Total Posts:26|Showing Posts:1-26
Jump to topic:

Lol PETA!

Mr.Infidel
Posts: 300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2011 6:31:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
http://news.yahoo.com...
SAN DIEGO (AP) — A federal court is being asked to grant constitutional rights to five killer whales who perform at marine parks — an unprecedented and perhaps quixotic legal action that is nonetheless likely to stoke an ongoing, intense debate at America's law schools over expansion of animal rights.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals is accusing the SeaWorld parks of keeping five star-performer whales in conditions that violate the 13th Amendment ban on slavery. SeaWorld depicted the suit as baseless.
--------------

And people wonder why I'm against PETA!
Please donate to the following ENDANGERED SPECIES!
Preciousness of life.
Family structure.
Family values. 

Disarm a liberal. Vote for values.

Opinions of this signature are those of G-d's and any of His affiliates.
seraine
Posts: 734
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2011 7:25:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/27/2011 6:31:37 PM, Mr.Infidel wrote:
http://news.yahoo.com...
SAN DIEGO (AP) — A federal court is being asked to grant constitutional rights to five killer whales who perform at marine parks — an unprecedented and perhaps quixotic legal action that is nonetheless likely to stoke an ongoing, intense debate at America's law schools over expansion of animal rights.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals is accusing the SeaWorld parks of keeping five star-performer whales in conditions that violate the 13th Amendment ban on slavery. SeaWorld depicted the suit as baseless.
--------------

And people wonder why I'm against PETA!

Yeah, Juggle should really change it from PETA to Animal Rights.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2011 7:30:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Kohai, I can't take your posts seriously until you change your pic, I just remember Freeman having that pic for a while.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Mr.Infidel
Posts: 300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2011 8:11:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/27/2011 6:46:22 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
http://www.google.com...

Wow peta.

Indeed. A very appropriate pic as well!
Please donate to the following ENDANGERED SPECIES!
Preciousness of life.
Family structure.
Family values. 

Disarm a liberal. Vote for values.

Opinions of this signature are those of G-d's and any of His affiliates.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2011 8:23:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I don't know much about PETA but based on what I've heard(though admittedly from negatively biased sources) they don't seem like I'd support them. Though I'm moving towards supporting animal rights, or at least some rudimentary outlook, I don't have enough of an opinion yet.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Mr.Infidel
Posts: 300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2011 8:25:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/27/2011 8:23:02 PM, socialpinko wrote:
I don't know much about PETA but based on what I've heard(though admittedly from negatively biased sources) they don't seem like I'd support them. Though I'm moving towards supporting animal rights, or at least some rudimentary outlook, I don't have enough of an opinion yet.

I support animal rights, but not in the way they are doing it.
Please donate to the following ENDANGERED SPECIES!
Preciousness of life.
Family structure.
Family values. 

Disarm a liberal. Vote for values.

Opinions of this signature are those of G-d's and any of His affiliates.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2011 8:29:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/27/2011 8:25:39 PM, Mr.Infidel wrote:
At 10/27/2011 8:23:02 PM, socialpinko wrote:
I don't know much about PETA but based on what I've heard(though admittedly from negatively biased sources) they don't seem like I'd support them. Though I'm moving towards supporting animal rights, or at least some rudimentary outlook, I don't have enough of an opinion yet.

I support animal rights, but not in the way they are doing it.

Explain.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Mr.Infidel
Posts: 300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2011 8:30:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/27/2011 8:29:05 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 10/27/2011 8:25:39 PM, Mr.Infidel wrote:
At 10/27/2011 8:23:02 PM, socialpinko wrote:
I don't know much about PETA but based on what I've heard(though admittedly from negatively biased sources) they don't seem like I'd support them. Though I'm moving towards supporting animal rights, or at least some rudimentary outlook, I don't have enough of an opinion yet.

I support animal rights, but not in the way they are doing it.

Explain.

Just read the OP. Lol! They equate minor stuff to slavery and are an extremist group. Look at the history of PETA.
Please donate to the following ENDANGERED SPECIES!
Preciousness of life.
Family structure.
Family values. 

Disarm a liberal. Vote for values.

