>>5131413
Why would the farms do this? What could be the point of this cruelty? The main reason is that the industry saves on food costs when their animals don’t move around as much. If you’re kept in a cage where you can’t turn around, you’ll be less active and eat less food. It is cheaper to feed caged prisoners than those who can taste freedom.

Pigs are smarter than dogs. They’re playful, social creatures. They can recognize themselves in mirrors, remember information over long time periods, communicate, and even use tools. When you interact with a dog, you notice ways they resemble small children. Pigs are the same way. https://www.ciwf.com/media-and-news/blog/are-pigs-smarter-than-dogs-7-research-backed-facts/

>>5131414
A pregnant mother pig deserves better than solitary confinement in a crate. If it came out that some demented psychopath was locking dogs for months in cages where they couldn’t turn around and had to dwell in feces non-stop, we’d all call that torture and send them to jail. But this is what the factory farms do to countless pigs for a quick buck. And they’re fighting desperately to override the will of the voters, to keep pigs confined.

Across many states California, Massachusetts, and more voters passed laws outlawing gestation crates. Voters recognized that stopping the torture of countless pigs mattered more than marginal profit for pork companies. They recognized that there is something deeply twisted and evil about an industry that keeps animals confined like factory products, so that they don’t have to feed them as much. That pigs, as animals, deserve to be treated as individuals, not products.

Immediately, the pork industry began scheming, attempting to overrule the will of the voters.

They sued, arguing that it was illegal for states to regulate what kind of meat could be sold in their own state, on grounds that this would interfere with activity outside of their state. The case went to the Supreme Court. They lost. Unable to win with either voters or the Supreme Court, they decided to try to get Congress to pass a bill that would destroy state animal welfare laws. To their eternal shame, the House passed the bill. Big ag’s lobbying seemed to be paying off.

The provision, euphemistically named the Save Our Bacon Act, was slipped into the farm bill. It wouldn’t just obliterate state protections for pigs that prevent them from being crated. It would prevent states from passing future animal welfare laws that restrict what kind of meat can be sold in their state. It would be the biggest defeat for animals since factory farms were invented.

>>5131415
All across the political spectrum, prominent voices have spoken up against this evil bill. On the political left, Noah Smith called the way we treat pigs “torture, plain and simple,” and urged people to call their senators telling them to vote no on the bill. Nicholas Kristof wrote “think of your dog enduring what pigs face, and you realize that the moral cost is incalculable.”

Right-wing voices spoke up too. Tomi Lahren interviewed Lewis Bollard and declared, “we don’t actually need to allow Chinese-owned factory farms to jam pigs into crates. The Farm Bill is bullshit. Spread the word.” Mike Cernovich called it “demonic stuff,” and other prominent conservatives described it as an “outrage against God.”

Experts in animal behavior have been similarly univocal in their condemnation of the bill. Donald Broom of Cambridge once called this confinement, “much worse than severely beating an animal.” https://animalequality.org.uk/news/2023/05/18/the-us-supreme-court-upholds-californias-prop-12/ And of course it is I’d much rather be beaten once than confined in a tiny crate for months. Temple Grandin compared it to having to live your life in an airline seat, without ever being allowed to enter the aisles, even to go to the bathroom. This understates it. At least in an airline seat, you have some form of entertainment, and if you really want to, you can turn around. No such luck for the pigs.

>>5131416
Crucially, the public spoke up as well. Countless people called Congress, telling them to vote no on any version of the farm bill that would include a pig torture provision. There was a groundswell of popular support, opposing this wicked bill. It seems there’s agreement from everyone not paid by the pig torture industry that this is a step too far—that we are hypocrites if we condemn others for animal cruelty while keeping pigs in crates so that for months they cannot turn around.

And yet even with all of this, it’s not clear if it will be enough.

While Senator Boozman successfully stripped the SOB provision https://x.com/joshbalk/status/2059329625491423643 from the first draft of the farm bill in the Senate, senators like Joni Ernst and Chuck Grassley will try to add it back. https://x.com/Lewis_Bollard/status/2058898377157583337 People I’ve talked to in the know say that there’s about a 50% chance the farm bill will pass with the SOB provision, and destroy state animal welfare laws. We can’t let that happen.

William Blake’s poem Jerusalem discusses the juxtaposition between goodness and evil beauty and wickedness dwelling right beside one another. Blake wrote:

>And did the Countenance Divine,

>Shine forth upon our clouded hills?

>And was Jerusalem builded here,

>Among these dark Satanic Mills?

>>5131417
I thought of this passage a lot when reading about the fight against the SOB Act. What could be a better description of factory farms than dark Satanic mills? The fight for pigs has been led by those who were decent and courageous who stood up for the innocent and vulnerable not because they expected to get anything in return, but just because it was the right thing to do. All across the spectrum, people united for a common cause.

And yet even then, they might be drowned out by ghastly agribusinesses who torture pigs to save literally pennies per animal. https://x.com/AndrewCritchPhD/status/2050697566590009387 Those for whom being cruel to animals is their job description, for whom compassion is a taboo concept. Those who built hell on Earth, and sent the pigs to live there.

The world is a complicated place with many tricky moral dilemmas. This isn’t one of them. You don’t need a degree in philosophy to know that we shouldn’t torture pigs in crates for months to save a tiny amount of money feeding them. They say you can judge a person by how they treat their inferiors. If this is so, then who could possibly merit more condemnation than the pig-torturing factory farms and their bootlickers in Congress?

