Vegetarianism Based On Animal Rights

[Norsefire]

Norsefire:

We have previously established that you're immoral. Nothing has changed.

No, I'm not; my morality is different to yours

What's the best way, then?

Well you're a liberal; rules and regulations, right?

That's right, because I have a morality.

Why don't I? I have one too. It's simply not the same as yours.

You missed my repeated explanation of why eating chickens is wrong. Go back and read it again.

I have read it and challenged it.

My argument is not that all life is sacred. My argument is based on [enc]intrinsic value[/enc], on [enc]person[/enc]hood and on [enc]equal consideration[/enc].

However we don't have to respect their "personhood", we owe nothing to them, they are not sacred, and our interests must come first.

Quite simple.

Why don't you approve of cannibalism? (I assume you do not.)

It's up to the individual

It's very much my concern. Your only concern is yourself.

No, it's Humanity.

I take it your answer is "no", but you can't bring yourself to say it. So, why wouldn't you eat braindead children, Norsefire?

The meat wouldn't be appetizing

So, no problem with eating them, eh?

For me, yes, because the meat isn't appealing.

There's no reason not to do the same with human beings, then. Agree?

Nope. Because human beings have more value to human beings than chickens do to human beings. Just like bears have more value to bears than fish have to bears, which is why bears eat fish.

Bears also eat greens; I suppose bears are evil egotists too.

People want a lot of immoral things. So what? That's not the argument here.

The argument is that eating meat is not immoral. It happens all the time.

No they don't.

Yes they do. They have to take supplements.

In the case of milk, the product does not involve harming an animal (although vegans may have a thing or two to say about that). As for eggs, unfertilised eggs are similarly a renewable resource and do not involve harm to animals (again, with the vegan caveat, but let's discuss the basics first). To make it very simple for you, consuming milk and eggs does not involve the death of an animal. Understand?

It's theft, isn't it; we're still using them as machines.

Arguably, yes. But we're very very far from discussing that particular issue with you. You aren't even equipped yet to see that killing a sentient creature for its meat is wrong. So you'll be completely incapable of appreciating any of the subtle arguments vegans make.

Life sometimes uses other life for its own benefit. Simple.

Correct. Some animal experimentation is morally wrong, too. But that's not the subject of this thread.

Some? All. From your point of view; because it's all unnecessary killing.


People want meat; people eat meat; bears eat meat; lions eat meat. There are predators and there are prey; life has no value.

 

[Nasor]

What?! Killing, raping, and stealing from other groups of people are standard human instincts, we are obviously tribal animals ourselves and hate other tribes with a deep passion, and no amount of liberal education can never change that.

So your position is that it's okay to do these things, simply because they are instinctual?

Do you think cows like being contained in camps and hooked on foreign machines until their udders are bleeding, I bet if we could translate their language to english, "mooo moo moooooo ... m-moo ..." would become "geett meeee offf this faaahhhcking machine, my udders, *squeezes lip* ugghhh, the pain, THHEEE PAAIIIN, fuck man ... just kill me and distribute my meat, oh god, please ..."

Animals can be milked without harming them. Obviously if you milk them in an inhumane way that causes them to suffer, that's wrong - but there's nothing harmful about milking a cow per se. Are you REALLY so dense that you didn't realize that, or are you just trolling?

 

[Barbie]

So your position is that it's okay to do these things, simply because they are instinctual?

That's not my position, it's the position practically every person and tribe in recorded history has ascribed to. Even most people we regard as historic heroes today were by our standards racist scumbuckets, and every cool general or warrior we remember today was famous in his time for whooping the ass of other tribes whether they deserved it or not. The same concept applies for famous pioneers of justice, even Hammurabi was like "and here are the first set of written laws to guide man, abide to live by them and all will know justice before the law" and a babylonian in the crowd was like "your majesty, what about those slaves in that cage over there? do these laws apply to them" "wtf, are you on crack, you ugly commoner? those laws don't apply to them because their skin is darker than ours, wtf, who is this guy?" *brownnosing laughter from crowd*

Animals can be milked without harming them. Obviously if you milk them in an inhumane way that causes them to suffer, that's wrong - but there's nothing harmful about milking a cow per se. Are you REALLY so dense that you didn't realize that, or are you just trolling?

