Total Posts:67|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

a tame case for vegetarianism

20000miles
Posts: 53
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2010 6:10:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
After reading the bible of the animal rights movement (Animal Liberation by Peter Singer) I've been thinking of rather tame cases for vegetarianism - the kind that rest on assumptions that are considered fairly uncontroversial.

The one I came up with goes something like this:
-wanton cruelty to animals is wrong
-several farming practices are cruel (e.g. confinement of animals in darkness)
-it is wrong to use products obtained through wrong means
-we shouldn't eat meat that is procured through these wrong means (which means at the very least a large boycott of meat products)

Few would disagree with the first premise. If you disagree with the second one, it would for example imply that it would be acceptable to keep common pets in small cages, cramped conditions and total darkness - something few would consider acceptable.

What do you think? If I were new to planet earth considering eating meat, how would you convince me that it's ok?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2010 6:53:54 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Few would disagree with the first premise
Rofl
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.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2010 10:32:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/28/2010 10:20:08 PM, 20000miles wrote:
At 10/28/2010 6:53:54 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Few would disagree with the first premise
Rofl

*Ragnar sets fire to stray cat*

*Ragnar grabs a knife* Mmm, charred kitty.
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.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2010 5:24:24 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/28/2010 6:10:51 PM, 20000miles wrote:

The one I came up with goes something like this:
-wanton cruelty to animals is wrong

Lol no.

-several farming practices are cruel (e.g. confinement of animals in darkness)

Fails on that the first premise isn't true.

-it is wrong to use products obtained through wrong means

Plants feel pain too http://www.department13designs.com...

Stop eating them.

-we shouldn't eat meat that is procured through these wrong means (which means at the very least a large boycott of meat products)

Then people will begin to starve. Nice thinking batman.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2010 8:13:39 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Are you people serious?

1. Animal abuse is indeed wrong.

2. Indeed, animal abuse also compromises the quality and self life of the meat, effectively rendering it logical that we do not abuse animals.

3. Indeed, it is logically wrong that we purchase these products, which sustains their existence, as well as use these products, as they are of relatively poor quality.

4. This is indeed true, as it would force more ethical practices. In fact, it is the only way that ethical practices have been initiated--through public outcry.

5. Not all meat is obtained unethically. We can introduce an alien to that.
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2010 8:53:40 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/29/2010 8:13:39 AM, Ren wrote:
Are you people serious?

1. Animal abuse is indeed wrong.

2. Indeed, animal abuse also compromises the quality and self life of the meat, effectively rendering it logical that we do not abuse animals.

3. Indeed, it is logically wrong that we purchase these products, which sustains their existence, as well as use these products, as they are of relatively poor quality.

4. This is indeed true, as it would force more ethical practices. In fact, it is the only way that ethical practices have been initiated--through public outcry.

5. Not all meat is obtained unethically. We can introduce an alien to that.

Thank you.
Lol I know that people would feel pain if if I were to force him into small dark cages, boil him alive burn him etc but you know, people meat is just so good, it doesn't matter. I think I'll have some kids of my own, or buy some, they will be my property so I can do whatever the f-ck I want. (by their logic)
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2010 9:02:47 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/29/2010 8:13:39 AM, Ren wrote:
Are you people serious?

1. Animal abuse is indeed wrong.
Why?


2. Indeed, animal abuse also compromises the quality and self life of the meat,
Depending on the type of "abuse", that can be untrue, the slaughter can be enjoyable,or it can be cheaper. It is perfectly valid to sacrifice durability for price if yer gonna eat it fast.
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.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2010 9:03:56 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/29/2010 8:53:40 AM, lovelife wrote:
At 10/29/2010 8:13:39 AM, Ren wrote:
Are you people serious?

1. Animal abuse is indeed wrong.

2. Indeed, animal abuse also compromises the quality and self life of the meat, effectively rendering it logical that we do not abuse animals.

3. Indeed, it is logically wrong that we purchase these products, which sustains their existence, as well as use these products, as they are of relatively poor quality.

4. This is indeed true, as it would force more ethical practices. In fact, it is the only way that ethical practices have been initiated--through public outcry.

