|
Just the unnecessary? I figure if your goal is to stop suffering migh as well go all out and stop the necessary suffering(which supposebly exist based on this argument) as well. No reason to get the job half done.
The argument in no way points to the elimination of all suffering. Besides, it's a totally different argument. Some suffing is necessary, that's what makes it necessary. To wish to eliminate 'necessary' suffing is a contradiction.
So do people, whats your point?
Why focus just on preventing animal suffering when you included them in in the first sentance? Oh, right. PETA doesnt care about people.
My point isn't to not help people around the world, in fact, I give 10% of my total net income to charitable causes, most being for humans. Just because I have compassion for animals, and thier suffering does not mean that I do not care for my own 'kind'. This would go against the one of the bases of human nature (we always take care of our own kind first). If this is your outrage, where is your support?
So whats your point? Its not like only animals get killed or feel pain daily? Other sention beings, like people for instance get killed or have pain inflicted on them by other people on the daily basis also, and they are the same species. So much for the racism argument.
Read about speciesism. It's a neat new word, not really in common use. It should explain this mix up. You have to ask more fundamental questions, like why should we treat our own species better then anothers? There aren't any strong arguments for it. Any argument you give, I will give the same argument back, but in the form of sexism or racism. Favoring your own species is just a more general use of favoring your own race or sex.
Must remember to pick up a new pair of glasses becouse i even though this analogy is so clear i still fail to see it.
Perhaps you should.
What arguments? You havent given a single valid one to support your cause. With arguments like yours you will not only fail to see any great movement tawards animal righs in your lifetime, but it is much more likely that people in general will stop listening to you all together on the count that some day they will get fed up with all the BS you are throwing into their faces.
I scream because it's an outrage. I have to deal with people everyday that think and act like you do. My argument is simple. If something is capable of feeling pain, we should try our best to reduce that pain. I can then ask, why do you eat meat? Because of the taste? oh, so minor taste takes preference over horrific pain and suffering? Go watch a video on what animals go thru. I doubt you'll stomach it; you will feel bad, and there is a reason for that feeling. People don't want to hear the truth, they are ignorant. I'm just a guy that choose to voice my opinion. I've studied both sides, my minor was in applied ethics. And everything I've read has lead me to this conclusion, and there is no doubt that it is sound. I don't have the space to write out the full book, or ever argument, only the basic forms of it. Then I encourage you to find out for yourself. Self-educate.
Ill try to pick that one up just for the fun of it but i doubt any library aound has one.
If you want the first essay in the book, I'm sure I can forward a copy of it to you. Just one essay, I'm sure it's like 20 pages, which shouldn't be too hard of a read. There are many other books too: "Practical Ethics: any edition" by Singer is also a good book, and I'm sure you'll find it at any library, and surely at any University library.
One final comment: This is what they are teaching in university now. This idea of animal liberation, isn't going to go away. It's been growing for years, and it's growing faster every year. There are so many reasons to not eat meat, health for one. This isn't to say that some people don't need meat, or that free range animal meat is bad. My argument, along with PETA's is that suffering is bad, not the actual killing.
Hope that answers some of the concerns
Last edited by -])ark-Maverick on Apr-20-2006 at 19:20
|