| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
25-06-2007, 09:39 PM
posted to talk.politics.animals,uk.environment.conservation,misc.rural,uk.rec.gardening,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
On Jun 25, 1:05 pm, "Dutch" wrote:
wrote in message ... On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 22:43:31 GMT, "Dutch" wrote: wrote On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 20:10:03 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote: [..] You claim to support animal "rights", but your daily behavior proves you do not. Not at all. For the reasons I have already given. What are those reasons? Read my previous posts. They provide nothing material. But humans have rights and we the UK have killed tens of thousands of them in the past few years in Iraq. Not comparable to the way you participate in the killing of animals. So do you think the humans in Iraq have no rights? That figures. You can't escape your willing complicity in the systematic killing of animals by farmers by pointing out that wars kill people. [..] Not only wars kill people. Traffic kills people but not intentionally. That doesn't excuse your complicity in the systematic killing of animals in agriculture. There are choices, albeit hard ones, that you COULD make which would all but eliminate that complicity. The same cannot be said for traffic deaths or casualties of war. That's why that argument is not genuine. It's a diversion. It isn't a real argument at all; it's a _tu quoque_, a fallacy. So there is a difference between being in a position where animals including people, are killed deliberately or part of a killing which is unavoidable in the daily lives of the population. That is another form of the same invalid argument. Clearly, animals are killed in all forms of agriculture, systematically, accidentally, directly, indirectly, and collaterally. Those animal deaths are linked to our desire for convenient consumer products which suit our lifestyle choices. There is no meaningful difference between the animals killed in the rice field, apple orchard or the carrot patch and those killed in the production of chicken. I understand the distinction you are making, but it is not a morally significant one. It is invalid to attempt to introduce the concept of "necessity" into the argument, that fails to distinguish what you consume from what I consume. I'm talking about wildlife being granted similar rights to humans. If you advocate that you are more deluded than I first thought. [..] Wildlife should be protected from deliberate killing such as squashing an insect for no reason, shooting deer for fun and recreation etc. Do you derive any pleasure out of eating or your other consumption habits? Is everything you consume absolutely necessary for your survival? Why is the impact of your comfortable lifestyle immune from these strict judgments? He's "proved" nothing. My position has been clear for years. Which is what? See above. You provided nothing above apart from a bit of the same feeble hand-wringing we see constantly from self-appointed moral paragons.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
![Rudy Canoza[_2_] is offline](https://www.gardenbanter.co.uk/images/SultanThemeVB3R/statusicon/user_offline.gif)
Threaded Mode