Opinions of this signature are those of G-d's and any of His affiliates.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2011 8:38:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/27/2011 8:30:08 PM, Mr.Infidel wrote:
At 10/27/2011 8:29:05 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 10/27/2011 8:25:39 PM, Mr.Infidel wrote:
At 10/27/2011 8:23:02 PM, socialpinko wrote:
I don't know much about PETA but based on what I've heard(though admittedly from negatively biased sources) they don't seem like I'd support them. Though I'm moving towards supporting animal rights, or at least some rudimentary outlook, I don't have enough of an opinion yet.

I support animal rights, but not in the way they are doing it.

Explain.

Just read the OP. Lol! They equate minor stuff to slavery and are an extremist group. Look at the history of PETA.

Well if one supports equal rights to animals, wouldn't our current treatment of them be rightly considered slavery?
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Mr.Infidel
Posts: 300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2011 8:40:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/27/2011 8:38:10 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 10/27/2011 8:30:08 PM, Mr.Infidel wrote:
At 10/27/2011 8:29:05 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 10/27/2011 8:25:39 PM, Mr.Infidel wrote:
At 10/27/2011 8:23:02 PM, socialpinko wrote:
I don't know much about PETA but based on what I've heard(though admittedly from negatively biased sources) they don't seem like I'd support them. Though I'm moving towards supporting animal rights, or at least some rudimentary outlook, I don't have enough of an opinion yet.

I support animal rights, but not in the way they are doing it.

Explain.

Just read the OP. Lol! They equate minor stuff to slavery and are an extremist group. Look at the history of PETA.

Well if one supports equal rights to animals, wouldn't our current treatment of them be rightly considered slavery?

Good point.

I don't support equal rights, I support animal rights (two different things)!

If that were the case then we should give them the right to vote, marry, drive etc.
Please donate to the following ENDANGERED SPECIES!
Preciousness of life.
Family structure.
Family values. 

Disarm a liberal. Vote for values.

Opinions of this signature are those of G-d's and any of His affiliates.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2011 9:20:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/27/2011 8:40:07 PM, Mr.Infidel wrote:
At 10/27/2011 8:38:10 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 10/27/2011 8:30:08 PM, Mr.Infidel wrote:
At 10/27/2011 8:29:05 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 10/27/2011 8:25:39 PM, Mr.Infidel wrote:
At 10/27/2011 8:23:02 PM, socialpinko wrote:
I don't know much about PETA but based on what I've heard(though admittedly from negatively biased sources) they don't seem like I'd support them. Though I'm moving towards supporting animal rights, or at least some rudimentary outlook, I don't have enough of an opinion yet.

I support animal rights, but not in the way they are doing it.

Explain.

Just read the OP. Lol! They equate minor stuff to slavery and are an extremist group. Look at the history of PETA.

Well if one supports equal rights to animals, wouldn't our current treatment of them be rightly considered slavery?

Good point.

I don't support equal rights, I support animal rights (two different things)!

If that were the case then we should give them the right to vote, marry, drive etc.

Singer responded to that argument very eloquently with the equal consideration of interests. Just like infants cannot do any of those things but are still protected by rights, so animals should be. No animal(that we know of) has an interest in voting or marrying(at least the way humans do it), though all sentient animals stil have an interest in avoiding pain. In a sense the rights are equal at the base, just not in every specific case.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
blackhawk1331
Posts: 4,932
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2011 10:47:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/27/2011 8:29:05 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 10/27/2011 8:25:39 PM, Mr.Infidel wrote:
At 10/27/2011 8:23:02 PM, socialpinko wrote:
I don't know much about PETA but based on what I've heard(though admittedly from negatively biased sources) they don't seem like I'd support them. Though I'm moving towards supporting animal rights, or at least some rudimentary outlook, I don't have enough of an opinion yet.

I support animal rights, but not in the way they are doing it.

Explain.

They're insane. They promote violence against humans in support of animals. While I agree that we can test things in a better way, I don't support blowing up a building. Plus, I see no problem with eating animals. Sure, we shouldn't beat them or make them fight each other, but that doesn't mean that we make them human.
Because you said it was a waste, numb nuts. - Drafter

So fvck you. :) - TV

Use prima facie correctly or not at all. - Noumena
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,333
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2011 11:05:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
If you are going to equate de-wilded, domesticated beasts to slaves, then every human being in any institution is a slave, including the insane people we lock up and put away. Also, prisoners are slaves. Homeless people bussed into care facilities are slaves as well.

If you let all these animals out of their cages, their fate is no different than letting a lunatic out of the asylum, so they are all 'slaves' according to PETA.

Never let a good crisis get in the way of semantics.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2011 11:16:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/27/2011 10:47:33 PM, blackhawk1331 wrote:
At 10/27/2011 8:29:05 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 10/27/2011 8:25:39 PM, Mr.Infidel wrote:
At 10/27/2011 8:23:02 PM, socialpinko wrote:
I don't know much about PETA but based on what I've heard(though admittedly from negatively biased sources) they don't seem like I'd support them. Though I'm moving towards supporting animal rights, or at least some rudimentary outlook, I don't have enough of an opinion yet.

I support animal rights, but not in the way they are doing it.

Explain.

They're insane. They promote violence against humans in support of animals. While I agree that we can test things in a better way, I don't support blowing up a building. Plus, I see no problem with eating animals. Sure, we shouldn't beat them or make them fight each other, but that doesn't mean that we make them human.

What is the reason you do not support beating animals or causing them suffering if you still support killing them for food. You claim that there are better ways of testing things(products and vaccines I assume), why not apply this to our diet? It is possible to have a healthy vegetarian diet. Where do you personally draw the line?
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2011 11:59:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/27/2011 11:16:54 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 10/27/2011 10:47:33 PM, blackhawk1331 wrote:
At 10/27/2011 8:29:05 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 10/27/2011 8:25:39 PM, Mr.Infidel wrote:
At 10/27/2011 8:23:02 PM, socialpinko wrote:
I don't know much about PETA but based on what I've heard(though admittedly from negatively biased sources) they don't seem like I'd support them. Though I'm moving towards supporting animal rights, or at least some rudimentary outlook, I don't have enough of an opinion yet.

I support animal rights, but not in the way they are doing it.

Explain.

They're insane. They promote violence against humans in support of animals. While I agree that we can test things in a better way, I don't support blowing up a building. Plus, I see no problem with eating animals. Sure, we shouldn't beat them or make them fight each other, but that doesn't mean that we make them human.

What is the reason you do not support beating animals or causing them suffering if you still support killing them for food. You claim that there are better ways of testing things(products and vaccines I assume), why not apply this to our diet? It is possible to have a healthy vegetarian diet. Where do you personally draw the line?

Abusing something and eating it are two different things.
quarterexchange
Posts: 1,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 12:12:29 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/27/2011 11:16:54 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 10/27/2011 10:47:33 PM, blackhawk1331 wrote:
At 10/27/2011 8:29:05 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 10/27/2011 8:25:39 PM, Mr.Infidel wrote:
At 10/27/2011 8:23:02 PM, socialpinko wrote:
I don't know much about PETA but based on what I've heard(though admittedly from negatively biased sources) they don't seem like I'd support them. Though I'm moving towards supporting animal rights, or at least some rudimentary outlook, I don't have enough of an opinion yet.

I support animal rights, but not in the way they are doing it.

Explain.

They're insane. They promote violence against humans in support of animals. While I agree that we can test things in a better way, I don't support blowing up a building. Plus, I see no problem with eating animals. Sure, we shouldn't beat them or make them fight each other, but that doesn't mean that we make them human.

What is the reason you do not support beating animals or causing them suffering if you still support killing them for food.

Because for many people it is necessary to live off of such a diet. Not everyone's body is hardwired to live off of a pure vegan diet and able to become very healthy. There is an amount of suffering that is intolerable and another amount that is simply necesssary. Keeping animals in coups to be slaughtered for meat to provide food is different than kicking an animal to simply cause it pain.

Recently they've even found that plants can feel pain and suffer as well. So if you're trying to make the case that beating and causing unnecessary abuse to animals = eating animals, then surely we can apply that to plants, and assuming animal abuse is wrong, then humanity should starve.