In the old days when women in frilly blue button-up dresses with puffy white collars and rolled up sleeves milked cows with their bare hands into a dull grey bucket, sure, maybe cows didn't feel much pain. But nowadays it's ridiculous, they just lay chained to the ground all day squeezing their anus against dirty black flies, their only activity being lead to a machine which causes them miserable pain - so miserable they'd rather be killed for their meat. Cows lead to the slaughter house are considered "elites" amongst the greater population of cows in the farm, the cow being lead to die usually walks out of the barn with a grin on his face and says "see ya later, suckerrs!" and then proceeds to scream horrifically behind closed barn doors.

 

[Nasor]

Oooooookay...Barbie is either a troll, or some sort of sociopath who thinks it's okay to murder and steal from people because it's "part our instincts". Either way, I'm glad he's on the meat eaters side.

 

[Betrayer0fHope]

It wouldn't make much sense for one to become veg*n with the explicit purpose of preventing animal cruelty. Clearly animal cruelty is going to exist no matter how large of a minority chooses to partake in eating animal products. But that's not why most ethically-motivated veg*ns became so. Most don't hold any delusions that their veg*nism is going to change anything, they simply don't want to involve themselves in a system which they believe to be unethical. I don't subscribe to either of these views personally (in fact I'm not a veg*n at all), but I do think that one would be hard pressed to explain why this latter stance is "illogical."

A lesser evil may still be evil, but saying that since evil will always exist we must (or be illogical) consume animals and cause cruelty to animals is ridiculous.

On the other hand, I am a nihilist. Guess what I think.

I used to be a vegetarian. If I had to say something about the question, I'd say that it is very logical to be vegetarian to cause less cruelty to animals. A creature is dying, in often VERY inhumane (never realized the irony in that word) circumstances.

Eating meat=less supply for meat=supply will be given=more dead animals. Simple, really.

 

[Betrayer0fHope]

Yes



None, although you still miss the point:

We are human beings. Chickens are chickens. They are not intelligent; they do not think as you or I do. We have no obligation to them. They are not sacred. They have no souls (and neither do human beings). They are nothing more than a chemical reaction.

Things die. Sometimes animals kill other animals in order to eat those other animals. Whether it's "necessary" is irrelevant; it happens. Human beings kill other animals in order to eat them. There is nothing wrong with this.

As human beings, we look out for our interests first and foremost; we cannot put chickens before humans. The survival of chickens means absolutely nothing to us, apart from their value as a food source. Food is necessary; in order to eat, something must die. The discrimination on your part between chickens and brocolli seems arbitrary to me; perhaps brocolli does not feel pain, but it is alive and life wants to keep living.

As Human beings, our lives matter most to us. As nature is a competition, we human beings compete among the other animals for resources; and we happen to be better than them. Therefore, we are able to not only gather enough food, but also a variety of eat, from meats to vegetables, to satisfy our nutritional needs and tastes.





It's not immoral to me; the way I see it, there are predators and there are prey.


Obviously, although that wasn't my point.

Of course I'm selfish; a certain extent of selfishness is natural in all human beings. Wolves are also, then, selfish because they don't even have to live. They can die and spare the rabbits, but instead they choose to eat them. Those selfish wolves.

Again, things eat other things; call me selfish, but that's the way it works, and I'm going to eat meat. We're not the only creatures that do it. We're not the only creatures that are omnivores, either.



Chickens certainly aren't my obligation.


However, as living things, they do "desire" to continue living and reproduce - eating them, then, is morally wrong because you are preventing them from doing this.




Nope. They're pests......hold on, don't tell me it's wrong to kill pests too?



Not all meat comes from factory farming, and not buying the meat is not the best way to put an end to factory farming.


