find a
moral reason" for devouring them

"For mark, I pray thee, that in my entry into the world"

19. requiring that pigs consider how they come into existence

"my own predilection was in no wise considered,"

20. requiring that pigs accurately understand what humans do and
do not consider

" nor did I purchase life on condition"

21. requiring that pigs contemplate their own fate
22. suggesting that pigs would rather they had never been born

"of my own butchery."

6.
7.

"If, then, thou art firm set on pork,"

23. requiring that pigs know humans eat meat
24. requiring that pigs know they are "pork"

"so be it,"

25. requiring that pigs have that attitude about it...

"for pork I am:"

....for that reason

"but though thou hast not spared my life,"

14.

"at least spare me thy sophistry."

26. requiring that pigs would be able to understand human speach
27. requiring that recognition of the fact such pigs only exist because
humans raise them, is in some way "sophistry".

"It is not for his sake, but for thine,"

28. requiring that pigs understand the situation they are in
29. requiring that pigs understand how the situation they are in
relates to humans

"that in his life the Pig is filthily housed"

30. requiring that pigs are aware of filth
31. requiring that pigs feel they are forced to live in filth

"and fed,"

32. requiring that pigs contemplate the fact that humans feed them
33. requiring that pigs feel what and or how they are fed is filthy

"and at the end barbarously butchered."

34. requiring that pigs contemplate what will happen to their bodies
after their death

Real pigs are not capable of any of the things required to make
The Logic of the Talking Pig anything other than a fantasy about
a talking pig.

From:	Oz
Subject:	Re: The Logic of the Talking Pig
Date:	Mon, 3 Jan 2005 07:41:48 +0000

Dutch writes

>Is that not a nice way of expressing the notion of man's obligations to his
>dog? Why is it mindless? Where is the trouble it might cause? I don't get
>your point.

You confuse MAN's 'obligations' (really a preset genetic imprint) with a
dogs 'demands'. You may have noticed than humans typically treat their
pets as part of their family, albeit a very lowly part. Its thus not the
dog 'asking', but man giving. Admittedly, since dogs are social animals,
their behaviour fits quite well with mans inherited social behaviour.
Mind you a few tens of thousands of years of selection one should not be
surprised to find that some selections fit humans rather well. Even so,
some dogs, in contact with some humans, can dominate a household often
with rather serious results. Humans (often children) get killed or
injured.

--
Oz

From:	Dutch
Subject:	Re: The Logic of the Talking Pig
Date:	Mon, 3 Jan 2005 03:28:29 -0800

"Oz" wrote
> Dutch writes
>
>>Is that not a nice way of expressing the notion of man's obligations to
>>his
>>dog? Why is it mindless? Where is the trouble it might cause? I don't get
>>your point.
>
> You confuse MAN's 'obligations' (really a preset genetic imprint) with a
> dogs 'demands'.

Not demands so much as needs. Man's obligations are to fulfil the companion
animal's needs.

> You may have noticed than humans typically treat their
> pets as part of their family, albeit a very lowly part. Its thus not the
> dog 'asking', but man giving. Admittedly, since dogs are social animals,
> their behaviour fits quite well with mans inherited social behaviour.
> Mind you a few tens of thousands of years of selection one should not be
> surprised to find that some selections fit humans rather well. Even so,
> some dogs, in contact with some humans, can dominate a household often
> with rather serious results. Humans (often children) get killed or
> injured.

That's making more sense...

From:	Gordon Couger
Subject:	Re: The Logic of the Talking Pig
Date:	Tue, 04 Jan 2005 02:19:07 -0600

Oz wrote:
> Dutch writes
>
>
>>Is that not a nice way of expressing the notion of man's obligations to his
>>dog? Why is it mindless? Where is the trouble it might cause? I don't get
>>your point.
>
>
> You confuse MAN's 'obligations' (really a preset genetic imprint) with a
> dogs 'demands'. You may have noticed than humans typically treat their
> pets as part of their family, albeit a very lowly part. Its thus not the
> dog 'asking', but man giving. Admittedly, since dogs are social animals,
> their behaviour fits quite well with mans inherited social behaviour.
> Mind you a few tens of thousands of years of selection one should not be
> surprised to find that some selections fit humans rather well. Even so,
> some dogs, in contact with some humans, can dominate a household often
> with rather serious results. Humans (often children) get killed or
> injured.
>
Oz,

You might as well be talking to the pig on this subject. It
probably is equally as logical as the many on this tread and
easier to convince.

But at least the pig can do some good as supper which is more
than most of the ones you are arguing with well do.

Gordon Couger
Stillwater, OK
www.TakeThisOUTcouger.com/gcouger

From:	Oz
Subject:	Re: The Logic of the Talking Pig
Date:	Tue, 4 Jan 2005 08:27:56 +0000

Gordon Couger writes

>Oz,
>
>You might as well be talking to the pig on this subject.

Indeed so.

>It probably is equally
>as logical as the many on this tread and easier to convince.

Pigs are very practical and realistic animals.

>But at least the pig can do some good as supper which is more than most of the
>ones you are arguing with well do.

Only if you look after him carefully so he gets to cutter weight.

--
Oz

From:	Gordon Couger
Subject:	Re: The Logic of the Talking Pig
Date:	Tue, 11 Jan 2005 05:37:47 -0600

Oz wrote:
> Gordon Couger writes
>
>
>>Oz,
>>
>>You might as well be talking to the pig on this subject.
>
>
> Indeed so.
>
>
>>It probably is equally
>>as logical as the many on this tread and easier to convince.
>
>
> Pigs are very practical and realistic animals.
>
>
>>But at least the pig can do some good as supper which is more than most of the
>>ones you are arguing with well do.
>
>
> Only if you look after him carefully so he gets to cutter weight.
>
Even a small piglet is good cook in a pi5 of coal once he makes
about 120 pounds.

Gordon

From:	Oz
Subject:	Re: The Logic of the Talking Pig
Date:	Sun, 2 Jan 2005 23:30:41 +0000

Dutch writes
>
>"Oz" wrote
>> Dutch writes
>>
>>>The above logic relies on the notion that humans have a moral right to
>>>consider that an animal's existence amounts to a valid justification for
>>>killing it. This idea quickly falls apart when one attempts to use the
>>>logic
>>>in ANY other set of circumstances in which animals (including humans) are
>>>"brought into being".
>>
>> One gets into all sorts of problems as soon as one considers the
>> 'talking cat' and the 'talking bird'.
>
>Not at all, it makes a very nice rhetorical device. Explain why that is
>problematic.

Because its mindless if you think a tad.

>
>> If the cat doesn't catch and eat the bird it dies,
>> if the cat catches the bird then the bird dies.
>
>What does that have to with talking animals?

Hmmm....

Obviously a step too far for your brain.

>
> Which is pretty much the story of nature.
>> Nature, of course, doesn't have much truck with human ethics.
>
>Immaterial.

Highly relevant.
We are part of nature, see.

>> Please don't even *think* of discussing the talking bacterium....
>
>I don't find that you grasped any of what preceded, and no doubt fuckwit
>will attempt to exploit that fact to further obfuscate the issue.

I fear you haven't grasped anything at all.

--
Oz

From:	Dutch
Subject:	Re: The Logic of the Talking Pig
Date:	Sun, 2 Jan 2005 19:59:27 -0800

"Oz" wrote
> Dutch writes

[..]

