Vegetarianism Based On Animal Rights

[Orleander]

...If you really think that then where do you get the idea from that you have any rights animals don't have ?

where did I get the idea that I have rights that animals don't have? Did I say that? :shrug:

 

[Enmos]

where did I get the idea that I have rights that animals don't have? Did I say that? :shrug:

So you don't ?

 

[Orleander]

So you don't ?

where did I say it? You said I did, back it up. Where did I say it?

 

[Enmos]

where did I say it? You said I did, back it up. Where did I say it?

You are having your kid commit mass murder in the backyard.
Equal rights.

 

[Orleander]

You are having your kid commit mass murder in the backyard.
Equal rights.

:bugeye: you eat animals
equal rights you freakin hypocrite

and its odd how you get from my kid killing bugs to me saying your whole rights rant.

 

[Enmos]

:bugeye: you eat animals
equal rights you freakin hypocrite

Yes, I am. And so are you.

 

[Enmos]

and its odd how you get from my kid killing bugs to me saying your whole rights rant.

Humans are part of the natural world.

so, you tell me. What happens when you compare? I think the only thing that happens when you compare is that you have made a comparison.

So what is the difference then ?
The difference is that you think you have more rights than animals have.
Or don't you think that ?

 

[parmalee]

I'm talking about the hypocrisy.
Crying murder when some animal attacks a human (probably even caused by a fault of the human).
Organize a hunt to kill the evil animal, often killing off not just the animal that did it (or not at all) but a whole host of others.
Going home to exterminate the wasps that build a nest above your porch.

If you think you are part of nature and think it's fine to exterminate hundreds of wasps in one go, then you shouldn't whine about being attacked by an animal either.

I fully agree with you there.

Humans seem to have this sense of "entitlement" which they do not seem inclined to reciprocate. I strongly object to the notion that I "own" my dog; yet I will say that "Daisy is my dog", but the fact is, to Daisy: I am her person. We respect one-another and accord each other rights and privileges.

When a coyote attacks a human child, it is most likely a result of the human doing something stupid or disrespectful (infringing upon his territory--which he doesn't own, but, well, you know); regardless, it is not necessarily inappropriate to retaliate, but it ought to be done in such a fashion as to simply make it so such an attack is unlikely to happen again. In some instances, it might be advisable to kill the bear, but in so doing one ought be mindful of the circumstances which provoked the attack: Was the person doing something idiotic or disrespectful? (Probably.) Did the attack come about as a result of humans being greedy and creating their ever-expanding developments and housing projects (for instance) further and further into the wild; which in turn creates an unstable and untenable environment for the coyotes and other creatures, so that they must diversify their usual diet out of scarcity and necessity? (Again, probably.) Unfortunately, humans are remarkably myopic and irrational creatures, and act out of their own self-interest and greed, fail to consider the long-term consequences of their actions.

 

[Orleander]

Yes, I am. And so are you.

no I'm not.
If a deer came to my habitat and killed me and ate me...well fair is fair.
If the Japanese beetles of the world united, picked up my daughter and put her in a jar of turpentine...well, again, fair is fair.

I'm not gonna feel bad about using the survival skills I have. All animals do.

 

[Orleander]

So what is the difference then ?
The difference is that you think you have more rights than animals have.
Or don't you think that ?

I don't think I have more rights. I think I have better skills. Skills that took millennia for my ancestors to acquire.
Do you think the sabre tooth tiger felt bad for eating early man?

 

[parmalee]

If a deer came to my habitat and killed me and ate me...well fair is fair.

Somehow, I don't see that happening.

 

[Orleander]

Somehow, I don't see that happening.

no, but it's their right to do so.

 

[Norsefire]

Norsefire:
You deny that chickens are conscious and can feel pain?

I deny that chickens are sapient, have a sense of self, are aware of their own motality, have culture or personality, have imagination, can think and reason, etc

They don't need to have the same intellect. All they need is to qualify as [enc]person[enc]s.

Which they don't.

Only few animals can qualify as "persons"........dolphins, perhaps dogs and cats, and other primates. Maybe a few others.

Multiple mistakes there.

I don't know what you mean by "good" when you say "meat is good". It sounds like you're assuming what you're trying to prove again.

You get protein from meat. Ok. But there are other ways to get protein.

Meat is the best source of protein, however. Soy bean is gross, and the protein isn't as good quality as, say, egg white protein for digestion.

Harms:

You have failed to identify the major harm - the deaths of sentient, conscious animals. That is, the animals are harmed, irreparably. The fact that this point still hasn't sunk into your thick skull shows that you have a weird kind of willful moral blindness.

No, you still misunderstand: the consciousness and intellect of livestock are no where near that of humans; thus, they lack many of the traits which give humans value.

I am not morally bankrupt, I simply do not happen to think killing mindless chickens to be wrong.

You also assume that a meat diet is healthier than a vegetarian diet, with no supporting evidence. In fact, the evidence is against you on that point.

