(January 20, 2014 at 1:35 pm)Bad Wolf Wrote: Instincts talking. If we had a previous life to compare to, no one would want to suffer their body slowly falling apart just so they could live as long as they could.

How do you know this? And if so do, should you therefore not also support the enforced euthanasia of old people? The fact is many old people express this opinion that they enjoy life, evening being old. They express positive emotions and there is no reason to suggest old people are not happy.

(January 20, 2014 at 1:35 pm)Bad Wolf
No, you don't get to define harm or suffering.
[/quote' Wrote: If think most people would consider killing to be harmful, but whatever.

[quote='Bad Wolf' pid='587451' dateline='1390239358'
You know what anthropomophising means right? It means giving animals, humans attributes and characteristics, something I haven't done. I said animals would have a better life on a farm, I said nothing about them prefering it.

Firstly animals most certainly do have many human characteristics, do you deny this?

They also most certainly express prefernces

We were anthropomorphising to the extent that we were both conjecturing about what the specific experiences of animals would be on a farm compared to in the wild, limited as we are by our own conception of what an animal can experience. Surely it is the quality of these experiences to which you were referring when you said a farm was better. If not then better is meaningless.

Farms are monotonous because animals are in closed habitats designed by humans to fulfil our ends to make farming them easier.

Yep, I would say the most people either never think about the rights or wrongs of eating meat or they are so obsessed with it they deny the obvious cruelty it causes.

(January 20, 2014 at 1:35 pm)Bad Wolf Wrote: And what 'internal contradictions' are these?

To start with, most people would say that abusing for enjoyment an animal is wrong. They believe that animals such as dogs can suffer, and mistreating them is bad But when they consider meat eating, which objectively comprises of comparable cruelty, they contradict themselves and the say that killing animals for enjoyment (culinary) is permissible. Usually they will then appeal to nature, which further adds a number of contradictions, or devalue the suffering of animals, in contradiction to the original estimation of animal suffering made in reference to cruelty against dogs.

(January 20, 2014 at 1:54 pm)jg2014 Wrote: Firstly animals most certainly do have many human characteristics, do you deny this?

If they share those characteristics, then those characteristics could hardly to uniquely human, could they now. That you should cherry pick characteristics to suite what is essentially a fairytale view of humans and animals suggests like most people you began as an infantile dreamer, but unlike most people you never managed to adapt yourself to increased knowledge that come as part of growing up.

(January 19, 2014 at 5:36 pm)LastPoet Wrote: Meh, from time to time there is fundie vegan joining here trying to pontificate his superior morality for not eating meat.

Every single day you pontificate your superior morality of animals, subjecting them to horrible cruelty. You are surprised people get passionate about the injustices you perpetrate?

---

(January 20, 2014 at 1:09 pm)Bad Wolf Wrote: Killing another person for no other reason than eating them is illegal, for good reason. It is very likely that this person knew other people and the psychological damage caused by breaking those relationships is not justified, just so you can eat them. However, if this person was a murderer or a rapist or something that deserved the death penalty, then sure, go ahead. They would only be wasting tax in a life jail sentance.

Ok, so its an old person who didn't have any other family an no other personal relationships. Many old people do live isolated lives, so its entirely feasible. The method the murder uses to kill the person is indistinguishable from dying from natural causes, so no chance of getting caught. Your ethics would say murder is permissible in this circumstances.

---

(January 20, 2014 at 2:00 pm)Chuck Wrote: If they share those characteristics, then those characteristics could hardly to uniquely human, could they now. That you should cherry pick characteristics to suite what is essentially a fairytale view of humans and animals suggests like most people you began as an infantile dreamer, but unlike most people you never managed to adapt yourself to increased knowledge that come as part of growing up.

A whole section of my argument is based on the fact that animals cannot hold values, so your argument is nonsense. What animals share with us, (episodic memory, consciousness, the ability to suffer) means that we have a duty not to subject them to cruelty.

(January 20, 2014 at 2:05 pm)jg2014 Wrote:

(January 19, 2014 at 5:36 pm)LastPoet Wrote: Meh, from time to time there is fundie vegan joining here trying to pontificate his superior morality for not eating meat.

Every single day you pontificate your superior morality of animals, subjecting them to horrible cruelty. You are surprised people get passionate about the injustices you perpetrate?

---

(January 20, 2014 at 1:09 pm)Bad Wolf Wrote: Killing another person for no other reason than eating them is illegal, for good reason. It is very likely that this person knew other people and the psychological damage caused by breaking those relationships is not justified, just so you can eat them. However, if this person was a murderer or a rapist or something that deserved the death penalty, then sure, go ahead. They would only be wasting tax in a life jail sentance.

Ok, so its an old person who didn't have any other family an no other personal relationships. Many old people do live isolated lives, so its entirely feasible. The method the murder uses to kill the person is indistinguishable from dying from natural causes, so no chance of getting caught. Your ethics would say murder is permissible in this circumstances.

Are you arguing against the mistreatment of animals on factory farms or against killing animals at all?

They are not the same thing.

And your vision of happy animals in the wild is not accurate.
Their lives can be nasty, brutish, and short; their deaths are usually violent.

(January 20, 2014 at 2:18 pm)Chas Wrote: Are you arguing against the mistreatment of animals on factory farms or against killing animals at all?

They are not the same thing.

And your vision of happy animals in the wild is not accurate.
Their lives can be nasty, brutish, and short; their deaths are usually violent.

I am arguing that mistreatment of animals while alive , and the killing of animals for food is wrong. Both are examples of mistreatment more broadly.

Yep, living in the wild means being subject to cruelty. Living in a farm means being subject to cruelty. However, the suffering caused by one animal on another is not of ethical concern as both animals are amoral, they cannot value and change their behaviour. People on the other hand have a duty not to cause suffering, and while they are responsible for the suffering on farms, they are not responsible for the suffering in the wild.

And even if they were, it would still not justify farming animals, as we could just breed animals in animal sanctuaries, where they would live lives free from the horrors of both the farm and the wild.

We should also question if the experiences while alive in the wild or on a farm is more worthwhile. A wild environment not only allows the animal to live in a rich complex environment, but supports biodiversity more broadly which has positive repercussions beyond just that animal but supports the environment and allows many more animals to be able to live their lives.

You fail at Biology forever.

(January 20, 2014 at 2:48 pm)LastPoet Wrote: You fail at Biology forever.

I think I can now see why La Ban got so frustrated at you all that he resorted to insults, its just the banality of evil, its infuriating. You can do better than this.

(January 20, 2014 at 2:55 pm)jg2014 Wrote: I think I can now see why La Ban got so frustrated at you all that he resorted to insults, its just the banality of evil, its infuriating. You can do better than this.

What you call evil, I call preparing lunch. I said it before, neither me nor reality care about your pussy sensibilities. Eat all the veggies you want, I will too with some meat on the side

(January 20, 2014 at 2:57 pm)LastPoet Wrote: What you call evil, I call preparing lunch. I said it before, neither me nor reality care about your pussy sensibilities. Eat all the veggies you want, I will too with some meat on the side

"Pussy sensibilities"? So now you are using parts of the female anatomy as an insult? great. well done.

(January 20, 2014 at 3:06 pm)jg2014 Wrote: "Pussy sensibilities"? So now you are using parts of the female anatomy as an insult? great. well done.

Are you being intentionally dumb?