Pandaemoni:
And some say that eating meat is "pointlessly cruel".
Some do. I know a couple who fret over eating plants too, because they are also living creatures, but the alternative is to starve to death so they have taken to thanking their salads for the sacrifice they make.
Do you really think there is no difference between plants and animals, from a moral point of view? Interesting.
Some people also feed their cats and infants vegan diets and are surprised when they die of various nutrient deficiencies.
Cats are not omnivores. They cannot live on a vegetarian diet. Human infants also have special nutritional needs. All vegans need to ensure that they are getting the right nutrients.
I can see why people think it's cruel, but in my opinion it turns the notion of cruelty from a useful limiting prescription on human action, to sheer frivolousness, to use the term to describe behaviors that we and many other animals have been adapted to by evolution.
This is the [enc]appeal to nature[/enc] fallacy so commonly heard from meat eaters.
The defining feature of animal life is that animals do not generate their own energy supply, we "steal" energy and nutrients we need from plants and other animals. So far, natures only method for do this is to consume at least part of the life forms from which we steal. Embrace it.
This statement does not touch on whether it is ethical to eat meat or not - it just skirts around the issue in a somewhat dishonest manner. There are other sources of nutrients than meat, even if you want to pretend there are not.
Why? Because your pleasure always takes precedence over the rights of others?
Not just "my pleasure" as that is secondary. The pleasure and taste sensation that is consuming meat exists because nature bred the love of it into us. It helped our species survive.
No. We evolved to like the taste of energy-providing foods. Hardly surprising. We like loads of sugary and salty foods, even when they are not good for us. Look at America's obesity epidemic if you need some evidence of that.
Your argument is akin to saying that we ought to eat lots of sugar, because "nature bred us" to like it. And, of course, it goes without saying that you again conveniently try to sweep the moral issue under the carpet.
If people want to voluntarily restrict their food supply to *only* murdering plants, that's swell, but they are behaving unnaturally.
I am surprised that you don't seem to appreciate any fundamental difference between plants and animals. Do you want me to explain it to you?
TVP has its place, I'm sure. It's a taste I could get used to in some contexts, even in chilis (in combination with real meats), but it's not going to fool anyone with an even marginally adult palette into thinking it's real beef, pork, chicken, ham, etc.
Doesn't really matter, though, does it, because your pleasure is secondary to health concerns, by your own admission. If you can get all the nutrients you need from TVP and act morally at the same time, that is far preferable to killing animals because you like their taste, is it not?
They don't need an "owner". They might like a "guardian".
They don't need a "guardian" either, since they are very content to have an "owner." Why incur the expense of changing the system and limiting my rights vis a vis my pets, when the pets are quite literally incapable of understanding their enhanced "rights?"
Do you think the puppy bought by a family as a Christmas treat for their kids is "very content" to be taken to the vet and put down the next time that family wants to go on holiday and not pay for boarding?
There's nothing in current laws to stop these kind "owners" of puppies from doing this kind of thing. And you seem to approve of this system.
Besides, how can a true animal rights proponent cotton to pet "guardianship", if it is identical to pet ownership save in a highly theoretical sense?
It isn't equivalent. Perhaps you ought to make an effort to understand a position before you knee-jerk to criticise it. Otherwise, you risk looking stupid, like now.
So, what are the differences? Would I not be allowed to make my dogs work?
Here's a thought: why don't you look up the notion yourself and get yourself an education?
You don't "own" your children, but they aren't wandering the streets, are they?
Again, this is semantics. The only rights of "ownership" a guardian does not have with a ward are things like (i) the right to put them to work for the benefit of the Guardian, (ii) the right to sell the guardianship and (iii) under certain circumstances the ward can challenge a guardian's decisions in court.
Those are the only ones, are they? Are you sure you've exhausted everything?
My, you do know a lot.
madanthonywayne:
I find your implication that there is no difference between a retarded human and an animal to be extremely offensive.
I did not say that, except in a very specific context.
One of my children is retarded, and I sure as hell don't consider him to be an animal. That you can't see that there is an important differnence is disturbing.
What's the important difference that means the animal is just property while the child has a whole suite of rights? Species membership?
How it is that you equate the difference between human races with the difference between species?
I don't. However, they are merely differences in degree, not in kind, as you say. And therefore... think about it.