If this bill passes, it will be a betrayal of our principles, of our pigs, and of justice itself. It will send a signal that big ag can do whatever it wants, and that Congress is too spineless to stand up to them. It will be a dark day in America, and countless tens of millions of pigs will cry out from within the confines of the prison that cages them, for we will have failed them.

What can be done

Fortunately, there are a number of actions that can be taken right now to stop this bill. The three big ones

Call your senators and tell them to vote no on any version of the farm bill that includes the Save Our Bacon provision. Tell the people you know to do the same. You can find your senators here https://www.senate.gov/senators/senators-contact.htm and call the Capitol switchboard at 202-224-3121 they’ll connect you with any senator. A lot of people plan to do this and then forget please, don’t forget, this really matters. Do it now if you can.

>>5131420
Donate to the AMPA, https://donorbox.org/american-meat-producers-association which is campaigning to help defeat the bill. My friends in the animal welfare space who are closer to this than I am estimate that donations here are many times more impactful than the best standard animal welfare donations. There’s a pretty serious shortage of funds, so this is a really good place to give. I know people who have given tens of thousands of dollars because of the extreme urgency of the cause.

Another world is possible: one where the conditions farmed animals undergo aren’t so bad that they’d be called torture if inflicted on a human or dog. Yet the factory farms are trying to take us backwards to reinstitute Stone Age barbarism and inflict it on defenseless and innocent animals. For the animals, these are some of the most important days in history, and what we do in the coming weeks will determine whether hundreds of millions are tortured. Now is the time we must act, so that silent nights are not punctured by the screams of the innocent.

File: IMG_1180.jpg (738 KB, 2985x967)

738 KB JPG

https://donorbox.org/american-meat-producers-association

Stand Up for Responsible Farming & Give Family Farmers a Voice in Washington DC!

The American Meat Producers Association represents farmers, ranchers, and meat producers across the United States, fighting to protect their livelihoods and preserve the future of American farming.
We advocate for policies that promote responsible production, protect fair and open meat markets, and keep family farms thriving. And we push back against legislation that threatens farmers’ independence or stifles healthy competition and diverse markets.

Learn more about our work at www.meatproducers.org

>>5131413
america no longer functions as a country

you're washing dishes on the titanic.

>>5131413
i can't help but good luck to you anon

Benthams spam/disinfo thread.
>>5131414
There is no quality evidence pigs are smarter than dogs. Large pigs have less cortical complexity than german shepherds. As less social animals, it is harder for humans to inadvertently poison “valid” experiments on pig intelligence.

Dogs have been trained to play video games. They prefer buttons and d-pads because rooting with their nose is uncomfortable.
Dogs can use mirrors and many have. Dogs can use mirrors to locate objects and other dogs. So can cats. And fish.
Dogs open latches and solve food puzzles.
Dogs form bonds, have feelings…
And up to twice as many neurons in a cerebral cortex that can learn to understand GRAMMAR.

Dogs are superior to pigs. We don’t eat them because they are too much like us. Pigs on the other hand are innately selfish animals that kill and eat their offspring and eacu others offspring with astounding regularity, more than any other mammal. They have sideways eyes and are so naturally repulsive they do not have the same relationship to human empathy routines as dogs. They are overall fair game.
And yes, morals can do and ought have an aesthetic bias. They exist entirely within human minds and should be attuned to them. Empathy is for humans first, to preserve human life, and must therefore apply more the more something is like a human.

>>5131439
>And yes, morals can do and ought have an aesthetic bias. They exist entirely within human minds

Probably not true.

should we embrace moral anti-realism? For the past century, many philosophers and intellectually inclined non-philosophers have answered in the affirmative. Indeed, the idea that morality is somehow “constructed,” “projected,” or ultimately unreal is deeply culturally influential. Even many people who continue speaking in strongly moral terms nevertheless hold either explicitly or implicitly that moral truths do not genuinely (stance-independently) exist.

Broadly speaking, however, moral anti-realism comes in two importantly different forms. The first denies that moral judgments are truth-apt. The second grants that moral judgments are truth-apt, but insists that all such judgments are false. The former position is generally called non-cognitivism or expressivism; the latter is commonly known as error theory or metaethical nihilism.

In this essay, I will first examine non-cognitivist forms of anti-realism and some of the difficulties they face. Then, I will turn to error theory, focusing especially on the influential “queerness objection” posed by J. L. Mackie. Finally, I will argue that moral realism manifestly provides the best explanation of the character of moral reasoning, disagreement, and deliberation.

>>5131444
1. Non-Cognitivism and the Logic of Moral Discourse

Non-cognitivists hold that moral judgments do not genuinely describe reality. According to these people, moral language merely expresses attitudes, emotions, prescriptions, commitments, or plans. On a simple emotivist picture, when someone says “murder is wrong,” what the person is really expressing is something closer to disapproval: roughly, “boo on murder” (Ayer 1936).

Early versions of this view were associated with figures such as A. J. Ayer and, in a more historically complicated way, Thomas Hobbes and David Hume. More recently, metaethicists such as Simon Blackburn and Allan Gibbard have attempted to develop considerably more sophisticated forms of expressivism capable of preserving much of ordinary moral discourse without committing themselves to objective moral facts (Blackburn 1993; Gibbard 2003).

