Surely, you mean that these domesticated animals wouldn't be on the land — petrichor
False analogy.
You are confusing humans with animals. — charleton
Why? — charleton
I'm not making an argument for factory farms. I'm supporting the natural right of a human to eat meat. — charleton
making your point about factory farms completely irrelevant. — charleton
You are ignorant here.
Please compare with natural death by predator or disease. — charleton
I consider domesticants animals too. — charleton
I consider domesticants animals too. Your problem seems to be that you confuse them with humans. — charleton
I read the rest of your tiatribe and you failed to even begin to address a world without meat animals and what would happen putting more land under the plough, and destroy the environment with more domesticated vegetables production. — charleton
For me, the pain issue seems secondary to the idea that other sentient beings belong to themselves and not to me. They simply aren't mine to do with as I please. It would be wrong for me to use them as a means to my ends like that without some serious justification even if I cause them no pain or even if I cause them pleasure. — petrichor
The same way most persuasions are done in the real world - by making them feel they do not want to eat meat - by telling a story that changes how they feel about it.How can you convince someone to not eat meat if you are not concerned with presenting them a valid argument? — Andrew4Handel
I see the quest for moral grounds as pointless and ultimately doomed. Our moral decisions are grounded in our values. Our values are personal and cannot be justified by reason. Lack of identified grounds is no reason for lack of action. To not explicitly act is as much a decision as to act, and each is as groundless as the other.I am not sure what grounds you have for trying to change someones behaviour if they are not valid or rational? — Andrew4Handel
Humans are animals. — petrichor
No one is free really because no one asks to be born and we are it seems forced into existence. — Andrew4Handel
Animals appear to act more on instinct than rational goals or desire. — Andrew4Handel
I don't know what purpose there is for animals that we can thwart. — Andrew4Handel
Can you imagine being a cow wandering around eating grass drinking water and not much else? — Andrew4Handel
Far from living at their expense; we guarantee their survival and they live in far better comfort and security than their natural cousins; they die cleanly, with no pain. — charleton
Yes, but you're still confusing them with what they're not, namely other animals, like chickens or pigs. I wouldn't treat humans like we do chickens or pigs, and I wouldn't treat chickens or pigs like we do humans, and there's nothing wrong about that.
Given that chickens and pigs are not like humans, it's a different argument. That they're useful to us, and can be farmed, is not to suggest the same of humans. — Sapientia
Cows do more than just that. They actually have a richer social life than most realize, for one thing. Regardless, cows are constituted such that they enjoy wandering around freely eating grass and drinking water, just as we enjoy eating and drinking and moving around freely. — petrichor
X are useful to us
X can readily be made use of
Therefore, it is right for us to use X
I hope you aren't making that argument. — petrichor
Do you think that their usefulness to us and the fact that it is possible to farm them justifies our using and farming them? — petrichor
Consider the possible consequences of such a line of justification. Slaves are useful too. And people can be enslaved. It worked for many centuries. Does that justify anything? — petrichor
Like us, these animals have the capacity to suffer. And they have interests.They may not the have the potential to become mathematicians... — petrichor
...but they are better off not being in such conditions as the following and we have no right to do such things to our fellow sentient beings. The idea that our pleasure justifies all this is monstrous. — petrichor
Humans are animals. — petrichor
If my enslavement and eating of a group of humans — petrichor
other beings simply do not belong to us to do with as we please. — petrichor
Cows produce lots of greenhouse gases and contribute in a big way to global warming. — petrichor
Cows produce lots of greenhouse gases and contribute in a big way to global warming.
— petrichor
Cows are carbon neutral. This is a false argument and quite a desperate ploy to traduce herbivores in general. The planet is capable of making x amount of biomass. All plant matter eventually rots or passed through an animal, cows, monkeys, or widebeasts; human too, makes no difference. If a cow had not eaten the food the greenhouse gasses would have been farted out by a vegetarian, or eventually rotted away expressing the gas then. A cow is just a part of the carbon cycle. — charleton
Have you worked on a kill floor before? — Akanthinos
Because I have, for hogs, and I can tell you that no, not at all, the beasts do not die well or cleanly. — Akanthinos
It is not a straightforward case of asking a patient whether they want to be kept alive. There is a wide variety of medical procedures and caring strategies that effects someones longevity in hospital. — Andrew4Handel
I would say the sheep were expressionless showing no specific joie de vivre. — Andrew4Handel
I think crime is natural and moralising about it is pointless. I would tackle the causes of crime rather than focus on vilifying people. — Andrew4Handel
That's how it's beginning to seem, and I'm getting sick and tired of it. — Sapientia
Now, since you have not given me the courtesy of sticking to the point, in return, I will not give you the courtesy of even reading the rest of your post, let alone giving it a considered reply. — Sapientia
Can, hypothetically, occasionally does... — Sapientia
indication of evangelism. — Sapientia
Animals are not humans. Think that through a minute! — charleton
This means that you can identify those things that would count as crimes: which implies you do understand the difference between things one ought to do — NKBJ
I don't think Harm equals Wrong or Bad. And that kind idea was what was being attacked by G.E.Moore with his "Naturalistic Fallacy" (Although he focused on Good and Pleasure). — Andrew4Handel
It seems we are to believe only humans harming animals is a moral evil. — Andrew4Handel
I was only using the term crime because you brought it up. — Andrew4Handel
You are trying to commit people to behaving in the same way in a diverse set of circumstances however. — Andrew4Handel
But even after getting a clear advocacy or consent for keeping some one alive the medical procedures are a life or death matter and to which extent you persist in treating someone. So there have been long court cases about whether someone should be kept alive (babies/people in vegetative state etc) — Andrew4Handel
Getting so upset about what a stranger says on the internet in a philosophical debate, especially when they did not say anything personal to you, is a sign that you have lost objectivity about the subject (at least for the moment). — NKBJ
Like we don't all know that actually means "I can't think of a way to counter your arguments, but I don't want to admit it." :cool: — NKBJ
Why does that change the essence of what I was saying? — NKBJ
Even if you could hypothetically keep a cow for it's natural lifespan (20+ years), it doesn't happen. — NKBJ
They are killed before three years of age (dairy cows get to live a whopping 4 years before being killed). — NKBJ
And even IF one in a million cows gets treated like a lifelong pet by some farmer who has a soft spot--how does that justify the treatment of the other 999,999? — NKBJ
I think that the moderators should consider deleting those pictures - not for graphic content, but because they're unnecessary, irrelevant, and an indication of evangelism. — Sapientia
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.