Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Meat eaters are destroying the planet, warns WWF report

Status
Not open for further replies.
That was just the acceptable public face of Nazism.

That's the thing though, that same contradiction between the acceptable public face of Nazism (for example “every animal has the right to live … this is really murder” as per Himmler) and them actually legislating, or planning to legislate, for less of them to exist (banning or severely restricting meat production) is seen here where the goal of stopping livestock animals from existing is argued on the basis of said livestock animals having moral qualities.
 
More on the ability to feel fear and pain, and from a lot of them having a generally shitty life I'd have thought.

Yes, moralizing and declaring oneself judge over whether another's life is worthy enough for them to be allowed to exist or not (it's not the chickens doing the complaining after all, it's the human self-declared "vanguard for the animals" who do so).

But humans are also animals who have the ability to feel fear and pain, and a lot of them have generally shitty lives. So then why not argue that at least some groups of humans shouldn't be allowed to exist because one has declared oneself judge over whether the shittyness of their lives stops them from being allowed to have it in the first place? That's the question, on what basis make that distinction?
 
That's the thing though, that same contradiction between the acceptable public face of Nazism (for example “every animal has the right to live … this is really murder” as per Himmler) and them actually legislating, or planning to legislate, for less of them to exist (banning or severely restricting meat production) is seen here where the goal of stopping livestock animals from existing is argued on the basis of said livestock animals having moral qualities.
Even on your own terms (which seems to be the only way you argue as you never grasp even simple points put to you), completely round your neck though they are, there isn't any contradiction.
 
Yes, moralizing and declaring oneself judge over whether another's life is worthy enough for them to be allowed to exist or not (it's not the chickens doing the complaining after all, it's the human self-declared "vanguard for the animals" who do so).

But humans are also animals who have the ability to feel fear and pain, and a lot of them have generally shitty lives. So then why not argue that at least some groups of humans shouldn't be allowed to exist because one has declared oneself judge over whether the shittyness of their lives stops them from being allowed to have it in the first place? That's the question, on what basis make that distinction?
Why haven't you had twelve children Larry? Is it because you DENY THEIR RIGHT TO EXIST? You silly sod.
 
Yes, moralizing and declaring oneself judge over whether another's life is worthy enough for them to be allowed to exist or not (it's not the chickens doing the complaining after all, it's the human self-declared "vanguard for the animals" who do so).

But humans are also animals who have the ability to feel fear and pain, and a lot of them have generally shitty lives. So then why not argue that at least some groups of humans shouldn't be allowed to exist because one has declared oneself judge over whether the shittyness of their lives stops them from being allowed to have it in the first place? That's the question, on what basis make that distinction?

“Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything [Babel fish] so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as the final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.

The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist,'" says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."

"But," says Man, "The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.”
 
Yes, moralizing and declaring oneself judge over whether another's life is worthy enough for them to be allowed to exist or not (it's not the chickens doing the complaining after all, it's the human self-declared "vanguard for the animals" who do so).

But humans are also animals who have the ability to feel fear and pain, and a lot of them have generally shitty lives. So then why not argue that at least some groups of humans shouldn't be allowed to exist because one has declared oneself judge over whether the shittyness of their lives stops them from being allowed to have it in the first place? That's the question, on what basis make that distinction?

Ok Larry so to play your logical conclusion game, why not go round gassing people or switching off the air cos they cost too much to feed. After all, 'humans are also animals that feel fear and pain' and you seem to be questioning the distinction between animal and human
 
Yes, moralizing and declaring oneself judge over whether another's life is worthy enough for them to be allowed to exist or not (it's not the chickens doing the complaining after all, it's the human self-declared "vanguard for the animals" who do so).

But humans are also animals who have the ability to feel fear and pain, and a lot of them have generally shitty lives. So then why not argue that at least some groups of humans shouldn't be allowed to exist because one has declared oneself judge over whether the shittyness of their lives stops them from being allowed to have it in the first place? That's the question, on what basis make that distinction?
Some groups of people shouldn't be allowed to exist.
 
Even on your own terms (which seems to be the only way you argue as you never grasp even simple points put to you), completely round your neck though they are, there isn't any contradiction.