You claim that there are better ways of testing things(products and vaccines I assume), why not apply this to our diet? It is possible to have a healthy vegetarian diet.

Again, not for everyone, I'd find it very hard for you to find a doctor or pediatrician who recommends everybody, regardless of individual aspects of health and such, should live off of a vegan diet.
I don't discriminate....I hate everybody.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 12:17:45 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/27/2011 11:59:53 PM, Ren wrote:
Abusing something and eating it are two different things.

You'd be singing a different tune if you were tomorrow's dinner.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 12:19:05 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/28/2011 12:12:29 AM, quarterexchange wrote:
At 10/27/2011 11:16:54 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 10/27/2011 10:47:33 PM, blackhawk1331 wrote:
At 10/27/2011 8:29:05 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 10/27/2011 8:25:39 PM, Mr.Infidel wrote:
At 10/27/2011 8:23:02 PM, socialpinko wrote:
I don't know much about PETA but based on what I've heard(though admittedly from negatively biased sources) they don't seem like I'd support them. Though I'm moving towards supporting animal rights, or at least some rudimentary outlook, I don't have enough of an opinion yet.

I support animal rights, but not in the way they are doing it.

Explain.

They're insane. They promote violence against humans in support of animals. While I agree that we can test things in a better way, I don't support blowing up a building. Plus, I see no problem with eating animals. Sure, we shouldn't beat them or make them fight each other, but that doesn't mean that we make them human.

What is the reason you do not support beating animals or causing them suffering if you still support killing them for food.

Because for many people it is necessary to live off of such a diet. Not everyone's body is hardwired to live off of a pure vegan diet and able to become very healthy. There is an amount of suffering that is intolerable and another amount that is simply necesssary. Keeping animals in coups to be slaughtered for meat to provide food is different than kicking an animal to simply cause it pain.

Imagine it reversed where in order to maintain your current health or diet, you must kill and eat humans. Your argument is merely sidestepping the problem of rights and proper treatment.

Recently they've even found that plants can feel pain and suffer as well. So if you're trying to make the case that beating and causing unnecessary abuse to animals = eating animals, then surely we can apply that to plants, and assuming animal abuse is wrong, then humanity should starve.

I still have much reading to do on that subject, however I'm somewhat skeptical of the ability of plants to suffer. Do you have a link available? It would be much appreciated.

You claim that there are better ways of testing things(products and vaccines I assume), why not apply this to our diet? It is possible to have a healthy vegetarian diet.

Again, not for everyone, I'd find it very hard for you to find a doctor or pediatrician who recommends everybody, regardless of individual aspects of health and such, should live off of a vegan diet.

I'm not talking pragmatism though, I'm talking ethics. Whether vegetarianism is the optimal diet for a human or not moves around the argument, namely the question of the morality of eating animals if we start with the premise that we shouldn't inflict pain on them for the fun of it. What is the difference morally?
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
quarterexchange
Posts: 1,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 12:37:35 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/28/2011 12:19:05 AM, socialpinko wrote:
Imagine it reversed where in order to maintain your current health or diet, you must kill and eat humans. Your argument is merely sidestepping the problem of rights and proper treatment.

Then I would be willing to end my own life, but if you honestly equate whatever pet you may have with a family member, and would be willing to use a coin toss if you were theoretically forced to decide as to whether or not to sacrifice your pet dog or your own mother, then you have me in a bind.

Recently they've even found that plants can feel pain and suffer as well. So if you're trying to make the case that beating and causing unnecessary abuse to animals = eating animals, then surely we can apply that to plants, and assuming animal abuse is wrong, then humanity should starve.

I still have much reading to do on that subject, however I'm somewhat skeptical of the ability of plants to suffer. Do you have a link available? It would be much appreciated.

Sure

http://www.guardian.co.uk...

http://ds9.botanik.uni-bonn.de...

I'm not talking pragmatism though, I'm talking ethics. Whether vegetarianism is the optimal diet for a human or not moves around the argument, namely the question of the morality of eating animals if we start with the premise that we shouldn't inflict pain on them for the fun of it. What is the difference morally?