>>>>The above logic relies on the notion that humans have a moral right to
>>>>consider that an animal's existence amounts to a valid justification for
>>>>killing it. This idea quickly falls apart when one attempts to use the
>>>>logic
>>>>in ANY other set of circumstances in which animals (including humans)
>>>>are
>>>>"brought into being".
>>>
>>> One gets into all sorts of problems as soon as one considers the
>>> 'talking cat' and the 'talking bird'.
>>
>>Not at all, it makes a very nice rhetorical device. Explain why that is
>>problematic.
>
> Because its mindless if you think a tad.

How so? Here is the one I presented..

A "talking dog" might say. "I need you to feed me, give me water, comb me,
take me for walks, rub my tummy sometimes, give me some freedom, provide me
with veterinary care, let me be a valued member of your human family, and in
the final days, have the courage to end my life humanely if my suffering
becomes too great. In return I will be devoted to you and enrich your life."

Is that not a nice way of expressing the notion of man's obligations to his
dog? Why is it mindless? Where is the trouble it might cause? I don't get
your point.

>>
>>> If the cat doesn't catch and eat the bird it dies,
>>> if the cat catches the bird then the bird dies.
>>
>>What does that have to with talking animals?
>
> Hmmm....
>
> Obviously a step too far for your brain.

Obviously. Give me a hint, where is there a rhetorical talking animal there?

>> Which is pretty much the story of nature.
>>> Nature, of course, doesn't have much truck with human ethics.
>>
>>Immaterial.
>
> Highly relevant.
> We are part of nature, see.

Yea... and...........??

>
>>> Please don't even *think* of discussing the talking bacterium....
>>
>>I don't find that you grasped any of what preceded, and no doubt fuckwit
>>will attempt to exploit that fact to further obfuscate the issue.
>
> I fear you haven't grasped anything at all.

I have no idea what you're talking about, so yea. Please expain again how
"the talking dog" paragraph gets us into all kinds of trouble.

From:	Ron
Subject:	Re: The Logic of the Talking Pig
Date:	Mon, 03 Jan 2005 00:39:11 -0500

In article <10thgou8kqhn4a@news.supernews.com>, "Dutch"
wrote:

> "Oz" wrote
> > Dutch writes
>
> [..]
>
> >>>>The above logic relies on the notion that humans have a moral right to
> >>>>consider that an animal's existence amounts to a valid justification for
> >>>>killing it. This idea quickly falls apart when one attempts to use the
> >>>>logic
> >>>>in ANY other set of circumstances in which animals (including humans)
> >>>>are
> >>>>"brought into being".
> >>>
> >>> One gets into all sorts of problems as soon as one considers the
> >>> 'talking cat' and the 'talking bird'.
> >>
> >>Not at all, it makes a very nice rhetorical device. Explain why that is
> >>problematic.
> >
> > Because its mindless if you think a tad.
>
> How so? Here is the one I presented..
>
> A "talking dog" might say. "I need you to feed me, give me water, comb me,
> take me for walks, rub my tummy sometimes, give me some freedom, provide me
> with veterinary care, let me be a valued member of your human family, and in
> the final days, have the courage to end my life humanely if my suffering
> becomes too great. In return I will be devoted to you and enrich your life."

Oddly, dogs have been able to live for centuries without such "needs".

How about this monologue, "stop keeping me captive. Stop treating me
like a slave with this freaking collar around my neck. Stop making me
fetch your freakin slippers when no one else in the human family has to
do so. Stop forcing me to live like you under the consequences of
starvation and corporal punishment. Let me live my life in freedom and
die like the rest of my species."

It seems we get to do with pets what we might like to do to humans, but
just can't bring ourselves to do.

> Is that not a nice way of expressing the notion of man's obligations to his
> dog? Why is it mindless? Where is the trouble it might cause? I don't get
> your point.

How about stop enslaving animals. How about if I throw a collar on you,
slap your nose or ass when you don't what I want.

> >>> If the cat doesn't catch and eat the bird it dies,
> >>> if the cat catches the bird then the bird dies.
> >>
> >>What does that have to with talking animals?
> >
> > Hmmm....
> >
> > Obviously a step too far for your brain.
>
> Obviously. Give me a hint, where is there a rhetorical talking animal there?
>
>
> >> Which is pretty much the story of nature.
> >>> Nature, of course, doesn't have much truck with human ethics.
> >>
> >>Immaterial.
> >
> > Highly relevant.
> > We are part of nature, see.
>
> Yea... and...........??
>
> >
> >>> Please don't even *think* of discussing the talking bacterium....
> >>
> >>I don't find that you grasped any of what preceded, and no doubt fuckwit
> >>will attempt to exploit that fact to further obfuscate the issue.
> >
> > I fear you haven't grasped anything at all.
>
> I have no idea what you're talking about, so yea. Please expain again how
> "the talking dog" paragraph gets us into all kinds of trouble.

From:	Dutch
Subject:	Re: The Logic of the Talking Pig
Date:	Mon, 3 Jan 2005 03:26:33 -0800

"Ron" wrote

> "Dutch" wrote:

>> [..]
>>
>> >>>>The above logic relies on the notion that humans have a moral right
>> >>>>to
>> >>>>consider that an animal's existence amounts to a valid justification
>> >>>>for
>> >>>>killing it. This idea quickly falls apart when one attempts to use
>> >>>>the
>> >>>>logic
>> >>>>in ANY other set of circumstances in which animals (including humans)
>> >>>>are
>> >>>>"brought into being".
>> >>>
>> >>> One gets into all sorts of problems as soon as one considers the
>> >>> 'talking cat' and the 'talking bird'.
>> >>
>> >>Not at all, it makes a very nice rhetorical device. Explain why that is
>> >>problematic.
>> >
>> > Because its mindless if you think a tad.
>>
>> How so? Here is the one I presented..
>>
>> A "talking dog" might say. "I need you to feed me, give me water, comb
>> me,
>> take me for walks, rub my tummy sometimes, give me some freedom, provide
>> me
>> with veterinary care, let me be a valued member of your human family, and
>> in
>> the final days, have the courage to end my life humanely if my suffering
>> becomes too great. In return I will be devoted to you and enrich your
>> life."
>
> Oddly, dogs have been able to live for centuries without such "needs".
>
> How about this monologue, "stop keeping me captive. Stop treating me
> like a slave with this freaking collar around my neck. Stop making me
> fetch your freakin slippers when no one else in the human family has to
> do so. Stop forcing me to live like you under the consequences of
> starvation and corporal punishment. Let me live my life in freedom and
> die like the rest of my species."

There you go, another fine example of the "talking animal" as rhetorical
device, this time from an Animal Rights point of view. Did you intend it to
mean that dogs can talk? Of course not.

> It seems we get to do with pets what we might like to do to humans, but
> just can't bring ourselves to do.
>
>> Is that not a nice way of expressing the notion of man's obligations to
>> his
>> dog? Why is it mindless? Where is the trouble it might cause? I don't get
>> your point.
>
> How about stop enslaving animals. How about if I throw a collar on you,
> slap your nose or ass when you don't what I want.

Now, now, keep your erotic fantasies to yourself please..

[..]

