Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The simple fact is those who are arguing that meat is ethically justifiable come up with their arguments with a specific conclusion in mind, this is why their arguments are full of fallacies and illogic. Those who are arguing that meat isn't ethical arrive at their conclusion from their premises. I would love for meat to be ethically justifiable, it would make my life so much easier and I would have so many more options of what I could eat, but it isn't so I never eat it.
Wrong. It's not the only difference. Language is just the end result of conceptualizing. The set of concrete symbols we give our concepts. But it comes after, at least until we start making abstractions from abstractions. And both language and conceptualizing on any level is impossible to animals.
Are you going to actually give a defense of why reasoning is a necessary trait in order for a being to have rights?
And how do you know that animals cannot conceptualize? Koko the gorilla learned 1200 signs, and various gorillas have been videotaped teaching sign language to their own children -- when no humans were present. Yes, gorillas in captivity have communicated with other gorillas using sign language. What is your evidence that they can't conceptualize?
Only men have rights. Plants do not have rights. Animals do not have rights. Rights are a function of being human and intelligent and are designed to accommodate our social nature and our need to cooperate, since our physical skills are insufficient to guarantee our survival.
Animals are savage beasts that exist by tearing each other apart in a violent and primitive struggle to stay in existence. They don't use rights because they are not rational and cannot conceptualize. They simply eat whatever living thing is nearby, convenient, and will provide sufficient nutrients.
Man is able to use Reason to dominate animals and make them useful to our well-being. And that is a good thing and a behavior that needs to be expanded, cultivated, and improved.
Which is of course what has happened and will happen, regardless of irrational people who, because they hate other people for one reason or another, try to inflict their irrational over-identification with lower animals on others.
I think you're trolling us. Either way, you've expressed your position, and you are unwilling to actually engage in any real debate about it. Pointing to an article is not sufficient to keep taking up space in the thread. If you wish to discuss the justification for the view that reasoning is part and parcel to rights, then I'd welcome it. Just pointing to an article and saying "He explained it" doesn't work, though.
As if you were the arbiter of what qualifies to "take up space" on a thread. LOL Jesus the insufferable arrogance of you animal rights people, you never fail at that.
It does work. It doesn't matter if I say it or he says it to make something true. Who originates the argument doesn't determine whether it's true or not. Irrelevant.
I think DetailSymbolizes might be into Ayn Rand philosophy. Any Rand -- who wasn't really a real philosopher -- is known for objectivism, and I've seen the author of that article associated with objectivism in multiple places. If true, that would explain the very loose commitment to reason on this topic.
You know that's an interesting point. Playing devil's advocate, if we're just another animal, no different from any other animal then we're obviously the top of the food chain. We can do anything we want with the other animals. Like a cat playing with a mouse before he kills it...
The simple fact is those who are arguing that meat is ethically justifiable come up with their arguments with a specific conclusion in mind, this is why their arguments are full of fallacies and illogic. Those who are arguing that meat isn't ethical arrive at their conclusion from their premises. I would love for meat to be ethically justifiable, it would make my life so much easier and I would have so many more options of what I could eat, but it isn't so I never eat it.
You are free to be irrational and exercise your religion. Just keep it to yourself and keep it at home. You have no right to inflict this on others. You can design and obey your own Sharia Law, however we live in a free society. So leave others to live rationally and eat whatever meat they want to hunt for, purchase, or consume.
As if you were the arbiter of what qualifies to "take up space" on a thread. LOL Jesus the insufferable arrogance of you animal rights people, you never fail at that.
It does work. It doesn't matter if I say it or he says it to make something true. Who originates the argument doesn't determine whether it's true or not. Irrelevant.
I didn't say the messenger mattered. I said you should actually post the explanation here rather than making us look through the article. I've read the article twice now, and I can't find any justification for why it is that reasoning is necessary for rights. Since that is the claim you are making, and I'm not able to find the justification, how about you help me out and post it here?
Your entire argument hinges on this. Why are you so reluctant to actually give this justification?
As if you were the arbiter of what qualifies to "take up space" on a thread. LOL Jesus the insufferable arrogance of you animal rights people, you never fail at that.
It does work. It doesn't matter if I say it or he says it to make something true. Who originates the argument doesn't determine whether it's true or not. Irrelevant.
Even if his arguments were valid, which they aren't, he is still using speciesist arguments. There isn't an argument to justify killing a pig but not a toddler or mentally handicapped person that doesn't involve speciesism.
I think DetailSymbolizes might be into Ayn Rand philosophy. Any Rand -- who wasn't really a real philosopher -- is known for objectivism, and I've seen the author of that article associated with objectivism in multiple places. If true, that would explain the very loose commitment to reason on this topic.
And I assume you are going to entertain inflicting upon us the irrational musings of the debauched non-philosopher Wittgenstein. Which would explain much in your mystical and irrational views.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
