Why are animal rights suporters so intolerant?

"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."
 
Enmos said:
"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."
Click to expand...

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.
 
MetaKron said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Enmos said:
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.
Click to expand...

I believe that it is OK to cause suffering to an animal for a good reason.
 
Enmos said:
I see you point but, to be fair, I said: "to prevent one self from starving".

"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."
Click to expand...

That's my point though ;)

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.
 
Trippy said:
That's my point though ;)

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Enmos said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Enmos said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
MetaKron said:
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.
Click to expand...

At this point my "proposal" includes these views. So why don't you agree ?
 
Trippy said:
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.
Click to expand...

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 :)
With Metakron, however, I get the idea that he has his own agenda.
 
"Animals and humans serve each other's interests best without interference from animal rights activists."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top