From:	Ron
Subject:	Re: The Logic of the Talking Pig
Date:	Mon, 03 Jan 2005 13:35:44 -0500

In article <10tiav42lhglreb@news.supernews.com>, "Dutch"
wrote:

> "Ron" wrote
>
> > "Dutch" wrote:
>
> >> [..]
> >>
> >> >>>>The above logic relies on the notion that humans have a moral right
> >> >>>>to
> >> >>>>consider that an animal's existence amounts to a valid justification
> >> >>>>for
> >> >>>>killing it. This idea quickly falls apart when one attempts to use
> >> >>>>the
> >> >>>>logic
> >> >>>>in ANY other set of circumstances in which animals (including humans)
> >> >>>>are
> >> >>>>"brought into being".
> >> >>>
> >> >>> One gets into all sorts of problems as soon as one considers the
> >> >>> 'talking cat' and the 'talking bird'.
> >> >>
> >> >>Not at all, it makes a very nice rhetorical device. Explain why that is
> >> >>problematic.
> >> >
> >> > Because its mindless if you think a tad.
> >>
> >> How so? Here is the one I presented..
> >>
> >> A "talking dog" might say. "I need you to feed me, give me water, comb
> >> me,
> >> take me for walks, rub my tummy sometimes, give me some freedom, provide
> >> me
> >> with veterinary care, let me be a valued member of your human family, and
> >> in
> >> the final days, have the courage to end my life humanely if my suffering
> >> becomes too great. In return I will be devoted to you and enrich your
> >> life."
> >
> > Oddly, dogs have been able to live for centuries without such "needs".
> >
> > How about this monologue, "stop keeping me captive. Stop treating me
> > like a slave with this freaking collar around my neck. Stop making me
> > fetch your freakin slippers when no one else in the human family has to
> > do so. Stop forcing me to live like you under the consequences of
> > starvation and corporal punishment. Let me live my life in freedom and
> > die like the rest of my species."
>
> There you go, another fine example of the "talking animal" as rhetorical
> device, this time from an Animal Rights point of view. Did you intend it to
> mean that dogs can talk? Of course not.
>
> > It seems we get to do with pets what we might like to do to humans, but
> > just can't bring ourselves to do.
> >
> >> Is that not a nice way of expressing the notion of man's obligations to
> >> his
> >> dog? Why is it mindless? Where is the trouble it might cause? I don't get
> >> your point.
> >
> > How about stop enslaving animals. How about if I throw a collar on you,
> > slap your nose or ass when you don't what I want.
>
> Now, now, keep your erotic fantasies to yourself please..

Once again, you avoid a discussion on commonly held beliefs. Let me
guess, dog "owner"?

From:	Dutch
Subject:	Re: The Logic of the Talking Pig
Date:	Mon, 3 Jan 2005 14:25:59 -0800

"Ron" wrote in message
news:ronis-B33147.13354403012005@news.isp.giganews.com...
> In article <10tiav42lhglreb@news.supernews.com>, "Dutch"
> wrote:
>
>> "Ron" wrote
>>
>> > "Dutch" wrote:
>>
>> >> [..]
>> >>
>> >> >>>>The above logic relies on the notion that humans have a moral
>> >> >>>>right
>> >> >>>>to
>> >> >>>>consider that an animal's existence amounts to a valid
>> >> >>>>justification
>> >> >>>>for
>> >> >>>>killing it. This idea quickly falls apart when one attempts to use
>> >> >>>>the
>> >> >>>>logic
>> >> >>>>in ANY other set of circumstances in which animals (including
>> >> >>>>humans)
>> >> >>>>are
>> >> >>>>"brought into being".
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> One gets into all sorts of problems as soon as one considers the
>> >> >>> 'talking cat' and the 'talking bird'.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>Not at all, it makes a very nice rhetorical device. Explain why that
>> >> >>is
>> >> >>problematic.
>> >> >
>> >> > Because its mindless if you think a tad.
>> >>
>> >> How so? Here is the one I presented..
>> >>
>> >> A "talking dog" might say. "I need you to feed me, give me water, comb
>> >> me,
>> >> take me for walks, rub my tummy sometimes, give me some freedom,
>> >> provide
>> >> me
>> >> with veterinary care, let me be a valued member of your human family,
>> >> and
>> >> in
>> >> the final days, have the courage to end my life humanely if my
>> >> suffering
>> >> becomes too great. In return I will be devoted to you and enrich your
>> >> life."
>> >
>> > Oddly, dogs have been able to live for centuries without such "needs".
>> >
>> > How about this monologue, "stop keeping me captive. Stop treating me
>> > like a slave with this freaking collar around my neck. Stop making me
>> > fetch your freakin slippers when no one else in the human family has to
>> > do so. Stop forcing me to live like you under the consequences of
>> > starvation and corporal punishment. Let me live my life in freedom and
>> > die like the rest of my species."
>>
>> There you go, another fine example of the "talking animal" as rhetorical
>> device, this time from an Animal Rights point of view. Did you intend it
>> to
>> mean that dogs can talk? Of course not.
>>
>> > It seems we get to do with pets what we might like to do to humans, but
>> > just can't bring ourselves to do.
>> >
>> >> Is that not a nice way of expressing the notion of man's obligations
>> >> to
>> >> his
>> >> dog? Why is it mindless? Where is the trouble it might cause? I don't
>> >> get
>> >> your point.
>> >
>> > How about stop enslaving animals. How about if I throw a collar on you,
>> > slap your nose or ass when you don't what I want.
>>
>> Now, now, keep your erotic fantasies to yourself please..
>
> Once again, you avoid a discussion on commonly held beliefs. Let me
> guess, dog "owner"?

I'm having enough pointless arguments with you already. Let Oz handle this
one.

From:	dh_ld at nomail.com
Subject:	Re: The Logic of the Talking Pig
Date:	Wed, 05 Jan 2005 00:02:31 GMT

On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 00:39:11 -0500, Ron wrote:

>In article <10thgou8kqhn4a@news.supernews.com>, "Dutch"
>wrote:
>
>> "Oz" wrote
>> > Dutch writes
>>
>> [..]
>>
>> >>>>The above logic relies on the notion that humans have a moral right to
>> >>>>consider that an animal's existence amounts to a valid justification for
>> >>>>killing it. This idea quickly falls apart when one attempts to use the
>> >>>>logic
>> >>>>in ANY other set of circumstances in which animals (including humans)
>> >>>>are
>> >>>>"brought into being".
>> >>>
>> >>> One gets into all sorts of problems as soon as one considers the
>> >>> 'talking cat' and the 'talking bird'.
>> >>
>> >>Not at all, it makes a very nice rhetorical device. Explain why that is
>> >>problematic.
>> >
>> > Because its mindless if you think a tad.
>>
>> How so? Here is the one I presented..
>>
>> A "talking dog" might say. "I need you to feed me, give me water, comb me,
>> take me for walks, rub my tummy sometimes, give me some freedom, provide me
>> with veterinary care, let me be a valued member of your human family, and in
>> the final days, have the courage to end my life humanely if my suffering
>> becomes too great. In return I will be devoted to you and enrich your life."
>
>Oddly, dogs have been able to live for centuries without such "needs".
>
>How about this monologue, "stop keeping me captive. Stop treating me
>like a slave with this freaking collar around my neck. Stop making me
>fetch your freakin slippers when no one else in the human family has to
>do so. Stop forcing me to live like you under the consequences of
>starvation and corporal punishment. Let me live my life in freedom and
>die like the rest of my species."
[...]

What have you done to promote that? There is nothing stopping you from
getting some dogs and releasing them to live in freedom and die like the rest
of their species. How many times have you done it? If you have not, why not
if it's a good idea?

From:	Oz
Subject:	Re: The Logic of the Talking Pig
Date:	Mon, 3 Jan 2005 09:23:41 +0000

Jim Webster writes

>loonie cross posts snipped
>
>hells teeth Oz, you must be getting bored wasting time with that lot.

Indeed....
A bored cat.
For the moment.

>Over the years I've kilfiled so many of that particular collection that I
>missed most of the thread.

Indeed.

>The reason I kilfiled them is that they are still arguing exactly the same
>topics with exactly the same arguments as they were two or three years back.

