I find it hilarious that you throw around terms like "idiocy" when it is blatantly obvious that you (among others) are irrational and therefore being not sensible/idiots.
Argument from Agony
- Experience tells us that being in agony is morally bad
- Anything morally bad always gives us a reason to want to avoid it
- Therefore, being in agony always gives us a reason to want to avoid it
- Anything that has an interest (e.g. avoiding agony) is morally considerable
- Sentient beings have interests
- Non-human animals and humans are sentient beings
- Therefore, non-human animals and humans are morally considerable
If non-human animals are morally considerable, and being in agony always gives us a reason to avoid it, then it rationally follows that causing non-human animals to be in agony gives us normative reason to alleviate it. If being in agony is worth avoiding, this reason must apply to non-human animals as well because they are morally considerable. To discount their interests requires arguing why animals are not morally considerable, or why their interests ought to be overridden. Taste doesn't cut it. Nutrition doesn't cut it either.
That I rationally recognize these conclusions and act accordingly is the sensible/smart/intelligent thing to do. That isn't being self serving. That's being logical.
What have you said so far Avelanche? All I can say about you is that you are one big nincompoop. To spell it out for you, that means foolish or stupid.
This was later in the thread and the response to it was so blatantly mistaken that it should be posted here.
Well where is the line?
Do you use plastic bags? Well then you might as well eat meat because plastic bags utilize animal fat. Hope you don't take your bike anywhere because several bike tires (and car tires) use stearic acid. Don't get me started on if you've ever enjoyed fireworks or don't research shampoo, toothpaste, sugar, fabric softener, beer, wine, glue, biofuel, marshmallows. And let me add that if your residence catches fire don't you dare use a fire extinguisher because if you do you might as well be eating meat.
Stupid arguments beget stupid arguments.
Wow. Committing straw man arguments is clearly a favorite past time of yours.
- Person A has position X.
- Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
- Person B attacks position Y.
- Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
1.All the ad claims is that whatever normative reasons apply for not eating your dog as food (and the ad assumes correctly that the vast majority of dog owners would never eat their dogs) it is highly likely that those same reasons also apply to other animals purposed for food.
2. The ad says nothing about anything being derived from animals in some form or another is morally wrong. You are clearly taking things out of context.
3. Everything else you say is a mischaracterization of the ad's original intent. Attacking that mischaracterization is not valid. Hence, straw man.
Edited by SILLY GOOSE, 12 November 2012 - 05:25 PM.