Susan's Place Logo

News:

Based on internal web log processing I show 3,417,511 Users made 5,324,115 Visits Accounting for 199,729,420 pageviews and 8.954.49 TB of data transfer for 2017, all on a little over $2,000 per month.

Help support this website by Donating or Subscribing! (Updated)

Main Menu

Are Chickens Sentient?

Started by The Middle Way, May 29, 2007, 09:50:31 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Pica Pica

Fair enough...But Coventry is the dullest city in the UK
  •  

RebeccaFog

Quote from: Pica Pica on May 31, 2007, 12:39:36 PM
Fair enough...But Coventry is the dullest city in the UK

...except when the citizens dress like monkeys.
  •  

Pica Pica

Quote from: RebeccaFog on May 31, 2007, 12:51:45 PM
Quote from: Pica Pica on May 31, 2007, 12:39:36 PM
Fair enough...But Coventry is the dullest city in the UK

...except when the citizens dress like monkeys.

Even then. People here consider an afternoon at a wood reclamation centre as an enjoyable day out.
  •  

cindianna_jones

Or when the citizens troll for monkeys at the reclamation centre!

Cindi
  •  

The Middle Way

Quote from: Kimberly on May 30, 2007, 08:28:47 PM
Quote from: The Middle Way on May 30, 2007, 06:24:08 PM
I think not. They's GOOD EATIN! Period. End of story. Blind Eye or what-have-you.
But that is exactly what I mean.

Quote from: The Middle Way on May 30, 2007, 06:24:08 PM
judgment of another's ethics

Quote from: Kimberly on May 30, 2007, 08:28:47 PM
I have not called your ethics into question.

Nor have I judged you in any way.


I am, however, trying to point out that it isn't quite so simple as them just being around for lunch. *shrug* You are under no obligation to see that. Blindness to that, however, makes me sad. This is, however, nothing new.

Calling me blind is a judgment. An ethical judgment. It's pretty simple, really.

Quote from: Kimberly on May 30, 2007, 08:28:47 PM
I wish I could explain. I wish I could put it in words you would understand. Here.. now.

That might take more thoughtfulness (not to mention attention to the TONE of a thing) than you have just displayed in this topic. You have actually jumped on me more than once in these forums without the slightest attention to such nuances as tone and context.

Quote from: Kimberly on May 30, 2007, 08:28:47 PM
Carry on I guess. We are used to being trod on.

What 'We', you mean You Chickens? :D

TMW
Quote from: Cindi Jones on May 31, 2007, 10:51:13 AM
Quote from: Zombies on May 30, 2007, 09:37:07 PM
Quote from: Cindi Jones on May 30, 2007, 08:41:26 PM
Hey Middle...

Great troll!

;)

Cindi
How is this a troll?

And this question comes from a young lass with a fish on her head!  Hey... is the fish sentient?

;)

Cindi

LMAO.

How can it be said that one trolls one's own topic?

TMW
  •  

Kimberly

*sigh* I did not call you blind. I said you were turning a blind eye, that is NOT the same thing. I am pretty decent about saying what I mean, an decent about not saying anything else. (I think anyway!). I said you were turning a blind eye because you were ignoring a large section of what life is. Regardless if you wish to see it chickens are alive and sentient. *shrug* Saying that chickens are just for eating is, to me, like saying say cats are without intelligence, etc. To me, what I have found in this life (and ignoring everything else), I know this to be false.

If it means anything to you, if I thought that you were blind I would not bother talking to you. I do not think you are blind, simply turning a blind eye. To me at least, that is a significant difference.

I am sorry if this conversation has offended you, that was not, is not and will not be my endeavor. My wish, is simply to try and get people to think apart from society's programming.

Blessed Be.
  •  

The Middle Way

#46
Quote from: Kimberly on June 01, 2007, 05:37:39 PM
*sigh* I did not call you blind. I said you were turning a blind eye, that is NOT the same thing. I am pretty decent about saying what I mean, an decent about not saying anything else. (I think anyway!). I said you were turning a blind eye because you were ignoring a large section of what life is. Regardless if you wish to see it chickens are alive and sentient. *shrug* Saying that chickens are just for eating is, to me, like saying say cats are without intelligence, etc. To me, what I have found in this life (and ignoring everything else), I know this to be false.


Saying, in essence, that you know what I ignore, "in large sections of what life is", is a judgment call, one that you appear to have made in haste, out-of-context, with again, little or no attention to the tone of a piece, much less having read me elsewhere. The shrugs and sighs are condescending, and I did take exception to that, considering you appear to be quasi-trolling me, IE: not taking the words in context or looking at tone, which you appear to have done in response to my thoughts on other topics.

I was trolling (or more precisely, watching closely) this topic to see what people say about the ethics of food, and because that, due to an unfortunate living situation, chickens have annoyed me quite a bit of late. I have learned some things; one is that chickens CAN reasonably be thought of as sentient, though I am still personally somewhat skeptical on this point.

Kimberley, have you lived with chickens very often, to know them and their function on a planet so well, or is the sound you are making strictly stemming from a philosophy in the abstract?