5. Not all meat is obtained unethically. We can introduce an alien to that.

Thank you.
Lol I know that people would feel pain if if I were to force him into small dark cages, boil him alive burn him etc but you know, people meat is just so good, it doesn't matter. I think I'll have some kids of my own, or buy some, they will be my property so I can do whatever the f-ck I want. (by their logic)

I never killed any animal. It was dead when I found it at the store. I'm nothing but a scavanger.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2010 9:12:18 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/29/2010 9:02:47 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 10/29/2010 8:13:39 AM, Ren wrote:
Are you people serious?

1. Animal abuse is indeed wrong.
Why?

Let me put it this way.

One of the etiological arguments against God is that He is unjust to those over which He has domain, and since that is wrong, He must not exist. Well, we have domain over animals, thus, by the same logic, it is wrong that we are unjust to animals.

On another note, it is wrong to abuse because it immoral. Immorality is fundamentally illogical.

The logical argument against abuse, which renders it immoral, is that it is sadistic and devalues life. This devaluation will pervade all other applications to life, which renders us dangerous to the global ecosystem. This is both largely counterproductive (in that, it destroys things larger and more important than us) as well as personally counterproductive (we can also apply these negative perspectives to ourselves, for example, serial killers, who usually evidence the inclination for such behaviors by abusing animals).

2. Indeed, animal abuse also compromises the quality and self life of the meat,
Depending on the type of "abuse", that can be untrue, the slaughter can be enjoyable,or it can be cheaper. It is perfectly valid to sacrifice durability for price if yer gonna eat it fast.

Killing an animal is not necessarily abusing it. Indeed, we are capable of ethically rearing, killing, and thus, eating animals.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2010 4:59:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/29/2010 9:12:18 AM, Ren wrote:
At 10/29/2010 9:02:47 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 10/29/2010 8:13:39 AM, Ren wrote:
Are you people serious?

1. Animal abuse is indeed wrong.
Why?

Let me put it this way.

One of the etiological arguments against God is that He is unjust to those over which He has domain
Thems is rational folks.
and since that is wrong, He must not exist. Well, we have domain over animals, thus, by the same logic, it is wrong that we are unjust to animals.
Thems is not rational folks. Your out-of context premise is not accepted.

On another note, it is wrong to abuse because it immoral.
That's a f***ing vacous claim. I was asking you to make the moral case.

The logical argument against abuse, which renders it immoral, is that it is sadistic and devalues life.
The possibility that it brings pleasure to abuse (sadism) is not a case against abusing. One who values one's life does not value the life of beings that do not value its life (such as animals).

This devaluation will pervade all other applications to life, which renders us dangerous to the global ecosystem. This is both largely counterproductive (in that, it destroys things larger and more important than us)
There is nothing more important than an individual rational being. The ecosystem matters not a whit save for its ability to be conquered by Man.

as well as personally counterproductive (we can also apply these negative perspectives to ourselves, for example, serial killers, who usually evidence the inclination for such behaviors by abusing animals).
Hitler liked dogs. Your argument has no more bearing than that.

2. Indeed, animal abuse also compromises the quality and self life of the meat,
Depending on the type of "abuse", that can be untrue, the slaughter can be enjoyable,or it can be cheaper. It is perfectly valid to sacrifice durability for price if yer gonna eat it fast.

Killing an animal is not necessarily abusing it
If it is a being with rights, then the first of those rights is the right to life.If it is a being without rights, it is meaningless to decry abuse of it. Do you complain if I abuse a rock?
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.
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2010 5:26:19 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/28/2010 6:10:51 PM, 20000miles wrote:
After reading the bible of the animal rights movement (Animal Liberation by Peter Singer) I've been thinking of rather tame cases for vegetarianism - the kind that rest on assumptions that are considered fairly uncontroversial.

A book full of fail.

The one I came up with goes something like this:
-wanton cruelty to animals is wrong

Why?

-several farming practices are cruel (e.g. confinement of animals in darkness)

Then support free-range. But really, how are they 'cruel'? Are we supposed to create Animal Spas?