Indeed.
Not only are some a tad(!) socially inept, they are also very thick.

--
Oz

From:	Dutch
Subject:	Re: The Logic of the Talking Pig
Date:	Sat, 1 Jan 2005 15:33:28 -0800

wrote in message
news:ms4et0dgmt9u4lnl3vd76d5encahu9ffqd@4ax.com...
> To begin, here is what the Logic of the Talking Pig
> is intended to refute:
> _________________________________________________________
> [...]
> A variation of this argument, termed "the logic of the larder"
> or "the replacement argument" is one of the oldest and best-known
> justifications for the routinized raising and killing of animals
> for food (see Salt 185). In basic form, it runs as follows: Killing
> an animal is justified where the animal would not have existed but
> for the fact that humans have chosen to raise it, where its existence
> for even a short while is of positive value, and where, for every
> animal that is killed, another "replacement" animal is brought into
> being who would not have otherwise existed and who will enjoy its
> existence as much as the one that was killed (Sapontzis 177; see
> Nozick 38).
> [...]
> http://cla.calpoly.edu/~jlynch/fennell.htm
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> The above is based on consideration of reality and things which
> do occur.

The above logic relies on the notion that humans have a moral right to
consider that an animal's existence amounts to a valid justification for
killing it. This idea quickly falls apart when one attempts to use the logic
in ANY other set of circumstances in which animals (including humans) are
"brought into being".

It also presumes that a further justification for raising animals for food
is needed, which indicates that the person using the argument has an "Animal
Rights" basis in their thinking, albeit turned rather upside-down.

> Notice below that the supposed refutation--the talking
> pig "logic"--changes completely to fantasy:
>
> " This, then, is the benign attitude of the Philosopher towards the Pig;
> and what shall be the reply of the Pig to the Philosopher? "Revered
> moralist," he might plead, "it were unseemly for me, who am to-day a
> pig, and to-morrow but ham and sausages, to dispute with a master of
> ethics, yet to my porcine intellect it appeareth that having first
> determined
> to kill and devour me, thou hast afterwards bestirred thee to find a moral
> reason. For mark, I pray thee, that in my entry into the world my own
> predilection was in no wise considered, nor did I purchase life on
> condition
> of my own butchery. If, then, thou art firm set on pork, so be it, for
> pork
> I am: but though thou hast not spared my life, at least spare me thy
> sophistry. It is not for his sake, but for thine, that in his life the Pig
> is filthily
> housed and fed, and at the end barbarously butchered.""
>
> Let us examine the fantasy(s):
>
> "This, then, is the benign attitude of the Philosopher towards the Pig;
> and
> what shall be thereply of the Pig to the Philosopher?"
>
> 1. requiring that pigs are capable of replying to humans

Humans are capable of empathy towards animals, otherwise we wouldn't be
having this discussion.

> "Revered moralist,"
>
> 2. requiring that pigs are aware of revered moralists
>
> "he might plead,"
>
> 3. requiring that pigs understand the concept of pleading
>
> "fit were unseemly for me, who am to-day"
>
> 4. requiring that pigs contemplate time
>
> "a pig, "
>
> 5. requiring that pigs contemplate their own existence
>
> "and tomorrow"
>
> 6. requiring that pigs contemplate the future
>
> "but ham and sausages,"
>
> 7. requiring that pigs understand their bodies will be butchered
> and prepared in specific ways
>
> "to dispute with"
>
> 8. requiring that pigs understand and are capable of disputing
> verbally with humans
>
> "a master of ethics,"
>
> 9. similar to fantasy 2.. plus suggesting the pig considers that he/she
> may be unworthy to dispute with "a master of ethics"
>
> "yet to my porcine intellect"
>
> 10. requiring that pigs consider themselves to have an inferior intellect
>
> "it appeareth that having first determined to kill"
>
> 11. requiring that pigs know humans deliberately raise them
> 12. requiring that pigs are aware of death
> 13. requiring that pigs know they can be killed
> 14. requiring that pigs know humans deliberately kill them
>
> "and devour me,"
>
> 15. requiring that pigs know humans eat their dead bodies
>
> "thou hast afterwards bestirred thee to find a moral reason."
>
> 16. requiring that pigs consider what motivates human thinking
> 17. requiring that pigs are aware of moral reasoning
> 18. requiring that recognition of the fact such pigs only exist because
> humans raise them, can only be done in an attempt "to find a
> moral reason" for devouring them
>
> "For mark, I pray thee, that in my entry into the world"
>
> 19. requiring that pigs consider how they come into existence
>
> "my own predilection was in no wise considered,"
>
> 20. requiring that pigs accurately understand what humans do and
> do not consider
>
> " nor did I purchase life on condition"
>
> 21. requiring that pigs contemplate their own fate
> 22. suggesting that pigs would rather they had never been born
>
> "of my own butchery."
>
> 6.
> 7.
>
> "If, then, thou art firm set on pork,"
>
> 23. requiring that pigs know humans eat meat
> 24. requiring that pigs know they are "pork"
>
> "so be it,"
>
> 25. requiring that pigs have that attitude about it...
>
> "for pork I am:"
>
> ...for that reason
>
> "but though thou hast not spared my life,"
>
> 14.
>
> "at least spare me thy sophistry."
>
> 26. requiring that pigs would be able to understand human speach
> 27. requiring that recognition of the fact such pigs only exist because
> humans raise them, is in some way "sophistry".
>
> "It is not for his sake, but for thine,"
>
> 28. requiring that pigs understand the situation they are in
> 29. requiring that pigs understand how the situation they are in
> relates to humans
>
> "that in his life the Pig is filthily housed"
>
> 30. requiring that pigs are aware of filth
> 31. requiring that pigs feel they are forced to live in filth
>
> "and fed,"
>
> 32. requiring that pigs contemplate the fact that humans feed them
> 33. requiring that pigs feel what and or how they are fed is filthy
>
> "and at the end barbarously butchered."
>
> 34. requiring that pigs contemplate what will happen to their bodies
> after their death
>
> Real pigs are not capable of any of the things required to make
> The Logic of the Talking Pig anything other than a fantasy about
> a talking pig.

They are capable of some of them, but it's irrelevant. The talking pig is
simply a rhetorical device expressing the author's idea of a human/animal
moral relationship.

A "talking dog" might say. "I need you to feed me, give me water, comb me,
take me for walks, rub my tummy sometimes, give me some freedom, provide me
with veterinary care, let me be a valued member of your human family, and in
the final days, have the courage to end my life humanely if my suffering
becomes too great. In return I will be devoted to you and enrich your life."

The pet cannot and does not need to understand these concepts, nor does the
paragraph suggest it does, it is simply a rhetorical device, an effective
way of expressing ideas about the human/pet relationship.

The talking pig device is used in exactly the same manner.

From:	dh_ld at nomail.com
Subject:	Re: The Logic of the Talking Pig
Date:	Sun, 02 Jan 2005 19:12:58 GMT

On Sat, 1 Jan 2005 15:33:28 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:

> wrote in message
>news:ms4et0dgmt9u4lnl3vd76d5encahu9ffqd@4ax.com...
>> To begin, here is what the Logic of the Talking Pig
>> is intended to refute:
>> _________________________________________________________
>> [...]
>> A variation of this argument, termed "the logic of the larder"
>> or "the replacement argument" is one of the oldest and best-known
>> justifications for the routinized raising and killing of animals
>> for food (see Salt 185). In basic form, it runs as follows: Killing
>> an animal is justified where the animal would not have existed but
>> for the fact that humans have chosen to raise it, where its existence
>> for even a short while is of positive value, and where, for every
>> animal that is killed, another "replacement" animal is brought into
>> being who would not have otherwise existed and who will enjoy its
>> existence as much as the one that was killed (Sapontzis 177; see
>> Nozick 38).
>> [...]
>> http://cla.calpoly.edu/~jlynch/fennell.htm
>> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>> The above is based on consideration of reality and things which
>> do occur.
>
>The above logic relies on the notion that humans have a moral right to
>consider that an animal's existence amounts to a valid justification for
>killing it.