The difference between shooting someone someone who breaks into your house as oppose to shooting him in the legs, tying him up and begin torturing him to death.
I don't discriminate....I hate everybody.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 12:47:26 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/28/2011 12:37:35 AM, quarterexchange wrote:
At 10/28/2011 12:19:05 AM, socialpinko wrote:
Imagine it reversed where in order to maintain your current health or diet, you must kill and eat humans. Your argument is merely sidestepping the problem of rights and proper treatment.

Then I would be willing to end my own life, but if you honestly equate whatever pet you may have with a family member, and would be willing to use a coin toss if you were theoretically forced to decide as to whether or not to sacrifice your pet dog or your own mother, then you have me in a bind.

I don't support that. I'm still developing my own thoughts on the matter but the general refutation of that is point is the principle of equal consideration of interests. Obviously a full grown adults is capable of holding more preferences and experiencing more suffering than a household cat. From that the proponent would conclude that the human life is worth more in an unstoppable conflict of interests, but the want to maintain one's current diet is not an unstoppable conflict and thus eating meat would be unjustified.

Recently they've even found that plants can feel pain and suffer as well. So if you're trying to make the case that beating and causing unnecessary abuse to animals = eating animals, then surely we can apply that to plants, and assuming animal abuse is wrong, then humanity should starve.

I still have much reading to do on that subject, however I'm somewhat skeptical of the ability of plants to suffer. Do you have a link available? It would be much appreciated.

Sure

http://www.guardian.co.uk...

http://ds9.botanik.uni-bonn.de...

I'll read up.

I'm not talking pragmatism though, I'm talking ethics. Whether vegetarianism is the optimal diet for a human or not moves around the argument, namely the question of the morality of eating animals if we start with the premise that we shouldn't inflict pain on them for the fun of it. What is the difference morally?

The difference between shooting someone someone who breaks into your house as oppose to shooting him in the legs, tying him up and begin torturing him to death.

Except for the circumstances ascribed in your situation. In your situations, you are defending yourself and torturing someone. It's non-analogous as in the original situation you are killing for dietary preference versus torture. Preserving non-vital dietary preferences =/= self defense.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
quarterexchange
Posts: 1,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 1:03:36 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/28/2011 12:47:26 AM, socialpinko wrote:
I don't support that. I'm still developing my own thoughts on the matter but the general refutation of that is point is the principle of equal consideration of interests. Obviously a full grown adults is capable of holding more preferences and experiencing more suffering than a household cat. From that the proponent would conclude that the human life is worth more in an unstoppable conflict of interests, but the want to maintain one's current diet is not an unstoppable conflict and thus eating meat would be unjustified.

Tip the scale anyway you want. A pet dog that's always remained at your side for several years or some average Joe walking outside. Anyway you stack it, at least for me, I pick human life over animal life.

Recently they've even found that plants can feel pain and suffer as well. So if you're trying to make the case that beating and causing unnecessary abuse to animals = eating animals, then surely we can apply that to plants, and assuming animal abuse is wrong, then humanity should starve.

I still have much reading to do on that subject, however I'm somewhat skeptical of the ability of plants to suffer. Do you have a link available? It would be much appreciated.

Sure

http://www.guardian.co.uk...

http://ds9.botanik.uni-bonn.de...

I'll read up.

I'm not talking pragmatism though, I'm talking ethics. Whether vegetarianism is the optimal diet for a human or not moves around the argument, namely the question of the morality of eating animals if we start with the premise that we shouldn't inflict pain on them for the fun of it. What is the difference morally?

The difference between shooting someone someone who breaks into your house as oppose to shooting him in the legs, tying him up and begin torturing him to death.

Except for the circumstances ascribed in your situation. In your situations, you are defending yourself and torturing someone. It's non-analogous as in the original situation you are killing for dietary preference versus torture. Preserving non-vital dietary preferences =/= self defense.

Killing someone in self defense is necessary to live as is eating animals for people in many if not most cases. Again, in many cases eating meat is necessary. You won't find a doctor who says everyone shouldn't eat meat for the sake of health reasons.