-it is wrong to use products obtained through wrong means

FAIL. How is it 'wrong'? This has no proof so it isn't credible. Prove it.

-we shouldn't eat meat that is procured through these wrong means (which means at the very least a large boycott of meat products)

First of all, WHY is it wrong? And second of all, humans didn't climb their way to the top of the food chain to eat lettuce. Get over it.

Few would disagree with the first premise.

I do.

If you disagree with the second one, it would for example imply that it would be acceptable to keep common pets in small cages, cramped conditions and total darkness - something few would consider acceptable.

Would you complain about us cutting down trees to make paper? Or swatting flies? Killing bacteria? These are animals - they don't have rights, sorry. At least we get bacon.

What do you think?

This is a FAIL thread.

If I were new to planet earth considering eating meat, how would you convince me that it's ok?

Go to your local restaurant and order an 8oz Sirloin. After eating that, I won't have to 'convince' you.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2010 6:19:22 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/29/2010 4:59:03 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
One of the etiological arguments against God is that He is unjust to those over which He has domain
Thems is rational folks.
and since that is wrong, He must not exist. Well, we have domain over animals, thus, by the same logic, it is wrong that we are unjust to animals.
Thems is not rational folks. Your out-of context premise is not accepted.

As a moral argument, given that you accept the moral foundation upon which I disagreed with the premise based on a foundation to which you agreed, it is completely valid. I could care less whether you accept that.

That's a f***ing vacous claim. I was asking you to make the moral case.

I do, throughout my post.

The logical argument against abuse, which renders it immoral, is that it is sadistic and devalues life.
The possibility that it brings pleasure to abuse (sadism) is not a case against abusing. One who values one's life does not value the life of beings that do not value its life (such as animals).

Sadism is not limited to deriving enjoyment from cruelty:

sa·dism   
[sey-diz-uhm, sad-iz-] Show IPA
–noun
1.
Psychiatry . sexual gratification gained through causing pain or degradation to others. Compare masochism.
2.
any enjoyment in being cruel.
3.
extreme cruelty.


This devaluation will pervade all other applications to life, which renders us dangerous to the global ecosystem. This is both largely counterproductive (in that, it destroys things larger and more important than us)
There is nothing more important than an individual rational being. The ecosystem matters not a whit save for its ability to be conquered by Man.

False. Just as much as this conversation was enabled by many other people (those who taught us how to read and right, the creators of this website, and the creators of our computers), the individual is not paramount.

The ecosystem is highly relevant, as humans are dependent on the ecosystem.

Interestingly, the ecosystem is not dependent on man.

Pretty fundamental.

as well as personally counterproductive (we can also apply these negative perspectives to ourselves, for example, serial killers, who usually evidence the inclination for such behaviors by abusing animals).
Hitler liked dogs. Your argument has no more bearing than that.

Yes, it does, because Hitler was not a serial killer. Alternately, he was delusional and insane. That means that your response had no bearing on this conversation, but given that my argument related to animal cruelty, mine does.

If it is a being with rights, then the first of those rights is the right to life.If it is a being without rights, it is meaningless to decry abuse of it. Do you complain if I abuse a rock?

Abuse is not dependent on rights, but can apply directly to animals by definition:

a·buse   
[v. uh-byooz; n. uh-byoos] Show IPA
verb, a·bused, a·bus·ing, noun
–verb (used with object)
1.
to use wrongly or improperly; misuse: to abuse one's authority.
2.
to treat in a harmful, injurious, or offensive way: to abuse a horse; to abuse one's eyesight.
3.
to speak insultingly, harshly, and unjustly to or about; revile; malign.
4.
to commit sexual assault upon.

Your conception of reality is a little absurd, sorry.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2010 6:22:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Oh, and might I add that the value of life, or self preservation, is one of the fundamental aspects of all living things.

