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.
Can't see it because you don't want to. I gave you the justification by pointing to his argument. It's in his argument. I don't need to restate it. That's why I said "this says everything I have to say on the subject". So I don't have to say it.
I've gone to great length to explain to you my position. Why are you not doing the same? I have even posted the relevant section of the article above and given my analysis. Why won't you take one minute to point out where the justification is?
I've gone to great length to explain to you my position. Why are you not doing the same? I have even posted the relevant section of the article above and given my analysis. Why won't you take one minute to point out where the justification is?
Some people like DetailSymbolizes chose to remain willfully ignorant, it is easier for them to close their ears than to admit they are wrong and change their behavior.
Some people like DetailSymbolizes chose to remain willfully ignorant, it is easier for them to close their ears than to admit they are wrong and change their behavior.
Just doing what nature programmed me to do; which speaking of I'm going to go munch on the corpse of a dead chicken and go to bed....
You're confusing the concept of rights with rights themselves! Sure, we were the first species to think of the concept of rights. That doesn't mean that rights sprung into existence when we thought of them. We discovered rights, we didn't create them.
That's what rights are. They exist whether they are recognized or not.
By this reasoning, biological concepts didn't exist until we "invented" them. Come on!
Now we're getting somewhere. Yes, rights sprung into existence WHEN WE THOUGHT OF THEM. They are a product of thought. Of design. They come from Man and ONLY Man. They are invented, designed, and perfected by Man, to allow coexistence with other men.
You know, this actually reminds me. If animals have rights. Why do those rights only need to be protected from the actions of humans? If a gazelle has rights, why is it that those rights are not being violated by the lion that kills it?
Shouldn't we arrest the lion? Shouldn't the police stop lions from murdering gazelles? And if we do arrest the lion will it be appointed an attorney? What if the lion doesn't want his court appointed attorney? How will we know? Do we put the lion in prison? Grant it bail? Do the cops read it its rights when they arrest it?
Good point. And a possible source for all manner of new forms of Statism!
What's irrational and borderline insane is me arguing with Kantian mystics, but for some reason it is fun. Nonetheless, I have been overtaken with an attack of Reason, and in view of the fact that I have much work to do tomorrow, I will rest now. But not before anticipating breakfast where I will be consuming a cemetery of dead plants pillaged in a savage display of wanton murder - strawberries, blackberries, blueberries, and raspberries sprinkled over murdered oats, and drizzled with illegitimately seized milk obtained from organized acts of speciescide inflicted upon the hapless teats of desperate cows soon to be assassinated in the daily Holocaust of slaughter so that I may sup in sublime enjoyment.
Now we're getting somewhere. Yes, rights sprung into existence WHEN WE THOUGHT OF THEM. They are a product of thought. Of design. They come from Man and ONLY Man. They are invented, designed, and perfected by Man, to allow coexistence with other men.
There are no rights without MEN.
Is the same true for scientific truth or mathematical truth? Was 2+2=4 true before man came along?
This is a silly little game. Man created the concept of rights, but rights have always been in existence. Let's imagine that the first two humans were sitting around, and neither of them had thought of the concept of rights yet. One of them, much bigger and stronger than the other, decided to beat the smaller guy up every day and keep him locked in a small, dark cave. Was there anything wrong with this? Rights hadn't been "invented" yet, so how could there be anything wrong with it (sarcasm)?
Btw, I'm not a Kantian. I'm a utilitarian.
Last edited by Wittgenstein's Ghost; 04-03-2015 at 01:30 AM..
Is the same true for scientific truth or mathematical truth? Was 2+2=4 before man came along?
This is a silly little game. Man created the concept of rights, but rights have always been in existence. Let's imagine that the first two humans were sitting around, and neither of them had thought of the concept of rights yet. One of them, much bigger and stronger than the other, decided to beat the smaller guy up every day and keep him locked in a small, dark cave. Was there anything wrong with this? Rights hadn't been "invented" yet, so how could there be anything wrong with it (sarcasm)?
Btw, I'm not a Kantian. I'm a utilitarian.
