Total Posts:62|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

This is outrageous (animal sacrifice)

tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2015 3:43:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The Indian Supreme Court has refused to outlaw animal sacrifice. Quoting the body, it said, "The Supreme Court . . . cannot intervene in animal sacrifice [as] tradition." It's not just the outlawing of animal sacrifice. The Supreme Court refuses to even allow *basic* welfare restrictions. Senior advocate Raju Ramachandran merely wanted trained butchers to perform the ritual sacrifice of animals. The Supreme Court declined to enforce *this reasonable request.* It's simply outrageous. If you're not outlawing it, why not allow some basic animal welfare restrictions? You can't ritually slaughter anyone. It's basically killing in the name of religion. And the SC's logic: respect religion.

India's idea of "secularism" is just tiresome. The preamble of the Constitution holds that India is a "secular . . . republic." Of course, it's just the time to play semantics on the word "secular." What is "secularism?" It's the separation of the state from religion -- a wall that separates church and state. But in India, that's not what "secularism" is. "Secularism in India means equal treatment of all religions by the state. Unlike the Western concept of secularism which envisions a separation of religion and state, the concept of secularism in India envisions acceptance of religious laws as binding on the state, and equal participation of state in different religions." [https://en.wikipedia.org...] The Indian Constitution and its laws don't define the relationship between religion and the state. In India, secularism is rejecting irreligion and appeasing the religious. And I'm just irritated by it.

In India, child marriage, polygamy, unequal inheritance rights of women and men, *all are allowed.* All in the name of "respecting religions." Of course, some minorities aren't even respected -- Article 25(2)(b) of the Indian constitution clubs Sikhs, Buddhists and Jains along with Hindus.

Was this Nehru's vision of "secularism?" No way. Historian Ronald Inden writes, "Nehru's India was supposed to be committed to 'secularism'. The idea here in its weaker publicly reiterated form was that the government would not interfere in 'personal' religious matters and would create circumstances in which people of all religions could live in harmony. The idea in its stronger, unofficially stated form was that in order to modernize, India would have to set aside centuries of traditional religious ignorance and superstition and eventually eliminate Hinduism and Islam from people's lives altogether. After Independence, governments implemented secularism mostly by refusing to recognize the religious pasts of Indian nationalism, whether Hindu or Muslim, and at the same time (inconsistently) by retaining Muslim 'personal law' ."

=====

Thoughts?
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
BlackFlags
Posts: 904
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2015 4:11:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/31/2015 3:43:39 PM, tejretics wrote:
In India, child marriage, polygamy, unequal inheritance rights of women and men, *all are allowed.* All in the name of "respecting religions."
I wouldn't be against more liberties

Thoughts?
Would it please you more if India oppressed religions more, just for the sake of being fair to irreligious people?

These are perfect examples of why the state is flawed.
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2015 4:13:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/31/2015 4:11:24 PM, BlackFlags wrote:
At 10/31/2015 3:43:39 PM, tejretics wrote:
In India, child marriage, polygamy, unequal inheritance rights of women and men, *all are allowed.* All in the name of "respecting religions."

I wouldn't be against more liberties

Child marriage infringes on the child's liberty to choose whom to marry and when to marry, since it's forced.


Thoughts?

Would it please you more if India oppressed religions more, just for the sake of being fair to irreligious people?

It would please me if India didn't care about religion, and didn't allow religious matters to intervene in the affairs of the state.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
BlackFlags
Posts: 904
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2015 4:19:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/31/2015 4:13:46 PM, tejretics wrote:
Child marriage infringes on the child's liberty to choose whom to marry and when to marry, since it's forced.
In a world where marriage contracts are meaningless, that marriage is only as legitimate as the child wants to make it.

It would please me if India didn't care about religion, and didn't allow religious matters to intervene in the affairs of the state.
Determining whether the country should enact a law that takes away rights from certain religious communities is an affair of the state

How far do you want to go down this slippery slope? That kind of thinking is what leads religious minorities to become intensely persecuted.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2015 11:54:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
These animal sacrifices are usually quick slices to the throat and way more humane than how factory farmers kill the animals. The animals are usually eaten after the sacrifice as well, so really this sort of thing should be encouraged, seeing how it's a more ethical way to kill your food.
thett3
Posts: 14,348
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2015 3:15:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
If we can slaughter animals for our consumption, why can't we slaughter them for the consumption of the gods?
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2015 3:44:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/2/2015 3:15:54 AM, thett3 wrote:
If we can slaughter animals for our consumption, why can't we slaughter them for the consumption of the gods?

Yeah, this is what irks me. Oftentimes of the animals are not only eaten, the meat is donated to feeding the poor (Eid al-Adha). Outrage over animal sacrifice usually just strikes me as, to be blunt, socially accepted religious bigotry.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
thett3
Posts: 14,348
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2015 4:14:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/2/2015 3:44:58 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 11/2/2015 3:15:54 AM, thett3 wrote:
If we can slaughter animals for our consumption, why can't we slaughter them for the consumption of the gods?

Yeah, this is what irks me. Oftentimes of the animals are not only eaten, the meat is donated to feeding the poor (Eid al-Adha). Outrage over animal sacrifice usually just strikes me as, to be blunt, socially accepted religious bigotry.

Yeah, I think that if the government is to prohibit a religious practice it has to demonstrate a compelling state interest. What's the government interest in banning ritual sacrifice when slaughtering for food without the ritual aspect is okay?
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2015 4:26:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/2/2015 3:15:54 AM, thett3 wrote:
If we can slaughter animals for our consumption, why can't we slaughter them for the consumption of the gods?

Most animal sacrifice rituals end in nobody eating the meat (including the gods). There are some exceptions (e.g. Eid al-Adha, where the meat is given to the poor), but the village animal sacrifices in India, for instance, and Nepal's mass animal sacrifice to Gadhimai, have no usefulness.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
thett3
Posts: 14,348
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2015 4:29:36 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/2/2015 4:26:01 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 11/2/2015 3:15:54 AM, thett3 wrote:
If we can slaughter animals for our consumption, why can't we slaughter them for the consumption of the gods?