No justification is needed. Regardless of that, billions of animals are
not simply killed as you would like people to "think", but those same
billions of them only experience life because humans raise them to eat.

>This idea quickly falls apart when one attempts to use the logic
>in ANY other set of circumstances in which animals (including humans) are
>"brought into being".

All will die. "This idea" simply considers livestock like it does ANY other
set of circumstances...

>It also presumes that a further justification for raising animals for food
>is needed,

It considers more very real aspects of the situation than you "ARAs" want
people to consider.

>which indicates that the person using the argument has an "Animal
>Rights" basis in their thinking,

That's a lie, since "AR" would prevent livestock from having any life
at all.

>albeit turned rather upside-down.
>
>> Notice below that the supposed refutation--the talking
>> pig "logic"--changes completely to fantasy:
>>
>> " This, then, is the benign attitude of the Philosopher towards the Pig;
>> and what shall be the reply of the Pig to the Philosopher? "Revered
>> moralist," he might plead, "it were unseemly for me, who am to-day a
>> pig, and to-morrow but ham and sausages, to dispute with a master of
>> ethics, yet to my porcine intellect it appeareth that having first
>> determined
>> to kill and devour me, thou hast afterwards bestirred thee to find a moral
>> reason. For mark, I pray thee, that in my entry into the world my own
>> predilection was in no wise considered, nor did I purchase life on
>> condition
>> of my own butchery. If, then, thou art firm set on pork, so be it, for
>> pork
>> I am: but though thou hast not spared my life, at least spare me thy
>> sophistry. It is not for his sake, but for thine, that in his life the Pig
>> is filthily
>> housed and fed, and at the end barbarously butchered.""
>>
>> Let us examine the fantasy(s):
>>
>> "This, then, is the benign attitude of the Philosopher towards the Pig;
>> and
>> what shall be thereply of the Pig to the Philosopher?"
>>
>> 1. requiring that pigs are capable of replying to humans
>
>Humans are capable of empathy towards animals, otherwise we wouldn't be
>having this discussion.

Some of us more than others. For example some of us consider the animals
and what some of them gain from the situation, and what many many more
could gain from the situation if more people took interest in it. Others of us--like
you/"ARAs"--are extremely opposed to people considering the animals and
what some of them gain from the situation, and what many many more could
gain from the situation if more people took interest in it. Why are you so opposed
to it? Because you want to prevent it from happening. Why do you want to
prevent it from happening? I can't figure that one out. Can you?

>> "Revered moralist,"
>>
>> 2. requiring that pigs are aware of revered moralists
>>
>> "he might plead,"
>>
>> 3. requiring that pigs understand the concept of pleading
>>
>> "fit were unseemly for me, who am to-day"
>>
>> 4. requiring that pigs contemplate time
>>
>> "a pig, "
>>
>> 5. requiring that pigs contemplate their own existence
>>
>> "and tomorrow"
>>
>> 6. requiring that pigs contemplate the future
>>
>> "but ham and sausages,"
>>
>> 7. requiring that pigs understand their bodies will be butchered
>> and prepared in specific ways
>>
>> "to dispute with"
>>
>> 8. requiring that pigs understand and are capable of disputing
>> verbally with humans
>>
>> "a master of ethics,"
>>
>> 9. similar to fantasy 2.. plus suggesting the pig considers that he/she
>> may be unworthy to dispute with "a master of ethics"
>>
>> "yet to my porcine intellect"
>>
>> 10. requiring that pigs consider themselves to have an inferior intellect
>>
>> "it appeareth that having first determined to kill"
>>
>> 11. requiring that pigs know humans deliberately raise them
>> 12. requiring that pigs are aware of death
>> 13. requiring that pigs know they can be killed
>> 14. requiring that pigs know humans deliberately kill them
>>
>> "and devour me,"
>>
>> 15. requiring that pigs know humans eat their dead bodies
>>
>> "thou hast afterwards bestirred thee to find a moral reason."
>>
>> 16. requiring that pigs consider what motivates human thinking
>> 17. requiring that pigs are aware of moral reasoning
>> 18. requiring that recognition of the fact such pigs only exist because
>> humans raise them, can only be done in an attempt "to find a
>> moral reason" for devouring them
>>
>> "For mark, I pray thee, that in my entry into the world"
>>
>> 19. requiring that pigs consider how they come into existence
>>
>> "my own predilection was in no wise considered,"
>>
>> 20. requiring that pigs accurately understand what humans do and
>> do not consider
>>
>> " nor did I purchase life on condition"
>>
>> 21. requiring that pigs contemplate their own fate
>> 22. suggesting that pigs would rather they had never been born
>>
>> "of my own butchery."
>>
>> 6.
>> 7.
>>
>> "If, then, thou art firm set on pork,"
>>
>> 23. requiring that pigs know humans eat meat
>> 24. requiring that pigs know they are "pork"
>>
>> "so be it,"
>>
>> 25. requiring that pigs have that attitude about it...
>>
>> "for pork I am:"
>>
>> ...for that reason
>>
>> "but though thou hast not spared my life,"
>>
>> 14.
>>
>> "at least spare me thy sophistry."
>>
>> 26. requiring that pigs would be able to understand human speach
>> 27. requiring that recognition of the fact such pigs only exist because
>> humans raise them, is in some way "sophistry".
>>
>> "It is not for his sake, but for thine,"
>>
>> 28. requiring that pigs understand the situation they are in
>> 29. requiring that pigs understand how the situation they are in
>> relates to humans
>>
>> "that in his life the Pig is filthily housed"
>>
>> 30. requiring that pigs are aware of filth
>> 31. requiring that pigs feel they are forced to live in filth
>>
>> "and fed,"
>>
>> 32. requiring that pigs contemplate the fact that humans feed them
>> 33. requiring that pigs feel what and or how they are fed is filthy
>>
>> "and at the end barbarously butchered."
>>
>> 34. requiring that pigs contemplate what will happen to their bodies
>> after their death
>>
>> Real pigs are not capable of any of the things required to make
>> The Logic of the Talking Pig anything other than a fantasy about
>> a talking pig.
>
>They are capable of some of them,

Not even one of them.

>but it's irrelevant.

It's extremely relevant. But since you prefer fantasy over reality,
you want to discard reality when it conflicts with the fantasy(s) you
want to cling to.

>The talking pig is
>simply a rhetorical device expressing the author's idea of a human/animal
>moral relationship.

No, it's much more than that. The author is very obviously trying to
persuade people to feel that pigs know the situation they are in, and
suffer mentally from knowledge of things that in reality none of them
know anything about. Oh, okay, you're pointing out that it's more than
just a fantasy about a talking pig, which apparently it is to you and you
want it to be for other people. The influence it could have on other
people is what you like about it, and what I don't like about it. It is
an impressively large number of fantasys which do not apply to reality
in the case of pigs, but for whatever reason(s) you want people to
side with the fantasys. Why Dutch?