Even so, non-cognitivist views face serious difficulties. First, they appear to provide a poor account of what we ordinarily take ourselves to be doing when we engage in moral reasoning. When people claim that slavery was unjust, or that torturing children for amusement is wrong, they generally do not take themselves merely to be expressing personal attitudes. They take themselves to be making claims about how one genuinely ought to behave. Moral discourse presents itself as tracking something objective and authoritative.

Anti-realists often respond by accusing the realist of merely reporting psychological habits or cultural conditioning, but that response risks understating the depth of the phenomenon in question. Human beings do not merely happen to speak morally: we reason morally. We criticize our own moral beliefs. We distinguish prejudice from moral insight. We regard some moral judgments as better justified than others. And we often continue doing all of these things even while verbally professing some form of anti-realism.

>>5131445
Second, anti-realist theories struggle to satisfactorily explain the logical structure of moral thought. Moral judgments appear capable of entering into logical relations in much the same way that ordinary beliefs do. If I believe that lying is wrong, and I also believe that a particular act is an instance of lying, then I seem rationally committed to concluding that the act is wrong. Likewise, it appears possible to hold logically inconsistent moral beliefs.

Simple attitudes, however, do not appear to function in this way. I can dislike tomatoes while enjoying ketchup without contradiction. I can dislike opera while admiring a particular opera singer. Mere preferences do not seem to possess the kind of logical structure characteristic of moral reasoning.

Sophisticated expressivists have, of course, developed increasingly elaborate responses to these objections, particularly in response to the Frege–Geach problem. Nevertheless, many philosophers remain unconvinced that such theories genuinely recover the realist dimensions of morality rather than merely simulating them linguistically (Geach 1960).

2. Error Theory and the Argument from Queerness

Error theorists, by contrast, agree with the realist that moral judgments are truth-apt. Where they disagree is over whether any such judgments are actually true. According to the error theorist, ordinary moral discourse systematically presupposes the existence of objective moral facts but no such facts exist.

The most influential defender of this position was J. L. Mackie. In Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong, Mackie argued that objective moral values would be metaphysically “queer” entities unlike anything else in the natural world (Mackie 1977). Moral properties would allegedly be intrinsically action-guiding, categorically normative, and objectively prescriptive in a way that Mackie regarded as deeply suspicious.

>>5131446
Many contemporary people arrive at a kind of informal error theory through a somewhat different route. They assume that objective morality could exist only if grounded in God while simultaneously believing that God does not exist. If both assumptions are granted, anti-realism can appear unavoidable. On such a view, claims like “murder is wrong” express propositions, but those propositions fail to correspond to anything real.

But the error theorist faces a serious problem: our actual moral practices appear profoundly realist in character. We do not merely express preferences when engaging in moral disagreement. We argue. We attempt to justify our positions. We distinguish between moral progress and moral decline. We condemn slavery, genocide, rape, torture, and cruelty not merely as actions they happen to dislike, but as actions which genuinely ought not to occur.

Indeed, many self-described anti-realists continue to engage in moral discourse in unmistakably realist terms. They speak of justice, oppression, rights, exploitation, dignity, and obligation as though these concepts track something more substantial than personal preference or social convention. In practice, anti-realism is psychologically unstable. One verbally denies objective morality while continuing to reason and deliberate as though objective moral standards exist.

As argued previously, relativism itself collapses into anti-realism. But anti-realism does not thereby escape the ordinary pressures of moral thought. The anti-realist still faces the problem of explaining why moral discourse so persistently presents itself as truth-apt, authoritative, and action-guiding.

3. Evolutionary Debunking Arguments and Normativity

>>5131447
At this point, the anti-realist may insist that realism merely reflects deeply ingrained psychological habits inherited from culture and evolution. Philosophers such as Sharon Street have argued that evolutionary explanations of moral belief undermine confidence in objective moral knowledge (Street 2006).

But evolutionary explanations do not straightforwardly debunk moral realism. Evolutionary processes also shaped our perceptual faculties, inferential capacities, and rational dispositions. The mere fact that a belief has evolutionary origins does not establish that it is false or unreliable. If it did, skepticism would spread far beyond morality.

Moreover, anti-realists themselves continue to rely upon apparently objective epistemic norms concerning evidence, rationality, coherence, and justification. They distinguish good arguments from bad ones. They criticize fallacious reasoning. They regard contradictions as defects in thought. But these norms themselves appear irreducibly normative. It is far from clear that one can coherently reject objective moral normativity while continuing to presuppose objective epistemic normativity.

Indeed, some contemporary philosophers have argued that morality is best understood as part of a broader domain of irreducibly normative truths. Philosophers such as David Enoch, Terence Cuneo, Derek Parfit, and Thomas Nagel have defended the view that reasons, rationality, and normativity cannot be fully reduced to mere natural facts or subjective preferences (Cuneo 2007; Enoch 2011; Nagel 2012; Parfit 2011).

Nor is Mackie’s “queerness” objection obviously decisive. Reality already contains many features that initially strike us as strange. Consciousness, intentionality, mathematical truth, rational agency, and even aspects of contemporary physics resist easy reduction to simplistic materialist pictures of reality.

>>5131449
The relevant question is not whether objective moral truth would be metaphysically unusual but whether objective moral truth forms part of our best overall account of human thought, deliberation, and experience.

Conclusion

Moral realism explains why moral disagreement is substantive rather than merely expressive. It explains why moral deliberation aims at getting something right rather than merely reporting attitudes. It explains why we distinguish moral progress from mere social change. And it explains why certain forms of cruelty strike us not merely as distasteful, but as genuinely wrong.