Again with the arrogant attitude; my morality is not your morality. What is immoral is denying yourself on a nonsensical premise, in fact, a very religious premise which is that somehow, chickens are sacred and can't be eaten.

Why? You sound very religious in saying this; life is not sacred. Life has no meaning, purpose, or value beyond the value we attribute to it.

The survival of sheep is not our concern.




An argument based on nothing more than an appeal to my emotion.

Children lacking a brain are not children at all; they are hunks of flesh and chemical reactions. It might be crude, but it's the reality.

And I'm sure such a technique could be possible; there are braindead people. If we are able to figure out what causes this, we could then induce it in all livestock. Or, we could simply tranquilize them from birth and sustain an unconscious state; since they never know "life", they can not know death.


Perhaps, but people want meat. And vegetarians, and especially vegans, often have a difficult time getting an adequate source of protein.



You miss the point: we don't owe them anything.

Also, if eating meat is wrong, why isn't drinking milk or eating eggs? Sure, it doesn't "harm" anything.........but that milk isn't intended for us, and we're milking them as machines. The same for eggs, we're stealing their eggs and milk and isn't that morally wrong?

And what about lab mice? Lab mice die all the time in experimentation. Those egotistical scientists.......after all it isn't necessary to run their experiments. It's unnecessary killing; those unthinking morons.

And some do think, and don't see anything wrong with it. At any rate, I don't eat that slop called McD's, I'm just saying.


Then change your moral code; take mine. And enjoy meat!

I forgot to mention, when I look at an argument like Norsefire's, eating animals is similar to eating a mentally handicapped person, or a small child. In actuality, there is a difference in the latter, but the first, when using Norsefire's justification for eating chickens, is very much the same.

 

[swarm]

And since we have the requisite scientific knowledge, ...

My point is meat is tasty and the preferred source for its nutrition. Forcing people to take such an unnatural approach to life just to appease you seems rediculous.

It is not necessary to eat them. In our society the only reason to eat them is because we enjoy it.

Actually it is necessary to kill them. All of our prey animals evolved sybiotically with predators who have now been reduced to just us for hte most part. Without population control from predation things get nasty real fast. Disease, famine, destruction of the ecosystem, its not pretty.

As long as we are killing them anyway, we might as well eat them.

As I said, this sounds just like a hitman who doesn't mind killing innocent people so long as he gets to kill them cleanly.

I'm an ex french commando. Were I to decide you needed killing, it wouldn't be a problem. "Ex" because I decided the government couldn't be trusted to pick out the non innocent people reliably. But I have nothing against necessary killing in cases of self defense or defense of another.

After all,

Yes we know all the lame irrelevant killing red herrings. Hmm, I think I'll have a smoked kipper...

Since we are entirely in control of when domestic animals breed, it is not necessary to kill them in order to control their population.

So you'll just wipe them out all together. Nice guy. People don't keep cows around just for the fun of it.

When an animal is able to fill out the voter registration ...I will support its right to vote.

Good, we agree and until then, its steak on the barbie.

And if being a vegitarian is such fun, why are so many of them fake-meat-atarians? That stuff is just nasty.

 

[James R]

Norsefire:

What's the best way, then?

Well you're a liberal; rules and regulations, right?

I'm not getting it. Please explain the best way to end factory farming for me.

However we don't have to respect their "personhood", we owe nothing to them, they are not sacred, and our interests must come first.

You didn't read my excellent article on [enc]equal consideration[/enc]. Without respect for personhood, nobody has any rights.

Why don't you approve of cannibalism? (I assume you do not.)

It's up to the individual

So you do approve of cannibalism as a general thing, then?

I take it your answer is "no", but you can't bring yourself to say it. So, why wouldn't you eat braindead children, Norsefire?

The meat wouldn't be appetizing

That's just a guess on your part. The point is, you'd have no moral problem with it - only potentially a problem with the taste. Right?

Because human beings have more value to human beings than chickens do to human beings.

Why is that? Please explain. It can't just be speciesism. I'm sure you have a better justification than that.

The argument is that eating meat is not immoral. It happens all the time.

