Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
wrote in message
... On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 22:17:29 GMT, "Dutch" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 08:24:56 GMT, "Dutch" wrote: wrote in message m... On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 02:29:46 GMT, "Dutch" wrote: wrote in message news:9gk5831v0ih7ti2h5lnk71skcmhd722k7m@4ax. com... On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 18:43:22 GMT, "Dutch" wrote: wrote On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 10:01:27 GMT, "Dutch" wrote: wrote On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 09:27:06 GMT, "Dutch" wrote: wrote On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:08:10 GMT, Rudy Canoza If animals had the same rights as humans it wouldn't prevent them being killed by our lifestyles - just as humans are - but some could be saved. Animals are not killed "just as humans are", not even remotely. They are for oil as in Iraq. And what in your room or office does not depend on oil? War is not the archetype for human moral behaviour, in fact human morals are essentially set aside when we wage war. That is why this is a false analogy, we are not at war with animals. Nonsense. War is as much human behaviour as peace So you essentially have declared war on animals? That's what you are implying. Not at all. I'm merely saying that war is human behaviour. Well that is true, but it hardly needs saying. Your statements are not hanging together. Of course they are. It involves "rights". What does? What the hell are you talking about? I've already covered that. Look back. I've been following along, you haven't covered anything. You haven't followed closely enough. You haven't said anything worth following. You're making snap responses with no thought. The valid analogy in this case is human labour laws and the endangerment of the public, especially workers. This is strongly mitigated against in the case of humans, no such mitigation is contemplated nor even plausible in the case of animals. All part of human behaviour. So is murder and rape, neither presents an analogy for normal, moral human behaviour. It's all human behaviour. So what? You seem to have abandoned any attempt to argue the logic of your position. I have already defended it. Defended what? The logic of my position. No, you haven't. You haven't even attempted it. Of course I have. See my previous posts. There's nothing worth looking at. Animals are killed systematically, deliberately and in great numbers with very little effort to mitigate their suffering, except in the case of livestock. Human deaths are rare by comparison, and great efforts are taken to avoid them. Yes, we could save some animals from being killed, but there's no particular reason why we should choose to save the ones we use for food and other useful products. Lets have some specifics in detail. A single pass of farm machinery through a field decimates the population of field mice, toads, lizards, or whatever has taken up residence there. Then there are pesticides, herbicides, and chemical fertilizers to finish the job. Absolutely. But if we didn't eat produce from the land we'd not survive. Indeed, there's another way the analogy with war fails. We could survive quite well without ever waging war on one another, in fact much better. War is an aberration in human behaviour, more like murder and rape, and not like food production at all. Nonsense. Many territorial wars have been fought for fertile land to grow crops; and will be in the future; probably sooner than later. So in your world war is moral and eating meat is wrong.. hmmm War is not moral but it is part of human behaviour and I don't oppose farming. Then why are you using war as analagous to farming? The only thing they have in common is that they both involve killing by humans. They are not morally equivalent. I'm not. Yes you did. When I noted that you subsidize the systematic destruction of animals in farming you replied that humans are systematically killed in war, as if that were a valid analogy. The context of that was that if humans have rights and are slaughtered - not only in war - then animals should have rights as well because it would save some in certain circumstances just like humans. That does not follow, it's a fallacy of the form... Humans have rights, and humans are slaughtered. Animals are slaughtered, therefore animals have rights. I think that is "affirmation of the consequent" I'm against war but not against farming. Yet you call war "normal" and used war as a vehicle to deflect criticism of the way you sponsor the killing of animals in farming. You are not making sense. Where did I say it was "normal"? It's human behaviour. There's no escaping that! You implied war was normal several times, you raise it as an argument in a discussion about farming. War may be common, but the acts of war are not valid indicators of moral behaviour outside war. So, as I have said, we all kill wildlife in our daily