Vegetarianism Based On Animal Rights

[Norsefire]

Sapience..? Sapience...?? Why would they feel sapience... when they aren't even homo sapiens?

Good grief. They do feel the same range of emotion that humans do, if that range ranges from joy, anger, frustration, sadness, jealousy, love, possessiveness, shyness, fear, gratitude, and even pity. And they feel it just as intensely as we do. They cry. They wag their tails. If you ever owned a dog that saw you were upset, it would come to you because it wanted to cheer you up. Have you owned a dog, norse? These animals express themselves and want to make their emotions known to us. The reasons for their emotion are not as sophisticated as ours, but they feel those emotions all the same. It is intelligence and self-awareness that they lack. They are, however, aware of when they are being tortured and betrayed, and I think you need to be exposed to more regular contact with animals if you haven't the same sympathies that many of us animal lovers do.

Right, but the intelligence of dogs does not compare to the intelligence of most livestock, for one.

Secondly, don't try to compare their intelligence and sapience with human intelligence and sapience and personality.

Anyone who knowingly tortures an animals for the primary purpose of inflicting pain needs to get help, soon.

Perhaps; but what if it's fun? Then why should they not?

 

[WillNever]

Have you owned a dog norse? Can you describe your most regular experience with any one animal? Have you ever loved an animal, norse?

Perhaps; but what if it's fun? Then why should they not?

If they find it fun, then they are psychologically maladjusted and that's that. Such people are almost as tragic as the animals they torture. How could you not appreciate an animal's trust, its innocence? Such people are truly missing out on life and are most definitely victims of their own inner seething.

There's a statistically documented, direct link between psychopathy and animal torturing. There's a real source of pride for ya.

 

[glaucon]

No. They don't have to; we have force, we have might, we take them, we eat.

We are predators.

Exactly.
And thus, the answer to the OP.
Of course there's an inequality. Equality is nothing but a hypothetical abstraction. Wherever there is variety, there will be inequality. And this is a good thing.

Now go and barbeque a nice steak ffs...

 

[Norsefire]

Have you owned a dog norse? Can you describe your most regular experience with any one animal? Have you ever loved an animal, norse?

Yes. In Syria we owned a number of animals at one of our houses, including cats, chicks, fish, etc

If they find it fun, then they are psychologically maladjusted and that's that. Such people are almost as tragic as the animals they torture. How could you not appreciate an animal's trust, its innocence? Such people are truly missing out on life and are most definitely victims of their own inner seething.

I don't care, that isn't what I said. I said if they find it fun, why not? The animals are not human.

Or would a human hostel be better? I somewhat feel more pity for animal suffering than human suffering because animals are more innocent.

 

[WillNever]

If they find it fun then they need therapy norse, for that is no way to live.

Their desire to hurt animals is a symptom of their problems, not the cause. For their own benefit, they should be removed from the presence of animals and probably the general populace too. Their rather demented desires need to be untrained, not reinforced. That's why not.

 

[Norsefire]

In other words, your philosophy needs to be forced on them.

 

[WillNever]

Absolutely yes, I draw the line when their behavior leads to the harm of others. I respect my two dogs way more than I respect the sick desires of would-be torturers who, deep down inside, are just frightened little fuckers.

 

[Norsefire]

They might disagree.

 

[WillNever]

Disagree with what?

 

[Norsefire]

Disagree with what?

They might disagree that it is necessary to respect the animals; they might think that their self interest is rationally much more important.

 

[glaucon]

I respect my two dogs way more than I respect the sick desires of would-be torturers who, deep down inside, are just frightened little fuckers.

And thus we see the hypocrisy of the moral avenger..

 

[James R]

Norsefire:

Yes. That does not mean I think chickens and cows are the same as humans. It means I think they may qualify as persons.

And they don't qualify as humans which is the relevant matter.

But I've already told you why that's not relevant. It's just speciesism. Membership of a species is not a morally significant divider, in and of itself. You'll need to do better than that.

We need to worry about our own species first.