Most animal sacrifice rituals end in nobody eating the meat (including the gods).

How would you know that? :)

There are some exceptions (e.g. Eid al-Adha, where the meat is given to the poor), but the village animal sacrifices in India, for instance, and Nepal's mass animal sacrifice to Gadhimai, have no usefulness.

Neither does posting this thread, should that be illegal too? I would argue that religious ritual actually does have purpose, a lot of purpose, but even ignoring that argument what's the government interest in ending animal sacrifice?
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2015 4:30:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/2/2015 4:29:36 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 11/2/2015 4:26:01 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 11/2/2015 3:15:54 AM, thett3 wrote:
If we can slaughter animals for our consumption, why can't we slaughter them for the consumption of the gods?

Most animal sacrifice rituals end in nobody eating the meat (including the gods).

How would you know that? :)

Because the corpses of the animals still remain and are thrown as waste.


There are some exceptions (e.g. Eid al-Adha, where the meat is given to the poor), but the village animal sacrifices in India, for instance, and Nepal's mass animal sacrifice to Gadhimai, have no usefulness.

Neither does posting this thread, should that be illegal too? I would argue that religious ritual actually does have purpose, a lot of purpose, but even ignoring that argument what's the government interest in ending animal sacrifice?

Killing someone without purpose essentially destroys the role of government.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
thett3
Posts: 14,348
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2015 4:37:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/2/2015 4:30:58 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 11/2/2015 4:29:36 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 11/2/2015 4:26:01 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 11/2/2015 3:15:54 AM, thett3 wrote:
If we can slaughter animals for our consumption, why can't we slaughter them for the consumption of the gods?

Most animal sacrifice rituals end in nobody eating the meat (including the gods).

How would you know that? :)

Because the corpses of the animals still remain and are thrown as waste.

Don't be silly. The gods, if they exist, have powers you know not.



There are some exceptions (e.g. Eid al-Adha, where the meat is given to the poor), but the village animal sacrifices in India, for instance, and Nepal's mass animal sacrifice to Gadhimai, have no usefulness.

Neither does posting this thread, should that be illegal too? I would argue that religious ritual actually does have purpose, a lot of purpose, but even ignoring that argument what's the government interest in ending animal sacrifice?

Killing someone without purpose essentially destroys the role of government.

Killing someone? This is not human sacrifice, it's animal sacrifice. What's the government interest prohibiting animal slaughter? Are you really willing to commit to your characterization of animals as people, because if you are I'd love to hear your argument for why we should recognize them as such. I'm sure you realize the implications of this would be massive. How would we farm, for instance, with the knowledge that our chemical treatments kill untold billions of insect-people per year and our combine harvesters crush beneath their mighty cutters millions upon millions of animals taking shelter in their fields per year
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2015 4:40:06 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/2/2015 4:37:24 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 11/2/2015 4:30:58 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 11/2/2015 4:29:36 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 11/2/2015 4:26:01 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 11/2/2015 3:15:54 AM, thett3 wrote:
If we can slaughter animals for our consumption, why can't we slaughter them for the consumption of the gods?

Most animal sacrifice rituals end in nobody eating the meat (including the gods).

How would you know that? :)

Because the corpses of the animals still remain and are thrown as waste.

Don't be silly. The gods, if they exist, have powers you know not.



There are some exceptions (e.g. Eid al-Adha, where the meat is given to the poor), but the village animal sacrifices in India, for instance, and Nepal's mass animal sacrifice to Gadhimai, have no usefulness.

Neither does posting this thread, should that be illegal too? I would argue that religious ritual actually does have purpose, a lot of purpose, but even ignoring that argument what's the government interest in ending animal sacrifice?

Killing someone without purpose essentially destroys the role of government.

Killing someone? This is not human sacrifice, it's animal sacrifice. What's the government interest prohibiting animal slaughter? Are you really willing to commit to your characterization of animals as people, because if you are I'd love to hear your argument for why we should recognize them as such. I'm sure you realize the implications of this would be massive. How would we farm, for instance, with the knowledge that our chemical treatments kill untold billions of insect-people per year and our combine harvesters crush beneath their mighty cutters millions upon millions of animals taking shelter in their fields per year

Legal rights to animals already exist. We should extend them to include a right against needless suffering, and anything that serves no purpose whatsoever. If there's no purpose in killing any being, I'd argue that it's immoral, since it increases net negative mental states (cf. util).
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
thett3
Posts: 14,348
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2015 4:46:42 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/2/2015 4:40:06 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 11/2/2015 4:37:24 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 11/2/2015 4:30:58 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 11/2/2015 4:29:36 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 11/2/2015 4:26:01 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 11/2/2015 3:15:54 AM, thett3 wrote:
If we can slaughter animals for our consumption, why can't we slaughter them for the consumption of the gods?

Most animal sacrifice rituals end in nobody eating the meat (including the gods).

How would you know that? :)

Because the corpses of the animals still remain and are thrown as waste.

Don't be silly. The gods, if they exist, have powers you know not.



There are some exceptions (e.g. Eid al-Adha, where the meat is given to the poor), but the village animal sacrifices in India, for instance, and Nepal's mass animal sacrifice to Gadhimai, have no usefulness.

Neither does posting this thread, should that be illegal too? I would argue that religious ritual actually does have purpose, a lot of purpose, but even ignoring that argument what's the government interest in ending animal sacrifice?

Killing someone without purpose essentially destroys the role of government.

Killing someone? This is not human sacrifice, it's animal sacrifice. What's the government interest prohibiting animal slaughter? Are you really willing to commit to your characterization of animals as people, because if you are I'd love to hear your argument for why we should recognize them as such. I'm sure you realize the implications of this would be massive. How would we farm, for instance, with the knowledge that our chemical treatments kill untold billions of insect-people per year and our combine harvesters crush beneath their mighty cutters millions upon millions of animals taking shelter in their fields per year

Legal rights to animals already exist. We should extend them to include a right against needless suffering, and anything that serves no purpose whatsoever. If there's no purpose in killing any being, I'd argue that it's immoral, since it increases net negative mental states (cf. util).

