Why are animal rights suporters so intolerant?

Discussion in 'Science & Society' started by Fenrisulven, Oct 13, 2008.

  1. MetaKron Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    Which sentence?

    I eat meat daily. It is fine with me to pay someone to kill animals so that I can eat meat.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Enmos Staff Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    "It is not alright to kill or hurt any animal unless it is out of direct physical defense where there is no reasonable alternative, or to prevent one self from starving to death when there is no reasonable alternative."
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. MetaKron Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    It is alright to inflict the suffering necessary to raise and kill an animal for food, or to inflict the suffering necessary to conduct research in a reasonable manner, or to inflict the suffering necessary to preserve a species. It is alright to breed a species knowing that some of them will suffer incidentally as a result.

    You have too many negatives in your so-called morality and you think that vegetarian and vegan diets are reasonable alternatives. I don't know how responsive you personally are to the fact that some people need meet to live, Enmos, but a lot of activists would let them die and let their children grow up brain-damaged.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Enmos Staff Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    It's a temporary proposal, to get somewhere else. We need some common ground, no ?
    So would you please answer it ? Note that it says "where/when there is no reasonable alternative".
    What reasonable alternatives are can be discussed later.
     
  8. MetaKron Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    I believe that it is OK to cause suffering to an animal for a good reason.
     
  9. Enmos Staff Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    So you agree then ?
     
  10. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    That's my point though

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    There is always a 'reasonable alternative'.

    Although I suppose that depends on how you define reasonable.

    Again, why should I restrict myself to eating meat only when i've run out of vege's - which is what your statement implies.

    I don't see meat as a last resort.

    Take my beef stirfry.

    1 part meat, 1 part rice, 2 parts veges (essentially).
    It's mostly not meat, but am I in danger of starving to death any time soon? No.
    Would I eat it without the beef? Probably not.

    Kill for nourishment? Sure, but never more then you need, and never cause your prey to suffer.
    Kill for Self defense? Sure, if you're out of options.
    Kill for sport, or pleasure? No, this is unacceptable.
     
  11. Enmos Staff Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    That's not what it suggests at all. What else is the reason for eating then to prevent you from starving. You eat to keep alive.
    Anyway, I am really baffled by your and metakrons reluctance to agree with my "proposal". Even someone that enjoys kicking the shit out of any animal he comes across for the pure fun of it would agree with it.
    What reasonable alternatives are can be discussed later.
     
  12. MetaKron Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    With exactly what?
     
  13. Enmos Staff Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Do you have a memory problem or something ? :bugeye:
    Post 462
     
  14. MetaKron Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    No, I cannot agree to that.
     
  15. Enmos Staff Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    The only conclusion then is that you like to hurt and/or kill animals for your pleasure.

    If this is not so, state why you don't agree.
     
  16. MetaKron Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    I do not agree. Alternate conclusions include the fact that I tolerate the hurting and killing of animals to serve a useful purpose, like testing of drugs, cosmetics, and food additives, or to feed myself and my family.
     
  17. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    It's the use of the word 'Starvation' that I disagree with.

    Starvation has a specific medical definition attached to it, and while I agree with what you're saying above, I disagree with your use of the word in your definition - for example, it's possible to be malnourished without actually starving. Starvation happens to be the most extreme form of Malnutrition, therefore your sentence can reasonably be interpreted as "to prevent one self from the most extreme forms of malnutrition, when there is no reasonable alternative."

    The other point is that the inclusion of the phrase reasonable alternative, implies that killing for meat should be a final option.

    In other words (at least IMO) your phraseology can reasonably be interpreted as meaning:

    "Killing for meat is acceptable if it is to stave off the most extreme forms of malnutrition, and then if, and only if, you have exhausted all other possibilities."

    So far two people in this thread have come to the same conclusion reading your posts, surely that must suggest that there may be a better way of phrasing it (which is all I'm suggesting).

    When you're trying to come up with a statement like this, you have to consider all possible interpretations - in my job, if there is ever any ambiguity, or if there is no legal definition, then we're forced to resort to the definition as explicitly stated in the dictionary.
     
  18. MetaKron Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    They ask for things that they are not entitled to and use a false morality as an excuse to make the demands. Then they get abusive if people refuse to submit.
     
  19. Enmos Staff Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    At this point my "proposal" includes these views. So why don't you agree ?
     
  20. MetaKron Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    No, your proposal does not include those views.
     
  21. Enmos Staff Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Ok, I think it's worded pretty clearly and unambiguously, but then English is not my first language.
    I trust you do get what I mean, so I want to ask you to rephrase it, if you don't mind

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    With Metakron, however, I get the idea that he has his own agenda.
     
  22. Enmos Staff Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    It is meant to include that.
    I have asked Trippy to rephrase it.
    I'd be glad if you would attempt the same

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  23. MetaKron Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    "Animals and humans serve each other's interests best without interference from animal rights activists."
     

Share This Page