> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Dutch wrote:
>> > wrote
>> >
>> > 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.
>>
>> Ants are sentient. They certainly can sense smells, sights,
>> sounds, objects,
>> why would they not feel pain?
>>
>
> They respond to stimuli in their environment, but I think it's
> debatable whether they actually experience any sensations.
> There's a
> good discussion of this issue in DeGrazia's "Taking Animals
> Seriously".
>
>> >> >> 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.
>>
>> What is "more accurate" about using terms like "certain
>> probability" and
>> "unecessarily"? They are both wildly vague and subjective.
>>
>
> Well, it's a lot more accurate than saying I kill something. I
> certainly don't kill anything when I go on a vacation.
===============================
If not killing things directly is the criteria, then I must be
vegan too! Yippeee!!
Afterall, I didn't kill any animal for the steak i had last
night!!!


I gave financial
> support to certain processes which harm animals. As a result of
> my
> increasing the amount of financial support that process
> received, there
> is a certain probability that mine will be a "threshold
> purchase" which
> will cause more of the process to go on, and thereby will
> increase the
> amount of harm done to animals. That's the only accurate way to
> describe what's going on here.
=============================
No, what's going on is a continued exercise in skipping out on
the blame for massive animal deaths for your lifestyle, killer.



>
>> >> You have ZERO knowledge of the
>> >> probability of the relative harms caused by different foods
>> >> you consume.
>> >>
>> >
>> > True.
>>
>> Then where do you get off defining my diet as morally
>> deficient?
>>
>
> I don't know what your diet is. I think I have a pretty good
> foundation
> for claiming that someone who regularly consumes factory-farmed
> animal
> products is not making every reasonable effort not to provide
> financial
> support for institutions or practices that cause or support
> unnecessary
> harm.
==================================
And, the same is true for those that regularly consume
factory-farmed veggies.
Afterall, the entire process is based on a world-wide
petro-chemical industry that
kills animals and detroys environemnets. Your continued support
for death and suffering and world-wide environemental destruction
is noted. Did you study bananas yet, hypocrite?





So I think that they shouldn't regularly consume factory-farmed
> animal products. You seem to be terribly upset that I hold this
> opinion, I'm not sure why. I'm not in the habit of morally
> lecturing
> people, I seem to be the one who cops most of that.
========================
And I think you shoudn't regularly consume factory-farmed
veggies, but you do. All the while decrying the
'badness' of meats. Quite the hypocrite, aren't you?



>
> It may be that there are some changes that should be made to my
> diet as
> well. I am making an effort to inform myself about the issue.
==============================
Doesn't look that way. And, the only reason you might now is
because your ignorance has been shattered with facts.
You were quite smug in having convenced yourself that veggies
were always better than meats. That's all the simple rule for
your simple mind demanded, faith. faith in the religion of
veganism..


>
>> >> > 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.
>>
>> What do you mean by "feelings", you mean feel pain?
>
> That would be an example, yes.
>
>> There is no definitive
>> answer to that question, but every animal species can be
>> observed to react
>> adversely or defensively to attack or injury.
>>
>
> There is a discussion of these issues in DeGrazia's "Taking
> Animals
> Seriously". It is often hard to tell when an organism is
> capable of
> experiencing the sensation of pain. We should go on the best
> available
> scientific evidence and give the benefit of the doubt where
> reasonably
> possible.
>
>> >> > 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.
>>
>> The terms need consistent and fair definitions for the
>> principle to have any
>> meaning. I happen to think that a lot of animals must be
>> killed in order to
>> support the human race. I think that singling out food animals
>> as political
>> clients as ARAs and vegans do, is a spurious attempt by some
>> morally deluded
>> individuals to stake out high moral ground for their personal
>> aggrandizment.
>
> The principle has *some* meaning. You have *some* idea of the
> meanings
> of the terms involved. I'm sorry if you find its formulation
> unsatisfactory, it's the best I can do so far.
>
> I think a great deal of clearly unnecessary suffering is caused
> by the
> factory-farming of animal products, much more so than any other
> human
> practice.
========================================
Really? You are wearing your blinders tight, aren't you?



I think it is reasonable to make a moral protest about this
> practice. There may be other practices that are worth
> protesting about
> too.
===========================
Of course, but those are practices that would involve your being
inconvenienced, eh? Can't have that as long as you can rant
about what you think others are doing, right hypocrite?


This is no objection to making a moral protest about
> factory-farming. One cannot devote one's time and energy to
> every
> problem. ARAs try to campaign to end the unnecessary harming of
> animals
> when they see it. I think this is a worthwhile goal.
======================
ROTFLMAO You have zero impact and say about the meat industry.
I'd say anytime you put into that is wasted.
Now, if you really wanted to protest the way animals are treated,
you would start with processes that you consume right now. But,
that would have an adverse inpact on your life, and it is far
easier to just continue the spew about what you think others are
doing, right?




>