(July 7, 2011 at 1:35 pm)Aerzia Saerules Arktuos Wrote: And what is necessary? One cannot require a thing without first a goal.
What is necessary is what is vital to the goal, in this case the death of the animal. Death does not have to be painful and can be swift. Prolonging death causes more suffering which is unnecessary to the goal.
Aerzia Saerules Arktuos Wrote:Why should we lessen pain? I happen to greatly appreciate it.
Why do you want to lessen something that is not bad? Painlessness is horrible.
Okay, in that case I'll take a mental note to remember that if I ever see you on fire, to just let you burn because you're enjoying yourself.
Aerzia Saerules Arktuos Wrote:My own understanding of this is that none of the animals referenced here have any control over what is being done. The battling animals do so because it is what they do... they know not else. The butcher does so because it is what they do... they know not else. Regardless of the 'brutal depravity' of their actions (as if this was brutal... try a Mauler Device if you want brutality)... I am not blind to what causes their actions. And so I am unconcerned with the end result of what was done. It was done, it's in the past, it's no longer an issue. It is the reason(s) for doing a thing that interest me.
Not true. The fighters in UFC have complete control over whether or not they want to endure the violence. At any time beforehand they can withdraw from the match, or if the pain becomes too much during they can concede. They do it, not just because it is what they do, but it is what they want to do, which is why comparing sport fighting to halal fails.
If we cease to be concerned with acts simply because they are in the past, we are allowing them to happen in the future, which is the real issue.
Even if the open windows of science at first make us shiver after the cozy indoor warmth of traditional humanizing myths, in the end the fresh air brings vigor, and the great spaces have a splendor of their own - Bertrand Russell
