Dutch wrote:
> > wrote
> >
> > Dutch wrote:
> [..]
>
> >> >> The salient point here is that "sentience" is a misapplied term by
> >> >> ARAs,
> >> >
> >> > Can you give me some examples of this misapplication?
> >>
> >> You already did. Sentience is mistakenly used to mean the ability to use
> >> complex reasoning, as mammals do, when it actually just means the ability
> >> to
> >> feel, in other words to have the sense of touch.
> >
> > I didn't mistakenly use "sentience" in this way. I didn't see anyone
> > else who did, either.
>
> Then your point is absurd. You haven't defined sentience rigorously and
> can't determine which animals are and which aren't. The only way this
> "egalitarian" ideal could even begin to work is if you begin by defining
> most animal species as non-sentient, and you can't do that.
>

I defined sentience as the capacity to have feelings. I gave a
reference to a philosophical work which examines some of the scientific
literature and concludes there is probably good reason to think insects
are not sentient.

> >> Any animal that has sensory
> >> touch receptors can feel, therefore could feel pain. There is no
> >> evolutionary reason that insects would evolve without the defense
> >> mechanism
> >> of the ability to feel pain.
> >>
> >
> > As I say, if you want to comment on DeGrazia's discussion of the issue
> > then go ahead.
>
> That's not my job. If you want to introduce some of his ideas into this
> debate then be my guest.
>

It's up to you whether you want to comment on them or not. If you
choose not to, you have no basis for criticizing my stance.

> >> >> and
> >> >> they use this misapplication to exclude themselves from guilt for
> >> >> complicity
> >> >> in a whole myriad of potential animal suffering associated with their
> >> >> consumer lifestyles. This enables them to keep applying the focus
> >> >> where
> >> >> they
> >> >> believe it properly belongs, on those evil and misguided meat-eaters.
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> Perhaps I should give them the benefit
> >> >> >> >> of the doubt. But I don't think I'm going to give myself a guilt
> >> >> >> >> trip
> >> >> >> >> about killing mosquitoes.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > No. I don't think you should give yourself guilt trips about
> >> >> >> > killing
> >> >> >> > any type of parasite.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> He just moved the goalposts again.
> >> >>
> >> >> Meaning he was challenged on ants so he tried using mosquitos as his
> >> >> example, a typical pro-ARA argument tactic.
> >> >
> >> > I was challenged on ants and I said something in response. Talking
> >> > about mosquitoes is just changing the subject, not "moving the
> >> > goalposts". I am allowed to talk about more than one thing.
> >>
> >> You lost confidence in your assertion about ant sentience so you tried a
> >> flyer with mosquitos.
> >
> > No, I still have confidence in it.
>
> You shouldn't have confidence in it.
>

You have no basis for saying this, because you've refused to go and
examine the support for it which I cited.

> >> The fact is we don't know, except that we cause a lot
> >> of death and suffering to animals, that's just how real life is.
> >
> > True. And I believe we should take steps to minimize it.
>
> More specifically, you think everyone should follow the vegan ritual of
> abstaining from animal products.

I believe everyone should make every reasonable effort not to provide
financial support for institutions or practices that cause or support
unnecessary harm. I believe this would require boycotting most animal
products that are produced in our society. There may be a few
exceptions.