In article > ,
"Rubystars" > wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Rubystars" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Ron" > wrote in message
> >> <snip>
> >> > From your final paragraph, I interpret your statements to mean that
> >> > when
> >> > others (in this case animals) are vulnerable harm that you feel an
> >> > obligation to protect them.
> >>
> >> It's best to avoid causing as much pain and suffering as is practical.
> >>
> >> >If you've been following my conversation
> >> > with Dutch, this can also be argued as the golden rule operationalized
> >> > in that humans fear being unable to defend themselves and treat others
> >> > (animals in this case) as they would like to be treated.
> >>
> >> I think it's part of being civilized not to cause a lot of pain to
> >> animals
> >> for no good reason.
> >
> > This is typically the crux of the matter in any dispute between two or
> > more parties -- what is deemed as a good reason to do X. The second
> > condition of your position is a requirement for less pain, not no pain.
> >
> > The lack of logic emerges when the inconsistencies emerge. If it is
> > acceptable to inflict suffering on a cow as a food source then it ought
> > to be okay to inflict suffering on any animal as a food source. That
> > would be consistent. Clearly we don't do that so, I tend to view this
> > argument as being an excuse and not the 'true' reason or motivation for
> > the behaviour.
> >
> > My question of you would be what is "a lot of pain"? Your statement is
> > very subjective and that can be interpreted in many ways. for example,
> > if we were to be more humane in the killing of animals (read some
> > animals that are used) as a food source does this satisfy your
> > requirement for less or minimal infliction of pain?
>
> I left my statements open because the whole point of this group is about
> debating what constitutes bad things and what constitutes acceptable use
> (unless you're a hardcore ARA, then no use of animals is acceptable).
>
> I also think there's such a thing as consistency going too far. Should we
> treat every species exactly the same? Probably not.

Animals can be killed essentially without pain. If this is the only
obstacle then I find the objection can be easily addressed and the need
for veganism can be avoided.

Further, can we clarify which species it is acceptable to inflict pain
and suffering on and which species it is not acceptable to inflict pain
and suffering on?