TW Scott:
Well it is not an insult to ask a question or make and observation. I mean it is not slander if it is true, right? Now I asked if you had been dropped on your head. I am assuming form your lack of answer you don't know. In which case the proper response is of course "I don't know" not a recrimination.
Do you
still want to continue along this line? Really? Grow up, TW.
A one year old human child is part of the human race, which has already asserted it rights. The child is protected by virtue of the species rights.
Are you saying that it is not necessary for each individual to assert his or her rights, but that others can speak on their behalf? In that case, can I not assert the rights of non-human animals on their behalf? Or do we again come up against your species bias here? I assume we do. In essence, you are still arguing that a human child should have special rights which are not given to non-human animals, based solely on the fact that the child happens to be a member of a particular species which you regard as special for no other reason than that you are also a member of it. Is that the best you can do?
The same as any adult. If this seems elitest, it is. The reason is simple, the strong survive by preying on the weak. Animals are weak in mind and will as are plants thus we prey on them. of course we protect our own as much as we can and only an aberration goes against this order.
And yet, human societies are not based on these dog-eat-dog rules that you say you want. We have laws which protect and help the powerless, the weak in mind, and so on. If somebody steals from you or assaults you, you have legal recourse. The law will protect you, even if you cannot defend yourself.
But you deny this basic human decency to animals, and it seems you also advocate a nasty, brutish and short existence for humans who cannot or will not swing a sword.
I am very glad I don't live in your every-man-for-himself world, TW. I am glad some people have compassion for others, human or not.
I fail to see how the need to eat is a straw man tactic. I mean you are comparing the eating of meat (a need) to the raping of minors (a sick desire to say the least.
*sigh* For the thousandth time:
You don't need to eat meat.
Such a simple point, but it continually escapes you.
I could say just as easily that since a human can survive on eating just meat and meat by products that eating plant material is immoral. It is basically the same argument you are making. Plants suffer, they feel, they react to the environment. Why is it right to eat them?
We've already covered this. Have you forgotten again?
It is ok to eat plants, because plants are not conscious. There is no evidence that plants suffer in any way that is subjectively similar to the way in which animals suffer. There is no evidence that plants feel pain, or wish their lives to continue. They have no nervous system or brain. They cannot reason in any way, or have wishes or desires. If you have evidence to the contrary, I would like to hear it.
Moreover, if we did establish that plants were conscious and feeling, then that would be a good argument for not eating plants OR meat. It still would not go the slightest way to justifying the eating of meat.
Are we done with this, now? This clutching at straws is really quite pathetic.
Now think on this paragraph for a while and you can wonder why we look at your argument and respond childishly. It is becuase your argument is childish.
Mr Pot, meet Mr Kettle.
For the record you have shown that some (a mall minority) of meat profuction is possibly cruel and in humane. However you have the wrong answer. We don't stop eating meat. We do our best to make sure what meat we eat is produced as humanely as possible. That is the answer.
The concept of "humane" killing for pleasure is a smokescreen, though a moderately interesting one.
I wonder why you worry about whether your food animals suffer in their deaths. (
Do you worry about that?) After all, they need not die at all. So, what does a little pain matter to you - or a lot, for that matter? I wonder how you manage the double-think which goes with saying that killing for pleasure is acceptable, but the gratuitous harming of live animals is not. I hope you can explain this for me. Are you simply squeamish about seeing other creatures in pain? Is it "out of sight, out of mind" for you? I suspect it is. As long as you get your steak, you don't much worry about how it is produced, really. Do you?
Now when the day comes where we can have a vat that grows animal muscle tissue without the animal involved then I will switch to that.
Why? If you have no problem with killing animals for food, why would you change? What would the difference be?