Murders happen all the time, too. Does that mean murder is moral?

Life sometimes uses other life for its own benefit. Simple.

That doesn't make it right. Try again.

Correct. Some animal experimentation is morally wrong, too. But that's not the subject of this thread.

Some? All. From your point of view; because it's all unnecessary killing.

You're putting words in my mouth. If you want to discuss animal experimentation, I suggest you start a new thread. This one is about vegetarianism. See the title up there?

People want meat; people eat meat; bears eat meat; lions eat meat. There are predators and there are prey; life has no value.

Your life has no value? Ok then.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Lucysnow:

So, in essence, where people have the luxury of choice, as in first-world countries, they also have the luxury of taking the most moral course of action. Fine. I have no problem with that. Necessity can always lead to restricted choice. True moral decisions require freedom of choice.

I know. The sentience of bugs and so on is something we could debate, but we're very far from that when people can't even accept that a sheep or cow is sentient. There's no point discussing borderline cases and hypotheticals while ignoring the most obvious and biggest issues in a debate. Westerners don't eat bugs as a matter of course. They do eat cows and sheep. So, let's sort that problem first.

Sentient beings in nature exist to be eaten by other sentient beings. All of nature is eating off itself in order to regenerate itself. Do you morally judge a dolphin for eating other fish? Lions are as sentient as sheep and cows yet sheep and cows are food for lions. Insects are sentient but not in the same way as the chimps that eat them, the same can be said of the sentience of human beings compared to that of a sheep. Man is an animal in nature just like lions and sheep.

To choose vegetarianism for religious reasons is all good and well but it doesn't make you more moral, only an adherent.

The luxury of choice comes from abundance but it does not make you moral. If you told me you did not eat meat because a cow must eat an overabundance of grain which could more fittingly feed the worlds hungry then I could see the pragmatism of your claim as just and admiral but to claim to not eat meat because of some concern for the animal is to forget what role nature plays in all of our lives. Your idea of right and wrong conduct involving animals is spurious when you consider the majority of the worlds population does in fact eat meat from animals as well as fish, grain, vegetable and fruit, as if to say that you few are the most moral and the rest of the world is living immorally. Notice in the land of abundance vegetarians are in the minority, man has always eaten meat just not in the quantities and as often as we see today. It is a particularly pretentious claim to say that the one who eats no meat is somehow more moral than the person who does. Even the Dalai Lama who is impressed with ethical vegetarianism is not a full vegetarian, he practiced it for a year and a half but due to illness he still eats meat every other day yet he is considered a man of compassion and a moral one at that. Indeed most Tibetans monks traditionally eat meat, much of it having to do with the environment in Tibet but even those living in India still continue to have meat in their diet. But I guess you would go the course of Paul McCartney who took it upon himself to write the Dalai Lama criticizing him for eating meat. Leave it to a westerner to engage in such hubris, a case of judgmental priggishness...like what I find in your post on this subject as you would have to say that the Dalai lama is as immoral as Norse due to his dietary habits.

 

[Enmos]

Sentient beings in nature exist to be eaten by other sentient beings.

No. They exist to survive and to continue the species. They'll do anything in their power to prevent being eaten.

You cannot criticize animals for eating other animals because they do not have morality (at least not like we have). They are incapable of realizing the suffering their prey goes through. And, besides, nature is so interwoven that if they would stop catching prey the balance would be thrown of. Both prey and predator evolved together and have a beneficial effect, in accordance with the above, on the surrounding habit including it's life forms.

The paragraph above does not apply to humans anymore.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

That may be but eaten they are. Morality among humans is subjective not a firm fixture, you can not say that a man is immoral because he eats meat again unless you also want to put the Dalai Lama on the list 'immoral' people; better company I would imagine than the rest of the vegetarians and probably a lot less judgemental. What we eat or do not eat has much to do with environment and culture, what we consider moral also has to do with environment and culture. Man is also a part of nature, also a part of the predator and prey dynamic.