What if the entire species goes extinct (as in the case of some cows)? "These animals have a right to live therefor we should make them go extinct" seems fairly contradictory. But then I'm not even sure how animals can have "rights" in the first place and be subjects in some sort of moral-legal framework, you can hardly arrest a cat for eating a bird.
 
Why haven't you had twelve children Larry? Is it because you DENY THEIR RIGHT TO EXIST? You silly sod.

Because they don't serve my requirements. But then I'm also not going around telling other people not to breed them merely because a lot of them have shitty lives.
 
Ok Larry so to play your logical conclusion game, why not go round gassing people or switching off the air cos they cost too much to feed. After all, 'humans are also animals that feel fear and pain' and you seem to be questioning the distinction between animal and human

Why should I go round doing that or support others doing that? That doesn't seem to be in my interest as I don't eat humans. Besides, I'm not questioning the distinction between animal and human, questioning that would be "speciesism." This whole thing actually started with me asking whether the position presented (some animals have shitty lives and may end up suffocating therefor they shouldn't exist, but that argument does not apply to humans) constituted an example of "speciesism." I'll just take the answer to that one as yes.
 
Vanguardist. You're just assuming they're suffering. Would you rather they didn't exist?

I'd obviously rather they successfully rose up, took power over their lives, and conquer their "rights." Which is one of the reasons why the concept of "animal rights" seems bizarre, as "rights" are conquered, not benevolently handed over by the morally superior section of the ruling class.
 
What if the entire species goes extinct (as in the case of some cows)? "These animals have a right to live therefor we should make them go extinct" seems fairly contradictory...
Contradictory how? And that's allowing for your "make them go extinct" rather than the actual "breed artificially into existence". I'm not making a rights based argument myself but even within that framework there's no necessary contradiction. Have you actually read much rights theory?
 
I'd obviously rather they successfully rose up, took power over their lives, and conquer their "rights." Which is one of the reasons why the concept of "animal rights" seems bizarre, as "rights" are conquered, not benevolently handed over by the morally superior section of the ruling class.

Your whole argument is based on you setting yourself up as a morally superior human deciding what is and isn't allowed.
 
Why should I go round doing that or support others doing that? That doesn't seem to be in my interest as I don't eat humans. Besides, I'm not questioning the distinction between animal and human, questioning that would be "speciesism." This whole thing actually started with me asking whether the position presented (some animals have shitty lives and may end up suffocating therefor they shouldn't exist, but that argument does not apply to humans) constituted an example of "speciesism." I'll just take the answer to that one as yes.

But you are arguing that objecting to the treatment of animals and the manner of their deaths is equivalent to wishing that species out of existence, on account of eg poultry and livestock existing in their domestic forms as food. Ergo taking a position that industrial slaughter is objectionable or refusing to participate in it by excluding meat from diet is equivalent to eugenics, even though the former is about animals and eugenics is about people. The only person refusing to distinguish between animals and people is you.

In which case, why not go round treating people like animals, what's your logical objection here
 
I'd obviously rather they successfully rose up, took power over their lives, and conquer their "rights." Which is one of the reasons why the concept of "animal rights" seems bizarre, as "rights" are conquered, not benevolently handed over by the morally superior section of the ruling class.

This argument also massively politically dodgy. Animals clearly not capable of rising up against people, therefore deserving of whatever treatment we dish out. They should earn their dignity.

So what about groups of people also not equipped to 'take power over their lives'.

For somebody who came into this doing the logical conclusion thing, I reckon you need to work on your political consistency a bit
 
Contradictory how? And that's allowing for your "make them go extinct" rather than the actual "breed artificially into existence". I'm not making a rights based argument myself but even within that framework there's no necessary contradiction. Have you actually read much rights theory?

Contradictory in that non-existent animal species can have no right to live. And failing to continue breeding into existence is one way of going extinct, yes.
 
Your whole argument is based on you setting yourself up as a morally superior human deciding what is and isn't allowed.

No, that would be if I were to, say, go around encouraging other people not to breed humans merely because it doesn't serve my requirements. Or encouraging other people to eat meat because that does serve my requirement.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom