Childhood indoctrination

[Something completely different]

True, but what does this say about our supposed right to kill and torture other species? Nothing as far as I can see.

The way I see it.
We have the right to kill those who threaten civilisation, which doesnt apply to animals since they do not threaten civilisation.

Other than that, the simple answere to why we have the right to eat animals is survival - we eat animals.
If one argues that we no longer need to eat animals to survive, then I can still say that I have the right to eat animals and that this right is given to me through the fact that I am part of a supirior species.

There are quantitative differences, of course, but no qualitative differences that would allow us to do whatever we please. And killing and torturing for our pleaseure really does require not only "less" moral responsibility toward the victim but absolutely none!

How ould that in any way allow us to behave as we please???????
Our civilisation is not based on the principle that we a re a species which is supirior to animals, it is based on principles of progress and debate.
Again you are arguing that we as a species are inflicting harm as if it were already established fact that animals are equals, when in fact this hasnt been established by neither one of you.

I'm glad to say that Forb is not my laptog but my brother in arms and I'm glad (s)he's here, it's often times a lonely position to argue for the victims.

Being on the same side of a debate doesnt justify dishonesty!

[littleendian]

Other than that, the simple answere to why we have the right to eat animals is survival - we eat animals.

There are millions of vegetarians and that proves this wrong at least in the general case, some individuals might need meat, I don't know, but I think we owe it to the animals to at least give it our best shot.

If one argues that we no longer need to eat animals to survive, then I can still say that I have the right to eat animals and that this right is given to me through the fact that I am part of a supirior species.

That's not an argument, that's just an assertion that you are part of a superior species. Quite dangerous territory.

How ould that in any way allow us to behave as we please???????
Again you are arguing that we as a species are inflicting harm as if it were already established fact that animals are equals, when in fact this hasnt been established by neither one of you.

I don't claim they're equal, I merely claim they have very similar interests to ourselfs, and evolution underpins that idea, we're very very similar to these creatures.

[Something completely different]

There are millions of vegetarians and that proves this wrong at least in the general case, some individuals might need meat, I don't know, but I think we owe it to the animals to at least give it our best shot.

I continued after this to come to that point.

That's not an argument, that's just an assertion that you are part of a superior species. Quite dangerous territory.

How is that not an argument? How is this dangerous?
I have provided you with examples of human achievements and you simply ignored them rather than to show how I was wrong.
You insist that we are not supirior to other species of animal but fail to produce evidence.

I find the opposite to be dangerous, for exmplae this here:



Is a gross and utterly disgusting relativisation of the holocaust!!

I don't claim they're equal, I merely claim they have very similar interests to ourselfs, and evolution underpins that idea, we're very very similar to these creatures.

We are merely relatives who splitt genes thousands if not millions of years ago, we only share the same interest in survival.
We have other interests which are the result of us leaving instinct based thinking behind.
The only responsibility we have is to assure that they dont become instinct.

[littleendian]

I have provided you with examples of human achievements and you simply ignored them rather than to show how I was wrong.

Because as I understand your argument is basically this:

We have built the pyramids and invented the computer and language and maths and what not and therefore we can kill and torture other species.

If that's what you're saying then I must simply reject it, the conclusion does not follow from the premises your honor!

edit: It was the great Jewish author Isaac Bashevis Singer who himself compared the holocaust with today's conditions for animals. I quote him:
Every day is Treblinka for the animals

If the victims of the holocaust see the link then I think it gives the comparison some credence.

[Something completely different]

Because as I understand your argument is basically this:

We have built the pyramids and invented the computer and language and maths and what not and therefore we can kill and torture other species.

If that's what you're saying then I must simply reject it, the conclusion does not follow from the premises your honor!

Nope it is: We are capable of doing mire than is required of us to survive.

And that our brainfunctions are greater and have expanded to giving us a concious mind.

[littleendian]

Nope it is: We are capable of doing mire than is required of us to survive.

And that our brainfunctions are greater and have expanded to giving us a concious mind.

That leaves me with either:

a) We are capable of doing more than is required of us to survive and therefore we can kill and torture other species.

b) And that our brainfunctions are greater and have expanded to giving us a concious mind and therefore we may torture and kill other species.

Doesn't work for me either, but your mileage may worry [sic]

[Something completely different]

That leaves me with either:

a) We are capable of doing more than is required of us to survive and therefore we can kill and torture other species.

why constantly bring the word torchure in? I dont see any comercial buisness which offers the torchure of animals as a product except for circuses, pet shops and zoos (which I oppose)

b) And that our brainfunctions are greater and have expanded to giving us a concious mind and therefore we may torture and kill other species.

again with the word torture.

Eighter way, in both cases you express yourself in a way which makes it seem as if the entire purpose we gave to our society was to kill animals.
Which it is not.

Doesn't work for me either, but your mileage may worry [sic]

What you do personaly is non of my buisness, nore is it my buisness to annoy you about it.
It only becomes my buisness when you inforce it on others.

[KichigaiNeko]

Emotive and Veal is my favourite...you point?

---

And yet you still happily delegate vegetables as low life and inferior and therefore fit for your consumption?

Again: Plants don't have a central nervous system with which to "feel" pain or even sense organs with which to register painful stimuli in the first place. It wouldn't make evolutionary sense either. Plus, eating an apple or a pear or any other seed might even give them joy (if they could feel it) because that's what these are for, reproduction by animal consumption.

So you are saying they are an inferior species and can be exploited as you see fit?

Fruit are the "babies" of the plant and this is ok by you?

Joy? Again you are anthropomorphising/ projecting YOUR feelings on to another species...and this is ok by you?

Bambi was not a documentary you know.

[Something completely different]

[littleendian]

So you are saying they are an inferior species and can be exploited as you see fit?

Fruit are the "babies" of the plant and this is ok by you?

Thanks for bringing a condescending tone into this.

No, they feel much less or no pain when I eat them, and many parts of plants are actually designed to be eaten. Fruits aren't babies, they're seeds, they are designed to be eaten so a plant can grow somewhere else. But that totally aside: If I want to survive, I need to at least eat plants, that's a requirement for my survival, therefore I don't have a choice except to die, and I think it is not immoral under these circumstances to eat plants just like a wolf is not immoral for eating a lamb.

---

why constantly bring the word torchure in? I dont see any comercial buisness which offers the torchure of animals as a product except for circuses, pet shops and zoos (which I oppose)

With seven billion people (and counting) on the planet and everyone wanting to eat meat on a regular basis, and considering the stress this puts on the system, I think it is unrealistic to assume industry is going to pay much attention to the pain and suffering it might produce as a side product. They sure as hell don't care today.

What you do personaly is non of my buisness, nore is it my buisness to annoy you about it.
It only becomes my buisness when you inforce it on others.

I'm not inforcing it on others, we're having a discussion, there is a difference.

I couldn't care less about what you personally do, I don't think you can be convinced, but there might be other people here who are less hardcore speciesists who can be convinced one way or the other by this discussion, it's for them that I won't let your speciesist claims stand.