RE: Slavery and eating animals
February 7, 2015 at 11:47 am
(This post was last modified: February 7, 2015 at 11:56 am by The Grand Nudger.)
(February 5, 2015 at 9:24 pm)bennyboy Wrote: 1) I think the assumption that raising animals for slaughter, killing them, and eating them, reeks of Biblical logic. We are "special," and the needs or wants of other organism are therefore below ours. I don't see any non-arbitrary reason why why should undervalue the suffering or loss of life of animals, especially when it's not necessary in Western countries for a good diet.The needs and wants of livestock don't go unconsidered, though they are met at varying degrees depending on the production model and specific producer. Some livestock lead shitty, shitty lives, others lead better lives than many human beings. I agree with you, in that suffering and loss of life should not be undervalued just because it's the suffering and loss of life of some other animal - but that in and of itself probably doesn't lead us to the same place, in our conclusions.
Quote:2) The assumption that not eating meat will necessarily reduce suffering or loss of life may not hold true. Farming involves loss of habitat, clear-cutting involves direct deaths, and the eating of a cow which is grass fed may actually reduce the NUMBER of lives loss (gophers and birds getting mulched in large farm equipment, etc.)Will also decrease human suffering. More cow = less energy required from fossil fuels (from a variety of angles).
@Dys, letys not forget that when a dog causes damage to property no one expects the dog to satisfy the court order for payment to damages - the owner is expected to do so. Rights and liability go hand in hand. Animals have neither rights nor liability. A human being can be incarcerated, their rights can be diminished, for failure to satisfy liability. There just aren't that many animals on earth that can satisfy everything that goes into what we call "rights" - some human beings aren't fully competent...and we explicitly acknowledge that. As you've mentioned, they get protection. I think that any conversation that starts off with an animals "rights" is already DOA. It's a long road from livestock to legal personhood. That's the tough part, so maybe thats why it gets skipped and simply asserted, so often, in opening remarks?
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!