Also, that not all humans value the life of others, while some animals do.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2010 6:32:32 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/29/2010 6:19:22 PM, Ren wrote:
At 10/29/2010 4:59:03 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
One of the etiological arguments against God is that He is unjust to those over which He has domain
Thems is rational folks.
and since that is wrong, He must not exist. Well, we have domain over animals, thus, by the same logic, it is wrong that we are unjust to animals.
Thems is not rational folks. Your out-of context premise is not accepted.

As a moral argument, given that you accept the moral foundation upon which I disagreed with the premise based on a foundation to which you agreed
No, I don't.

The logical argument against abuse, which renders it immoral, is that it is sadistic and devalues life.
The possibility that it brings pleasure to abuse (sadism) is not a case against abusing. One who values one's life does not value the life of beings that do not value its life (such as animals).

Sadism is not limited to deriving enjoyment from cruelty:

any enjoyment in being cruel.
3.
extreme cruelty.

Nothing wrong with that either.

False. Just as much as this conversation was enabled by many other people (those who taught us how to read and right
You might wanna go back for another lesson. And those are all individual humans

the creators of this website, and the creators of our computers)
Individuals, every last one.

The ecosystem is highly relevant, as humans are dependent on the ecosystem.
On conquering, perhaps. Yet it is not a "higher' value. It is subordinate, its value is only instrumental to humans.


Interestingly, the ecosystem is not dependent on man.
The fact that it can exist without man does not render it any importance. Importance is nonexistent without rationality.

as well as personally counterproductive (we can also apply these negative perspectives to ourselves, for example, serial killers, who usually evidence the inclination for such behaviors by abusing animals).
Hitler liked dogs. Your argument has no more bearing than that.

Yes, it does, because Hitler was not a serial killer.
He killed a series of people.

Alternately, he was delusional and insane. That means that your response had no bearing on this conversation, but given that my argument related to animal cruelty, mine does.
My statement related to non-cruelty to animals. Merely relating to animal cruelty does not render your argument relevant to its purpose.


If it is a being with rights, then the first of those rights is the right to life.If it is a being without rights, it is meaningless to decry abuse of it. Do you complain if I abuse a rock?

Abuse is not dependent on rights
Yet giving a **** about it is.

Your conception of reality is a little absurd, sorry.
This is not an argument to establish anything except "My name is Ren and I wish to evade."
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.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2010 6:35:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/29/2010 6:22:07 PM, Ren wrote:
Oh, and might I add that the value of life, or self preservation, is one of the fundamental aspects of all living things.
No, it isn't. See also, bees stinging and losing their life as a direct result of their stinger being stuck by design. Some animals preserve themselves-- by sheer accident and evolutionary pressure that increases the rate of those accidents. No animals, except rational animals, value themselves.


Also, that not all humans value the life of others, while some animals do.
No animals value anything whatsoever, except humans. Nature is not teleological, however much instincts may confuse religious types.
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.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2010 6:49:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/29/2010 6:32:32 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
As a moral argument, given that you accept the moral foundation upon which I disagreed with the premise based on a foundation to which you agreed
No, I don't.

One of the etiological arguments against God is that He is unjust to those over which He has domain
Thems is rational folks.

Lies.

Nothing wrong with that either.

In terms of ingesting food, I already gave you a logical argument against it that you're yet to approach.

It devalues the food and can pervade the way we relate to all things, including one another. Both of those reasons are valid enough to refrain from abusing animals. Another idea is that, as chattel, animals have monetary value, which means that they are an investment. You are compromising that investment by abusing them. From any perspective, it's wrong. Immoral. Illogical. Fallacious.

C'mon, you can do it. Give me a counterargument.

Individuals, every last one.

Cumulatively, people, a group, more than one individual, and separate of the selfhood that comprises both sides of this conversation.

On conquering, perhaps. Yet it is not a "higher' value. It is subordinate, its value is only instrumental to humans.

False. There is no logic to "conquering" the ecosystem, we do not understand the ecosystem and thus, cannot "conquer" it, as well are unable to control it. We can only benefit from it or destroy it. The most logical option is to benefit from it.

Humans are reliant on the ecosystem, but the ecosystem is not reliant on humans. Thus, it is not subordinate to humans. Ask any hurricane survivor.