I disagree. Vegetarians, especially vegans, tend to be slimmer........but they also tend to have less muscle mass and have more difficulty getting proper nutrition.

Have you ever seen a vegan body builder?

Hitler's version of "morality" was not consistent, defensible or reasonable.

This is because you don't like what he proposed.

I would disagree with you here.........it was consistent and defensible; as for "reasonable", what the hell does that mean?

Nonsense. The man was a racist, fascist dictator who advocated the genocide of an entire people. If you think that's good, you're barking mad like him.

If you put it that way.

Put it this way: the man believed that sacrifices were necessary and justified in order to create a more perfect German society, and that efficiency was necessary to do this, even if it is ruthless.

The problem is that you value 'humanitarianism' too much and automatically assume all killing is 'bad'.

Why should I repeat myself yet again. I assume you cannot or will not answer.

What was your question? I've been answering every one of your points.

You, however, haven't answered my paper point.

 

[Enmos]

no I'm not.
If a deer came to my habitat and killed me and ate me...well fair is fair.
If the Japanese beetles of the world united, picked up my daughter and put her in a jar of turpentine...well, again, fair is fair.

I'm not gonna feel bad about using the survival skills I have. All animals do.

Haha, sure you would think "fair is fair"..

 

[Enmos]

no, but it's their right to do so.

No, they don't have that right. They'd be hunted down and killed on the spot.
Deer do not have any rights.

Now if a human would go to a deers habitat and kiled and ate it, you wouldn't see anyone (let alone deer) hunt you down and kill you.

Where's the equality in that ?

 

[Orleander]

Haha, sure you would think "fair is fair"..

are you calling me a liar?

 

[Idle Mind]

Jeez...there are 30+ posts of you two going back and forth while still managing to say nothing. Agree to disagree and move on.

 

[parmalee]

Norsefire:

You are making an awful lot of outlandish claims which run wholly contrary to the findings of ethology, behavioral ecology, and animal cognition studies.

I don't have time to get into it right now, as I need to go out and do some crap, but look up Donald Griffin, Marc Bekoff, Jane Goodall, Konrad Lorenz, the "mirror test" (which is intrinsically flawed by virtue of it's sole reliance upon the sense of sight, but is still valuable nonetheless), etc.

 

[Enmos]

are you calling me a liar?

You got it.

 

[James R]

Norsefire:

I deny that chickens are sapient, have a sense of self, are aware of their own motality, have culture or personality, have imagination, can think and reason, etc

Finally we are getting to the nitty gritty. I see that you now accept my point that these things are relevant to the decision as to whether to eat the animal or not. That is progress.

The next thing you need to do is to actually try to find out for yourself whether your claims about the sense of self, awareness, thinking abilities of animals such as chickens are actually true or not, rather than just assuming whatever you find is convenient. As it happens, you're completely off base again in your assumptions.

Only few animals can qualify as "persons"........dolphins, perhaps dogs and cats, and other primates. Maybe a few others.

Do you agree, then, that it is morally wrong to eat a dolphin or a dog?

Meat is the best source of protein, however. Soy bean is gross...

Your personal tastes are irrelevant to the moral argument.

...and the protein isn't as good quality as, say, egg white protein for digestion.

Maybe you can back up these claims, too, but I doubt it.

No, you still misunderstand: the consciousness and intellect of livestock are no where near that of humans; thus, they lack many of the traits which give humans value.

The question is not whether they are at the same level as humans, or whether they have all the capacities of humans. I contend that it is not necessary that something be the same as a human being in all respects in order to be entitled to equal consideration. A minimal level of consciousness, sentience and the like ought to be enough for us to respect their basic rights as persons.

I am not morally bankrupt, I simply do not happen to think killing mindless chickens to be wrong.

Chickens are not mindless, however convenient it is for you to think so. Once again, I assume you have had no close contact with chickens except on your dinner plate, or you wouldn't make such silly claims.

I disagree. Vegetarians, especially vegans, tend to be slimmer........but they also tend to have less muscle mass and have more difficulty getting proper nutrition.

I know plenty of vegetarians and vegans who are perfectly healthy and happy. In fact, I don't personally know any who have diet-related health problems.

Hitler's version of "morality" was not consistent, defensible or reasonable.

This is because you don't like what he proposed.

Read my statement again. I did not in any way refer to what I like or do not like. Objectively, Hitler's morality was not consistent, defensible or reasonable.

I would disagree with you here.........it was consistent and defensible; as for "reasonable", what the hell does that mean?

reasonable: showing reason or sound judgement.

Nonsense. The man was a racist, fascist dictator who advocated the genocide of an entire people. If you think that's good, you're barking mad like him.

If you put it that way.

Put it this way: the man believed that sacrifices were necessary and justified in order to create a more perfect German society, and that efficiency was necessary to do this, even if it is ruthless.

The problem is that you value 'humanitarianism' too much and automatically assume all killing is 'bad'.

You think I ought to be more like Hitler and value Humanitarianism as much as he did, do you? Is that what you do?