Anti-realism cannot adequately account for these features of moral life. Indeed, one of the most revealing facts about anti-realism is that even anti-realists continue to reason, deliberate, criticize, and condemn in thoroughly realist terms. They appeal to justice, rights, dignity, exploitation, and obligation as though these concepts correspond to something objective. Anti-realism survives largely at the level of philosophical declaration; in practice, even its defenders continue inhabiting a moral world structured by objective normativity.

Moreover, moral realism is often treated as the philosophically suspect position requiring extraordinary defense, while anti-realism is presented as the sober or intellectually sophisticated default. But this framing is backwards. The existence of at least some moral truths is more obvious than many philosophical theses routinely treated as secure. That torturing children for amusement is wrong is more certain than the truth of physicalism, eliminative materialism, nominalism, or any number of fashionable metaphysical doctrines.

>>5131450
Indeed, our knowledge of at least some moral truths possesses the same kind of immediacy and certainty characteristic of ordinary perceptual knowledge. I am more certain that cruelty is genuinely wrong than I am of any philosophical argument intended to convince me otherwise. The mere existence of skeptical possibilities in metaethics no more undermines moral knowledge than Cartesian skepticism undermines my knowledge that I have hands.

My own view, therefore, is not merely that moral realism is defensible, but that it is overwhelmingly and commonsensically true. There really are facts about how rational agents ought to behave. Attempts to deny this invariably collapse into incoherence or else quietly rely upon the very normative assumptions they officially reject.

Indeed, I suspect that future philosophers will increasingly regard moral anti-realism as one of the great intellectual dead ends of twentieth-century philosophy — a view sustained less by obvious plausibility than by a series of contingent ideological and metaphysical assumptions inherited from a particular intellectual moment. Alongside other excessively reductive theories characteristic of the period, anti-realism belongs in the dustbin of philosophical history. Far from representing a triumph of intellectual sophistication, it stands instead as a cautionary example of abstract theory overriding both common sense and the structure of ordinary rational life.

Once we take seriously the existence of objective normativity, broader metaphysical questions naturally follow.

>>5131444
>>5131445
None of what you said applies to the real world.

Philosophy that is not grounded in reality does not matter.
The metaphysical and spiritual are completely rejected.
There is no external moral truth.
Good and evil do not exist outside of a human mind.
There is only your contribution to our system of survival.

You are human.
You are to live.
You are to prioritize human life and that which affects human life.
Your actions are to be guided by personal survival and kin selection.
If you fail at any of these and become a hinderance or danger to yourself and others, no amount of philosophy can make that virtuous. You are simply defective in that case and will be removed and replaced by people who are not. groups who are more cognizant of their obligation to live rather than die will, in fact, purge you prematurely for being a threat.

And your philosophical babble won’t stop them.

Consider a vegan meeting a draco reptilian
>please mr alien, dont eat me. i am ethically consistent. all life is life and killing is simply wrong because if you dont want to die or suffer then-ACK
>No, human. You are delicious.
>MY ARM
>who cares
>HOW CAN WE HAVE JUSTICE AND LAW IF YOU WONT BE CONSISTENT WITH ULTIMATE GUIDING PRINCIPLES?
>god or vibes, i dont care, behavior is behavior and what motivates it doesnt matter until it does, and then one can choose to change it or perish. maybe your species uses performative pseudo-intellectualism for sexual selection or dominance contests but mine doesn’t… hoot from the treetops *kzzZZZZAP* shame you made me destroy your cortices. i prefer to eat them intact. annoying fucking ape.

>>5131439
Pigs consistently outperform dogs in certain types of cognitive problem solving, spatial memory and abstract tool use

Thinking Pigs: A Comparative Review of Cognition, Emotion, and Personality in Sus domesticus

A meta analysis of decades of research

https://www.wellbeingintlstudiesrepository.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1042&context=acwp_asie

"While relatively little is known about the psychology of domestic pigs, what is known suggests that pigs are cognitively complex and share many traits with animals whom we consider intelligent... we conclude that there are several areas of research in which the findings are suggestive of complex psychology in pigs."

>>5131439
>We don’t eat them because they are too much like us.

Pigs are like us, people have received transplants from them and slaughterhouse workers get traumatized from killing them.

>Pigs on the other hand are innately selfish animals that kill and eat their offspring and each others offspring with astounding regularity, more than any other mammal.

1 in 4 women in the United States has had an abortion.

>They have sideways eyes and are so naturally repulsive they do not have the same relationship to human empathy routines as dogs. They are overall fair game.

Someone else could use this same logic to justify racism against blacks or aboriginals

>Empathy is for humans first, to preserve human life, and must therefore apply more the more something is like a human.

Extremely intelligent and technologically advanced outer space aliens should have empathy for members of their own species as well as other species like humans and pigs

>>5131453
>a meta analysis of worthless studies from a half baked field
Worthless.
Orangutans and chimpanzees outperform humans on many cognitive tasks per ethologists. It is still self evident humans are more intelligent than orangutans.

A 300lb domestic pig has a little over half as many neurons in its cerebral cortex as a 60lb german shepherd. One of these animals studies well whenever it isn’t eating its companions for falling asleep. The other can learn to interpret abstract language and live in complex human societies.