I kinda sorta know from chickens lately, and am still having difficulty imagining them doing much besides waiting to be et. Of course they lay unfertilized eggs, which can be et, and fertilized eggs to make more chickens. But these still - ha - feed into the food chain, as-it-were

TMW

Quote from: Pica Pica on May 31, 2007, 10:24:01 AM
A troll is someone who puts comments to try and wind people up and create arguments. And Coventry is the dullest city in England, filled with the dullest people.

Troll, in internet jargon, derives from trawl, which is what a very bootstrap sort of fisherman does, from place to place. A troll looks for more or less random bits to attack on the www, and then does what you say above.

I am still watching this topic. That I created the topic tends to indicate something other than a troll. I am (mayhaps doggedly?) trying to get some perspective on an issue I have some interest in, Situational Ethics.

note:
Sentience has been defined in this topic as 'awareness of one's surroundings' (that might fit as only a partial definition...).

Not every animal or person always fits that bill. IE: does existence connote sentience?

TMW
  •  

Pica Pica

I failed ethics...it was because studying ethics formally often ask for an ethical system.
I prefer the situation element of situational ethics. That's why I failed.
  •  

Kimberly

  •  

The Middle Way

Quote from: Pica Pica on June 01, 2007, 06:15:31 PM
I failed ethics...it was because studying ethics formally often ask for an ethical system.
I prefer the situation element of situational ethics. That's why I failed.


And, according to the formal requirements of the discipline, rightly so.  ;)
I failed inductive reasoning, cause it were dumb as chickens  :o.

tmw
  •  

Lori

I have never been able to reason with one, so I would have to say no.

  •  

RebeccaFog

QuoteAre Chickens Sentient?

   Does it matter? They annoy you. It is legal to destroy them. In this country, legality trumps morality.  Let the battle begin.  Against chickens.  Not me.

  •  

Pica Pica

Quote from: The Middle Way on June 01, 2007, 06:58:48 PM
Quote from: Pica Pica on June 01, 2007, 06:15:31 PM
I failed ethics...it was because studying ethics formally often ask for an ethical system.
I prefer the situation element of situational ethics. That's why I failed.


And, according to the formal requirements of the discipline, rightly so.  ;)
I failed inductive reasoning, cause it were dumb as chickens  :o.

tmw

I was bad at that too. It's a real amazment that i graduated at all when i think of how little i learned.
  •  

The Middle Way

Quote from: RebeccaFog on June 01, 2007, 08:07:29 PM
QuoteAre Chickens Sentient?

Does it matter? They annoy you. It is legal to destroy them. In this country, legality trumps morality. 


I won't destroy very much on a planet, I gotta tell you. Ants maybe, I know that they are robots, group mind, strictly. It matters cause I struggle with the idea of destruction of a critter, period.

I don't wanna be like the girly girl that prefers not to know how her steak got to her plate either. Middle ways.

I still have the thought, however (am I trying to kill this amazing thread? It's got it all, almost... drama, humor, philomosophical insight), that chickens are for eatin'

tmw
  •  

cindianna_jones

Quote from: Lori on June 01, 2007, 07:11:13 PM
I have never been able to reason with one, so I would have to say no.



There are people that I can't reason with!  ;)

Cindi
  •  

RebeccaFog

Quote from: The Middle Way on June 02, 2007, 03:00:09 PM
Quote from: RebeccaFog on June 01, 2007, 08:07:29 PM
QuoteAre Chickens Sentient?

Does it matter? They annoy you. It is legal to destroy them. In this country, legality trumps morality. 


I won't destroy very much on a planet, I gotta tell you. Ants maybe, I know that they are robots, group mind, strictly. It matters cause I struggle with the idea of destruction of a critter, period.

I don't wanna be like the girly girl that prefers not to know how her steak got to her plate either. Middle ways.

I still have the thought, however (am I trying to kill this amazing thread? It's got it all, almost... drama, humor, philomosophical insight), that chickens are for eatin'

tmw

         Pigs are for eating too, but some people keep them as pets. Same with chickens.
         What if a person had a cockroach for a pet? Is that one cockroach somehow raised to another level  of Being, or, of existential value because it, for some reason, is capable of stirring one person's friendship? I think that is what your chicken dilemma is. Chickens are for eating, but if a person loves them, are those particular pet chickens worthy of special consideration, or are all chickens now worthy of an exalted position in your esteem?
         Are the pet chickens still as worthless and kill worthy as all other chickens despite being loved by someone? Are you ready to respect the pet chickens? Because, once you do, you will be forced to consider respecting all chickens under all situations.

       Sorry, I was going to let it go, but this came to me. I don't know if it makes any sense.

         
  •  

The Middle Way

Quote from: RebeccaFog on June 02, 2007, 03:55:39 PM
Quote from: The Middle Way on June 02, 2007, 03:00:09 PM
Quote from: RebeccaFog on June 01, 2007, 08:07:29 PM
QuoteAre Chickens Sentient?

Does it matter? They annoy you. It is legal to destroy them. In this country, legality trumps morality. 


I won't destroy very much on a planet, I gotta tell you. Ants maybe, I know that they are robots, group mind, strictly. It matters cause I struggle with the idea of destruction of a critter, period.