Who says being killed causes suffering? Do we know that the animals go to chicken hell or something?

Anyway, if the ritual sacrifice was to slowly kill a chicken by plucking each feather out one by one, maybe I would agree. But from what I've heard, it's a clean cut to the throat--a quick and painless death. If we already accept that animal slaughter is acceptable as long as we do it in a humane manner I really don't see why the reason for the slaughter matters and even if it does, you're simply incorrect in arguing that religious ritual has no utility value.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2015 4:48:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/2/2015 4:46:42 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 11/2/2015 4:40:06 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 11/2/2015 4:37:24 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 11/2/2015 4:30:58 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 11/2/2015 4:29:36 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 11/2/2015 4:26:01 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 11/2/2015 3:15:54 AM, thett3 wrote:
If we can slaughter animals for our consumption, why can't we slaughter them for the consumption of the gods?

Most animal sacrifice rituals end in nobody eating the meat (including the gods).

How would you know that? :)

Because the corpses of the animals still remain and are thrown as waste.

Don't be silly. The gods, if they exist, have powers you know not.



There are some exceptions (e.g. Eid al-Adha, where the meat is given to the poor), but the village animal sacrifices in India, for instance, and Nepal's mass animal sacrifice to Gadhimai, have no usefulness.

Neither does posting this thread, should that be illegal too? I would argue that religious ritual actually does have purpose, a lot of purpose, but even ignoring that argument what's the government interest in ending animal sacrifice?

Killing someone without purpose essentially destroys the role of government.

Killing someone? This is not human sacrifice, it's animal sacrifice. What's the government interest prohibiting animal slaughter? Are you really willing to commit to your characterization of animals as people, because if you are I'd love to hear your argument for why we should recognize them as such. I'm sure you realize the implications of this would be massive. How would we farm, for instance, with the knowledge that our chemical treatments kill untold billions of insect-people per year and our combine harvesters crush beneath their mighty cutters millions upon millions of animals taking shelter in their fields per year

Legal rights to animals already exist. We should extend them to include a right against needless suffering, and anything that serves no purpose whatsoever. If there's no purpose in killing any being, I'd argue that it's immoral, since it increases net negative mental states (cf. util).

Who says being killed causes suffering? Do we know that the animals go to chicken hell or something?

Anyway, if the ritual sacrifice was to slowly kill a chicken by plucking each feather out one by one, maybe I would agree. But from what I've heard, it's a clean cut to the throat--a quick and painless death. If we already accept that animal slaughter is acceptable as long as we do it in a humane manner I really don't see why the reason for the slaughter matters and even if it does, you're simply incorrect in arguing that religious ritual has no utility value.

(1) Read the OP, lol. The Supreme Court's decision *prevented* any restrictions/regulations being imposed on animal sacrifice. It said you can sacrifice animals any way you want. And that happens in villages a lot.

(2) Preference util would hold that even painless involuntary death to animals is immoral, since it goes against an animal's preference, since it can be seen that animals avoid death.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
thett3
Posts: 14,348
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2015 4:54:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/2/2015 4:48:40 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 11/2/2015 4:46:42 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 11/2/2015 4:40:06 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 11/2/2015 4:37:24 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 11/2/2015 4:30:58 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 11/2/2015 4:29:36 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 11/2/2015 4:26:01 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 11/2/2015 3:15:54 AM, thett3 wrote:
If we can slaughter animals for our consumption, why can't we slaughter them for the consumption of the gods?

Most animal sacrifice rituals end in nobody eating the meat (including the gods).

How would you know that? :)

Because the corpses of the animals still remain and are thrown as waste.

Don't be silly. The gods, if they exist, have powers you know not.



There are some exceptions (e.g. Eid al-Adha, where the meat is given to the poor), but the village animal sacrifices in India, for instance, and Nepal's mass animal sacrifice to Gadhimai, have no usefulness.

Neither does posting this thread, should that be illegal too? I would argue that religious ritual actually does have purpose, a lot of purpose, but even ignoring that argument what's the government interest in ending animal sacrifice?

Killing someone without purpose essentially destroys the role of government.

Killing someone? This is not human sacrifice, it's animal sacrifice. What's the government interest prohibiting animal slaughter? Are you really willing to commit to your characterization of animals as people, because if you are I'd love to hear your argument for why we should recognize them as such. I'm sure you realize the implications of this would be massive. How would we farm, for instance, with the knowledge that our chemical treatments kill untold billions of insect-people per year and our combine harvesters crush beneath their mighty cutters millions upon millions of animals taking shelter in their fields per year

Legal rights to animals already exist. We should extend them to include a right against needless suffering, and anything that serves no purpose whatsoever. If there's no purpose in killing any being, I'd argue that it's immoral, since it increases net negative mental states (cf. util).

Who says being killed causes suffering? Do we know that the animals go to chicken hell or something?

Anyway, if the ritual sacrifice was to slowly kill a chicken by plucking each feather out one by one, maybe I would agree. But from what I've heard, it's a clean cut to the throat--a quick and painless death. If we already accept that animal slaughter is acceptable as long as we do it in a humane manner I really don't see why the reason for the slaughter matters and even if it does, you're simply incorrect in arguing that religious ritual has no utility value.

(1) Read the OP, lol. The Supreme Court's decision *prevented* any restrictions/regulations being imposed on animal sacrifice. It said you can sacrifice animals any way you want. And that happens in villages a lot.

Read your own arguments, mate. You're arguing against allowing animal sacrifice because it has no usefulness and that's what I'm addressing.


(2) Preference util would hold that even painless involuntary death to animals is immoral, since it goes against an animal's preference, since it can be seen that animals avoid death.

