No. What I'm interested is the idea that we all have a moral line in the sand and everyone's is different. Kinda like the idea that by being an atheist you're the same as a Christian, you've just rejected one more of the thousands of gods available.
On this thread, it has generally speaking been the vegans presenting the moral absolutes, including JeffR's pretty unequivocal line that if you care about other animals you must be vegan. We're allowed to investigate those lines, I would have thought, once they have been opened.
I'm sure we'll be in for a dazzlingly original line of enquiry.
All your terms, not mine.
If they had been polite it wouldn't have been a problem, but unfortunately they were quite aggressive about it from they start.
Well I'll start you off if you like. I have deep misgivings about animal testing and think it is something we should be moving away from wherever possible. That said, a lot of people are alive today because of past animal testing, including both of my siblings. There is no denying the benefits that have come from medical testing on animals, in the case of diabetes dogs, and that, at the time of the testing, there was no alternative way to obtain that knowledge.
I would rather see it rendered obsolete by alternatives, but I'm also very well aware that for all kinds of scientific questions there really aren't any good alternatives. I'm conflicted on the question as to whether or not the ends justifies the means. It's very much a debate that should be held publicly, though. imo this debate is not held often enough nor publicly enough. Unfortunately, it is a brave vivisectionist who talks publicly about their work. They're likely to get shit shovelled through their doors, or worse.
Was I quoting you or referring to you in any way in that post? Why, no, I wasn't so there's no need for you to think it's all about you.
Yeah, just keep quiet and don't bother to do what you believe to be right. It's a good thing that the great historical figures, the Gandhis, Mandelas, Rosa Parkes', MLK's, Malcom X's, Steve Bikos, Ken Saro-Wiwa's Marcus Garveys of this world, who fought against major injustice didn't have that kind of defeatist mentality. I don't claim to be anywhere close to being in their league, and I'm not sure I'd be prepared to put my life on the line in defence of my principles, however on this particular subject I'm not just going to keep quiet and not express my opinion just because over sensitive meat eaters are upset and easily offended when confronted with the reality of their choices. Whether or not there is a "wider will" or not, it doesn't change the principle of the matter.
I don't know how many times I'm going to have to repeat this, but once again, I'm not on a mission to convince anybody of anything. I express my point of view and listen to other views for reference and perspective. I don't get into a hissy fit because somebody has a different view or disagrees with me. If you think that you're not deluded and that you're not "pissing in the wind" and you want to try and convince people to eat less mass produced meat then good luck to you. That is not my position and I'll speak out against ALL unnecessary killing. In my opinion it is the mindset that thinks it's ok to kill animals for food when we don't really need to do so that is driving the whole meat eating industry, that creates the cheap meat and massive profits for those large food companies who are able to get the economies of scale working for them. Whether or not you agree with me is not really any of my business, that's up to you and you can believe whatever you want, but it's not going to stop me from saying what I believe to be true.Far better, imo, to devote your energy to something difficult but achievable, like convincing people to eat less mass produced meat and switch to higher welfare. But that's just my opinion. You of course, are free to do as you please.
Read to me like you were commenting directly on the post directly before your one, by bees. Read to bees like that as well.
Amazingly, I am pretty good at using the quote function after all these years, and am adept at including anyone's comments I wish to refer to.
This post oooozes condescension. All the figures you name-check here fought against injustice against humans. You slip from them to talk about animal welfare in a way that implies strongly that you're really talking about animal rights. There are all kinds of problems with this move, not least the problem that the vast majority of other people don't share your view that human rights should be extended to other sentient animals or that this is the right framework in which to cast the debate.
And if you did, it wouldn't be murder. That's impossible.
Not at all. As I keep repeating, it's your prerogative to do and say whatever you like. In my opinion it's a waste of time and effort but it clearly makes you feel better about yourself, which is important. So knock yourself out!
I'd agree with this, though I suspect that you'd seek to go the meat free route whilst I'd encourage the reduced industrial meat/high welfare approach.
...and? So what? If you don't believe that sentient beings have rights that are worth speaking out for then that's your call. The underlying principle is the same, it is only your insistence that other sentient animals are somehow "lesser beings" and so don't deserve the right not to be killed and eaten just for the taste that drives your indifference to their plight. I make no apology for mentioning those historical figures, again if you're not happy with it you don't have to respond.
As I said above, in my opinion there is no difference in principle. I view the animals right to life as equal to that of the human right to life and to not be killed unnecessarily. Of course some folks who love to taste of meat will object to that comparison, but I'm quite happy with it.
For clarity, which animals are you talking about here? Where is your line drawn?
TouchéView attachment 111228
Anyway you eat meat and fish so you're not a proper person and your opinion here is worthless
You're right. There is no common ground, sadly.
