Sometimes I feel like I am dealing with children, cognitively speaking, in my many discussions about “animal rights.” After a prolonged discussion about the errors in our assumptions and “justifications” for eating the body parts and reproductive excrements of nonhuman animals, the most common retort, much like screaming with one’s fingers in their ears, is: “I have a right to eat meat.” Unfortunately, and this is the child-like behavior I mentioned above, this is a conclusion, not an argument; a conclusion that necessarily depends on reasoning to defend it.
You see, the argument portion of this conversation failed and therefore simply repeating the conclusion is the only conceivable response for some people. Not rational, reasoning adults, however. This circular insistence displays the intellect of the non-reasoning, the depth of thought that utterly belies all our claims to “superiority” (often as justification for killing nonhuman animals in the first place).
So, let’s either be humble, and acknowledge that we aren’t, in fact, reasoning animals and own that, or at least fiegn some critical thinking abilities.
how about you actually name me as clearly this is an adhoc on me
Oh I assure you Barga, you are in the majority as far as this species of unreason goes. Indeed, this was ad hoc to the extent that it was meant to address a pervasive ignorance; an ignorance that you happen to succumb to often.
So, I ask again, How do you justify this “right” to eat nonhuman animals? If you were even remotely intellectual honest Barga, you would admit that you do not have a defense for causing suffering and death to all those animals.
why do i need to justify it at all?
how can you justify eating plants, or anything at all
First off, Barga, facetious comments are rarely becoming in an intellectual setting and appear as only a defensive mechanism of weak justification.
Secondly, why do you need to justify it, Barga? Really? Are you serious? You need to justify your consumption of animals and acceptance of cruelty and torture precisely because it is just that, cruelty and torture. Unnecessary cruelty and torture to be more exact. How can you reconcile it within yourself to consume any animal or utilize any animal product, but especially an animal or animal product that has been gotten in such a cruel and senseless fashion? How is your life made better by eating meat, by drinking milk, or by wearing leather? It’s not, and that is why you must justify these superfluous actions. The exploitation of sentient beings for your gastronomic enjoyment or otherwise is NOT a right, it’s nothing more than a selfish act which you’ve proven you can’t defend or justify.
Remember, animal welfare is not about equal rights, but equal consideration.
Barga,
First, answer Emily.
Second, given that plant’s do not feel — they are not conscious — we don’t have moral intuitions or ethical principles that would make consuming plants qua consuming plants an issue of ethical import. The same does not hold for nonhuman animals given that any rational argument against killing and eating human animals would necessarily extend to most, if not all, nonhuman animals.
Furthermore, I need not tell you why you must justify it given that throughout our many, many discussions you have tried to justify it — ad nauseam at times given your intellectual dishonesty. Indeed, you would not claim the practice to be a matter of “rights” if you didn’t think it was justified as such: “rights” discourses are about justifying a practice that needs a justification for some reason; I don’t need a “right” to kick a rock down the street.
here is the problem, you both assume i have moral issues eating sentient and other creatures, yet have never proven why that should be. I would be happy eating human if i needed to
No, we don’t assume that Barga. Clearly, we understand that if necessary you would eat anything to survive. I agree with you on that. This is a moot point, however.
Your “if I needed to” qualification implies what we’re getting at Barga. Qualifying it as you have done means that you recognize that sentient beings have a prima facie right not to be killed and eaten for just any reason. “Necessity” then, is the justification that overrides that right. I accept this line of reasoning.
Here’s where your juvenility enters. We do not exist in the context whereby this “necessity” qualification is met, and therefore the prima facie right is violated when you kill and eat sentient beings. Accordingly, you are wronging these beings by doing so Barga, on your own premises.
Furthermore, our argument assumes that you believe that suffering is impartially bad; you hold the principle that causing harm is bad and thus unnecessary harm should be limited or ended as best possible. Barga, you have admitted this to be true in previous discussions. So, we aren’t assuming it. We are reasoning from your own stated proposition. Therefore, if you want to actually act morally and consistently with your own stated beliefs, veganism is the only logical conclusion.
I fear, at this point, that you may be intellectually incapable of logic and consistency Barga. Do you have any evidence to disprove my fear?
I do not eat human because it is illegal
if it were not, i would have no qualms about doing so
I don’t assume you have moral issues eating animals, from that statement though I do assume you are an ignorant sadist.
no, it merely means i am consistent
i would not intentionally cause pain of my own accord if i can help it, however, if others do it, so it is
Ahhh I think I understand now.
If other people rape women it’s OK, as long as you don’t.
If other people enslave and oppress entire cultures it’s OK, as long as you don’t.
And if other people torture, maim, and abuse animals it’s OK, as long as you aren’t right there in the slaughterhouse doing it yourself.
What an arrogant and complacent double standard.
Try and think like an adult, OK?
And another thing. You state that you yourself would not intentionally cause pain if you can help it, but that’s exactly what you’re doing with your consumer support of the meat and animal products industries.
I’m still stuck on your “If I needed to” qualification. If you just take your own beliefs seriously Barga, you should be a vegan.
I wrote about this at length here:
http://animalrights.change.org/blog/view/making_sense_of_unnecessary_from_rhetoric_to_action
nice slippery slope alex, we are talking about eating animals, not about hurting humans
No, you argued against our proposition that you don’t have any issues with harming or killing sentient beings. You followed this with a statement about eating humans “if I needed too.”
Unless you were simply randomly throwing statements about, which is possible given your mental capacity, I assumed that you implied the same qualification in the case of harming nonhuman animals. If you didn’t, why say it?
Therefore, it’s isn’t a “slippery slope.” (That doesn’t even follow; look up “slippery slope” fallacy.) Again, it’s your own words and beliefs applied consistently Barga.
I wrote a post a while back about “marginal cases” and how our responses to them prove “animal rights” valid, here:
http://animalrights.change.org/blog/view/animal_rights_and_the_argument_from_marginal_cases
Barga, you may be one of those “marginal cases.”