Nobody cares, dude. I'm just saying that you're wrong when you argue that the ritual is completely pointless. Also it's the humans preference that the animal dies, so even if we want to max out preferences and assign an animal equal weight to a human, the preferences balance out and the utility of the ritual wins out :)
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Dookieman
Posts: 130
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2015 9:16:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/2/2015 4:54:39 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 11/2/2015 4:48:40 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 11/2/2015 4:46:42 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 11/2/2015 4:40:06 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 11/2/2015 4:37:24 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 11/2/2015 4:30:58 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 11/2/2015 4:29:36 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 11/2/2015 4:26:01 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 11/2/2015 3:15:54 AM, thett3 wrote:
If we can slaughter animals for our consumption, why can't we slaughter them for the consumption of the gods?

Most animal sacrifice rituals end in nobody eating the meat (including the gods).

How would you know that? :)

Because the corpses of the animals still remain and are thrown as waste.

Don't be silly. The gods, if they exist, have powers you know not.



There are some exceptions (e.g. Eid al-Adha, where the meat is given to the poor), but the village animal sacrifices in India, for instance, and Nepal's mass animal sacrifice to Gadhimai, have no usefulness.

Neither does posting this thread, should that be illegal too? I would argue that religious ritual actually does have purpose, a lot of purpose, but even ignoring that argument what's the government interest in ending animal sacrifice?

Killing someone without purpose essentially destroys the role of government.

Killing someone? This is not human sacrifice, it's animal sacrifice. What's the government interest prohibiting animal slaughter? Are you really willing to commit to your characterization of animals as people, because if you are I'd love to hear your argument for why we should recognize them as such. I'm sure you realize the implications of this would be massive. How would we farm, for instance, with the knowledge that our chemical treatments kill untold billions of insect-people per year and our combine harvesters crush beneath their mighty cutters millions upon millions of animals taking shelter in their fields per year

Legal rights to animals already exist. We should extend them to include a right against needless suffering, and anything that serves no purpose whatsoever. If there's no purpose in killing any being, I'd argue that it's immoral, since it increases net negative mental states (cf. util).

Who says being killed causes suffering? Do we know that the animals go to chicken hell or something?

Anyway, if the ritual sacrifice was to slowly kill a chicken by plucking each feather out one by one, maybe I would agree. But from what I've heard, it's a clean cut to the throat--a quick and painless death. If we already accept that animal slaughter is acceptable as long as we do it in a humane manner I really don't see why the reason for the slaughter matters and even if it does, you're simply incorrect in arguing that religious ritual has no utility value.

(1) Read the OP, lol. The Supreme Court's decision *prevented* any restrictions/regulations being imposed on animal sacrifice. It said you can sacrifice animals any way you want. And that happens in villages a lot.

Read your own arguments, mate. You're arguing against allowing animal sacrifice because it has no usefulness and that's what I'm addressing.


(2) Preference util would hold that even painless involuntary death to animals is immoral, since it goes against an animal's preference, since it can be seen that animals avoid death.

Nobody cares, dude. I'm just saying that you're wrong when you argue that the ritual is completely pointless. Also it's the humans preference that the animal dies, so even if we want to max out preferences and assign an animal equal weight to a human, the preferences balance out and the utility of the ritual wins out :)

Why do you think sentient animals lack a right to life?
thett3
Posts: 14,348
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2015 9:20:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/2/2015 9:16:03 PM, Dookieman wrote:
At 11/2/2015 4:54:39 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 11/2/2015 4:48:40 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 11/2/2015 4:46:42 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 11/2/2015 4:40:06 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 11/2/2015 4:37:24 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 11/2/2015 4:30:58 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 11/2/2015 4:29:36 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 11/2/2015 4:26:01 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 11/2/2015 3:15:54 AM, thett3 wrote:
If we can slaughter animals for our consumption, why can't we slaughter them for the consumption of the gods?

Most animal sacrifice rituals end in nobody eating the meat (including the gods).

How would you know that? :)

Because the corpses of the animals still remain and are thrown as waste.

Don't be silly. The gods, if they exist, have powers you know not.



There are some exceptions (e.g. Eid al-Adha, where the meat is given to the poor), but the village animal sacrifices in India, for instance, and Nepal's mass animal sacrifice to Gadhimai, have no usefulness.

Neither does posting this thread, should that be illegal too? I would argue that religious ritual actually does have purpose, a lot of purpose, but even ignoring that argument what's the government interest in ending animal sacrifice?

Killing someone without purpose essentially destroys the role of government.

Killing someone? This is not human sacrifice, it's animal sacrifice. What's the government interest prohibiting animal slaughter? Are you really willing to commit to your characterization of animals as people, because if you are I'd love to hear your argument for why we should recognize them as such. I'm sure you realize the implications of this would be massive. How would we farm, for instance, with the knowledge that our chemical treatments kill untold billions of insect-people per year and our combine harvesters crush beneath their mighty cutters millions upon millions of animals taking shelter in their fields per year

Legal rights to animals already exist. We should extend them to include a right against needless suffering, and anything that serves no purpose whatsoever. If there's no purpose in killing any being, I'd argue that it's immoral, since it increases net negative mental states (cf. util).

Who says being killed causes suffering? Do we know that the animals go to chicken hell or something?

Anyway, if the ritual sacrifice was to slowly kill a chicken by plucking each feather out one by one, maybe I would agree. But from what I've heard, it's a clean cut to the throat--a quick and painless death. If we already accept that animal slaughter is acceptable as long as we do it in a humane manner I really don't see why the reason for the slaughter matters and even if it does, you're simply incorrect in arguing that religious ritual has no utility value.

(1) Read the OP, lol. The Supreme Court's decision *prevented* any restrictions/regulations being imposed on animal sacrifice. It said you can sacrifice animals any way you want. And that happens in villages a lot.

Read your own arguments, mate. You're arguing against allowing animal sacrifice because it has no usefulness and that's what I'm addressing.


(2) Preference util would hold that even painless involuntary death to animals is immoral, since it goes against an animal's preference, since it can be seen that animals avoid death.

Nobody cares, dude. I'm just saying that you're wrong when you argue that the ritual is completely pointless. Also it's the humans preference that the animal dies, so even if we want to max out preferences and assign an animal equal weight to a human, the preferences balance out and the utility of the ritual wins out :)

Why do you think sentient animals lack a right to life?

