Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
"Rupert" wrote in message
oups.com... 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. That's what I have been trying to do all along. I don't criticize people's diets and lifestyles here. Neither do I. Sure you do, you do it directly below. 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? Because you're not in any position to do so. People make choices based on their financial situation, as you do. Obtaining food is not comparable to raising fighting animals. You should be directly criticizing the forms of animal husbandry which you find abusive, not other people. That's what I do. 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. That's because you're not very articulate. Most of the time you simply assert that you disagree, and when you do attempt to clarify your position you end up just talking in circles, referring to "the literature", or criticizing us for not being educated enough to understand you. 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. Too bad, but it doesn't really bother me because I have already concluded that you don't have anything earth-shattering to contribute anyway, despite your belief to the contrary. 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? You just summarized the whole problem with your position in one sentence. You must define and quantify "significantly", "harm", "necessary", "compelling", "need" and "justified" before that question has any meaning. Growing rice causes more harm than growing potatoes, why is it justified to grow rice? bananas? |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|