>A "talking dog" might say. "I need you to feed me, give me water, comb me,
>take me for walks, rub my tummy sometimes, give me some freedom, provide me
>with veterinary care, let me be a valued member of your human family, and in
>the final days, have the courage to end my life humanely if my suffering
>becomes too great. In return I will be devoted to you and enrich your life."
>
>The pet cannot and does not need to understand these concepts,

In order for/to what? If you mean in order for your fantasy to be
more than a fantasy, I very strongly disagree.

>nor does the
>paragraph suggest it does, it is simply a rhetorical device, an effective
>way of expressing ideas about the human/pet relationship.

The ideas you're trying to create about the thoughts of the animals
is dishonest.

>The talking pig device is used in exactly the same manner.

I do see similarity to it.

From:	Rudy Canoza
Subject:	Re: The Logic of the Talking Pig
Date:	Fri, 14 Jan 2005 06:36:57 GMT

dh_ld@nomail.com wrote:

> On Sat, 1 Jan 2005 15:33:28 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:
>
>
>> wrote in message
>>news:ms4et0dgmt9u4lnl3vd76d5encahu9ffqd@4ax.com...
>>>The above is based on consideration of reality and things which
>>>do occur.
>>
>>The above logic relies on the notion that humans have a moral right to
>>consider that an animal's existence amounts to a valid justification for
>>killing it.
>
>
> No justification is needed.

You clearly believe one is needed. You're
justification is that the animals "benefit" by coming
into life. Your belief that they benefit is false, AND
it is not a justification for killing the animals.

>
>
>>This idea quickly falls apart when one attempts to use the logic
>>in ANY other set of circumstances in which animals (including humans) are
>>"brought into being".
>
>
> All will die.

Irrelevent. Causing them to live is not conferring a
benefit.

>
>
>>It also presumes that a further justification for raising animals for food
>>is needed,
>
>
> It considers more

It meaninglessly and falsely considers that causing
them to live is conferring a benefit. Causing them to
live is not conferring a benefit.

>
>
>>which indicates that the person using the argument has an "Animal
>>Rights" basis in their thinking,
>
>
> That's a lie, since

It's not a lie.

>>>1. requiring that pigs are capable of replying to humans
>>
>>Humans are capable of empathy towards animals, otherwise we wouldn't be
>>having this discussion.
>
>
> Some of us more than others.

You not at all.

>>The talking pig is
>>simply a rhetorical device expressing the author's idea of a human/animal
>>moral relationship.
>
>
> No, it's much more than that.

No, that's all it is.

>
>
>>A "talking dog" might say. "I need you to feed me, give me water, comb me,
>>take me for walks, rub my tummy sometimes, give me some freedom, provide me
>>with veterinary care, let me be a valued member of your human family, and in
>>the final days, have the courage to end my life humanely if my suffering
>>becomes too great. In return I will be devoted to you and enrich your life."
>>
>>The pet cannot and does not need to understand these concepts,
>
>
> In order for/to what? If you mean in order for your

No. In order for Salt's ideas to be presented. That's
the format he chose.

>
>
>>nor does the
>>paragraph suggest it does, it is simply a rhetorical device, an effective
>>way of expressing ideas about the human/pet relationship.
>
>
> The ideas you're trying to create

The ideas Salt presented are correct: causing animals
to live is not conferring a benefit on them.

>
>
>>The talking pig device is used in exactly the same manner.
>
>
> I do see

nothing.

From:	Dutch
Subject:	Re: The Logic of the Talking Pig
Date:	Sun, 2 Jan 2005 14:18:44 -0800

wrote in message
news:n7hgt0hhkhvmj4rglv63vjhc4amnjd1f1e@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 1 Jan 2005 15:33:28 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:
>
>> wrote in message
>>news:ms4et0dgmt9u4lnl3vd76d5encahu9ffqd@4ax.com...
>>> To begin, here is what the Logic of the Talking Pig
>>> is intended to refute:
>>> _________________________________________________________
>>> [...]
>>> A variation of this argument, termed "the logic of the larder"
>>> or "the replacement argument" is one of the oldest and best-known
>>> justifications for the routinized raising and killing of animals
>>> for food (see Salt 185). In basic form, it runs as follows: Killing
>>> an animal is justified where the animal would not have existed but
>>> for the fact that humans have chosen to raise it, where its existence
>>> for even a short while is of positive value, and where, for every
>>> animal that is killed, another "replacement" animal is brought into
>>> being who would not have otherwise existed and who will enjoy its
>>> existence as much as the one that was killed (Sapontzis 177; see
>>> Nozick 38).
>>> [...]
>>> http://cla.calpoly.edu/~jlynch/fennell.htm
>>> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>>> The above is based on consideration of reality and things which
>>> do occur.
>>
>>The above logic relies on the notion that humans have a moral right to
>>consider that an animal's existence amounts to a valid justification for
>>killing it.
>
> No justification is needed. Regardless of that, billions of animals are
> not simply killed as you would like people to "think", but those same
> billions of them only experience life because humans raise them to eat.

That *IS* an attempt at justification, there is NO OTHER REASON to point it
out.

>>This idea quickly falls apart when one attempts to use the logic
>>in ANY other set of circumstances in which animals (including humans) are
>>"brought into being".
>
> All will die. "This idea" simply considers livestock like it does ANY
> other
> set of circumstances...

There is NO other circumstance, no other class animal or human where we
factor that they "only experience life because humans raise them.." when
assessing the morality of killing them. NONE, ZERO.

>>It also presumes that a further justification for raising animals for food
>>is needed,
>
> It considers more very real aspects of the situation than you "ARAs"
> want
> people to consider.

It considers them to be a rationalization, an unecessary one.

>>which indicates that the person using the argument has an "Animal
>>Rights" basis in their thinking,
>
> That's a lie, since "AR" would prevent livestock from having any life
> at all.

So that means that your position is even MORE of an "Animal Rights" position
that that of ARAs. They don't want them to ever live, you think their
getting to live is a good thing, which is more of an Animal Rights position?

>>albeit turned rather upside-down.
>>
>>> Notice below that the supposed refutation--the talking
>>> pig "logic"--changes completely to fantasy:
>>>
>>> " This, then, is the benign attitude of the Philosopher towards the Pig;
>>> and what shall be the reply of the Pig to the Philosopher? "Revered
>>> moralist," he might plead, "it were unseemly for me, who am to-day a
>>> pig, and to-morrow but ham and sausages, to dispute with a master of
>>> ethics, yet to my porcine intellect it appeareth that having first
>>> determined
>>> to kill and devour me, thou hast afterwards bestirred thee to find a
>>> moral
>>> reason. For mark, I pray thee, that in my entry into the world my own
>>> predilection was in no wise considered, nor did I purchase life on
>>> condition
>>> of my own butchery. If, then, thou art firm set on pork, so be it, for
>>> pork
>>> I am: but though thou hast not spared my life, at least spare me thy
>>> sophistry. It is not for his sake, but for thine, that in his life the
>>> Pig
>>> is filthily
>>> housed and fed, and at the end barbarously butchered.""
>>>
>>> Let us examine the fantasy(s):
>>>
>>> "This, then, is the benign attitude of the Philosopher towards the Pig;
>>> and
>>> what shall be thereply of the Pig to the Philosopher?"
>>>
>>> 1. requiring that pigs are capable of replying to humans
>>
>>Humans are capable of empathy towards animals, otherwise we wouldn't be
>>having this discussion.
>
> Some of us more than others. For example some of us consider the
> animals
> and what some of them gain from the situation, and what many many more
> could gain from the situation if more people took interest in it. Others
> of us--like
> you/"ARAs"--are extremely opposed to people considering the animals and
> what some of them gain from the situation, and what many many more could
> gain from the situation if more people took interest in it. Why are you so
> opposed
> to it? Because you want to prevent it from happening. Why do you want to
> prevent it from happening? I can't figure that one out. Can you?