Why do you think sentient animals possess a right to life?
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
smelisox
Posts: 849
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2015 9:24:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
They have no rights, in my opinion. Once there is no suffering among Men we can start talking about ending suffering of animals.

Besides, Animal Sacrifice is cruel and unusual.
Dookieman
Posts: 130
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2015 9:30:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/2/2015 9:20:16 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 11/2/2015 9:16:03 PM, Dookieman wrote:
At 11/2/2015 4:54:39 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 11/2/2015 4:48:40 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 11/2/2015 4:46:42 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 11/2/2015 4:40:06 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 11/2/2015 4:37:24 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 11/2/2015 4:30:58 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 11/2/2015 4:29:36 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 11/2/2015 4:26:01 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 11/2/2015 3:15:54 AM, thett3 wrote:
If we can slaughter animals for our consumption, why can't we slaughter them for the consumption of the gods?

Most animal sacrifice rituals end in nobody eating the meat (including the gods).

How would you know that? :)

Because the corpses of the animals still remain and are thrown as waste.

Don't be silly. The gods, if they exist, have powers you know not.



There are some exceptions (e.g. Eid al-Adha, where the meat is given to the poor), but the village animal sacrifices in India, for instance, and Nepal's mass animal sacrifice to Gadhimai, have no usefulness.

Neither does posting this thread, should that be illegal too? I would argue that religious ritual actually does have purpose, a lot of purpose, but even ignoring that argument what's the government interest in ending animal sacrifice?

Killing someone without purpose essentially destroys the role of government.

Killing someone? This is not human sacrifice, it's animal sacrifice. What's the government interest prohibiting animal slaughter? Are you really willing to commit to your characterization of animals as people, because if you are I'd love to hear your argument for why we should recognize them as such. I'm sure you realize the implications of this would be massive. How would we farm, for instance, with the knowledge that our chemical treatments kill untold billions of insect-people per year and our combine harvesters crush beneath their mighty cutters millions upon millions of animals taking shelter in their fields per year

Legal rights to animals already exist. We should extend them to include a right against needless suffering, and anything that serves no purpose whatsoever. If there's no purpose in killing any being, I'd argue that it's immoral, since it increases net negative mental states (cf. util).

Who says being killed causes suffering? Do we know that the animals go to chicken hell or something?

Anyway, if the ritual sacrifice was to slowly kill a chicken by plucking each feather out one by one, maybe I would agree. But from what I've heard, it's a clean cut to the throat--a quick and painless death. If we already accept that animal slaughter is acceptable as long as we do it in a humane manner I really don't see why the reason for the slaughter matters and even if it does, you're simply incorrect in arguing that religious ritual has no utility value.

(1) Read the OP, lol. The Supreme Court's decision *prevented* any restrictions/regulations being imposed on animal sacrifice. It said you can sacrifice animals any way you want. And that happens in villages a lot.

Read your own arguments, mate. You're arguing against allowing animal sacrifice because it has no usefulness and that's what I'm addressing.


(2) Preference util would hold that even painless involuntary death to animals is immoral, since it goes against an animal's preference, since it can be seen that animals avoid death.

Nobody cares, dude. I'm just saying that you're wrong when you argue that the ritual is completely pointless. Also it's the humans preference that the animal dies, so even if we want to max out preferences and assign an animal equal weight to a human, the preferences balance out and the utility of the ritual wins out :)

Why do you think sentient animals lack a right to life?

Why do you think sentient animals possess a right to life?

L0l. Thanks for answering my question.

I think sentient animals have a right to life because they can have good experiences. Other things being equal, when you prematurely destroy a sentient animal you deprive it of all the good experiences its life would have had, if it continued to exist.
smelisox
Posts: 849
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2015 9:32:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
So should we kill animals who kill other animals, depriving sentient beings of their lives? And then kill the man who killed the animal who killed an animal, and then kill the killer of the killer of the animal who killed an animal.
Dookieman
Posts: 130
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2015 9:32:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/2/2015 4:48:40 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 11/2/2015 4:46:42 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 11/2/2015 4:40:06 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 11/2/2015 4:37:24 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 11/2/2015 4:30:58 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 11/2/2015 4:29:36 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 11/2/2015 4:26:01 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 11/2/2015 3:15:54 AM, thett3 wrote:
If we can slaughter animals for our consumption, why can't we slaughter them for the consumption of the gods?

Most animal sacrifice rituals end in nobody eating the meat (including the gods).

How would you know that? :)

Because the corpses of the animals still remain and are thrown as waste.

Don't be silly. The gods, if they exist, have powers you know not.



There are some exceptions (e.g. Eid al-Adha, where the meat is given to the poor), but the village animal sacrifices in India, for instance, and Nepal's mass animal sacrifice to Gadhimai, have no usefulness.

Neither does posting this thread, should that be illegal too? I would argue that religious ritual actually does have purpose, a lot of purpose, but even ignoring that argument what's the government interest in ending animal sacrifice?

Killing someone without purpose essentially destroys the role of government.

Killing someone? This is not human sacrifice, it's animal sacrifice. What's the government interest prohibiting animal slaughter? Are you really willing to commit to your characterization of animals as people, because if you are I'd love to hear your argument for why we should recognize them as such. I'm sure you realize the implications of this would be massive. How would we farm, for instance, with the knowledge that our chemical treatments kill untold billions of insect-people per year and our combine harvesters crush beneath their mighty cutters millions upon millions of animals taking shelter in their fields per year

Legal rights to animals already exist. We should extend them to include a right against needless suffering, and anything that serves no purpose whatsoever. If there's no purpose in killing any being, I'd argue that it's immoral, since it increases net negative mental states (cf. util).

Who says being killed causes suffering? Do we know that the animals go to chicken hell or something?

Anyway, if the ritual sacrifice was to slowly kill a chicken by plucking each feather out one by one, maybe I would agree. But from what I've heard, it's a clean cut to the throat--a quick and painless death. If we already accept that animal slaughter is acceptable as long as we do it in a humane manner I really don't see why the reason for the slaughter matters and even if it does, you're simply incorrect in arguing that religious ritual has no utility value.