Fine. But that's irrelevant. You don't need to eat meat.

Another straw man. Of course I recognise that people disagree on morality. That doesn't mean I think everybody is equally right about his ideas of morality. I am not a moral relativist like you claim to be.

Then you're betraying your rationality. We've been over this: morality is relative. That doesn't mean there aren't influences, like society and psychology, but the sheer fact that it is so open to interpretation and there are so many twists and turns hardly render it "objective". It's relative. Very much so.

Your claim that one morality is as good as any other is silly. Clearly that is not the case.

Having intrinsic value means that you have value beyond your use as a resource for others to exploit.

In which case chickens do not qualify; how do we measure their value? Who says they have value?

Let's go back a step.

Do you believe that a human infant has intrinsic value? To take a specific example, do you believe that human children ought not to be arbitrarily killed and eaten, or otherwise exploited as a resource?

If you believe that animals are only valuable as resources for human exploitation, then you believe they have no intrinsic value.

Is that what you believe?

Why would they have intrinsic value?

You didn't answer the question. Try again.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Lol. Have you considered the lobster?

Just because animals have feelings is no reason not to utilize them as food.

 

[WillNever]

Lol. Have you considered the lobster?

Just because animals have feelings is no reason not to utilize them as food.

Me?

Food-kills are not depraved. It's gratuitous torture that many of us are disgusted by. The Chinese are the worst. It is about the animal, but not just the animal. It's about the people who do it too. Their behavior is very revealing.

People who torture animals have a significantly higher than average chance of being physically or mentally brutalized by at least one parent. Clearly such behavior is the result of a diseased mind. They want to relive the torture they were subjected to, but as the torturer. It's a coping mechanism, and it's actually rather pathetic.

Clearly, being tormented turns people into tormentors. That should be our first clue that these people are psychologically damaged in some way, and allowing them to torture over and over again will only reinforce that illness.

 

[James R]

glaucon:

I'm disappointed that this is the best you can do. You're a smart guy, but obviously you have a blind spot when it comes to consuming animals. That's convenient for you, but just a bit dishonest.

Murdered?

Idiot; we eat them.

You eat live animals? How many of them survive the eating process, do you think?

Of course there's an inequality. Equality is nothing but a hypothetical abstraction. Wherever there is variety, there will be inequality. And this is a good thing.

Good for whom? I don't think the animals you eat would agree that it is good.

Now go and barbeque a nice steak ffs...

Another person trumpeting his immorality as if it advanced his argument.

Ho hum.

 

[WillNever]

They might disagree that it is necessary to respect the animals; they might think that their self interest is rationally much more important.

Jeffrey Dahmer believed that about animals too. Just ask his rotting corpse.

 

[James R]

There's another current thread on the same topic. Can we please move the discussion to that thread?

[thread]94590[/thread]

glaucon: You might want to review the entire thread.

 

[glaucon]

You eat live animals? How many of them survive the eating process, do you think?

No (though some people do..) and none.
My point was that I think it's a little intellectually dishonest to call it murder. It's an obvious fact that we regularly kill animals to consume them.

Good for whom? I don't think the animals you eat would agree that it is good.

For us of course. Animals don't have the opportunity to agree or disagree on the matter.

Another person trumpeting his immorality as if it advanced his argument.

Ho hum.

Not at all. That was just a flippant comment.
But, since you brought it up (and I suppose it is pertinent to some people..), I don't believe that this is in any way a moral issue.

 

[glaucon]

There's another current thread on the same topic. Can we please move the discussion to that thread?

[thread]94590[/thread]

glaucon: You might want to review the entire thread.

Ah.
I didn't even see that thread.

I think you're right though. Perhaps we can get Tiassa to merge this on in?

 

[WillNever]

Vegetarianism because you are against the idea that animals die for your food is not a defensable position. However, vegeterianism because you are boycotting the cruel slaughterhouse practices against animals IS a defensable and even admirable position.

I'm not a vegan, but I oppose the torture too.