Do you agree with Richard Dawkins?

[mediamogul]

All beings that have sentience are entitled to certain rights and ethical treatment.

No they are not.


There are no such things as innate rights. There are legal and customary rights,which can be (and are) taken away at the whim of the powerful. That makes them privileges.


You may well disagree. In that case please explain the origins of such rights and the universal, external moral authority which decides,imposes and enforces such rights..

---

Oh good. Finally an actual argument based on logic.

I agree that rights are not innate, in the sense that they exist in some absolute sense external to reason, society, and they beings for whom such rights are being considered. Rights are instead both Natural and Legal. Natural rights are derived from logic and human/animal nature (the founding fathers believed they were imbued by a Creator). Legal rights are the ones you are more speaking of which are imposed in accordance with societal values and laws. So the considerations are suffering, which is a self-defining undesirable state, and consciousness. The combination of these two things is termed "sentience". This is also coupled with a converse right that a being has, in so far as it is capable, of self-determination and the pursuit of it's own needs and happiness provided it does not impinge upon the rights of another sentient creature to be free from unnecessary suffering and to pursue its needs and happiness. The really sketchy part is when we begin to speak about a "nervous system that can support consciousness" and where that line is drawn. In order for us to have the expectation that another being to act ethically they too must possess rationality. Animals exist in a kind of amoral state due to their lack of rationality and language and thus we cannot place the reasonable expectation of moral behavior upon them. So that means the "animals kill each other for food and we are animals" is out. We are rational animals and capable of ethical consideration of other beings.

---

So the answer is that you know the argument is illogical but don't care and you are going to continue with the unfounded practices anyway?

Sounds like another system of thought I know.

*cough*Christianity*cough*

How is eating meat an unfounded practice?? The Irony of your statement here is precious to say the least... There was nothing illogical about the answer given. And as said before, you have to end a life to continue to have a life. Welcome to reality! You just feel better killing plants because they can't cry or scream when you kill them, and that is perfectly ok. However, to use it as an argument for the preaching of vegetarianism borders the line of religious radicalism since it often uses bullshit dogma about claiming people eating meat are some how unethical, or engaging in "unfounded practices"... Sorry, but the bullshit trains stops where you kill another living thing just so you can have another breath.

How is this not just a completely ad hominem argument?

Do you have issue with one of the ideas or did you just come by to accuse me of things you have no way of verifying as an attempt to dismiss my argument?

---

So the answer is that you know the argument is illogical but don't care and you are going to continue with the unfounded practices anyway?

Sounds like another system of thought I know.

*cough*Christianity*cough*

not saying eating meat is illogical and not referring to it as unfounded practice. i'm just laughing because in a mainly science forum, people's reasons for eating meat are "it's yummy". lmao.

however, you should get that "cough" checked out ... sounds bad.
[/quote]

Oh, my bad I thought that you were making the "it's yummy" argument and saying you didn't care that it was unscientific.

Comment redacted. I will get the cough checked out, it's been getting nastier and nastier.