(1) Read the OP, lol. The Supreme Court's decision *prevented* any restrictions/regulations being imposed on animal sacrifice. It said you can sacrifice animals any way you want. And that happens in villages a lot.

(2) Preference util would hold that even painless involuntary death to animals is immoral, since it goes against an animal's preference, since it can be seen that animals avoid death.

You should stop appealing to utilitarianism in order to justify animals having moral status. It's a flawed moral theory. Also, animals avoiding death in no way shows that the animal has a preference to stay alive.
smelisox
Posts: 849
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2015 9:33:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/2/2015 9:30:11 PM, Dookieman wrote:
At 11/2/2015 9:20:16 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 11/2/2015 9:16:03 PM, Dookieman wrote:
At 11/2/2015 4:54:39 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 11/2/2015 4:48:40 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 11/2/2015 4:46:42 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 11/2/2015 4:40:06 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 11/2/2015 4:37:24 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 11/2/2015 4:30:58 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 11/2/2015 4:29:36 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 11/2/2015 4:26:01 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 11/2/2015 3:15:54 AM, thett3 wrote:
If we can slaughter animals for our consumption, why can't we slaughter them for the consumption of the gods?

Most animal sacrifice rituals end in nobody eating the meat (including the gods).

How would you know that? :)

Because the corpses of the animals still remain and are thrown as waste.

Don't be silly. The gods, if they exist, have powers you know not.



There are some exceptions (e.g. Eid al-Adha, where the meat is given to the poor), but the village animal sacrifices in India, for instance, and Nepal's mass animal sacrifice to Gadhimai, have no usefulness.

Neither does posting this thread, should that be illegal too? I would argue that religious ritual actually does have purpose, a lot of purpose, but even ignoring that argument what's the government interest in ending animal sacrifice?

Killing someone without purpose essentially destroys the role of government.

Killing someone? This is not human sacrifice, it's animal sacrifice. What's the government interest prohibiting animal slaughter? Are you really willing to commit to your characterization of animals as people, because if you are I'd love to hear your argument for why we should recognize them as such. I'm sure you realize the implications of this would be massive. How would we farm, for instance, with the knowledge that our chemical treatments kill untold billions of insect-people per year and our combine harvesters crush beneath their mighty cutters millions upon millions of animals taking shelter in their fields per year

Legal rights to animals already exist. We should extend them to include a right against needless suffering, and anything that serves no purpose whatsoever. If there's no purpose in killing any being, I'd argue that it's immoral, since it increases net negative mental states (cf. util).

Who says being killed causes suffering? Do we know that the animals go to chicken hell or something?

Anyway, if the ritual sacrifice was to slowly kill a chicken by plucking each feather out one by one, maybe I would agree. But from what I've heard, it's a clean cut to the throat--a quick and painless death. If we already accept that animal slaughter is acceptable as long as we do it in a humane manner I really don't see why the reason for the slaughter matters and even if it does, you're simply incorrect in arguing that religious ritual has no utility value.

(1) Read the OP, lol. The Supreme Court's decision *prevented* any restrictions/regulations being imposed on animal sacrifice. It said you can sacrifice animals any way you want. And that happens in villages a lot.

Read your own arguments, mate. You're arguing against allowing animal sacrifice because it has no usefulness and that's what I'm addressing.


(2) Preference util would hold that even painless involuntary death to animals is immoral, since it goes against an animal's preference, since it can be seen that animals avoid death.

Nobody cares, dude. I'm just saying that you're wrong when you argue that the ritual is completely pointless. Also it's the humans preference that the animal dies, so even if we want to max out preferences and assign an animal equal weight to a human, the preferences balance out and the utility of the ritual wins out :)

Why do you think sentient animals lack a right to life?

Why do you think sentient animals possess a right to life?

L0l. Thanks for answering my question.

I think sentient animals have a right to life because they can have good experiences. Other things being equal, when you prematurely destroy a sentient animal you deprive it of all the good experiences its life would have had, if it continued to exist.

So should we kill animals who kill other animals, depriving sentient beings of their lives? And then kill the man who killed the animal who killed an animal, and then kill the killer of the killer of the animal who killed an animal.
thett3
Posts: 14,348
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2015 9:35:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/2/2015 9:30:11 PM, Dookieman wrote:
At 11/2/2015 9:20:16 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 11/2/2015 9:16:03 PM, Dookieman wrote:
At 11/2/2015 4:54:39 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 11/2/2015 4:48:40 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 11/2/2015 4:46:42 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 11/2/2015 4:40:06 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 11/2/2015 4:37:24 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 11/2/2015 4:30:58 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 11/2/2015 4:29:36 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 11/2/2015 4:26:01 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 11/2/2015 3:15:54 AM, thett3 wrote:
If we can slaughter animals for our consumption, why can't we slaughter them for the consumption of the gods?

Most animal sacrifice rituals end in nobody eating the meat (including the gods).

How would you know that? :)

Because the corpses of the animals still remain and are thrown as waste.

Don't be silly. The gods, if they exist, have powers you know not.



There are some exceptions (e.g. Eid al-Adha, where the meat is given to the poor), but the village animal sacrifices in India, for instance, and Nepal's mass animal sacrifice to Gadhimai, have no usefulness.

Neither does posting this thread, should that be illegal too? I would argue that religious ritual actually does have purpose, a lot of purpose, but even ignoring that argument what's the government interest in ending animal sacrifice?

Killing someone without purpose essentially destroys the role of government.

Killing someone? This is not human sacrifice, it's animal sacrifice. What's the government interest prohibiting animal slaughter? Are you really willing to commit to your characterization of animals as people, because if you are I'd love to hear your argument for why we should recognize them as such. I'm sure you realize the implications of this would be massive. How would we farm, for instance, with the knowledge that our chemical treatments kill untold billions of insect-people per year and our combine harvesters crush beneath their mighty cutters millions upon millions of animals taking shelter in their fields per year

Legal rights to animals already exist. We should extend them to include a right against needless suffering, and anything that serves no purpose whatsoever. If there's no purpose in killing any being, I'd argue that it's immoral, since it increases net negative mental states (cf. util).