lives. Right, so why are you and other vegan-types so accepting of the deliberate, systematic and widespread destruction of wildlife yet you see the killing of livestock as brutal and immoral? Who said I was a vegan? I don't know, it wasn't me. I said you "and other *vegan-types*". Same thing . So what's the problem? I don't have a problem. You're just hanging by a thread aren't you? Yours has snapped. My patience with your dogged stupidity is close to snapping. It's a shrill, hysterical, antisocial and illogical way to think. Both are simply part of daily life, the production and gathering of food. Just like war in and around the world. No, gathering food is not like war, not in the least. It's still human behaviour. So what? It's human behaviour. And you support one and oppose the other, so why are you using war in an analogy with farming? I'm not. See above. Above I see your confusion and backpedaling You're contradicting yourself above. In what way? Read what you wrote. Be more specific. I can't see where I contradicted myself. You say, "Animals are killed systematically, deliberately and in great numbers with very little effort to mitigate their suffering, except in the case of livestock" Which I agree with. You then say, "Human deaths are rare by comparison, and great efforts are taken to avoid them." Which I don't agree with. Labour laws, criminal laws, traffic laws, religious teachings, safety measures, all aimed at eliminating or minimizing human harm. It doesn't prevent killing. So what? Traffic laws don't prevent accidents either, the issue is that we take plausible steps to prevent them. We couldn't do that for animals, not and survive. That's why we ALL kill wildlife. But there is no excuse for indiscriminate killing of wildlife where our survival is not at stake. Nobody lives merely to survive, that just is another version of the failed "necessity" argument. If animals weren't killed we wouldn't survive. You're wasting my time. Where do we get animals systematically and deliberately blown to bits by their own species? Despite human animals having rights within their own so-called code it happens daily. Human life is cheap. Truth is that humans don't really care about other humans. Just look at parts of war torn Africa. War is not representative of moral human behaviour, it's organized brutal insanity. Which is part of human behaviour. But it's not a moral example, it's the opposite. It's like arguing that it's all right to commit murder because soldiers shoot one another. No it's not both are morally wrong. Yet war is sometimes a fight for survival. Farming, although it kills animals in great numbers, frequently is not. Isn't it funny how simplistic notions come back to bite you on the ass? Farming is sometimes a fight for survival. .Isn't it funny how simplistic notions come back to bite you on the ass? More time wasting. Nobody in their right mind rationalizes their moral outlook by comparing their behaviour with the combatants in a war. This argument is terrible, you obviously are incapable of seeing how you are undermining your own moral position. I haven't. Is that supposed to be a response? You're floundering. Not at all. Yes, badly. No. Oh yea. You stopped having the slightest idea what's going on about the second post. So we all kill animals and humans and that's why your argument is crap. That is a lame response. Not at all; it's fact. The argument has no merit at all. Animals being killed is part of everyday life, the process of feeding and clothing ourselves, it is not analagous to war which is the very antithesis of everyday life. Very much analogous. Wars are part of everyday life. It's inconsistent and frankly rather disturbing that you view war and the killing of wildlife both as part of everyday life, yet you see the killing of livestock, which are raised to be food, as brutal and immoral. You have everything upside down. It's you who has everything upside down. How so? I should see war as representative of human morality and farming animals as immoral? Both are human behaviour. War is immoral and I don't oppose farming. Sorry friend, but you have dug yourself a hole that you have not got the faintest hope of climbing out of. In what way? By making statements that you can't support. I've supported all my statements. None of them. Read what I have written and don't jump to conclusions. Everything you have said to me leads me to believe that you are hopelessly confused, and not worth engaging any further. Perhaps you can clarify your position, but at the moment it appears to be totally incoherent. Ditto. Who are you and what are doing here? Very easily sorting out trolls :-)) You may be wasting people's time, but making an ass of yourself is hardly sorting anyone out. So why do you do it? Are you playing with daddy's computer? Are you playing with mummy's I thought so. Thought is not one of your strong points. Incorrect, thought *is* my strong point. You are not thinking at ALL. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|