I don't wanna be like the girly girl that prefers not to know how her steak got to her plate either. Middle ways.

I still have the thought, however (am I trying to kill this amazing thread? It's got it all, almost... drama, humor, philomosophical insight), that chickens are for eatin'

tmw

         Pigs are for eating too, but some people keep them as pets. Same with chickens.
         What if a person had a cockroach for a pet? Is that one cockroach somehow raised to another level  of Being, or, of existential value because it, for some reason, is capable of stirring one person's friendship? I think that is what your chicken dilemma is. Chickens are for eating, but if a person loves them, are those particular pet chickens worthy of special consideration, or are all chickens now worthy of an exalted position in your esteem?
         Are the pet chickens still as worthless and kill worthy as all other chickens despite being loved by someone? Are you ready to respect the pet chickens? Because, once you do, you will be forced to consider respecting all chickens under all situations.

       Sorry, I was going to let it go, but this came to me. I don't know if it makes any sense.
 

Why would you want to let it go? This is precisely the point of such a topic. Somehow I think we've just gotten to the heart of the matter: the tension between a systematic ethos and situational ethics.

I have already admitted that what I have to work with as an ethical system is non-existent, or is of the situational type.

First, no chickens are worthy of the exalted position they have in the household I have just taken leave of. A child suffers, according to that system, tied in with this <love of pet chickens>.

To answer categorically, that hypothetical cockroach is ethically elevated, acc'ding to my non-system. The chicken, *Ginger's* value must be offset by the situation, due to its particular perversity, which is excessive. The roommate in question's ethics are so utterly perverse, (some particulars of which I cannot even bear to report), that any objective consideration of whether the chickens are worth it because she "loves" them is not possible. My intuitive take on it, is that this individual, situationally, has chickens as some sort of symbol, to meet a lack, and it won't cut it in any ethical consideration. (Some persons "love" chickens, or the like, out of a lack of ability to actually treat other people ethically. This I have found concrete evidence of. )
Like I said my views on this are colored by this filter of experience.

I will markedly contrast this with an example of, say an incarcerated person who develops a relationship with a roach or a mouse while inside. That latter EG: to me connotes a real type of sentience. Due to the particulars of the situation.

OK. If all chickens are worthy of respect, because someone loves them - as something more than chickens - will that, even if I buy it (which I do not) mean I won't eat chickens? What if chickens are within that group of foods I can afford, and I am hungry?

That would mean a sort of extreme position. You might be able to formulate an ethical system of foodstuffs, but would you be able to make it work in all situations you meet?

TMW

  •  

RebeccaFog

Quote from: The Middle Way on June 02, 2007, 04:09:43 PM

OK. If all chickens are worthy of respect, because someone loves them - as something more than chickens - will that, even if I buy it (which I do not) mean I won't eat chickens? What if chickens are within that group of foods I can afford, and I am hungry?

That would mean a sort of extreme position. You might be able to formulate an ethical system of foodstuffs, but would you be able to make it work in all situations you meet?

TMW


    I could not make it work in any situation because I'm not an assertive enough person.   :)  Also, I'm such a chump that I once allowed a prospective buyer to borrow my guitar in order to test it out and I never saw either the buyer or the guitar again.
    If we did formulate an ethical system of foodstuff, I would be the worst person in the universe to be chosen as an advocate for making it work.

   I was just wondering, though, where do Tuna fish stand as a food item? It's not like we keep them caged and humiliated their whole life, as we do with fowl and mammals. Tuna fish are truly free up until the time of their capture. I don't know what this says about me, but it makes it easier for me to eat them.
Maybe we should just release all cattle and chickens into the woods and valleys and then just eat those who are unlucky enough to get caught.
   I'm not being sarcastic here. I'm just ruminating out loud (in quiet text).   8)
  •  

Pica Pica

  •  

The Middle Way

Quote from: RebeccaFog on June 02, 2007, 05:54:52 PM
Quote from: The Middle Way on June 02, 2007, 04:09:43 PM

OK. If all chickens are worthy of respect, because someone loves them - as something more than chickens - will that, even if I buy it (which I do not) mean I won't eat chickens? What if chickens are within that group of foods I can afford, and I am hungry?

That would mean a sort of extreme position. You might be able to formulate an ethical system of foodstuffs, but would you be able to make it work in all situations you meet?

TMW

If we did formulate an ethical system of foodstuff, I would be the worst person in the universe to be chosen as an advocate for making it work.

   I was just wondering, though, where do Tuna fish stand as a food item? It's not like we keep them caged and humiliated their whole life, as we do with fowl and mammals. Tuna fish are truly free up until the time of their capture. I don't know what this says about me, but it makes it easier for me to eat them.


That might say that you are a person who is considering the ethics of eating critters, such as I am trying to do, maybe better than I am doing, cause I now got the 'tude, agin them pore chickens.

This might belong under spirituality/hinduism, but anyone know why the cow is considered sacred there? I know that Krishna was a cowherd (and a seducer of milkmaids)...

tmw

(PS I am that chump too, I let a chicken lover screw me over... ::))

  •