There is no quality evidence that pigs are anything more than less susceptible to humans running poisoned experiments because they forgot dogs are self aware and 1: capable of irrational, emotional thought 2: better attuned to human presence 3: with greater reasoning capabilities come more ridiculous errors.
>the dog asked for help. it wont solve the puzzle. it just asks for help. it must be stupid. doesnt it know this is an IQ test? the pig is smarter!
>-“scientist” that couldn’t make it in a real science

>>5131439
As compelling as these findings are, another study showed that these results are
not as robust as they may seem. That is, in a similar situation with similar research
subjects, only two pigs out of eleven in the first study and one pig out of eleven in a
second study used the mirror to find food (Geiling et al., 2014). The authors suggest
that mirror use may not be robust in pigs and/or that differences in the findings
between the two studies might be due to the use of different genetic lines of pigs.
Clearly, more research is needed to determine the robustness of mirror-mediated
spatial capacities in pigs and to determine if they engage in any behaviors suggesting
they are testing the relationship between their own body and the mirror image.
From a comparative perspective, similar unclear results are found in dogs.
Howell and Bennett (2011) found that when placed in front of a mirror with their human
guardian standing behind them, only two out of 40 dogs were able to understand the
actual location of the human. Howell, Toukhsati, Conduit, and Bennett (2013) adapted
a similar paradigm to that used by Broom et al. (2009) to dogs and found that more
dogs could find the location of hidden food reflected in an angled mirror than those in a
control group without a mirror. These responses to mirrors and the ability to use the
mirror as a tool to locate hidden items is very similar to the level of understanding of
mirrors found in monkeys. Like rhesus macaques (Rajala, Reininger, Lancaster, &
Populin, 2010), pigs and dogs can use mirrors to solve problems and may understand
something about how they are spatially oriented in relationship to other objects.

>>5131455
>A 300lb domestic pig has a little over half as many neurons in its cerebral cortex as a 60lb german shepherd.

Based on current neuroscientific research, the animal with the most neurons in its cerebral cortex is the long-finned pilot whale (Globicephala melas).

You are really stupid or bad faith

>>5131455
>dogs are self aware

Completely made up. Pigs do much better on mirror tests

>>5131454
1: Biological compatibility has nothing to do with social compatibility.
2: A fetus without brain activity is not a person. It is a vaguely shaped wriggling lump that could be mistaken for a deformed fish in every way but DNA. Abortion is not and never has been murder. The bible itself calls it a property crime.
3: Blacks and abbos look human. Unlike pigs and goats. False equivalence. Why do you vegans always do this shit? You fucking deficient, stunted cultists.
4: No, they shouldn’t. They SHOULD be advanced enough to recognize that the universe is entirely material and objective universal morality isn’t real, but behavior can be objectively ideal or incorrect for a species + environment. Otherwise they probably aren’t smart enough to invent space travel.

Every alien race on earth views us like we view chimps. They don’t eat us because it would demonstrate poor character and we look vaguely like them. They still might, like we might decide a chimp is a fucking chimp when pressed. Follow their lead if you wish to have understanding. Or get eaten by a lizard. I don’t care. You’re a cultural pathogen that harms human fitness and you spam AI generated failosophy further proving how awful you are.

>>5131457
The long finned pilot whale has radically divergent brain structure vs a primate. Their brains have lower conduction velocities, less connectivity, subsystems JUST for sonar and more advanced instinctive cooperative activity, less organized spindle cells, and I could go on.

These differences do not exist between pigs and dogs.

>>5131459
Mirror tests are garbage. Dogs still use mirrors to locate objects.
And so do cats.

>>5131460
Their minds are like ours, many people have pet pigs too

Fetuses have a significant chance of being conscious as soon as 8 weeks, almost all abortions happen after that time and the bible and early Christians does not say abortion is merely a property crime

Abortion pills which can be easily obtained and ordered online work to to 14 weeks legal in all fifty states

The earliest case for which I believe the precautionary principle should hold was around 43-45 days. Which comes out to be 6.1-6.4 weeks.

The fetal brain begins to develop around 3-5 weeks gestation. So I am okay with abortions prior to that timeframe.

It's hard to say what the levels of sentience equate to at each week. But I wouldn't not assume this is a miniscule amount of sentience. Many EEG brain patterns observed in fetal brains as early as 6.1-6.4 weeks ( high voltage
slow waves with superimposed fast activity) are comparable to mature birds, mature frogs, mature rabbits and the mature marmot. We can even observe sleep spindles in the fetal brain this early.

Does this prove the same degree of sentience? No. Does this give us reason to take the precautionary principle with respect to this degree of sentience? Yes

>>5131439
Im not a vegan or even particularly enviromentalist but I still think keeping countless animals in caged mass manufacturing like this. Not only does the meat usually come out with a remarkably lesser quality (as shown with beef, cows that have great lives tend to produce tastier and more valuable forms of meat as opposed to the ones constantly being injected with hormones at cubicle farms) but it's also just an abominable and gross sight for anyone with 2 eyes. It's an aesthetic crime to spend millions building massive soulless facilities filled to the brim with shit and flabby meat bodies alongside half a dozen people paid to smell that almost every day. I dont believe one can visit a place like this and still support big factory producers as if nothing happened. I own a small vineyard but on the side I raise my own meat and eat it semi regularly because eating hyper processed slop is built to hurt your soul and the earth itself. It's like tearing down forests to build some retarded shit like golf courses or convenience stores, no one who actually cares about aesthetics and understands how close and inseparable man is to nature (which the whole "muh all humans bad nature good" crowd doesnt understand as well) and from where he came would argue any of this is fine. Even pigs dont deserve to drown in their own feces but personally I think people who think they should do

