Offensive PETA ad / Animal ethics?

Ah, quadraphonics, my friendly stalker. Always a pleasure to hear more from you.

Let's cut to the chase, shall we?

You think it's an honour to be bred solely for the purpose of consumption by another animal? I guess you imagine that your rightful place in the rich tapestry of life is to have all cows and chickens bow down and thank you every time you have one of them slaughtered to satisfy your appetites. quadraphonics: King of the Beasts. Master of all he surveys! And oh so moral and righteous!

Praise him. Praise him!

Do your views apply equally to breeding other humans for your consumption, too? I assume not. Because humans are special and "above" the cows and chickens. Is that correct? If so, tell me why. Why are you King of the Beasts, and Entitled, quadraphonics?

What do you think their position would be on the matter, if they could tell you?

Or do you think that the fact that they cannot tell you justifies your position?

If the roles were reversed, would you be happy with the status quo? If not, why not?

How much do you know about factory farming? Do you think it's all hunky dory for the animals?

Take battery hens, for example. Any cruelty there, do you think, or do you think that, by and large, the majority of battery hens live good lives and ought to be thankful for the conditions they are raised in?

What is the salient difference?

Are you aware that humans are animals? I'm sure a smart guy like you knows that.

So, what is this salient difference you speak of that justifies treating non-human animals as mere property, while giving human beings rights such as a right not to be arbitrarily bred and killed for consumption?

Are "we"? Maybe if you want to know what I'm countenancing, then rather than setting up more straw men you could ... like ... ask me.

Are you always this disingenous? I believe I have discussed this very point with you before, yet here you are ascribing to me a position that I have never expressed.

In other words, you have erected another straw man. You've knocked it down, and off you go with a smug smile congratulating yourself on a job well done.

Are you consciously aware of your alteration of my position, or is this how you remember it from our previous conversations?

Also, it's one thing to push this distortion onto others in the hope that they'll buy it as the argument that I actually put to you, but it's quite another for you to imagine that I'm dumb enough not to notice, or not to pull you up on it. I was there during our previous discussion, remember?

Please precis your memory of the point about nervous systems, because here again I sense that you either didn't grasp the actual argument, or have retrospectively edited your memory of it so that it has become a straw-man that is easy for you to demolish in your own mind.

Hint: you don't do it on the basis of the type of nervous system (or lack on one).

Would you like me to explain it to you again? Or you could go back and read the last time I told you. But let me know if you need help.

Then why make the kind of silly statement that I responded to with my comment? You're a strange one, quadraphonics.

Well, in part you are. But then again you've misrepresented and/or mentally revised at least two of those arguments already in this single response.

I don't think you've grasped the Principle of Equal Consideration yet. I can explain it again to you if you like. Just let me know.

Now I know you don't understand the principle.

They have. I have.

It's not my fault if you want to keep rationalising to yourself and knocking down your straw men. At least I tried. Some people are too set in their ways. Some people just aren't that moral, or are morally inconsistent. Some people are wilfully blind. And some just don't grasp the relevant arguments. And so it goes.

 

You again! Hi TW Scott!

Long time no see. You disappear from the forum for months on end, but you come running back at the first whiff of an argument about vegetarianism.

Still feeling guilty, deep down?

 

Having replied to the substance of quadraphonics' post, let's see what's left. Hmm... there's the sniping, of course.

Is this guy good, or what? You be the judge. Remember, as quadraphonics himself says:

Always a pleasure.

 

Here's some stuff that's relevant to the kinds of points I have raised in this thread:

[enc]equal_consideration[/enc]

I urge people who are new to the topic of animal rights to read this, so I don't have to repeat some of the basics again.

I also urge quadraphonics to read it. I was under the impression that he'd read it before, but it seems either he didn't understand it the first time, or else has only a vague memory of the arguments put there now.

 

For some reason, the link didn't work. I have altered it so that it works now.

 

So you say, TW Scott. So you say. It's a pity you lack any justification.

 

*sigh*

Another one who's never actually considered the issue.

Really, why bother posting at all, if you're just going to display your ignorance?

 

TW Scott:

And yet, here you are in this thread. Why are you here?

 

AlexG:

No. It's that you haven't even begun to examine what my position is. All you have is an unthinking belief that everything you do is automatically moral and good. Or, alternatively, that you haven't even considered that your choices about what you consume may have a moral dimension. And yet you feel the need to enter this thread to trumpet your unthinking beliefs.

You're not the only one, of course. There are lots of others just like you.

Your mistake here is that you assume that everything that is "natural" is moral and good. But you're supposed to have evolved a moral sense along with your canine teeth. That means you are, in theory, capable of thinking about things and of making decisions based on morality rather than base desires and "instincts".

On the flip side, there are many many things you do all the time that are "unnatural", but that doesn't stop you doing them.

 

Alex G:

One other thought.

Would you be happy to raise human beings so you could eat them? After all, canines that are good for tearing flesh can tear human flesh just as well as chicken or cow flesh.

So, if human was on the menu, would you have any moral qualms about chowing down? If you would, on what basis?