TW Scott:
Ah! Once again you let your true colours peak through. You also like to hunt animals for pleasure, as well as eating them for fun. And you think your hunting, which causes yet more pain and suffering for no good reason, is also justifiable, I suppose. How do you justify your hunting, by the way? Do you just enjoy hurting things?
No. A person who cannot appreciate that creatures other than himself can suffer, and that that might matter, is stunted.
Oh, you hunt for altruistic reasons to ... er ... save the deer by ... er ... killing them. Interesting logic. Why didn't the deer starve to death before you came in with your gun to save them?
It is one thing for you to decide how to live (or not) your own life. But for you to make arbitrary decisions on behalf of other animals is presumtuous and selfish in the extreme. Once again, you merely confirm that, to you, all animals are nothing more than your property, to deal with as you see fit.
What moral code do you live by? "Do what's good for TW" seems to be it, as far as I can tell.
There are multiple aims of imprisonment, which we can discuss in a separate thread if you wish. One aim is rehabilitation, which benefits the organism. There are other aims, too, which benefit the wider society. Anyway, this is off topic. Discuss it elsewhere, if you wish.
No. You are essentially saying "I can eat animals because they all have to die at some stage anyway, so it is ok for me to kill them for my own pleasure." By the same reasoning, I should be allowed to kill you arbitrarily at any time I wish, because you'll die eventually anyway.
Then you think wrong - again. Why didn't you eat the porcupine? Not hungry? Too many spines?
What I wonder is why you say you care about porcupines, but when it comes to cows and sheep and deer you don't give a damn. Either you're a hypocrit or you're being dishonest.
No. Now I want to know why you want to draw arbitrary lines between species. If you say it is wrong for a cow to kill another cow, why is it ok for you to kill a cow? just because its you, and you're special? Or some other reason?
But I have a defensible basis for my belief, whereas yours is based on expediency only.
Haven't we been through this already? I can't force you to act morally. All I can do is to urge you to do so. The choice is yours.
You're right. You can block your ears and shut your eyes and pretend not to see or hear the arguments presented to you. You can go on putting your own pleasure as your number 1 priority, and I can't stop you. But I can condemn you, and those like you, and I can certainly show you up for the hypocrite you are - claiming to care about animals - but only when it doesn't interfere with your pleasure or hobbies.
If you can find a flaw in any of my arguments, I will join your "free thinking" parade. But so far, you have produced no supportable arguments for your position, and haven't made a dent in mine.
Do I want you to share my views on vegetarianism? Of course I do. Thousands of animals will be saved if you get some common sense. And at what cost? A little thinking about what you eat, and a little typing time for me. Sounds like a bargain to me.
Ah! Once again you let your true colours peak through. You also like to hunt animals for pleasure, as well as eating them for fun. And you think your hunting, which causes yet more pain and suffering for no good reason, is also justifiable, I suppose. How do you justify your hunting, by the way? Do you just enjoy hurting things?
So a person who can differentiate between something that has no effect on his own wellbeing and what does is stunted? Think not.
No. A person who cannot appreciate that creatures other than himself can suffer, and that that might matter, is stunted.
Yeah I feel sorry for animals that suffer. This is why I hunt, becuase starving to death is suffering and I would not do that to a deer.
Oh, you hunt for altruistic reasons to ... er ... save the deer by ... er ... killing them. Interesting logic. Why didn't the deer starve to death before you came in with your gun to save them?
It is also why I have no qualms with eating meat. Why should a cow suffer the indignity of old age. If I could live until my body start to truly give out and then be taken out relatively painlessly I would probably choose that route myself.
It is one thing for you to decide how to live (or not) your own life. But for you to make arbitrary decisions on behalf of other animals is presumtuous and selfish in the extreme. Once again, you merely confirm that, to you, all animals are nothing more than your property, to deal with as you see fit.
Personally I know better, my moral code is as strong as your, it's just not hypocritical.
What moral code do you live by? "Do what's good for TW" seems to be it, as far as I can tell.
Where is imprisonment necessary to the organism. Maybe if it has broken a limb a confinement of that limb is needed. But where does imprisonment become nuetral or beneficial to the oranism besides that.
There are multiple aims of imprisonment, which we can discuss in a separate thread if you wish. One aim is rehabilitation, which benefits the organism. There are other aims, too, which benefit the wider society. Anyway, this is off topic. Discuss it elsewhere, if you wish.
Hey, it could die in two seconds from freak thunderbolt. Who knows. Who's to say when a beings time is up. Certainly not I and clearly not you. You're using a strawman fallacy.
No. You are essentially saying "I can eat animals because they all have to die at some stage anyway, so it is ok for me to kill them for my own pleasure." By the same reasoning, I should be allowed to kill you arbitrarily at any time I wish, because you'll die eventually anyway.
I have great care for animal suffering. I have even doctored sick animals back to health, including a porcupine that wandered in a neighbors fox trap. Have you done such? I think not.
Then you think wrong - again. Why didn't you eat the porcupine? Not hungry? Too many spines?
What I wonder is why you say you care about porcupines, but when it comes to cows and sheep and deer you don't give a damn. Either you're a hypocrit or you're being dishonest.
I do want laws to protect me from fellow humans and I support the same laws for animals. I want no cows murdering cows. No sharks eating sharks. And no dogs selling dogmeat. Does that answer your question well enough.
No. Now I want to know why you want to draw arbitrary lines between species. If you say it is wrong for a cow to kill another cow, why is it ok for you to kill a cow? just because its you, and you're special? Or some other reason?
Actually I do think it is right, but recognize your right to believe it is wrong.
But I have a defensible basis for my belief, whereas yours is based on expediency only.
I would not force my view on you. Too bad you do not feel the same.
Haven't we been through this already? I can't force you to act morally. All I can do is to urge you to do so. The choice is yours.
I don't HAVE to accept anything. That is the beauty of not belonging to the Ministry of James R. I am my own person, just as you are. The difference is I want a world of free thinking people and you want people to share your opinions no matter what they are.
You're right. You can block your ears and shut your eyes and pretend not to see or hear the arguments presented to you. You can go on putting your own pleasure as your number 1 priority, and I can't stop you. But I can condemn you, and those like you, and I can certainly show you up for the hypocrite you are - claiming to care about animals - but only when it doesn't interfere with your pleasure or hobbies.
If you can find a flaw in any of my arguments, I will join your "free thinking" parade. But so far, you have produced no supportable arguments for your position, and haven't made a dent in mine.
Do I want you to share my views on vegetarianism? Of course I do. Thousands of animals will be saved if you get some common sense. And at what cost? A little thinking about what you eat, and a little typing time for me. Sounds like a bargain to me.