I'll bring up another case. Here in the U.S. during the "wild west" period and in many 3rd world countries abroad today, people needed to rely on animals for transporation, business, and simply to do labor whether it be carrying goods or supplies from point A to B or simply to tow a plow to farm. In this case it is necessary for many people to use animals for our own purpose to bring in some form of income to stay afloat.
I don't discriminate....I hate everybody.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 1:12:28 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/28/2011 1:03:36 AM, quarterexchange wrote:
At 10/28/2011 12:47:26 AM, socialpinko wrote:
I don't support that. I'm still developing my own thoughts on the matter but the general refutation of that is point is the principle of equal consideration of interests. Obviously a full grown adults is capable of holding more preferences and experiencing more suffering than a household cat. From that the proponent would conclude that the human life is worth more in an unstoppable conflict of interests, but the want to maintain one's current diet is not an unstoppable conflict and thus eating meat would be unjustified.

Tip the scale anyway you want. A pet dog that's always remained at your side for several years or some average Joe walking outside. Anyway you stack it, at least for me, I pick human life over animal life.

Now I think you're purposefully ignoring my argument.

Recently they've even found that plants can feel pain and suffer as well. So if you're trying to make the case that beating and causing unnecessary abuse to animals = eating animals, then surely we can apply that to plants, and assuming animal abuse is wrong, then humanity should starve.

I still have much reading to do on that subject, however I'm somewhat skeptical of the ability of plants to suffer. Do you have a link available? It would be much appreciated.

Sure

http://www.guardian.co.uk...

http://ds9.botanik.uni-bonn.de...

I'll read up.

I'm not talking pragmatism though, I'm talking ethics. Whether vegetarianism is the optimal diet for a human or not moves around the argument, namely the question of the morality of eating animals if we start with the premise that we shouldn't inflict pain on them for the fun of it. What is the difference morally?

The difference between shooting someone someone who breaks into your house as oppose to shooting him in the legs, tying him up and begin torturing him to death.

Except for the circumstances ascribed in your situation. In your situations, you are defending yourself and torturing someone. It's non-analogous as in the original situation you are killing for dietary preference versus torture. Preserving non-vital dietary preferences =/= self defense.

Killing someone in self defense is necessary to live as is eating animals for people in many if not most cases. Again, in many cases eating meat is necessary. You won't find a doctor who says everyone shouldn't eat meat for the sake of health reasons.

I'll bring up another case. Here in the U.S. during the "wild west" period and in many 3rd world countries abroad today, people needed to rely on animals for transporation, business, and simply to do labor whether it be carrying goods or supplies from point A to B or simply to tow a plow to farm. In this case it is necessary for many people to use animals for our own purpose to bring in some form of income to stay afloat.

Again, youre bringing up non-moral claims. I bring up a moral argument(equal consideration of interests or your own presuppositions on animal cruelty) and you respond not by arguing that my argument is invalid or changing your original pressuposition but by simply claiming that it wouldn't be able to be practically applied to everyday life. Doyou see where this would get a little frustrating?
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
quarterexchange
Posts: 1,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 1:41:32 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/28/2011 1:12:28 AM, socialpinko wrote:
At 10/28/2011 1:03:36 AM, quarterexchange wrote:
Now I think you're purposefully ignoring my argument.

How? You say that there is a "conflict of interest" when deciding as to whether or not to sacrifice a human or an animal. So you acknowledge that human life is worth more, but you go on to say that the want to live off of a certain diet has no conflict of interest. I've already explained that in many cases humans rely on animals to live, for consumption, medicine, labor, etc. If human life is worth more, then it isn't immoral to use animals for food, testing, and manual labor. It's a choice between sacrificing the wellbeing of animals or sacrificing the well being of humans.
I don't discriminate....I hate everybody.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 2:20:53 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/28/2011 12:17:45 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 10/27/2011 11:59:53 PM, Ren wrote:
Abusing something and eating it are two different things.

You'd be singing a different tune if you were tomorrow's dinner.

Hehe. Nah, I wouldn't. It would serve human's right to fall a notch or two down on the food chain. :P