On Jul 3, 6:50 pm, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote

On Jul 3, 2:53 pm, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote in message

[..]





If the intended conclusion is "therefore, you have no valid
criticisms
of the status quo", then it certainly is a fallacy. You
apparently
acknowledge this below.

The intended conclusion is "those who live in glass houses should
not
throw
stones".

Get more specific.

Those whose comfortable lifestyles and diets depend upon the
systematic
harming of animals do not have moral standing to criticize others.

Right. So you don't have the moral standing to criticize anyone at
all. Is that the story?

No, stupid. I don't have the standing to criticize people for doing
essentially what I do myself. If I do so I become a hypocrite.

I don't agree with you that the people you're debating on this
newsgroup are doing that in any sense which you're not.

That was just another one of your argumentative statements.

Just a statement of my opinion. If you want to try to give me some
reason to change my opinion, go ahead.

I don't
criticize people's diets and lifestyles here.

Neither do I.

Yes, I criticize Harrison for
supporting cock-fighting, but I don't raise fighting animals or support any
similar form of animal brutality for entertainment so it's not hypocritical
for me to do that.


Fine, well, I don't support animal abuse comparable to that
perpetrated by most animal agriculture that exists today, so why can't
I criticize people for supporting such abuses?





Is the intended conclusion that people who ever at
any time in their lives financially support some processes that
cause
harm are not entitled to make any criticisms of the status quo?
That's
utterly absurd. If that's not the intended conclusion, then what is?

See above. Status quo is a strawman.

That's a bit oxymoronic. How can it be a strawman if it's the status
quo?

I am not defending the status quo, and your position is not a simple
attack
on the status quo, it is an attack on the fundamental way we view the
world,
and an irrational one at that.

You've yet to demonstrate its irrationality.

It's been argued, you do not appear to be in a receptive frame of mind.


You do not appear to be very receptive to my attempts to explain what
my position actually is.

I'm not even clear with
which aspects of it you disagree.

I realize that. It would help if you were more clear about your own beliefs,
they seem to be a cauldron of confused ideas and ideals.


Well, I'm always happy to talk about my beliefs to people who are
prepared to actually listen. I can't talk to you about any of these
issues for five seconds without you crying "rubbish" in a way which
indicates that you don't understand the idea being discussed. So I'm
not particularly inclined to make the effort anymore.





We may very well agree that the status

quo with respect to industrialized agriculture is unacceptable, but
that
does not mean we agree on the status of animals vs humans.

In what respects do we disagree?

I believe that the limited mental capacities of most animals makes it
morally permissible to use them, provided that we take care to ensure
their
lives are as stress-free as possible. Ignorance is bliss. I believe this
belief is reinforced by the reality that animals are ubiquitous and we
could
not stop harming them anyway in the production of food and other goods.

To whatever extent you don't believe as I do, we disagree.

I think we need to get clearer on the meaning of the constraint that
"their lives are as stress-free as possible". Which forms of use does
that rule out, exactly?

Fighting, but that's only partially because of the stress it places on the
animals. Otherwise I am not saying that specific uses should be prohibited,
I am saying the farming and husbandry practises ought to continue to be
reformed to the stage where the animals live their entire lives in relative
contentment. I think we owe it to them to reciprocate to that extent for any
service they give to us. Currently I do not believe that most animal
agriculture meets this challenge, but I also think there is a growing group
of consumers demanding it, and a counter-trend in that direction. If
vegetarians and pro-welfare advocates could get on the same page instead of
pointing fingers it might be beneficial.

If raising animals for food causes significantly more harm than is
necessary, and there is no compelling need to do it, why is it
justified?