Vegetarianism Based On Animal Rights

James R said:
Norsefire:

Nonsense. Do you think cows didn't exist before humans domesticated them?
Click to expand...
Obviously they existed, but now they're dependent on humans; they won't survive in the wild. And if they do, they'll still be eaten by all the hungry predators.

That's a straw man claim that I have never made.
Click to expand...
You're arguing that it's wrong to eat meat because we're infringing on, erm, the "personhood" of chickens and cows.



I know they don't matter to you, but that totally does not affect the moral argument. The fact that you're immoral doesn't change any relevant fact.
Click to expand...
I'm not immoral. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge the fact that people disagree on morality doesn't change this.

Please explain to me how you think my argument applies in those cases.
Click to expand...

By engaging in those activities, we're harming animals by destroying their habitats, etc

And, it's unnecessary...

...so, it's immoral.
James R said:
[enc]intrinsic value[/enc]
Click to expand...
How do you measure "value"? They don't have "instrinsic value", then.
 
Norsefire:

Obviously they existed, but now they're dependent on humans; they won't survive in the wild.
Click to expand...

There still are wild cattle. Do a little research.

You're arguing that it's wrong to eat meat because we're infringing on, erm, the "personhood" of chickens and cows.
Click to expand...

Yes. That does not mean I think chickens and cows are the same as humans. It means I think they may qualify as [enc]person[/enc]s.

The fact that you refuse to acknowledge the fact that people disagree on morality doesn't change this.
Click to expand...

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.

By engaging in those activities, we're harming animals by destroying their habitats, etc

And, it's unnecessary...

...so, it's immoral.
Click to expand...

So why is eating meat moral?

How do you measure "value"? They don't have "instrinsic value", then.
Click to expand...

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

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?
 
James R said:
Norsefire:

There still are wild cattle. Do a little research.
Click to expand...
I'm sure they have predators, too.



Yes. That does not mean I think chickens and cows are the same as humans. It means I think they may qualify as [enc]person[/enc]s.
Click to expand...
And they don't qualify as humans which is the relevant matter. Just like a bear won't eat her cubs, but she'll care to protect them and feed them, because they're bears.

We need to worry about our own species first.


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.
Click to expand...
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.

So why is eating meat moral?
Click to expand...
I'm arguing from your position, not from mine. I don't think eating meat is immoral, nor using nature's resources for our own growth and success.


Having intrinsic value means that you have value beyond your use as a resource for others to exploit.
Click to expand...
In which case chickens do not qualify; how do we measure their value? Who says they have value?

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?
Click to expand...
Why would they have intrinsic value?
 
Absence Of Equality:

Around fifty billion animals are murdered for food every year.
This does not include the animals used for fur, research, entertainment, and sporting, and over-production...

Only sixteen thousand, five hundred humans are murdered by other humans.

This is a travesty.

People do not value life at all.
These earthlings are taken by these disgusting humans and murdered.
Everyone pretends it's okay. Everyone keeps reminding themselves of these stupid excuses, to believe that this is how it's meant to be.

You take advantage of these animals because they aren't as smart, or as strong, or as whatever the hell to you.


They all have feelings, they all know the difference, they all know where they stand, and still... and still.
 
No they don't have feelings [in the sense that you and I have] and they are not sapient. Utter nonsense.
 
Norsefire said:
No they don't have feelings [in the sense that you and I have] and they are not sapient. Utter nonsense.
Click to expand...


Whose to say that you and I have feelings at all?
How would you know if they have feelings like us or not?
Don't animals feel sadness, and pain? Don't they love and care?
I believe so.

It must not matter if they can not show it like we can. Does it?


Animals are much more purer than we.
They live along with nature, we fight against it...
 
We humans do not fight nature, we utilize it; we put the natural forces at work to our advantage. Including these mindless animals.

Humanity, through sheer genius, strengthens itself.
 
Actually that isn't the definition of murder, and that applies exclusively to human beings.

The definition of murder has strictly to do with a)legalities or b)morality

Murder is either killing that is against the law, or the "wrongful" taking of a [human] life

Killing is killing.
 
Norsefire said:
Actually that isn't the definition of murder, and that applies exclusively to human beings.

The definition of murder has strictly to do with a)legalities or b)morality

Murder is either killing that is against the law, or the "wrongful" taking of a [human] life

Killing is killing.
Click to expand...

Well said.

I suppose black' would also suggest that our act of breathing is responsible for the murder of millions of airborne organisms as well.

I would in turn suggest that there is no problem with any of this 'murdering'.
 
People who think that animals don't have feelings are seriously out of touch with nature and probably haven't ever owned a pet.

I've owned dogs all my life. I think it truly insane when I hear people say that these animals don't feel pain or sadness. They cry, they suffer, and they even get jealous of each other for affection. They feel joy, excitement, loyalty, and love too. They have their own individual personalities and anyone who has cared for these animals will vouch for that. The ones who think that animals are just mechanical beings that are to be used for tortures usually come from a brutal background that has desensitized the last vestiges of their humanity. When I hear about the abuses toward animals in China, I feel like ripping those greasy little fucks' undersized penises right off their bodies.

NOTE: I am not talking about food killings. I am talking about purposeful torture for the primary purpose of inflicting pain. In China, they apparently believe that torturing an animal causes its brain to secret chemicals that make the meat taste better. Not a joke. They actually believe that that bullshit.
 
I never said they didn't feel emotion, I just doubt they feel the same range and intensity and sapience as human beings; furthermore just because they feel emotions, so what? They're not human, we owe nothing to them.
 
Norsefire said:
I never said they didn't feel emotion, I just doubt they feel the same range and intensity and sapience as human beings; furthermore just because they feel emotions, so what? They're not human, we owe nothing to them.
Click to expand...

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 I am expressing here. You are depriving yourself of something very valuable in life.

Anyone who knowingly tortures an animals for the primary purpose of inflicting pain needs to get help, soon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top