Who says being killed causes suffering? Do we know that the animals go to chicken hell or something?

Anyway, if the ritual sacrifice was to slowly kill a chicken by plucking each feather out one by one, maybe I would agree. But from what I've heard, it's a clean cut to the throat--a quick and painless death. If we already accept that animal slaughter is acceptable as long as we do it in a humane manner I really don't see why the reason for the slaughter matters and even if it does, you're simply incorrect in arguing that religious ritual has no utility value.

(1) Read the OP, lol. The Supreme Court's decision *prevented* any restrictions/regulations being imposed on animal sacrifice. It said you can sacrifice animals any way you want. And that happens in villages a lot.

Read your own arguments, mate. You're arguing against allowing animal sacrifice because it has no usefulness and that's what I'm addressing.


(2) Preference util would hold that even painless involuntary death to animals is immoral, since it goes against an animal's preference, since it can be seen that animals avoid death.

Nobody cares, dude. I'm just saying that you're wrong when you argue that the ritual is completely pointless. Also it's the humans preference that the animal dies, so even if we want to max out preferences and assign an animal equal weight to a human, the preferences balance out and the utility of the ritual wins out :)

Why do you think sentient animals lack a right to life?

Why do you think sentient animals possess a right to life?

L0l. Thanks for answering my question.

I think sentient animals have a right to life because they can have good experiences. Other things being equal, when you prematurely destroy a sentient animal you deprive it of all the good experiences its life would have had, if it continued to exist.

That doesn't really seem like a powerful argument to me. Why should I care about "good" experiences? What does that even mean? Where's the evidence that these animals are living good lives in the first place

Your profile says you're an atheist--what's your argument for the existence of rights from a secular perspective?
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Dookieman
Posts: 130
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2015 9:37:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/2/2015 9:33:40 PM, smelisox wrote:
At 11/2/2015 9:30:11 PM, Dookieman wrote:
At 11/2/2015 9:20:16 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 11/2/2015 9:16:03 PM, Dookieman wrote:
At 11/2/2015 4:54:39 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 11/2/2015 4:48:40 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 11/2/2015 4:46:42 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 11/2/2015 4:40:06 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 11/2/2015 4:37:24 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 11/2/2015 4:30:58 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 11/2/2015 4:29:36 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 11/2/2015 4:26:01 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 11/2/2015 3:15:54 AM, thett3 wrote:
If we can slaughter animals for our consumption, why can't we slaughter them for the consumption of the gods?

Most animal sacrifice rituals end in nobody eating the meat (including the gods).

How would you know that? :)

Because the corpses of the animals still remain and are thrown as waste.

Don't be silly. The gods, if they exist, have powers you know not.



There are some exceptions (e.g. Eid al-Adha, where the meat is given to the poor), but the village animal sacrifices in India, for instance, and Nepal's mass animal sacrifice to Gadhimai, have no usefulness.

Neither does posting this thread, should that be illegal too? I would argue that religious ritual actually does have purpose, a lot of purpose, but even ignoring that argument what's the government interest in ending animal sacrifice?

Killing someone without purpose essentially destroys the role of government.

Killing someone? This is not human sacrifice, it's animal sacrifice. What's the government interest prohibiting animal slaughter? Are you really willing to commit to your characterization of animals as people, because if you are I'd love to hear your argument for why we should recognize them as such. I'm sure you realize the implications of this would be massive. How would we farm, for instance, with the knowledge that our chemical treatments kill untold billions of insect-people per year and our combine harvesters crush beneath their mighty cutters millions upon millions of animals taking shelter in their fields per year

Legal rights to animals already exist. We should extend them to include a right against needless suffering, and anything that serves no purpose whatsoever. If there's no purpose in killing any being, I'd argue that it's immoral, since it increases net negative mental states (cf. util).

Who says being killed causes suffering? Do we know that the animals go to chicken hell or something?

Anyway, if the ritual sacrifice was to slowly kill a chicken by plucking each feather out one by one, maybe I would agree. But from what I've heard, it's a clean cut to the throat--a quick and painless death. If we already accept that animal slaughter is acceptable as long as we do it in a humane manner I really don't see why the reason for the slaughter matters and even if it does, you're simply incorrect in arguing that religious ritual has no utility value.

(1) Read the OP, lol. The Supreme Court's decision *prevented* any restrictions/regulations being imposed on animal sacrifice. It said you can sacrifice animals any way you want. And that happens in villages a lot.

Read your own arguments, mate. You're arguing against allowing animal sacrifice because it has no usefulness and that's what I'm addressing.


(2) Preference util would hold that even painless involuntary death to animals is immoral, since it goes against an animal's preference, since it can be seen that animals avoid death.

Nobody cares, dude. I'm just saying that you're wrong when you argue that the ritual is completely pointless. Also it's the humans preference that the animal dies, so even if we want to max out preferences and assign an animal equal weight to a human, the preferences balance out and the utility of the ritual wins out :)

Why do you think sentient animals lack a right to life?

Why do you think sentient animals possess a right to life?

L0l. Thanks for answering my question.

I think sentient animals have a right to life because they can have good experiences. Other things being equal, when you prematurely destroy a sentient animal you deprive it of all the good experiences its life would have had, if it continued to exist.

So should we kill animals who kill other animals, depriving sentient beings of their lives? And then kill the man who killed the animal who killed an animal, and then kill the killer of the killer of the animal who killed an animal.

My reason against killing sentient animals makes no claims on what we should do with those who kill them.
thett3
Posts: 14,348
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2015 9:38:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/2/2015 9:33:40 PM, smelisox wrote:
At 11/2/2015 9:30:11 PM, Dookieman wrote:
At 11/2/2015 9:20:16 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 11/2/2015 9:16:03 PM, Dookieman wrote:
At 11/2/2015 4:54:39 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 11/2/2015 4:48:40 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 11/2/2015 4:46:42 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 11/2/2015 4:40:06 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 11/2/2015 4:37:24 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 11/2/2015 4:30:58 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 11/2/2015 4:29:36 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 11/2/2015 4:26:01 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 11/2/2015 3:15:54 AM, thett3 wrote:
If we can slaughter animals for our consumption, why can't we slaughter them for the consumption of the gods?

