"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.

-Rubystars