>>5131462
1: not like enough, and their outward appearance as a side eyed prey item is important. Yes, your instincts are important.
2: could has limited moral value. every sperm is sacred! but a flesh lump is still a flesh lump. even with some limited activity it takes a long few months for a fetal brain to contain anything resembling humanity. even the bible does not mention abortion. it just mentions that god knows who will be born and who won’t be.
3: sentience is a meaningless term for meaningless “morals” that attempt to leverage spiritual authority without submission to a spiritual delusion. There is only fitness, which is correct by default. The greatest fitness being antifragility. You actually have a greater moral imperative to make humans an interplanetary species than you do to give a single fuck about a contemptible pig. If you feel so sorry for those subcanine detritus vacuums because they might be smarter than a particularly dumb dog, then advocate for breeding them to be even dumber. Problem solved. People fed. Pork is more efficient than beef and can be reared entirely off minimally processed organic waste, not just agricultural waste, grazing forage, rendered feed or grain like a ruminant.

>>5131460
>Blacks and abbos look human. Unlike pigs and goats. False equivalence. Why do you vegans always do this shit? You fucking deficient, stunted cultists.

You originally said about pigs
>They have sideways eyes and are so naturally repulsive they do not have the same relationship to human empathy routines as dogs. They are overall fair game.

So someone can say black peoples and aboriginals look ugly compared to white peoples and that they don’t have the same relationship to white peoples as other white peoples. Europeans initially treated them as part of flora and fauna

>No, they shouldn’t. They SHOULD be advanced enough to recognize that the universe is entirely material and objective universal morality isn’t real, but behavior can be objectively ideal or incorrect for a species + environment. Otherwise they probably aren’t smart enough to invent space travel.

That’s just question begging it’s circular

You can’t just define high intelligence as agreeing with my view on morality and then uses that definition to conclude that intelligent aliens would agree with you

>>5131463
So it would be fine with less brain matter and more efficient waste capture and disposal systems? Pig pods it will be then

>>5131461
Pigs are much better than dogs at using mirrors to locate objects

>>5131464
A racist could say an Asians eyes are like an insects

File: images - 2026-06-03T183209.336.jpg (67 KB, 660x440)

67 KB JPG

>>5131452
>You are to prioritize human life and that which affects human life
>Your actions are to be guided by personal survival and kin selection.
Im not gonna give priority to massive companies who own giga facilities with hundreds of thousands of pigs feeding them gruel SPECIFICALLY because im aware that's bad for humans. The shit they produce is why so many countries are having obesity problems, why we have so much fake bullshit in our food and why almost everything in a grocery store is outright poison. This is not about just animal rights, mass production facilities like these are an active health hazard and always targeted towards the common man. There should be action taken towards them and to lower their production at least a little bit.
>Muh food because more food being produced = less hunger
Entirely bullshit. A lot of this meat is gonna be thrown out as excess to keep supply low and to not sell it at a loss, most medium-large scale farmers do this but the larger they are the bigger the amount of food thrown away is, at least 20-30% every year for some of these people

>>5131464
Pigs are omnivores and apex foragers they have very few natural predators they successfully fight off wolves and bears

>>5131465
Blacks don’t look exactly like us and some natural self-segregation is highly advantageous because they do not act exactly like us either, nor are they as well adapted to out environment. Just living in our climate makes them unhealthy. This is a natural check on resource and ideological conflicts when respected. That doesn’t mean they aren’t human. They are still objectively a kind of human. Hurting them is still wrong. You still lack empathy if you do. And behold the people who were worst to them were so culturally habituated to cruelty against their fellow whites that everything else came easily. And because they were so cruel they doomed their own societies.

Yet, even the most peaceful and civilized man will eat a pig/cow/goat with little concern. And have doubts about people who eat dogs. Fuck, even the chinese are purging dog eating. It is naturally disgusting to normal humans.

> You can’t just define high intelligence as agreeing with my view on morality and then uses that definition to conclude that intelligent aliens would agree with you
I can. Gods, samsaras, demons, karmas, there is no real external force defining good and evil. Yet advantageous and disadvantageous behavior relative to species+environment remains observable assuming infinite-term survival is good. It’s a fact. There is no morality beyond this fact.

>>5131464
I am also a flesh lump today

If a Christian isn’t supposed to believe murder victim hood starts at conception the only other time that makes sense is the first mind dependent experience which can happen in under 2 months when almost all abortions happen

Early Christian’s did believe abortion was murder or almost as bad as murder

>>5131469
Factory farming isn’t putting corn syrup in your breakfast. Factory farming isn’t tossing out food to manipulate the market.

The failure of the free market is. Some things benefit from central planning. Most do not. Food is one of those things.

>>5131466
>So it would be fine with less brain matter and more efficient waste capture and disposal systems? Pig pods it will be then
It would be fine with more space, less pigs and less hormone feeding. We have done this exact thing for thousands of years. Also cut off shit like cheap convenience store bacon and such from people's diets entirely, they wont be missed. There will definitly be a price increase but meat aint really supposed to be for everyone everywhere. Just do the same things farmers who raise premium bovines do, big open sprawls with healthy water, food that gives them strength (and those gigantic ass cows that probably had some dna meddling in them but it's better than hormone drowning at least) taking them to a vet when needed and not having them die painfully so the meat quality wont spoil

>>5131464
Again I’ve already explained in previous threads there no good reason moral realism can’t be true even in an atheist universe. Many theists will concede that atheists can have moral realism too

Studies show most professional philosophers are moral realists and that is evidence for moral realism being true

>>5131464
>The greatest fitness being antifragility. You actually have a greater moral imperative to make humans an interplanetary species than you do to give a single fuck about a contemptible pig.

