> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Dutch wrote:
>> > wrote
>> >
>> > Dutch wrote:
>> >> > wrote
>> >> >
>> >> > Dutch wrote:
>> >> >> > wrote
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > Well, I would question whether we have the right to
>> >> >> > kill the cattle
>> >> >> > for
>> >> >> > food, unless it could somehow be shown that we were
>> >> >> > actually
>> >> >> > reducing
>> >> >> > the number of animal deaths by doing this.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> It is very reasonable to conclude that this is at least
>> >> >> *sometimes*
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> case, but why does the number of animals who live or
>> >> >> who die have any
>> >> >> bearing on our right to use them as a food resource or
>> >> >> kill them in
>> >> >> producing one? This is a silly notion that vegans
>> >> >> swallow hook, line,
>> >> >> and
>> >> >> sinker.
>> >> >
>> >> > Because we have an obligation not to kill sentient
>> >> > animals
>> >> > unnecessarily.
>> >>
>> >> 1. No we don't, there is no such obligation
>> >> 2. All animals are sentient
>> >
>> > False.
>>
>> Name one that isn't.
>>
>
> An ant.
========================
Ah, bugs. vegans usually get around to mentioning them. OK,
so... Bugs don't count when it comes to crop production, huh?
Good thing for you cause your impact would take a hit big time,
right hypocrite? So, if bugs don't count in crop production,
then why do vegans obcess about bugs that are used as coloring in
products? Afterall, they're just bugs, and bugs don't 'count'
against your death toll, right?


>
>> >> 3. Everything you do has an impact and hence carries a
>> >> collateral cost.
>> >> Therefore by eating that second helping, that fruit
>> >> cocktail, or taking
>> >> that
>> >> vacation, all unecessary, you kill sentient animals
>> >> unecessarily.
>> >
>> > It would be more accurate to say "there is a certain
>> > probability that
>> > as a result of your action, more sentient animals will be
>> > killed
>> > unnecessarily."
>>
>> That wouldn't be more accurate at all, it is simply a
>> transparent and
>> cynical attempt to redefine your position.
>
> Yes it would, and no it isn't.
>
>> You have ZERO knowledge of the
>> probability of the relative harms caused by different foods
>> you consume.
>>
>
> True.
======================
And haven't even attempted to find out, because you have your
simple rule for your simple mind, 'eat no meat.'


>
>> > I believe there is an obligation not to kill sentient
>> > animals
>> > unnecessarily
>>
>> No you don't, you just like to think that you believe that.
>> You can't even
>> define "sentient".
>>
>
> Yes, I do. A sentient being is a being that is capable of
> having
> feelings.
>
>> > and also an obligation to make every *reasonable* effort
>> > not to provide financial support to institutions or
>> > practices that
>> > cause or support unnecessary harm.
>>
>> You're blowing smoke. You can't define the terms reasonable or
>> unnecessary
>> in this context.
>
> I can't give absolutely precise definitions of them, no.
> However, I
> believe removing these qualifications would make the moral
> principle
> false. So I keep them there. Any time someone proposes a moral
> principle with better-defined terms that I think has a
> reasonable
> chance of being true, that's great. I'm not blowing smoke, I'm
> just
> stating the moral principles I believe in.
>