CC1
Banned
If I didn't know better I would swear that you are my buddy 3rdEyeDown reincarnated!
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
sabro said:As to the "what gives you the right" question... you cannot logically answer that.
Nothing and everything.
Like I said, not prohibited by law,...
... not against my religious code...
...not against my code of ethics (as it does not violate the Golden rule),
... conforms to my culture and traditions.
I give you these and you argue back against them. Therefore I don't even have the right to eat a carrot: Just because it is legal, traditional, and does not violate my religious code does not make it right...after all clitoral mutilation fits all those parameters in Somalia. STV: this is not logical argument. It is the classical straw man tactic.
sabro said:They [[ the arguments of Strongvoicesforward] are based entirely on an emotional premise that centers around ascribing human feelings, emotions and value to animals.
They ignore every point both Mycernius and I have brought up by giving logical fallacies and strange analogies.
sabro said:Can you give a simple one paragraph response without making a strange analogy to slavery, human sacrifice or body piercing, attacking hunters as unskilled drunks, or taking the "how would you feel if it was you..." jump in logic to the simple question: Why is hunting wrong?
Mycernius said:I have no objections to vegetarians and I will cater for them if they visits. Why they don't cater for me is a different matter?
strongvoicesforward said:They don`t cater to you because doing so would mean they would have to violate the ethics that they believe to be true that exploiting animals is wrong. You don`t object to catering to them because you do not view doing anything to vegetables as wrong. In your mind, you are not put in a situation in your kitchen preparing something that calls into play questions about ethics. However, remember, they do find themselves in that situation.
Would you want them to violate their beliefs in their ethics to cater to you?
CC1 said:Potatoes [you are not my old buddy Dan Quale, are you? He had a penchant for talking about potatoes in public places. I think he had a special fondness for them.] have feelings too...I don't think that we should harvest those poor potatoes just for our enjoyment...who will join me in this movement?
Not all vegetarians are vegetarians because they do not like hunting or the explotation of animals. Some are vegetarians because they feel it is a better way of life for them. Some just don't like meat. I don't like pork, not because I feel for the the pig, I just don't like it. I have seen vegetarians eat meat when their is nothing else for them to eat. I know one vegetarian who does not like cats. In fact she has regularly said that if it was acceptable in this country to eat cats she would eat cats. But if I visit her house I do not get a choice. I know vegetarians that will kill animals, work in the meat industry and even in slaughter houses. How am I violating their ethics?strongvoicesforward said:They don`t cater to you because doing so would mean they would have to violate the ethics that they believe to be true that exploiting animals is wrong. You don`t object to catering to them because you do not view doing anything to vegetables as wrong. In your mind, you are not put in a situation in your kitchen preparing something that calls into play questions about ethics. However, remember, they do find themselves in that situation.
Would you want them to violate their beliefs in their ethics to cater to you?
Mycernius said:Not all vegetarians are vegetarians because they do not like hunting or the explotation of animals.
While I do agree that some hunting is pointless and a waste of time.
They are not putting money into the farms that produce beef, chicken etc. Instead they are taking what they need, just like our ancestors.
You live in a country where people can live in isolation from the rest of the world. They could live in towns and buy their meat from Sainsbury or Tesco, but they want to be more with nature.
They gather and hunt what they need. Would you deny these people this? Would you lock people in a cage and deny them their instincts, while letting animals follow thiers?
In fact I will put money down that if you were put in a survival situation you would hunt, trap and kill. Ethics go out of the window in a survival situation. You'll shake your head at this going "no I won't", but when it boils down to it your life is more important than any animal, especially when faced with starvation.
Like it or not man is a predator, only our intelligence lets us make a chioce, but in certain situations that primitive side will come out, no matter how many times you try to deny it.
sabro said:Okay, let me give this summarizing the argument thing another shot- and again correct me if I am wrong:SVF is against hunting because he does not accept exploitation of life for pleasure, comfort, or convenience. This is based upon some empathic connection with animal life.
Is that accurate [position rearranged]?
My basic argument has been that human life is inherently more valuable than animal life and that there is nothing wrong with this exploitation. (And I would add provided the purpose is not specifically to inflict suffering.)
Sabro: The carrot is not a strawman. It is a response to the unanswerable question: "Who gives you the right." If it is not law, tradition, culture, history or religion...how could one possibly answer the question? The counter question "Who restricts that right." is equally valid and equally unanswerable. Hence nothing that can't be argued gives me the right, and equally nothing restricts that right.
Although a carrot generates nearly the same answers from the sources mentioned that a cheeseburger or side of vennison would, killing another person violates cultural, legal, traditional, historical and religious standards.
Miss_apollo7 said:I like to shoot with a pistol in a shooting range (0.22 caliber mostly). I don't shoot animals since I don't like the feeling of personally killing a deer or a bird just for the fun of it.
I know many hunters, and some have tried to convince me into shooting with them, however, I have always declined.
I like shooting for "dead targets which have points" and just for the fun of shooting, not killing, as it trains my precision, posture, and simply for the competition ?| but a poor deer shouldn't be a victim for my leisure time and because I happen to like shooting.
sabro said:This [the bolded following] is not a logical argument:
By reaching for emotional triggers, you may convince yourself that you are "alleviating opression and exploitation," but most people with just a smidgen of critical reasoning can recognize it as hooey. You can't compare the Boston Tea Party, abolition or Jewish resistance to the Nazis to the sophomoric and criminal activities of Animal Rightists.
1. It attempts to make the AR cause more noble by comparing it to noble struggles of the past. These people fought for civil liberties (for humans),for human dignity and for survival. This is an attempt at false parallel.
This thread has been viewed 111212 times.