Interestingly, the ecosystem is not dependent on man.
The fact that it can exist without man does not render it any importance. Importance is nonexistent without rationality.

Importance is relative. It's also irrelevant, unless you're talking about its importance to man. In which case, it is paramount, obviously, as our survival depends on it.

He killed a series of people.

Serial =/= series =/= cereal.

For clarification.

My statement related to non-cruelty to animals. Merely relating to animal cruelty does not render your argument relevant to its purpose.

Instrumental, you mean?

Given that it indicated logical reasoning behind why one should not abuse animals, it, in fact, does.

You're yet to give me a counterargument, guy. Quit dancing, nancy.

Yet giving a **** about it is.

No, actually, opinion, morals, and concern are independent of rights, as well.

This is not an argument to establish anything except "My name is Ren and I wish to evade."

My arguments: 3
Your arguments: 0

Don't lie.

If you have an argument, present one. If you can disprove my logical assertions, do so. Otherwise, go play some role playing game in the Miscellaneous forum.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2010 7:08:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/29/2010 6:35:38 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:\
No, it isn't.

I shouldn't even read any further than this.

See also, bees stinging and losing their life as a direct result of their stinger being stuck by design.

See? This is clearly in defense of the hive, which is the cumulative family of bees rather than each individual bee, because bees do not have a concept of self, but rather, consider themselves a component of the hive's selfhood. That reinforces two of my points.

Some animals preserve themselves

All do. Proven scientific fact.

by sheer accident and evolutionary pressure that increases the rate of those accidents. No animals, except rational animals, value themselves.

This is a ridiculously absurd argument. It's as though you're saying that animals have the incapacity for fear or to make decisions.

I know you're not saying that.

Also, that not all humans value the life of others, while some animals do.
No animals value anything whatsoever, except humans. Nature is not teleological, however much instincts may confuse religious types.

Not sure what you mean't by the religious comment, but...

http://books.google.com...

http://books.google.com...

Educate yourself, reconsider your stance, then come back to this.
20000miles
Posts: 53
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2010 7:27:18 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/29/2010 5:24:24 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 10/28/2010 6:10:51 PM, 20000miles wrote:

The one I came up with goes something like this:
-wanton cruelty to animals is wrong

Lol no.

I too used to believe this too, then I wondered why there weren't more people throwing cats into garbage bins and stabbing their own dogs to death. There are police units enforcing laws against keeping animals in cruel conditions in the West, there's no reason not to extend such protection to farm animals.

-several farming practices are cruel (e.g. confinement of animals in darkness)

Fails on that the first premise isn't true.

Well, no, you can still believe that cruelty to animals is fine, and still admit to yourself that, say, battery farming, is cruel.

-it is wrong to use products obtained through wrong means

Plants feel pain too http://www.department13designs.com...

Stop eating them.

I'll wait for a more credible source on this.

-we shouldn't eat meat that is procured through these wrong means (which means at the very least a large boycott of meat products)

Then people will begin to starve. Nice thinking batman.

Actually, meat production involves massive wastes of grains and other high-protein foods. The amount of units protein needed to produce one unit of protein in meats is something around 8-1. Those grains that go towards feeding farm animals could be going towards feeding those who are already starving.
20000miles
Posts: 53
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2010 7:36:26 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/29/2010 5:26:19 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 10/28/2010 6:10:51 PM, 20000miles wrote:

The one I came up with goes something like this:
-wanton cruelty to animals is wrong

Why?


A fail philosopher might argue that cruelty causes pain and suffering (you do believe that animals suffer, yes?). Since there is no logical reason not to exclude animals from this consideration we should refrain from cruelty to animals (to the same extent that wanton cruelty to children and infants is wrong).

-it is wrong to use products obtained through wrong means

FAIL. How is it 'wrong'? This has no proof so it isn't credible. Prove it.

If you lived in a place where slaves picked cotton, would it be wrong to wear the clothes made from that cotton. Would you only imprison the hitman who murders and not the person who paid him?

Would you complain about us cutting down trees to make paper? Or swatting flies? Killing bacteria? These are animals - they don't have rights, sorry. At least we get bacon.

