Do you agree with Richard Dawkins?

[Scabby Joe]

Scabby Joe Wrote: As I've explained, if an animals has the capacity to feel pain and suffer then it has interests. Without that capacity, it has no interests. This seems an entirely sensible approach.

Absolutely, if one wanted to base their morality on these terms, and they were willing to accept that a great amount of life is left out along those terms, it's perfectly sensible.

The premise is an assumed moral principle: causing harm is prima facie morally wrong, not because it violates some right or because it fails to maximize utility, but simply because it is wrong. If you don’t agree then my argument does not apply to you.

What evidence? The evidence that tells us that crops require fertility? The evidence that lays out where we source this fertility? The evidence that provides a list of consequences for sourcing this fertility from either source? That evidence?

The evidence that not eating many tens of billions of animals each year, with all the pain and suffering that goes with it, would be more than offset by the pain, harm and suffering that would follow following an abstinence of the practice of eating meat. I have given you numbers. Give me some numbers and reputable sources to back them up. That’s not shifting the burden, that’s making a case and inviting a reply.

Or the evidence that you yourself have opinions? It is not up to me to make a compelling argument for anything, you started in on this, you have an argument to make. Attempting to shift the burden onto those who would criticize your arguments isn't exactly looked upon as intellectual honesty. I'm asking you to provide a little consistency here, I have been for some time. Is it so difficult to simply say "yes, the sentient creatures which would be completely and utterly annihilated by our reliance on petro-chem (and all that this entails) must die. It is necessary."?

If your argument is that not eating meat would lead to a greater reliance on the petro-chemical industry, and that would somehow lead to even greater pain, harm and suffering, spell it out and make your case. I want to hear the fertiliser retort. I have not come across this argument in any reputable publication. On the other hand, there are several UN reports that spell out the huge impact the livestock industry is having on the plant. Those reports do NOT suggest that meat eating is the lesser of two evils as you seem to suggest.

You know that fertilizers are used to grow feed crops for livestock. More than one third of the world’s grain harvest is used to feed livestock. While corn is a staple food in many Latin American and Sub-Saharan countries, worldwide, it is used largely as feed. Some 70 to 80% of grain produced in the United States is fed to livestock. This all needs fertilizer! Half the water consumed in the U.S. is used to grow grain for cattle feed. A gallon of gasoline is required to produce a pound of grain-fed beef. With industrial agriculture, more petrochemicals are used. More energy is required to create fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides, etc, to grow the grain that is used to feed cattle.

Now I know that you do not agree with factory farming practices and would wish for better, more sustainable methods. If this feasible, that is a good thing for the planet but it still does not mean that it is morally right to eat meat as per the argument I have set out.

---

As far as the sexism aspect of it, that makes no sense to me because people eat both sexes of animals all the time.

Maybe the point wasn't clearly made. I know people don't eat just one sex of animal!

---

So the fact that a practice has the weight of tradition on its side and a prominent place in a given culture is morally irrelevant.

Morality is itself irrelevent when the main impact on people are those which the people involved accept. Chicken are not people. Humans are people.

However, human like animals such as Scrubby joe who seek to elevate chicken to the level of people can not be said to be either people or chicken. They can not think pragmatically like people, and they are useless for eating. So they are chickenshit.

Fine argument. Well done!

---

Wait, wait, animals are "people" now? Holy shit, the mire gets deeper. You're entirely certain that "people" aren't routinely exploited to put that soy-burger on your table? Be less naive.

You haven't thought it through. I guess people are exploited in the production of soy beans. But, as you know, most soy bean production is for animal feed. If I had chicken to go with that soy burger, the harm would be worse.

If I don't own a slave, I'll survive. If I fail to adequetely oppress a female, I'll survive. If I do not eat...well....the clock is ticking, isn't it.

If you don't eat meat you will probably be more healthy and perhaps live a little longer. You want sources?