RE: Do you agree with Richard Dawkins?
April 18, 2012 at 12:28 pm
(This post was last modified: April 18, 2012 at 1:14 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
No I have a bias for asserting that laws should be applied equally in each and every case. Halal exemptions are contradictory to this principle of mine. Veal production, on the other hand, is not.
Now, on to your objections regarding veal. The process seems to be unsavory, doesn't it? Let's remove the "newborn calves" bit, because if it isn't ethical to treat an animal in this way it matters very little what stage of life they are in. That's an appeal to emotion (we have a soft spot for newborn anythings), and it makes for a poor argument if we're invoking some sort of logical process complete with moral and ethical absolutes.
"You would argue that", I don't give a shit, and neither do the people that write these laws. You "must demonstrate that". As it stands, we do not consider any livestock animal on par with ourselves in the areas of sentience, self-awareness, or suffering. If you could establish that they were, you'd still be left with the practical concern that we're going to have to off something, somehow, if we expect to continue living. Now, I'm not some vocal supporter of veal production, or battery farming, or grain fed cattle. These things to me seem to be a misuse of our resources. That doesn't mean that they are morally "wrong", it just means that I think we could better use our resources while achieving the same ends that the current system offers us. Pointing to veal makes livestock production as a whole unethical or immoral how? Veal itself is unethical or immoral how, because you say so, or would argue so?
You have again invoked "unnecessary" suffering and I have been begging for you (or anyone) to create even a short list of what lies on either side of this line. I cannot sign on with your argument as a moral or ethical absolute until someone can do this. I can't even sign on with it as morally or ethically pragmatic without such a definition of terms. There are things that vegetarians could do to make the world a better place as well, like avoiding organic foods (then we wouldn't need livestock), and not eating (then we wouldn't need to destroy environments to source, or leverage nutrients, or for ag in the first place). Do either of these solutions seem "ideal" to you? Would either of them achieve your stated goal of avoiding "unnecessary suffering"? Perhaps we should go hunter-gatherer sans hunter? Do you imagine that this would prevent or cause "unnecessary suffering"?
Now, on to your objections regarding veal. The process seems to be unsavory, doesn't it? Let's remove the "newborn calves" bit, because if it isn't ethical to treat an animal in this way it matters very little what stage of life they are in. That's an appeal to emotion (we have a soft spot for newborn anythings), and it makes for a poor argument if we're invoking some sort of logical process complete with moral and ethical absolutes.
"You would argue that", I don't give a shit, and neither do the people that write these laws. You "must demonstrate that". As it stands, we do not consider any livestock animal on par with ourselves in the areas of sentience, self-awareness, or suffering. If you could establish that they were, you'd still be left with the practical concern that we're going to have to off something, somehow, if we expect to continue living. Now, I'm not some vocal supporter of veal production, or battery farming, or grain fed cattle. These things to me seem to be a misuse of our resources. That doesn't mean that they are morally "wrong", it just means that I think we could better use our resources while achieving the same ends that the current system offers us. Pointing to veal makes livestock production as a whole unethical or immoral how? Veal itself is unethical or immoral how, because you say so, or would argue so?
You have again invoked "unnecessary" suffering and I have been begging for you (or anyone) to create even a short list of what lies on either side of this line. I cannot sign on with your argument as a moral or ethical absolute until someone can do this. I can't even sign on with it as morally or ethically pragmatic without such a definition of terms. There are things that vegetarians could do to make the world a better place as well, like avoiding organic foods (then we wouldn't need livestock), and not eating (then we wouldn't need to destroy environments to source, or leverage nutrients, or for ag in the first place). Do either of these solutions seem "ideal" to you? Would either of them achieve your stated goal of avoiding "unnecessary suffering"? Perhaps we should go hunter-gatherer sans hunter? Do you imagine that this would prevent or cause "unnecessary suffering"?
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