Most animal sacrifice rituals end in nobody eating the meat (including the gods).

How would you know that? :)

Because the corpses of the animals still remain and are thrown as waste.

Don't be silly. The gods, if they exist, have powers you know not.



There are some exceptions (e.g. Eid al-Adha, where the meat is given to the poor), but the village animal sacrifices in India, for instance, and Nepal's mass animal sacrifice to Gadhimai, have no usefulness.

Neither does posting this thread, should that be illegal too? I would argue that religious ritual actually does have purpose, a lot of purpose, but even ignoring that argument what's the government interest in ending animal sacrifice?

Killing someone without purpose essentially destroys the role of government.

Killing someone? This is not human sacrifice, it's animal sacrifice. What's the government interest prohibiting animal slaughter? Are you really willing to commit to your characterization of animals as people, because if you are I'd love to hear your argument for why we should recognize them as such. I'm sure you realize the implications of this would be massive. How would we farm, for instance, with the knowledge that our chemical treatments kill untold billions of insect-people per year and our combine harvesters crush beneath their mighty cutters millions upon millions of animals taking shelter in their fields per year

Legal rights to animals already exist. We should extend them to include a right against needless suffering, and anything that serves no purpose whatsoever. If there's no purpose in killing any being, I'd argue that it's immoral, since it increases net negative mental states (cf. util).

Who says being killed causes suffering? Do we know that the animals go to chicken hell or something?

Anyway, if the ritual sacrifice was to slowly kill a chicken by plucking each feather out one by one, maybe I would agree. But from what I've heard, it's a clean cut to the throat--a quick and painless death. If we already accept that animal slaughter is acceptable as long as we do it in a humane manner I really don't see why the reason for the slaughter matters and even if it does, you're simply incorrect in arguing that religious ritual has no utility value.

(1) Read the OP, lol. The Supreme Court's decision *prevented* any restrictions/regulations being imposed on animal sacrifice. It said you can sacrifice animals any way you want. And that happens in villages a lot.

Read your own arguments, mate. You're arguing against allowing animal sacrifice because it has no usefulness and that's what I'm addressing.


(2) Preference util would hold that even painless involuntary death to animals is immoral, since it goes against an animal's preference, since it can be seen that animals avoid death.

Nobody cares, dude. I'm just saying that you're wrong when you argue that the ritual is completely pointless. Also it's the humans preference that the animal dies, so even if we want to max out preferences and assign an animal equal weight to a human, the preferences balance out and the utility of the ritual wins out :)

Why do you think sentient animals lack a right to life?

Why do you think sentient animals possess a right to life?

L0l. Thanks for answering my question.

I think sentient animals have a right to life because they can have good experiences. Other things being equal, when you prematurely destroy a sentient animal you deprive it of all the good experiences its life would have had, if it continued to exist.

So should we kill animals who kill other animals, depriving sentient beings of their lives? And then kill the man who killed the animal who killed an animal, and then kill the killer of the killer of the animal who killed an animal.

Yeah, seriously. By killing and eating animals, we are acting according to our nature.

I do find a lot of the arguments against things like factory farming or prohibiting unnecessary suffering on the part of animals to be compelling, but at the end of the day we too are just animals consuming other animals. It's the way of the world.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2015 9:45:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/2/2015 9:38:24 PM, thett3 wrote:
Yeah, seriously. By killing and eating animals, we are acting according to our nature.

I do find a lot of the arguments against things like factory farming or prohibiting unnecessary suffering on the part of animals to be compelling, but at the end of the day we too are just animals consuming other animals. It's the way of the world.

Which is an appeal to nature, which is to say, an informal fallacy.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
smelisox
Posts: 849
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2015 9:48:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/2/2015 9:45:39 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 11/2/2015 9:38:24 PM, thett3 wrote:
Yeah, seriously. By killing and eating animals, we are acting according to our nature.

I do find a lot of the arguments against things like factory farming or prohibiting unnecessary suffering on the part of animals to be compelling, but at the end of the day we too are just animals consuming other animals. It's the way of the world.

Which is an appeal to nature, which is to say, an informal fallacy.

No it isn't.
thett3
Posts: 14,348
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2015 9:51:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/2/2015 9:45:39 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 11/2/2015 9:38:24 PM, thett3 wrote:
Yeah, seriously. By killing and eating animals, we are acting according to our nature.

I do find a lot of the arguments against things like factory farming or prohibiting unnecessary suffering on the part of animals to be compelling, but at the end of the day we too are just animals consuming other animals. It's the way of the world.

Which is an appeal to nature, which is to say, an informal fallacy.

Too bad.

9 times out of 10, when someone accuses you of a fallacy it's because they can't refute the argument. People hate to admit it but our brains are not perfect little computers that analyze argumentation to ensure that it conforms to one of the handful of proper syllogistic forms and if it doesn't screams out "DOES NOT COMPUTE".

The naturalistic fallacy is controversial anyway--I do not accept that it's fallacious to argue that, all else equal, animals shouldn't be faulted for acting according to their nature.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2015 9:51:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/2/2015 9:48:27 PM, smelisox wrote:
At 11/2/2015 9:45:39 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 11/2/2015 9:38:24 PM, thett3 wrote:
Yeah, seriously. By killing and eating animals, we are acting according to our nature.

I do find a lot of the arguments against things like factory farming or prohibiting unnecessary suffering on the part of animals to be compelling, but at the end of the day we too are just animals consuming other animals. It's the way of the world.

Which is an appeal to nature, which is to say, an informal fallacy.

No it isn't.

Yes, yes it is.

"we are acting according to our nature", "It's the way of the world"
Tell me, how do you infer from "X is natural" that "X is permissibile/good"?

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...

http://rationalwiki.org...

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com...

https://en.wikipedia.org...
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic