D-Money Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 Animals don't have souls. Nor do humans. Unless you hold religous beliefs. If that's the case, I can't help you there either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 Like I said, you're not getting it. I'm talking about the normative justification, not what you can legally do. As for culture, superior to who? Indian culture or buddhist cultures whom are predominatly vegetarian? Really? Are you seriously saying your culture (whatever that is) is better than theirs? (just because you eat meat-ha!) Talk about an unqualified value judgement. Absurd. As for culture clash and "violent matters" I have no idea what you are saying. You should clarify what you are saying Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 Animals don't have souls. Nor do humans. Unless you hold religous beliefs. If that's the case, I can't help you there either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 Sorry Ron but that was plain english. I think it's the reasoning you are having difficulties with. Can't help you there. Perhaps you should drop the cultural relativism point of view until you better understand exactly what this view endorses Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmployeeoftheMonth Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 So why is it that there is a clear distinction between human and non human animals in the thread title when such a gloriously stupid comparison is being made with the slave trade? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gumballthechewy Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 Ok, I'm just going to post my opinion on the matter. I wouldn't eat my dogs nor would I inflict pain upon any animal just for the fun of inflicting pain on something, however, if an animal I eventually am going to eat is subject to pain at some point in it's life, oh well, it's not my problem. I could care less about some retarded animal who's face I'm about to eat. Now your probably thinking; "isn't that a little hypocritical?" Yes, very much so, your point is? My dogs are my friends, a cow is not. I'm not against people who eat dogs either. Dogs are probably tasty, however I have no desire to eat one myself. I'm going to continue eating meat because: 1. It's tasty. 2. I can. 3. As a human being I have evolved to eat meat. "But Gumball, it's morally wrong!" Boo hoo, I guess that makes me an evil person then, besides good and evil are subjective points of view anyway, some people view sex as evil for crying out loud! I don't condone vegans for how they live their lives, it's their lives not mine, however I hate the ones that try and shove their beliefs down everybody's throats and tell them they're wrong for living their lives how they choose to and all that. You want to be a vegan then fine, that's cool, lets be friends but if you think I'm wrong for living how I choose to then you're wrong for living the way you choose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angry Goose Posted November 28, 2012 Author Share Posted November 28, 2012 I love how you spend pages arguing the validity of your belief - that animals are creatures that inherently deserve a significantly different treatment from humans than they receive from other animals. But then you quickly and carelessly dismiss one of the most core beliefs of around 75% of the world's population. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angry Goose Posted November 28, 2012 Author Share Posted November 28, 2012 I wouldn't eat my dogs nor would I inflict pain upon any animal just for the fun of inflicting pain on something, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 I can't argue with irrationality like this. I'll send you a dunce cap for x-mas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 Listen to what you are saying. Your dogs are your friends. You value your relationship with them. And other people value their relationships with the animals they know. But animals whom have no relationships with humans, many of whom arn't even given the chance to forge relationships automaticlly get the short end of the stick? You're right- it is hypocritical because it is down right cruel. You would never treat your dogs like how other animals are treated in factory farms. Just because other animals arn't "friends" with you shouldn't stop you from taking their interests into consideration Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmployeeoftheMonth Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 My argument is predicated on secular reasoning. If someone is intent on turning the debate into a religous versus secular one, well that is an entirely different discussion. It's close to the cultural relativism debate because it is distracting to the point at issue. If someone is steadfast about arguing "animals don't have souls, therefore I can do them no harm" or "eating meat reflects my culture, therefore I can do animals no harm" it's going to be difficult to reason with them. I'm working from the assumptions that 1) being in agony is morally relevant and 2) animal agony is morally relevant. I think these are reasonable assumptions. I've made very reasonable assumptions. That is what good debate consists of. You'll notice that I havn't endorsed an absolute prohibition against eating animals among other things. Perhaps that's why my argument isn't as easily attacked because I don't make far reaching claims. Perhaps arguing against the justification for eating meat seems far reaching to some, but the reasoning is there. Are you trying to say that point out logical fallacies is immature and counter productive? If anything it's the oppositte. Good argumentation depends on not making these types of errors. If you want to spite me for that, well you need to grow up. I can't argue with irrationality like this. I'll send you a dunce cap for x-mas. You should go back and re-read the posts before noting anything to do with "stupidity". Because the irony is glaring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aeromotacanucks Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 Dear Silly Goose. 1) Go to the nearest Strip Club and enjoy. it´s clear that you REALLY NEED THIS... 2) when you get there pay 500 bucks to a hot girl and have fun... 3) after 4 hours leave the Strip Club and go to a nice pub with your friends, drink vodka with wisky and wine and talk about stupid things... 4) after that relax and learn that everybody has a reason to follow what they believe, show your side is one thing, many people will agree with you, many will not. if they don´t avoid force them, it´s not good... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jägermeister Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 Who else likes to eat meat and read this thread at the same time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gumballthechewy Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 So causing an animal to be in agony for no good reason is not a sufficient justification. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryten Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 Who else likes to eat meat and read this thread at the same time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.