Well some vegans are long termists and they dedicate their careers to a long termist career and donate significant amounts of their disposable income to longtermist effective altruist charities focused on preventing AI nukes etc from killing all humans in the next 100 years, but they are still vegan while doing all
Of this as veganism is easy cheap and healthy. Also veganism helps prevent the next pandemic or anti biotic resistance coming from a factory farm.
>If you feel so sorry for those subcanine detritus vacuums because they might be smarter than a particularly dumb dog, then advocate for breeding them to be even dumber.

The suffering is the problem, it’s still bad to torture severely mentally handicapped humans who are less intelligent than pigs

>>5131473
>Just living in our climate makes them unhealthy.

Source? Unless you’re just referring to vitamin d but that’s just one cheap pill almost everyone should be taking regardless of race or location

>>5131478
>most monkeys agree they like to eat bananas
Most philosophers will still behave contrary to their principles when they encounter a rotten banana.

You either get this or you don’t. Don’t complain too much when xerklazmet bat kjolar, grand elon of draco base seven eats you, veggie boy.

>>5131413
All forms of factory farming should be done away with. Ban it across the globe.

>>5131473
>They are still objectively a kind of human.

Why? The word objective makes that a extremely bold claim

You have not provided any good argument for it

>>5131476
Mass production of meat in this scale and in this fashion wouldnt exist without market actors to begin with. It mostly comes from an attempt at making meat popular and an everyday item for the working class when for most of human history this was not the case and things worked out just fine.

>>5131480
Not all suffering is relevant.
All vegans function in an impaired state and if they serve humanity they simultaneously rob it of their full capability and set a poor example by glorifying impaired functioning and a fragile dietary restriction supported by invalid pseudoreligion.

Let’s just do brainless pigs instead. They’d be cheaper to care for!

File: IMG_1183.jpg (790 KB, 1600x1200)

790 KB JPG

>>5131473
Again I’ve already argued in previous threads that there doesn’t need to be any external force or higher power for moral realism to be true. Things like math can also be mind independently true or false

>>5131484
Do you want to do the experiment the whole world already did?

Let’s have you brutally dehumanize africans and find out how you treat your own people later.
If I am right you will treat your own people worse because you conditioned yourself against a human empathy response. Like a more extreme dog eater (one of the few animals for which relatively little abuse correlates with crime - for the rest it takes hours of non stop slaughter and struggle which is why proper factory farms automate it)
If you are right you will still be very nice assuming you ever were.

>>5131488
There does. Morality can not apply outside your species and environment otherwise it will be morally impermissible
for other life to thrive in other environments per yours. You are not god. You can not define a single truth for all species.

And suffering has NO innate relevance. It is always what suffers, how much, how certainly, and why.

>>5131482
If intuition is all you have most professionals and most lay people have moral realist intuitions, not moral anti realist intuitions

>>5131491
Most fish don’t need to acknowledge the possibility of walking on land either.

>>5131487
I don’t have an issue with growing brainless humans or pigs and then harvesting their organs because they have no mind no souls and no interests

What’s the argument for not all suffering being “relevant” ? What is meant by relevant in this context

>>5131489
Well for starters even if racism results in more white on white violence that doesn’t necessarily mean that an objective definition of human exists.

Also I can just say that a vegan society which treats animals better will have less human on human violence, it’s not just about slaughterhouse worker crime rates but also externalities. Countries with the higher animal welfare standards have lower human on human crime rates. You can say correlation doesn’t equal causation but I can say the same thing about your racism example

>>5131494
Relevant to moral truth.

Does the suffering of a pig affect any humans survival in any way?
Assume zoonotic diseases are a solved problem. No human is personally causing the pig to suffer. No one knows the pig is suffering. It’s just that a pig somewhere is suffering on the ass end of the consequences of some human choices, and one day, soon, it will just die.

What material reason have we to care? The pigs suffering is a weal auxillary to demonstrating moral character and can be irrelevant in the face of greater concerns.

Would you permit infinite pig suffering to ensure one child of your family grows to their full height? I would.
Would you waste a star’s worth of antimatter to make the humans you’re researching maintain world peace, despite needing that energy to supply metals to an extragalactic colony? I wouldn’t.

>>5131490
You haven’t given a mind independent definition of species so I don’t see what tribalism has to do with it

I can just say
>Morality can not apply outside your sex and environment otherwise it will be morally impermissible
for opposite sex to thrive in other environments per yours. You are not god. You can not define a single truth for all sexes.

>>5131493
What does utility have to do with it? Something can have utility and be false or be inefficient and true. Men in dresses can feel better being called women for example

>>5131495
Vegan societies fail, however. Once veganism becomes a societal rule rather than a cope cult for the isolated upper castemen its perceived advantages vanish. A malnourished lower caste is even worse off than it was before. Veganism also, tragically, supports overpopulation.

Animal welfare in general is just a proxy for wealth btw. In isolation we KNOW that treatment of some animals is more relevant to human behavior than others.

