French monks locked down with 2.8 tonnes of cheese pray for buyers • Hacker News Board

Re: French monks locked down with 2.8 tonnes of cheese pray for buyers

#131

Post by mastazi » Sun, Mar 28, 2021, 12:13 AM UTC

seanwilson wrote: post #72

novok wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of them are not farmed in a sustainable cycle that prevents those animals from become endangered species? Or they think of the animals as pet animals. As for fur, I'm guessing it's because a moral panic happened in the 80s and nobody really cared that much about fur, since it was a luxury item for a few, while meat, milk and leather somewhat is something that everyone pretty much still uses today worldwide.

"Japan, Norway and Iceland who argue that whaling is part of their culture and should continue in a sustainable way." - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-45364696 Dogs, cats, foxes, mink and horses aren't endangered either, and the amount of meat developed countries eat is a luxury as well. My point is, if you're offended by the way other countries treat certain animals, you should think about if your use of anim…

> Dogs, cats, foxes, mink and horses aren't endangered either

And that's why I see no ethical issue there.

> if you're offended by the way other countries treat certain animals, you should think about if your use of animal products really aligns with your core beliefs

Being offended by something doesn't make it immoral though, it just makes it not advisable. I'm Italian and I grew up consuming rabbit meat and sometimes horse meat, my wife comes from a cultural background (Northern Thailand) where rabbit meat consumption is frowned upon, and I live in an anglophone country (Australia) where eating horse meat is taboo. So I don't consume either one of those. But I don't think it's immoral consuming them, I don't think my relatives in Italy who are still eating rabbit and horse are doing something immoral.

Re: French monks locked down with 2.8 tonnes of cheese pray for buyers

#132

Post by seanwilson » Sun, Mar 28, 2021, 1:56 AM UTC

mastazi wrote: post #127

seanwilson wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So if we are making these things equivalent (which I don't believe they are), then I suppose I shouldn't care about the dolphins, whales and dogs. In order to be consistent. I'm not making anything equivalent, I'm asking you about your beliefs and if they're well founded. Why is it okay to slaughter and eat a cow and not a dog or a whale or a cat? Your beliefs can still be consistent if you've justified the differe…

> I don't think "because it's traditional" or "because we've been doing it for hundreds of years" are good ethical reasons Why not? Why the fact that something stood the test of time has no value? I've seen this argument often repeated but never explained in logical terms.

> Why not? Why the fact that something stood the test of time has no value? I've seen this argument often repeated but never explained in logical terms.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy

You can use this fallacy to justify lots of awful things humans used to do are fine.

Re: French monks locked down with 2.8 tonnes of cheese pray for buyers

#133

Post by seanwilson » Sun, Mar 28, 2021, 1:59 AM UTC

bluefirebrand wrote: post #125

seanwilson wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So if we are making these things equivalent (which I don't believe they are), then I suppose I shouldn't care about the dolphins, whales and dogs. In order to be consistent. I'm not making anything equivalent, I'm asking you about your beliefs and if they're well founded. Why is it okay to slaughter and eat a cow and not a dog or a whale or a cat? Your beliefs can still be consistent if you've justified the differe…

> I'm not making anything equivalent Ok you say that, but your question > Why is it okay to slaughter and eat a cow and not a dog or a whale or a cat? implies equivalence. Without that equivalence the answer is obvious: Because they are different. It's ok to treat different things differently. But ok, so let's talk about equivalence. Obviously cows and whales are both mammals. Maybe that's why I should treat them the…

> Why is that ok? They're still alive. They still die when you harvest them.

Why not stop at killing things that have a nervous system that clearly react with pain? Even if you want to argue plants feel pain, eating plants only is causing the least pain because animal farming requires more plants to die.

Re: French monks locked down with 2.8 tonnes of cheese pray for buyers

#134

Post by imwillofficial » Sun, Mar 28, 2021, 6:43 AM UTC

DanBC wrote: post #92

imwillofficial wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He really got under your skin didn’t He? It was a joke my friend.

> It was a joke my friend. Can you explain the joke? What was the set up? What's the punchline?

It’s called hyperbole. Taking a stance so extreme from the expected that’s it’s humorous.

Re: French monks locked down with 2.8 tonnes of cheese pray for buyers

#135

Post by tsimionescu » Sun, Mar 28, 2021, 7:34 AM UTC

causasui wrote: post #130

tsimionescu wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perpetuating and expanding the species is such a basic goal of any living thing that it holds true for the entirety of the Philogenetic tree, with no exceptions, from prokaryotes to plants and vertebrates and humans. In the natural order, existence and proliferation are not just the most important value, but the only value for which an organism exists. Reproduction is often painful and scary, and many living things s…

Exploit: make full use of and derive benefit from a resource. We breed cows so we can exploit them . There is no air quotes around exploit , that's exactly what cows are to us. Resources for our enrichment. Of course reproduction is the quintessential drive of all life. But cows are not reproducing in the wild so that point isn't even relevant. They're artificially inseminated to keep them lactating (in the case of d…

> We breed cows so we can exploit them. There is no air quotes around exploit, that's exactly what cows are to us. Resources for our enrichment.

Agreed, but it does not follow that the cows 'feel exploited'.

> Of course reproduction is the quintessential drive of all life. But cows are not reproducing in the wild so that point isn't even relevant. They're artificially inseminated to keep them lactating (in the case of dairy cows).

The fact that they reproduce at all in any conditions is the only value that truly matters in nature. Cows are dependent on humans for reproduction, just as most wild plants are dependant on pollinators.

> As to your edit, we're not talking about bacteria or plants which lack the physical ability for suffering as we know it. We're talking about bovines, huge mammals w/ a brain and central nervous system.