In a roundabout way he might be trying to say that rights are an aspect of human nature. As time is merely an aspect of motion; it doesn't exist in an and of itself apart from the bodies in motion that posses time as one of their aspects.
I don't know whether this adds anything to the OP, but I read a book a few years ago that completely changed how I view animals--particularly animals as food for humans. The title is "The Pig Who Sang to the Moon" by Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson. This book is a virtual treasure trove of ideas and ideals about the emotional lives of farm animals. The evidence that farm animals have intelligence, emotions, and consciousness is quite eye-opening.
Did you know that pigs are curious, self-reliant and highly intelligent? They also dream and know their names when called.
Did you know that mother cows mourn when their calves are taken from them?
Did you know that sheep actually pick & choose between foods depending on what nutrients they know to be lacking at that time?
Did you know that goats can be quite funny (sense of humor!) and display a strong sense of dignity? My sister and I had nanny goats growing up--all attributes we can attest to.
Last--the lowly chicken--they are naturally sociable and will hang out with human companions and preen themselves alongside them if trust has been established. We had pet chickens growing up, too---very sociable creatures. One of our hens loved to be carried around and petted just like the dogs and cats. (Does the chicken need a reason to cross the road? Nope! A chicken should be free to roam, IMO.)
Love, loyalty, friendship, dignity, sadness and grief---all emotions we humans can relate to, yes?
Why love one animal (e.g. our beloved dogs and cats) and eat the others?
This a a wonderful post! TotallyTam reminded me of a book that I read a few years ago. Anyone interested in finding out more about the inner life of animals that are used for food, could not do better than to read the book "The Pig Who Sang to the Moon".
Quote by Mahatma Gandhi: "The greatness of a nation and it's moral progress, can be judged by the way it's animals are treated."
A quote Mahatma Gandi.
FBI " Animal abuse is a crime against society".
Sheena, I am 100% against animal abuse. I don't believe in kicking, hitting, or being sadistic towards animals.
However, you have failed to support your idea that consuming animals for food is akin to abuse.
Animals are killed everyday to be consumed by food. Again, lions eat zebras. Is that not true? Are lions abusing zebras? Should we stop that?
If one species of animal (lions) can consume other animals for food with impunity, why can't other species of animals (humans)?
If you say that it is immoral or unethical, then explain who was appointed to decide the morals and ethics by which 100% of the human population should live? By the way, morals and ethics are social/cultural constructs that are not tangible and only exist by consent of the people to which they apply. Once anyone revokes that consent, the morals and ethics cease to exist.
Please provide a logical argument not rooted in emotionalism. That is the basis of this thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wittgenstein's Ghost
If there are populations of an animal that exist in the wild, then humans deciding not to farm them anymore would not cause them to go extinct. If humans deciding not to farm an animal cause it to go extinct, then it doesn't exist in the wild anyway.
Also, "heritage" and "wild" are not the same. Even heritage breeds are the product of intentional human breeding. They are nothing like wild chickens. Pigs are the closest, but as we all know, pigs are doing just fine in the wild and would not go extinct if we stopped eating them. There are no cattle in the wild -- at least not anything near to what we eat.
The extinction issue is not relevant to the original argument. Let's assume that the only animals that are in question are the ones that are presently alive regardless of the extinction imperative.
Let's start with wild breeds. There are still wild breeds of chickens. Are you admitting that it is okay to consume them for food because they exist outside of factory farming? If not, please provide further argument to support your assertions. There are also other types of wild animals that exist outside of factory farming: rabbits, deer, etc.
As to heritage breeds, I have a hard time believing you are against the most basic of farming techniques that have existed for thousands of years. What if the species mixed amongst themselves without any intervention from man. Would is be okay to eat those animals?
Let's not get muddled down in farming. We are talking about consuming animals for food. That was the original argument.
In a world where factory farming does not exist and every species of animal was wild and/or 100% pure from natural breeding and natural selection, would it be okay for these animals to be consumed for food?
I'm trying to get back to the original argument.
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.
Nope! A chicken should be free to roam, IMO.)