 

[Enmos]

That may be but eaten they are. Morality among humans is subjective not a firm fixture, you can not say that a man is immoral because he eats meat again unless you also want to put the Dalai Lama on the list 'immoral' people; better company I would imagine than the rest of the vegetarians and probably a lot less judgemental. What we eat or do not eat has much to do with environment and culture, what we consider moral also has to do with environment and culture.

Well, I agree with you that you can't really criticize people for eating meat, unless it's in huge quantities.
But you have to admit that there is a real problem.
How about we just kill the meat industry ? Then there won't be any questions about morality anymore

Man is also a part of nature, also a part of the predator and prey dynamic.

But working hard to 'break free'.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

You can change the industry but meat will still be slaughtered for food. The fact that the meat industry treats animals as factory fodder has nothing to do with the morality of meat eaters. There are people in the west who eat 'free range' chicken for example and the majority of meat eaters in developing countries are not getting their meat from large meat industries.

 

[Enmos]

You can change the industry but meat will still be slaughtered for food. The fact that the meat industry treats animals as factory fodder has nothing to do with the morality of meat eaters. There are people in the west who eat 'free range' chicken for example and the majority of meat eaters in developing countries are not getting their meat from large meat industries.

Hey come on, that was just a joke

 

[Nasor]

My point is meat is tasty and the preferred source for its nutrition. Forcing people to take such an unnatural approach to life just to appease you seems rediculous.

Who said I was trying to force anyone to do any thing? Also, as has already been pointed out repeatedly, whether or not something is "natural" has little bearing on whether or not it is moral. It is arguably "natural" for people to rape, murder, and steal, but most people agree that it's still immoral.

Actually it is necessary to kill them. All of our prey animals evolved sybiotically with predators who have now been reduced to just us for hte most part. Without population control from predation things get nasty real fast. Disease, famine, destruction of the ecosystem, its not pretty.

The vast, overwhelming majority of meat that people eat is raised domestically, so this argument is not relevant. If you really have a situation where a wild population of animals is breeding dangerously out of control due to lack of predation, then I suppose you don't have anything to feel bad about if you shoot some of them and eat them. But that scenario has zero relevance to the vast majority of meat that is eaten.

I'm an ex french commando. Were I to decide you needed killing, it wouldn't be a problem. "Ex" because I decided the government couldn't be trusted to pick out the non innocent people reliably. But I have nothing against necessary killing in cases of self defense or defense of another.

You keep saying shit that has no perceivable relevance. Who said anything about killing in self defense? What does self defense have to do with you eating a steak?

Good, we agree and until then, its steak on the barbie.

So should I assume that in your view any creature that can't vote is fair game to be killed and eaten?

And if being a vegitarian is such fun, why are so many of them fake-meat-atarians? That stuff is just nasty.

When did I dispute that eating meat is fun? Of course it's fun. That's pretty much the only reason anyone in the developed world eats it. The question is whether or not it's moral to harm an animal so that you can have fun.

 

[Dub_]

A lesser evil may still be evil, but saying that since evil will always exist we must (or be illogical) consume animals and cause cruelty to animals is ridiculous.

Er... at what point did I say, or even imply, that everyone should eat meat? I think you've extrapolated far beyond what I actually stated. I was actually defending the logic of opting out of what one feels is an unethical practice.

Personally I've been giving serious consideration to going vegetarian for the year of 2010 -- and if I decide by the end of that year that I don't mind it, staying that way indefinitely. Mind you, this is for the health aspects rather than any moral or ethical reasons.

Eating meat=less supply for meat=supply will be given=more dead animals. Simple, really.

A bit too simple, I'm afraid. The fallacy here is in assuming that by not eating meat, those same animals won't die.

Unfortunately, veg*ns comprise such a small minority as to have a negligible effect on the overall demand for meat. As much as 70% of grocery food is ultimately thrown out, and in a society where 98% of adults self-identify as meat eaters*, you can bet that a huge portion of that wasted food is meat and other animal products. Clearly there is a considerable disconnect between how much is produced and how much is actually consumed, so to believe that a small minority of veg*ns will have a noticeable effect on animal harvesting is little more than wishful thinking. The animals are going to be slaughtered and made available for consumption regardless -- the main economic effect of veg*nism is to cause more of the meat to be thrown out.