>>5131497
It doesn’t matter if I haven’t. If you can’t perceive these categories you’re a defective unit, as bad as an AI short on training data.
>please provide coherent logical definition
>name the trait
It is a waste of energy to educate defectives. On principle they refuse to function properly.

Go die. I don’t care.

>>5131496
There doesn’t need to human material reason for caring for something to be morally wrong. If a blackboard on the other side of the universe says 2+2=5 that is still objectively false

Watch

>Does the suffering of a woman affect any mens survival in any way?
>Assume transmissible diseases are a solved problem. No man is personally causing the woman to suffer. No one knows the woman is suffering(besides herself but she may be severely mentally handicapped and less intelligent than a pig or she may be of full intelligence). It’s just that a woman somewhere is suffering on the ass end of the consequences of some male choices, and one day, soon, it will just die.

>What material reason have men to care? The women’s suffering is a weak auxillary to demonstrating moral character and can be irrelevant in the face of greater concerns.

>Would you permit infinite woman suffering to ensure one male child of your family grows to their full height? I would.
>Would you waste a star’s worth of antimatter to make the humans you’re researching maintain world peace, despite needing that energy to supply metals to an extragalactic colony? I wouldn’t.

>>5131496
>Would you waste a star’s worth of antimatter to make the humans you’re researching maintain world peace, despite needing that energy to supply metals to an extragalactic colony? I wouldn’t.

Moral realism can still be true even if it’s extremely demanding of people, a extremely intelligent mathematician who is a mathematical Platonist / believes in mind independent mathematical truths can still become a gambling addict

>Why? The word objective makes that a extremely bold claim
A human is defined as a mammal belonging to the species homo sapiens, that simple. The same as an objective definition of what a dolphin is or what an anteater is. It's simple biology, if a group of animals have hyper similar anatomy and can interbreed that's a species
>muh racial differences
Animals have those too and that doesnt make 2 animals with different phenotypes a different species

>>5131499
Evidence? I just see lots of extremely bold claims

>>5131501
Objectively defective? Or just “ewww” according to you?

>>5131484
>>5131473
>>5131504
That’s a man made definition I don’t see what’s objective about those categories you mentioned
Watch

Did one or two non human(s) give birth to a human?

File: IMG_0020.png (762 KB, 1200x628)

762 KB PNG

>>5131507

>>5131499
>A malnourished lower caste is even worse off than it was before
An overfed working class is worse than it was before. Artisans and builders were far more proficient at their jobs back in medieval-modern times when food was quite scarce and most workers lived off a diet of mostly vegetables with some meat in between like 2-3 days a week, they built whole monuments by hand in ways that would be unthinkable for the average worker's skills today. It was a far healthier diet and if antibiotics existed or were more acessible back than early deaths wouldnt be as prominent. No one is meant to eat pig + onions bean + fat derivatives every day of their life

>>5131460
>>5131444
Not ai and not from bentham https://substack.com/@2philosophical/p-199033473

Sources cited are also not ai

>>5131507
>>5131507
>Man made
That doesnt mean it's not objectivly correct because the very concept of a human is man made as well. Math is an entirely man made field but 2+2=4 is an objective thing to say within that framework. Similarly we have categorized animals into species and within that framework we, as a collective, are one of them referred to as homo sapiens
>Did one or two non human(s) give birth to a human?
Yes. Within the framework of what qualifies as a species we have a definitive cutoff point between our ancestors and us where anatomical differences became far too accentuated to justify being the same species

>>5131515
>Math is an entirely man made field

Again you can’t just say stuff like this without giving reasons why. Most mathematicians do lean towards mathematical Platonism

If only you realized how dumb you are making yourself look in this thread, what’s really sad about it is you think you’re making good points

>>5131517
>Most mathematicians do lean towards mathematical Platonism
You cant just say stuff like this without saying where you got these claims from

>>5131518
Philpapers Survey is one

>>5131510
The people designing those monuments weren’t underfed. Nobles, patricians et al often ate diets of almost nothing but meat. The people dragging rocks were and if they died, they died. Most of them were property, especially in rome. Way to cite a period of human disposability when children were brought to watch executions to teach sadism as a core value and arguably, man was a different breed. If you want to return to that stage of development, the developing world is right over there. You are currently in a period of human underutilization instead. People who worry about the moral standing of swine certainly aren’t helping. Maybe find a better task before your aristocrats fall back on culls again.

>>5131517
He’s right in that much of high level math isn’t definitely true or applicable, just amazingly close for a human. Math can be and is imperfect and is created by the imperfect. We have been piling shit into math since its invention and if this trend continues the math of the future will be as bizarre as basepointless quanta would be to someone from the 1700s.

File: IMG_1184.png (323 KB, 1242x2688)

323 KB PNG

>>5131522

File: IMG_1185.png (354 KB, 1242x2688)

354 KB PNG

>>5131525

File: IMG_1186.png (272 KB, 1242x2688)

272 KB PNG

>>5131526

File: IMG_1187.jpg (1.65 MB, 2560x1600)

1.65 MB JPG

>>5131524
>>5131524

Humans being imperfect doesn’t necessarily mean they created imperfect math because imperfect beings can still DISCOVER perfect things that exist mind independently in a non physical realm

>>5131413
>It's up to us to stop cruelty
>it's up to us to stop global warming
>it's up to us to stop war
>it's up to us to change the world
not to be a defeatist or anything, but no it isn't