Your position is founded on one thing, to use the lives of livestock for
some justification for raising them. It's a nasty bit of sophistry, and you
don't even know what sophistry means, which makes things worse.

>
>>> "Revered moralist,"
>>>
>>> 2. requiring that pigs are aware of revered moralists
>>>
>>> "he might plead,"
>>>
>>> 3. requiring that pigs understand the concept of pleading
>>>
>>> "fit were unseemly for me, who am to-day"
>>>
>>> 4. requiring that pigs contemplate time
>>>
>>> "a pig, "
>>>
>>> 5. requiring that pigs contemplate their own existence
>>>
>>> "and tomorrow"
>>>
>>> 6. requiring that pigs contemplate the future
>>>
>>> "but ham and sausages,"
>>>
>>> 7. requiring that pigs understand their bodies will be butchered
>>> and prepared in specific ways
>>>
>>> "to dispute with"
>>>
>>> 8. requiring that pigs understand and are capable of disputing
>>> verbally with humans
>>>
>>> "a master of ethics,"
>>>
>>> 9. similar to fantasy 2.. plus suggesting the pig considers that he/she
>>> may be unworthy to dispute with "a master of ethics"
>>>
>>> "yet to my porcine intellect"
>>>
>>> 10. requiring that pigs consider themselves to have an inferior
>>> intellect
>>>
>>> "it appeareth that having first determined to kill"
>>>
>>> 11. requiring that pigs know humans deliberately raise them
>>> 12. requiring that pigs are aware of death
>>> 13. requiring that pigs know they can be killed
>>> 14. requiring that pigs know humans deliberately kill them
>>>
>>> "and devour me,"
>>>
>>> 15. requiring that pigs know humans eat their dead bodies
>>>
>>> "thou hast afterwards bestirred thee to find a moral reason."
>>>
>>> 16. requiring that pigs consider what motivates human thinking
>>> 17. requiring that pigs are aware of moral reasoning
>>> 18. requiring that recognition of the fact such pigs only exist because
>>> humans raise them, can only be done in an attempt "to find a
>>> moral reason" for devouring them
>>>
>>> "For mark, I pray thee, that in my entry into the world"
>>>
>>> 19. requiring that pigs consider how they come into existence
>>>
>>> "my own predilection was in no wise considered,"
>>>
>>> 20. requiring that pigs accurately understand what humans do and
>>> do not consider
>>>
>>> " nor did I purchase life on condition"
>>>
>>> 21. requiring that pigs contemplate their own fate
>>> 22. suggesting that pigs would rather they had never been born
>>>
>>> "of my own butchery."
>>>
>>> 6.
>>> 7.
>>>
>>> "If, then, thou art firm set on pork,"
>>>
>>> 23. requiring that pigs know humans eat meat
>>> 24. requiring that pigs know they are "pork"
>>>
>>> "so be it,"
>>>
>>> 25. requiring that pigs have that attitude about it...
>>>
>>> "for pork I am:"
>>>
>>> ...for that reason
>>>
>>> "but though thou hast not spared my life,"
>>>
>>> 14.
>>>
>>> "at least spare me thy sophistry."
>>>
>>> 26. requiring that pigs would be able to understand human speach
>>> 27. requiring that recognition of the fact such pigs only exist because
>>> humans raise them, is in some way "sophistry".
>>>
>>> "It is not for his sake, but for thine,"
>>>
>>> 28. requiring that pigs understand the situation they are in
>>> 29. requiring that pigs understand how the situation they are in
>>> relates to humans
>>>
>>> "that in his life the Pig is filthily housed"
>>>
>>> 30. requiring that pigs are aware of filth
>>> 31. requiring that pigs feel they are forced to live in filth
>>>
>>> "and fed,"
>>>
>>> 32. requiring that pigs contemplate the fact that humans feed them
>>> 33. requiring that pigs feel what and or how they are fed is filthy
>>>
>>> "and at the end barbarously butchered."
>>>
>>> 34. requiring that pigs contemplate what will happen to their bodies
>>> after their death
>>>
>>> Real pigs are not capable of any of the things required to make
>>> The Logic of the Talking Pig anything other than a fantasy about
>>> a talking pig.
>>
>>They are capable of some of them,
>
> Not even one of them.

I thought you knew pigs. They are very aware of filth, by nature they are
very clean animals.

>>but it's irrelevant.
>
> It's extremely relevant. But since you prefer fantasy over reality,
> you want to discard reality when it conflicts with the fantasy(s) you
> want to cling to.

No fantasy.

>>The talking pig is
>>simply a rhetorical device expressing the author's idea of a human/animal
>>moral relationship.
>
> No, it's much more than that.

Nope, it's a rhetorical device.

> The author is very obviously trying to
> persuade people to feel that pigs know the situation they are in, and
> suffer mentally from knowledge of things that in reality none of them
> know anything about. Oh, okay, you're pointing out that it's more than
> just a fantasy about a talking pig, which apparently it is to you and you
> want it to be for other people. The influence it could have on other
> people is what you like about it, and what I don't like about it. It is
> an impressively large number of fantasys which do not apply to reality
> in the case of pigs, but for whatever reason(s) you want people to
> side with the fantasys. Why Dutch?

Your level of comprehension is lower than your morals.

>>A "talking dog" might say. "I need you to feed me, give me water, comb me,
>>take me for walks, rub my tummy sometimes, give me some freedom, provide
>>me
>>with veterinary care, let me be a valued member of your human family, and
>>in
>>the final days, have the courage to end my life humanely if my suffering
>>becomes too great. In return I will be devoted to you and enrich your
>>life."
>>
>>The pet cannot and does not need to understand these concepts,
>
> In order for/to what?

In order for the paragraph to be a useful rhetorical device. A "talking dog"
describing how a moral/ethical dog owner should think and behave towards
their animal is an effective literary vehicle. What else?

> If you mean in order for your fantasy to be
> more than a fantasy, I very strongly disagree.

With what?

>>nor does the
>>paragraph suggest it does, it is simply a rhetorical device, an effective
>>way of expressing ideas about the human/pet relationship.
>
> The ideas you're trying to create about the thoughts of the animals
> is dishonest.

In what way is it dishonest?

>>The talking pig device is used in exactly the same manner.
>
> I do see similarity to it.

Of course, it's the same thing. It's not trying to say that pigs or dogs
talk, or understand human concepts, it is simply an interesting way of
giving an opinion of human/animal morals and ethics.

From:	dh_ld at nomail.com
Subject:	Re: The Logic of the Talking Pig
Date:	Mon, 03 Jan 2005 05:04:04 GMT

On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 14:18:44 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:

>
> wrote in message
>news:n7hgt0hhkhvmj4rglv63vjhc4amnjd1f1e@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 1 Jan 2005 15:33:28 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:
>>
>>> wrote in message
>>>news:ms4et0dgmt9u4lnl3vd76d5encahu9ffqd@4ax.com...
>>>> To begin, here is what the Logic of the Talking Pig
>>>> is intended to refute:
>>>> _________________________________________________________
>>>> [...]
>>>> A variation of this argument, termed "the logic of the larder"
>>>> or "the replacement argument" is one of the oldest and best-known
>>>> justifications for the routinized raising and killing of animals
>>>> for food (see Salt 185). In basic form, it runs as follows: Killing
>>>> an animal is justified where the animal would not have existed but
>>>> for the fact that humans have chosen to raise it, where its existence
>>>> for even a short while is of positive value, and where, for every
>>>> animal that is killed, another "replacement" animal is brought into
>>>> being who would not have otherwise existed and who will enjoy its
>>>> existence as much as the one that was killed (Sapontzis 177; see
>>>> Nozick 38).
>>>> [...]
>>>> http://cla.calpoly.edu/~jlynch/fennell.htm
>>>> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>>>> The above is based on consideration of reality and things which
>>>> do occur.
>>>
>>>The above logic relies on the notion that humans have a moral right to
>>>consider that an animal's existence amounts to a valid justification for
>>>killing it.
>>
>> No justification is needed. Regardless of that, billions of animals are
>> not simply killed as you would like people to "think", but those same
>> billions of them only experience life because humans raise them to eat.
>
>That *IS* an attempt at justification, there is NO OTHER REASON to point it
>out.

