5 ms·

> Do you truly consider this scenario oppressive? Yes, because you have violated the free agency of animals and their own right to exist unmolested by humans.

> Do you truly consider this scenario oppressive? Yes, because you have violated the free agency of animals and their own right to exist unmolested by humans. It's the treatment of sentient creatures as mere commodities, justifying the means for an end, that's the source of great calamity and suffering. Non-human persons aren't on this planet for the satisfaction of humans. To think so is to basically be stuck in Christian-inspired attitudes which are old and deprecated.

kakarot 9y ago
Animals violate the free agency of animals every single day when they eat them for food. The concept that using animals for any form of resource is oppressive, even if a fair bargain is struck and the animal's needs are met, is highly idealistic in it's own ways, even if they aren't related to Christian values. People have been cooperating with other animals for much, much longer than Christianity has been around. So yes, that notion is very, very old. I wouldn't say it is depreciated, however.
- animal_dude 9y ago
  > Animals violate the free agency of animals every single day when they eat them for food. Animals also commit infanticide and lick their own buttholes. What we do to animals is not cooperation. It's a holocaust.
  - kakarot 9y ago
    Humans commit infanticide and some humans lick other human's buttholes. You're invalidating the sexual preferences of many people by claiming the latter is sub-human. I'm just glad that a good portion of humanity has the intelligence to understand which evolved behaviors are and aren't appropriate. Maybe eventually we'll all figure it out. Your argument just doesn't stand up because, like humans, some animals have homicidal tendencies and others don't. The global corporate food industry is a behemoth, but I still don't understand how the scenario I provided to you above, or sanctuaries, or zoos, are "holocaust". Please elaborate. Further reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_(biology) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_(biology)
jimmyk 9y ago
>right to exist unmolested by humans What right to exist unmolested by humans?

kakarot 9y ago

Animals violate the free agency of animals every single day when they eat them for food. The concept that using animals for any form of resource is oppressive, even if a fair bargain is struck and the animal's needs are met, is highly idealistic in it's own ways, even if they aren't related to Christian values. People have been cooperating with other animals for much, much longer than Christianity has been around. So yes, that notion is very, very old. I wouldn't say it is depreciated, however.

animal_dude 9y ago
> Animals violate the free agency of animals every single day when they eat them for food. Animals also commit infanticide and lick their own buttholes. What we do to animals is not cooperation. It's a holocaust.
- kakarot 9y ago
  Humans commit infanticide and some humans lick other human's buttholes. You're invalidating the sexual preferences of many people by claiming the latter is sub-human. I'm just glad that a good portion of humanity has the intelligence to understand which evolved behaviors are and aren't appropriate. Maybe eventually we'll all figure it out. Your argument just doesn't stand up because, like humans, some animals have homicidal tendencies and others don't. The global corporate food industry is a behemoth, but I still don't understand how the scenario I provided to you above, or sanctuaries, or zoos, are "holocaust". Please elaborate. Further reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_(biology) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_(biology)

jimmyk 9y ago

>right to exist unmolested by humans What right to exist unmolested by humans?