But you claimed the living conditions are irrelevant, as long as the animal is used as a resource it is immoral to keep it alive. That would mean you don't care what the animal actually feels, so the fact that it feels things at all is irrelevant. Hence, the same argument should apply to living things that don't feel anything either, such as bacteria or plants (or, the argument should not be applied at all).

Re: French monks locked down with 2.8 tonnes of cheese pray for buyers

#136

Post by frombody » Sun, Mar 28, 2021, 7:41 AM UTC

imwillofficial wrote: post #101

Judgmentality wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jokes aren't well tolerated on HN to begin with, and that comment seems a lot more obnoxious than funny.

You speak the truth.

www.reddit.com

It's a website like this one, but you'll find more similar conversation to what you are looking for there.

Re: French monks locked down with 2.8 tonnes of cheese pray for buyers

#137

Post by lecarore » Sun, Mar 28, 2021, 7:42 AM UTC

core-questions wrote: post #13

bombcar wrote: post #4

They’ve sold it all if you were hoping to get some monkcheese.

Hard to get better advertising than an article like this, really.

And the price of 32€/kg (+shipping) is not really cheap, it's typically what you'd pay at a regular store. This whole operation sounds a bit too marketing-y to me.

Re: French monks locked down with 2.8 tonnes of cheese pray for buyers

#138

Post by tsimionescu » Sun, Mar 28, 2021, 7:55 AM UTC

causasui wrote: post #129

tsimionescu wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The bear does as well - it is omnivorous and could survive entirely on berries. We could also decide to provide supplements for bears so that they find it easier to eat less salmon and deer, so I guess we are also morally responsible for every deer or salmon or bee that a bear kills (tigers and lions are a different matter, since they are indeed unable to survive on a non-meat diet). However, the larger point is that…

> ...the idea that it is immoral to kill to sustain yourself goes so far against the way nature is organized This is an appeal to nature. > ... as long as you don't do it out of... greed How does "I like the taste of cows and milk" not meet your definition of greed?

> This is an appeal to nature.

A moral system that would consider the vast majority of natural life to be immoral is dubious to me. It's not simply an appeal to nature, it is a particular choice for the way I think a moral system should be evaluated.

> How does "I like the taste of cows and milk" not meet your definition of greed?

Greed always refers to excessive consumption. If you go on an all-beef-and-milk diet, and slaughter hundreds of animals a year just to feed yourself, you are probably being greedy. But eating well-raised beef, in quantities that do not encourage others to find the most efficient ways of raising as many cows as possible in as little space, doesn't fall under my idea of greed.

A single dairy cow, if well raised, can give enough milk for a family of 2 or 3. With two cows, one can have a constant supply of milk by essentially having each cow produce a calve each year. The calves can be raised for a while and then sold on to a bigger herd or slaughtered for food. When the animal is slaughtered, as much of its entire body should be used, not just a few of its muscles. The cows would be kept well fed, warm over the winter, clean and free of diseases. In the warm months, every day they would be taken out to pasture and returned home.

Of course, this means that cow meat would be something that people should expect to eat a few times a year, not daily or weekly. The same would apply to most or all other farm animals. Overall, adding some extra efficiency from larger herds as well, meat could probably be consumed something like once a month, while still raising animals in good conditions. Milk and eggs can be consumed almost daily without forcing others to keep animals in inhumane conditions.

Re: French monks locked down with 2.8 tonnes of cheese pray for buyers

#139

Post by africanboy » Sun, Mar 28, 2021, 10:38 AM UTC

ben_w wrote: post #116

africanboy wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Or what “free will” is. I did poor terms to describe what we already don't have a solid explanation for > whose language I do not speak would pass and fail exactly the same tests as me if there was a test that didn’t depend on language. it doesn't matter, cows lack the tools to explain themselves, we don't namely, in this case, a language (any language!) > Quick internet search of teaching cows tricks says they can…

> namely, in this case, a language (any language!) I assert verbal self-narrative is not necessary for free will. You assert otherwise? Why? > can you prove it? :) In principle, sure: Watch them demonstrate a learned skill. I have no reason to believe the videos are faked, but if they are, in principle I could observe IRL. > And how do you know it won't end up like the Libet experiment? The experiment which showed a…

> I assert verbal self-narrative is not necessary for free will. You assert otherwise? Why?

Why don't you?

If higher cognitive functions are not necessary, than a virus can have free will.

bovines don't lack self narrative, they lack the ability to create complex communication systems.

> Watch them demonstrate a learned skill

and how do you know it's not merely imitation?

btw, insects can learn too

> The experiment which showed a human brain reaches a decision before conscious awareness of that decision?

the experiment that showed a lag between cerebral activity and actual action that was labeled as "brain takes a decision before we do" even though Libet never said it, but has been disproved 40 years later (the effect exists, but it doesn't show lack of free will at all)

> we agree humans and non human animals pass and fail the same tests?

not until their mentoring will include notions of ancient past civilazations that are long dead but transmitted their knowledge

also, not until they will be able to reconstruct their past history and of the entire universe by observing and studying remains, without any prior knowledge of what they are

see, if you look from afar a soapbox car and a real car look very similar

but if you look them closer, they are nothing alike

> You can do that with any positive-negative reinforcement mechanism, doesn’t need morality etc.

where's the freedom if the reactions have been engineered through training?

Re: French monks locked down with 2.8 tonnes of cheese pray for buyers

#140

Post by hokkos » Sun, Mar 28, 2021, 1:23 PM UTC

lecarore wrote: post #137

core-questions wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hard to get better advertising than an article like this, really.

And the price of 32€/kg (+shipping) is not really cheap, it's typically what you'd pay at a regular store. This whole operation sounds a bit too marketing-y to me.

It is usually sold at 35€/kg

https://fromageriepayssavinois.com/produit/abbaye-de-citeaux...