It is consideration for animals which you are very obviously opposed to.

>>>This idea quickly falls apart when one attempts to use the logic
>>>in ANY other set of circumstances in which animals (including humans) are
>>>"brought into being".
>>
>> All will die. "This idea" simply considers livestock like it does ANY
>> other
>> set of circumstances...
>
>There is NO other circumstance, no other class animal or human where we
>factor that they "only experience life because humans raise them.."

That fact applies to all situations where it is true, including humans, pets,
etc...

>when
>assessing the morality of killing them.

That's because food animals are in a unique situation, but you still
want everyone to "think" of them as YOU think of everything else.

>NONE, ZERO.
>
>>>It also presumes that a further justification for raising animals for food
>>>is needed,
>>
>> It considers more very real aspects of the situation than you "ARAs"
>> want
>> people to consider.
>
>It considers them to be a rationalization, an unecessary one.
>
>>>which indicates that the person using the argument has an "Animal
>>>Rights" basis in their thinking,
>>
>> That's a lie, since "AR" would prevent livestock from having any life
>> at all.
>
>So that means that your position is even MORE of an "Animal Rights" position
>that that of ARAs. They don't want them to ever live, you think their
>getting to live is a good thing, which is more of an Animal Rights position?

I don't believe any animals have rights. I've also pointed out many times that
"AR" would not provide animals with rights or anything else, and you hate for
me to point it out. Did you forget about that? Look what a weird asshole you
showed yourself to be, simply because I pointed out the difference between your
beloved "AR" and Animal Welfare:
_________________________________________________________
From: "Dutch"
Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: FAQ: Fuckwit's beliefs (posted as needed)
Message-ID:
Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2003 06:07:48 GMT

dh_ld@nomail.com> wrote

> AW means better lives for animals. "AR" means the elimination of
> farm animals, and as much as you obviously want to believe they're
> the same thing, they are completely different objectives.

Shut the fuck up you stupid fucking moron. Do the world a favour and go blow
your stupid fucking head off with the biggest fucking gun you can find.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>>>albeit turned rather upside-down.
>>>
>>>> Notice below that the supposed refutation--the talking
>>>> pig "logic"--changes completely to fantasy:
>>>>
>>>> " This, then, is the benign attitude of the Philosopher towards the Pig;
>>>> and what shall be the reply of the Pig to the Philosopher? "Revered
>>>> moralist," he might plead, "it were unseemly for me, who am to-day a
>>>> pig, and to-morrow but ham and sausages, to dispute with a master of
>>>> ethics, yet to my porcine intellect it appeareth that having first
>>>> determined
>>>> to kill and devour me, thou hast afterwards bestirred thee to find a
>>>> moral
>>>> reason. For mark, I pray thee, that in my entry into the world my own
>>>> predilection was in no wise considered, nor did I purchase life on
>>>> condition
>>>> of my own butchery. If, then, thou art firm set on pork, so be it, for
>>>> pork
>>>> I am: but though thou hast not spared my life, at least spare me thy
>>>> sophistry. It is not for his sake, but for thine, that in his life the
>>>> Pig
>>>> is filthily
>>>> housed and fed, and at the end barbarously butchered.""
>>>>
>>>> Let us examine the fantasy(s):
>>>>
>>>> "This, then, is the benign attitude of the Philosopher towards the Pig;
>>>> and
>>>> what shall be thereply of the Pig to the Philosopher?"
>>>>
>>>> 1. requiring that pigs are capable of replying to humans
>>>
>>>Humans are capable of empathy towards animals, otherwise we wouldn't be
>>>having this discussion.
>>
>> Some of us more than others. For example some of us consider the
>> animals
>> and what some of them gain from the situation, and what many many more
>> could gain from the situation if more people took interest in it. Others
>> of us--like
>> you/"ARAs"--are extremely opposed to people considering the animals and
>> what some of them gain from the situation, and what many many more could
>> gain from the situation if more people took interest in it. Why are you so
>> opposed
>> to it? Because you want to prevent it from happening. Why do you want to
>> prevent it from happening? I can't figure that one out. Can you?
>
>Your position is founded on one thing, to use the lives of livestock for
>some justification for raising them. It's a nasty bit of sophistry, and you
>don't even know what sophistry means, which makes things worse.
>
>
>>
>>>> "Revered moralist,"
>>>>
>>>> 2. requiring that pigs are aware of revered moralists
>>>>
>>>> "he might plead,"
>>>>
>>>> 3. requiring that pigs understand the concept of pleading
>>>>
>>>> "fit were unseemly for me, who am to-day"
>>>>
>>>> 4. requiring that pigs contemplate time
>>>>
>>>> "a pig, "
>>>>
>>>> 5. requiring that pigs contemplate their own existence
>>>>
>>>> "and tomorrow"
>>>>
>>>> 6. requiring that pigs contemplate the future
>>>>
>>>> "but ham and sausages,"
>>>>
>>>> 7. requiring that pigs understand their bodies will be butchered
>>>> and prepared in specific ways
>>>>
>>>> "to dispute with"
>>>>
>>>> 8. requiring that pigs understand and are capable of disputing
>>>> verbally with humans
>>>>
>>>> "a master of ethics,"
>>>>
>>>> 9. similar to fantasy 2.. plus suggesting the pig considers that he/she
>>>> may be unworthy to dispute with "a master of ethics"
>>>>
>>>> "yet to my porcine intellect"
>>>>
>>>> 10. requiring that pigs consider themselves to have an inferior
>>>> intellect
>>>>
>>>> "it appeareth that having first determined to kill"
>>>>
>>>> 11. requiring that pigs know humans deliberately raise them
>>>> 12. requiring that pigs are aware of death
>>>> 13. requiring that pigs know they can be killed
>>>> 14. requiring that pigs know humans deliberately kill them
>>>>
>>>> "and devour me,"
>>>>
>>>> 15. requiring that pigs know humans eat their dead bodies
>>>>
>>>> "thou hast afterwards bestirred thee to find a moral reason."
>>>>
>>>> 16. requiring that pigs consider what motivates human thinking
>>>> 17. requiring that pigs are aware of moral reasoning
>>>> 18. requiring that recognition of the fact such pigs only exist because
>>>> humans raise them, can only be done in an attempt "to find a
>>>> moral reason" for devouring them
>>>>
>>>> "For mark, I pray thee, that in my entry into the world"
>>>>
>>>> 19. requiring that pigs consider how they come into existence
>>>>
>>>> "my own predilection was in no wise considered,"
>>>>
>>>> 20. requiring that pigs accurately understand what humans do and
>>>> do not consider
>>>>
>>>> " nor did I purchase life on condition"
>>>>
>>>> 21. requiring