Which one of these are sentient or can hold preferences?

Go to your local restaurant and order an 8oz Sirloin. After eating that, I won't have to 'convince' you.

Can I order a baby for desert? I'm sure they're delicious.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2010 7:45:44 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/29/2010 7:08:51 PM, Ren wrote:
At 10/29/2010 6:35:38 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:\

Some animals preserve themselves

All do. Proven scientific fact.

Sorry, but some animals have shown suicidal tendencies. And Suicide is kinda the opposite direction of self preservation. Many of these are in cases of social animals when they are not in social contact with others of their same species.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
20000miles
Posts: 53
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2010 7:47:47 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
So there are a few challangers to premise 1, usually focussing on the fact that animals (should that be non-human animals) have no rights.

Perhaps one challenge might be that animals aren't part of our species and therefore have no rights. This seems reminiscent of people who claimed that blacks had no rights because they were of a different skin colour. This was overcome by demonstrating that skin colour was not a relevant characteristic in determining ones rights.

The basic thing to notice is that the way you justify cruelty to animals can equally be applied to humans - if we can exploit animals for our ends because we're rational and they're not, that implies that the rational can exploit the irrational (in the latter group we find many humans - fetuses, babies, children, mentally handicapped people and the senile). It becomes difficult to simultaneously hold views permitting the torture of animals and prohibiting the torture of these humans.
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2010 7:47:48 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/29/2010 7:36:26 PM, 20000miles wrote:
At 10/29/2010 5:26:19 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 10/28/2010 6:10:51 PM, 20000miles wrote:

The one I came up with goes something like this:
-wanton cruelty to animals is wrong

Why?


A fail philosopher might argue that cruelty causes pain and suffering (you do believe that animals suffer, yes?). Since there is no logical reason not to exclude animals from this consideration we should refrain from cruelty to animals (to the same extent that wanton cruelty to children and infants is wrong).

Love causes pain and suffering - will we outlaw that?
Sex can cause pain - how about that?
Death penalty causes pain- how about that?

Children and infants can express their feelings and are exempt from 'cruel' punishment by law. Keeping children in cages is seen as inhumane. However keeping animals in cages is seen as protecting your profit.

By your logic, we should also refrain from smashing bugs. They can feel can't they?

-it is wrong to use products obtained through wrong means

FAIL. How is it 'wrong'? This has no proof so it isn't credible. Prove it.

If you lived in a place where slaves picked cotton, would it be wrong to wear the clothes made from that cotton.

They made it so I could wear it. And just to let you know, you're most likely wearing clothing from a sweatshop right now.

Would you only imprison the hitman who murders and not the person who paid him?

I don't think you'll be happy with my answer since I'm an anarchist...

Would you complain about us cutting down trees to make paper? Or swatting flies? Killing bacteria? These are animals - they don't have rights, sorry. At least we get bacon.

Which one of these are sentient or can hold preferences?

Oh, please. A pig can hold preferences? These are animals that function off of instinct with no proper understanding of the world around them. They're kept in pens for profit not petting.

Go to your local restaurant and order an 8oz Sirloin. After eating that, I won't have to 'convince' you.

Can I order a baby for desert? I'm sure they're delicious.

Depends on the restaurant, I guess. I have a feeling that baby back ribs would be more popular, though.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2010 7:52:40 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/29/2010 7:47:47 PM, 20000miles wrote:
So there are a few challangers to premise 1, usually focussing on the fact that animals (should that be non-human animals) have no rights.

It is a logical argument against that premise, yes.

Perhaps one challenge might be that animals aren't part of our species and therefore have no rights. This seems reminiscent of people who claimed that blacks had no rights because they were of a different skin colour. This was overcome by demonstrating that skin colour was not a relevant characteristic in determining ones rights.

Except blacks ARE human and capable of higher understanding. FAIL.

The basic thing to notice is that the way you justify cruelty to animals can equally be applied to humans - if we can exploit animals for our ends because we're rational and they're not, that implies that the rational can exploit the irrational (in the latter group we find many humans - fetuses, babies, children, mentally handicapped people and the senile). It becomes difficult to simultaneously hold views permitting the torture of animals and prohibiting the torture of these humans.