I want to reiterate that there are several other very good reasons for embracing a veg*n lifestyle. My only point is that preventing animal cruelty is not one of them.

* Note that while about 4% of respondents checked the vegetarian box, about 57% of those respondents identified themselves as "semi-vegetarians" -- which, of course, is not vegetarian at all.

 

[Norsefire]

Norsefire:



I'm not getting it. Please explain the best way to end factory farming for me.

Make laws against it.

You didn't read my excellent article on [enc]equal consideration[/enc]. Without respect for personhood, nobody has any rights.

Why do we have to respect the supposed "person-hood" of chickens? I don't see chickens painting beautiful art, erecting statues, philosophizing, or building empires.

I see Humans doing this; in fact, "individualism" is really a Human thing

Bears are obviously not giving equal consideration to those salmon; those egotistical, evil bears

So you do approve of cannibalism as a general thing, then?

It's not my job to judge what others do

That's just a guess on your part. The point is, you'd have no moral problem with it - only potentially a problem with the taste. Right?

What is a person without a mind? Not a person at all; so it's just meat. So why would I have a moral problem with it?

Why is that? Please explain. It can't just be speciesism. I'm sure you have a better justification than that.

There are predators and there are prey; our species is the best adapted to survival, in general (in my opinion, due to our ability to think and use technology); therefore, we ought to make use of all that we can.

Some animals can only eat greens; some can only eat meat; we can eat both. So let's eat both. We might as well enjoy and take advantage of all we can. Predator and prey happen all the time in nature; there's nothing wrong with eating meat.

Murders happen all the time, too. Does that mean murder is moral?

No

Killing happens all the time; "murder" assumes a lack of justification; at any rate, killing animals to eat them is entirely justified. We want to eat.

That doesn't make it right. Try again.

What is right?

You're putting words in my mouth. If you want to discuss animal experimentation, I suggest you start a new thread. This one is about vegetarianism. See the title up there?

I'm simply expanding on your argument; if killing unnecessarily is wrong, then:

1. All animal experimentation is wrong
2. Killing pests is wrong
3. Eating plants is wrong
4. Self defense is wrong
5. Capital punishment is wrong


You see the absurdity of what you are saying? Killing happens.

Also, why is it ok to trap livestock to get their eggs and milk, but then not to kill them?

Your life has no value? Ok then.

No objective value.

 

[James R]

Lucysnow,

Sentient beings in nature exist to be eaten by other sentient beings.

Who told you that? God?

All of nature is eating off itself in order to regenerate itself. Do you morally judge a dolphin for eating other fish? Lions are as sentient as sheep and cows yet sheep and cows are food for lions.

I don't think that dolphins and lions have a vegetarian option. For them, it is eat meat or die. That is not the case for human beings.

Insects are sentient but not in the same way as the chimps that eat them...

How do you know that insects are sentient?

Man is an animal in nature just like lions and sheep.

Man trumpets himself as a moral animal, capable of higher reasoning. Besides, he has options.

To choose vegetarianism for religious reasons is all good and well but it doesn't make you more moral, only an adherent.

Agreed, but that's irrelevant to my argument.

The luxury of choice comes from abundance but it does not make you moral. If you told me you did not eat meat because a cow must eat an overabundance of grain which could more fittingly feed the worlds hungry then I could see the pragmatism of your claim as just and admiral but to claim to not eat meat because of some concern for the animal is to forget what role nature plays in all of our lives.

No. To assume that nature is there solely for our exploitation is to forget what role nature plays in all our lives. Witness the road that has led us to the major environmental problems the world is having right now. We thought that things like forests and atmosphere and the sea were infinite resources for us to exploit. Only now are we finding out that we were wrong.

Speaking of religion, the bible is one of the culprits in promiting your religious view that all non-human animals are ours to exploit - given by God for our pleasure.

