Originally posted by NemesioNo, I do not.
Originally posted by PinkFloyd
[b]But "giving due consideration to the animals" (and I'm speaking STRICTLY about using animals for food here--so don't go back to the cruelty thing), I just don't understand the phrase at all. It's like looking at my breakfast of crispy bacon and country ham and thinking "that stuff has rights." To me, it just doesn' ...[text shortened]... ave a problem with people have the viewpoint articulated above?
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioI don't have a problem with anyone's notions in that regard as long as they don't try to force them on others, which has been my whole point from the beginning concerning animals. I don't want to "convert" ANYone to my way of thinking.
Did you misread me? You don't have a problem with the notion that black people don't have rights and the people who espouse such a notion?
Nemesio
Wow, we sure veered a bit off topic, didn't we?🙂
Nemesio,
I believe that you have argued that animals have certain rights and that it is cruel to harm them needlessly.
If we assume that God created carnivores which have no choice but to harm other animals or die, and the existence of herbivores shows us that that is not the only possible design, can we take it that Gods decision to create carnivores was cruel?
Originally posted by PinkFloydBy eating animals, you are forcing your views on them. This is the point.
I don't have a problem with anyone's notions in that regard as long as they don't try to force them on others, which has been my whole point from the beginning concerning animals. I don't want to "convert" ANYone to my way of thinking.
You will undoubtedly retort, 'But they don't have X (rights, feelings, whatever)!'
But I can apply that model, well I can kill black people 'because they don't
have X (whatever you say).'
Until you can justify your belief, the architecture for that belief can be used
to validate just about any act of violence.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioAs I said, this is where we disagree. I don't see a need to justify my beliefs. I've lived around people my entire life with, shall we say, less than positive views about certain minorities. Your question was does it bother me? It doesn't, because beliefs are just thoughts--puffs of logic. Now if they ACT on those beliefs, action may be required. Otherwise, it's just harmless neurons firing away.
By eating animals, you are forcing your views on them. This is the point.
You will undoubtedly retort, 'But they don't have X (rights, feelings, whatever)!'
But I can apply that model, well I can kill black people 'because they don't
have X (whatever you say).'
Until you can justify your belief, the architecture for that belief can be used
to validate just about any act of violence.
Nemesio
Again---I do not condone violence.
Originally posted by twhitehead
I believe that you have argued that animals have certain rights and that it is cruel to harm them needlessly.
I maintain that certain animals have rights. I don't think jellyfish have
rights because they lack the neocortical architecture necessary to experience
suffering (they lack brains in any true sense altogether). They have nociceptive
responses, but lack the neural infrastructure necessary to have the experience
'pain.'
If we assume that God created carnivores which have no choice but to harm other animals or die, and the existence of herbivores shows us that that is not the only possible design, can we take it that Gods decision to create carnivores was cruel?
Let me preface my comment with one thing: I hope you don't think I'm
a Creationist.
The assumption would rest on the additional one that non-human animals
also have the self-awareness to acknowledge a state of being, that one
state of being is better than another, that being free from suffering is
better than suffering (this is beyond the nocicpetive response above, note).
So, a Creationist would only concede the above argument if they further
denied that animals have interests, a denial that I think is pretty standard.
Creationists view humans as the pinnacle of Creation, the only terrestrial
beings capable of being self aware (angels would also be self aware).
They tend to deny when science shows anything to the contrary, in my
experience.
Nemesio
Originally posted by PinkFloydYou're missing my point.
As I said, this is where we disagree. I don't see a need to justify my beliefs. I've lived around people my entire life with, shall we say, less than positive views about certain minorities. Your question was does it bother me? It doesn't, because beliefs are just thoughts--puffs of logic. Now if they ACT on those beliefs, action may be required. Otherwise, it's just harmless neurons firing away.
Again---I do not condone violence.
Can I be morally justified in killing black people and eating them?
If not, then how can you be morally justified in killing non-humans and
eating them?
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioI interpreted the question to mean something different, that would not rely on such an assumption.
[b]If we assume that God created carnivores which have no choice but to harm other animals or die, and the existence of herbivores shows us that that is not the only possible design, can we take it that Gods decision to create carnivores was cruel?
The assumption would rest on the additional one that non-human animals
also have the self-awarene ...[text shortened]... from suffering is
better than suffering (this is beyond the nocicpetive response above, note).[/b]
Let us consider a specific universe with only plants, herbivorous antelopes, and carnivorous tigers.
Let us stipulate that antelopes suffer when hunted and killed by tigers.
Let us stipulate that tigers do not have the capacity to contemplate the suffering experienced by antelopes.
Was the creator of such a universe unnecessarily cruel? Couldn't the creator have acted in a morally superior manner by following one of these alternate designs:
a) making antelopes incapable of suffering when being hunted and killed
b) making tigers herbivorous
c) making only antelopes
Originally posted by PinkFloydCommon sense tells me that you can't round up a pair of every animal on earth and keep them together on the same boat for months.
Oh---at first blush let's just say....common sense?
So, given that I don't have common sense as you know it, but that I am amenable to reason, how would you convince me that black people shouldn't be farmed for food?
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesA. God is supernaturally omnipotent.
Common sense tells me that you can't round up a pair of every animal on earth and keep them together on the same boat for months.
So, given that I don't have common sense as you know it, but that I am amenable to reason, how would you convince me that black people shouldn't be farmed for food?
B. People are worth a wjole lot, and animals are worth.....substantially less.
I feel no obligation to convince you or anyone else, that I am right and you are wrong. In fact, I wouldn't be so presumptuous to do such a thing. I know statements A and B to be true--and that's enough for me. 🙂