Are you comparing a child to a dog? A child is capable of earning more knowledge throughout their life, an animal is EXTREMELY limited. To say that we will start torturing humans after animals is fallacious. Humans recognize the humanity of the senile, children, mentally handicapped, etc. However, animals aren't human and aren't bound to those same laws.

I mean think logically for this, not idealistically. These are animals meant for mass production of food products on a world market. You can't keep 20 pigs in a pasture and expect to sustain yourself. You might get a warm feeling inside from protecting animals but you'd just be screwing over the humans.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2010 7:54:22 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/29/2010 7:45:44 PM, OreEle wrote:
Sorry, but some animals have shown suicidal tendencies. And Suicide is kinda the opposite direction of self preservation. Many of these are in cases of social animals when they are not in social contact with others of their same species.

That is an indication of depression, which is a.) pathological and thus, outside the scope of the argument, as humans have the capacity to be suicidal as well, and b.) a reinforcement of my other arguments, whereby I assured that animals have values, feel pain, are affected by cruelty, which, in turn, affects us.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2010 8:00:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/29/2010 7:52:40 PM, annhasle wrote:
Are you comparing a child to a dog? A child is capable of earning more knowledge throughout their life, an animal is EXTREMELY limited.

False.

To say that we will start torturing humans after animals is scientifically proven.

Fixed.

Humans recognize the humanity of the senile, children, mentally handicapped, etc. However, animals aren't human and aren't bound to those same laws.

Animals do not recognize the humanity in humanity because they aren't human. That has nothing to do with morality or the illogic behind torturing animals.

I mean think logically for this, not idealistically. These are animals meant for mass production of food products on a world market.

No, they're not. However, they are produced industrially as well as agriculturally.

You can't keep 20 pigs in a pasture and expect to sustain yourself.

Whoa, I don't know what you're talking about. An entire four person family can live off of one pig, three moderately sized meals a day, for more than a week.

Do you mean that humanity cannot live off of 20 pigs? Granted.

But, humanity does not require mass produced animal products, either.

You might get a warm feeling inside from protecting animals but you'd just be screwing over the humans.

False. Any proof that industrialized husbandry is required to feed the masses?
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2010 8:06:47 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/29/2010 8:00:39 PM, Ren wrote:
At 10/29/2010 7:52:40 PM, annhasle wrote:
Are you comparing a child to a dog? A child is capable of earning more knowledge throughout their life, an animal is EXTREMELY limited.

False.

Prove it.

To say that we will start torturing humans after animals is scientifically proven.

Fixed.

No, ruined.

Humans recognize the humanity of the senile, children, mentally handicapped, etc. However, animals aren't human and aren't bound to those same laws.

Animals do not recognize the humanity in humanity because they aren't human. That has nothing to do with morality or the illogic behind torturing animals.

Did I say that animals don't/do recognize humanity? No. So I have NO IDEA where this came from. Fail.

I mean think logically for this, not idealistically. These are animals meant for mass production of food products on a world market.

No, they're not. However, they are produced industrially as well as agriculturally.

Are you serious? Animals, that are kept in cages and dingy places like he loves to point out, are meant for processing. And on a wide-scale basis.

You can't keep 20 pigs in a pasture and expect to sustain yourself.

Whoa, I don't know what you're talking about. An entire four person family can live off of one pig, three moderately sized meals a day, for more than a week.

I meant for mass production. If you read my sentence before that, you'd understand. See how they flow together to make sense?

Do you mean that humanity cannot live off of 20 pigs? Granted.

What?

But, humanity does not require mass produced animal products, either.

No, but that isn't up for debate right now.

You might get a warm feeling inside from protecting animals but you'd just be screwing over the humans.

False. Any proof that industrialized husbandry is required to feed the masses?

Oh, come on. mass production is what brings in the most money! So of course farmers are going to try and expand their marketability. Is it required? No. Is it common in the U.S.? Yes.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.