Your idea of right and wrong conduct involving animals is spurious when you consider the majority of the worlds population does in fact eat meat from animals as well as fish, grain, vegetable and fruit, as if to say that you few are the most moral and the rest of the world is living immorally.

The people with the most choice in the world also happen to eat the most meat. Why? For no reason other than their own pleasure.

Also, wrong is wrong, no matter how many people do it. 1 murder is wrong. 100 murders doesn't make murder ok all of a sudden.

Notice in the land of abundance vegetarians are in the minority, man has always eaten meat just not in the quantities and as often as we see today.

It's not my fault if the majority of people are immoral. Most people don't think twice about where their meat comes from. Look at the euphemisms they use to describe meat. Nobody eats sheep or cow - they eat mutton or steak.

It is a particularly pretentious claim to say that the one who eats no meat is somehow more moral than the person who does. Even the Dalai Lama who is impressed with ethical vegetarianism is not a full vegetarian, he practiced it for a year and a half but due to illness he still eats meat every other day yet he is considered a man of compassion and a moral one at that.

I already admitted that there may be a valid exception in the case of necessity. For most westerners, the fact remains that there's no need to eat meat. At the very least, there's no need to eat it in the quantities that it is eaten.

But I guess you would go the course of Paul McCartney who took it upon himself to write the Dalai Lama criticizing him for eating meat.

No. If the Dalai Lama would die if he didn't eat meat, then I'd say he has a good reason to eat it. What's your excuse?

 

[James R]

Norsefire:

I'm not getting it. Please explain the best way to end factory farming for me.

Make laws against it.

There are some laws against it. They are currently nowhere near strict enough, because people like their meat cheap and don't think about animal suffering. Self-interest rears its ugly head again.

Why do we have to respect the supposed "person-hood" of chickens? I don't see chickens painting beautiful art, erecting statues, philosophizing, or building empires.

I don't see human babies doing that either, but you're not eating them.

Bears are obviously not giving equal consideration to those salmon; those egotistical, evil bears

So what you and Lucysnow are saying is that you will not be moral until bears are moral. Is that right?

So you do approve of cannibalism as a general thing, then?

It's not my job to judge what others do

So your answer is "yes", but only for the sake of this argument. You don't really believe it, because you don't have the guts to say "Yes, I think everybody ought to be a cannibal."

That's just a guess on your part. The point is, you'd have no moral problem with it - only potentially a problem with the taste. Right?

What is a person without a mind? Not a person at all; so it's just meat. So why would I have a moral problem with it?

You tell me. I was just asking to clarify your position. So, as I understand it, you're not against eating human beings in general. So, what stops you from killing and eating people? Just the fear of the law? Or what?

There are predators and there are prey; our species is the best adapted to survival, in general (in my opinion, due to our ability to think and use technology); therefore, we ought to make use of all that we can.

So raping the environment is generally a good thing, according to you?

Some animals can only eat greens; some can only eat meat; we can eat both. So let's eat both.

And we can kill each other and hate and steal, so let's do all those things too.

Killing happens all the time; "murder" assumes a lack of justification; at any rate, killing animals to eat them is entirely justified. We want to eat.

Why don't you eat human children? If you're hungry then that justifies it. Doesn't it?

I'm simply expanding on your argument; if killing unnecessarily is wrong, then:

1. All animal experimentation is wrong
2. Killing pests is wrong
3. Eating plants is wrong
4. Self defense is wrong
5. Capital punishment is wrong

I didn't say all killing is wrong. I was quite clear. Go back and read my previous posts, then get back to me.

Having said that, I agree that some animal experimentation is wrong, that killing "pests" can be unnecessary and in fact counterproductive, and that capital punishment is wrong. Self-defence is justifiable and you'll need to explain to me why eating plants might be wrong (for my response to that, you've read my article on plant rights under [enc]equal consideration[/enc], I'm sure, so let's hear your argument about how eating meat is ok but eating plants is wrong).

You see the absurdity of what you are saying? Killing happens.

Shit happens too, so we should all eat shit.

 

[scifes]

don't you say?