4 ms·

CA is a big market, so harder to write off; Rhode Island is easy to write off. There are certainly differing opinions on what constitutes animal cruelty and is

CA is a big market, so harder to write off; Rhode Island is easy to write off. There are certainly differing opinions on what constitutes animal cruelty and is moral or immoral [e.g., killing and eating them]. So what is "right" is not so clear cut.

robrenaud 9y ago
> There are certainly differing opinions on what constitutes animal cruelty and is moral or immoral [e.g., killing and eating them]. So what is "right" is not so clear cut. What does this kind of argument say about the morality slavery in 1860? Opinions were strongly divided, therefore was it not so clear cut?
- Karunamon 9y ago
  Not really the same thing. Causing suffering to a sentient being carries a different set of philosophical implications than to a being that operates on instinct. Case in point: Most everyone is opposed to people owning people, but very few are opposed to people owning other animals.
  - pyre 9y ago
    Arguments are divided on what constitutes a "sentient being" though. There are plenty of science-fiction morality plays around at what points robots/ai should be considered sentient. At one point tribal cultures were seen as pretty much "not sentient" for all intents and purposes. Can you give me a test that will definitely say if a being is sentient or not that doesn't basically boil down to "is this being a human or not?" > Case in point: Most everyone is opposed to people owning people, but very few are opposed to people owning other animals. There have been cultures where "very few people" were opposed to human sacrifice. This is meaningless as an argument.
    - Karunamon 9y ago
      When we're talking about what is socially acceptable, and making comparisons to slavery as was done elsewhere in this thread, that is the entire argument.
      - pyre 9y ago
        The argument is drawing parallels between slavery (currently not socially acceptable) and treatment of animals as livestock (currently socially acceptable). You're basically responding to this argument by regurgitating what current status quo is. Stating "the status quo is the status quo" isn't an argument on why the status quo is justified. It's just a statement of fact.
  - ceejayoz 9y ago
    It's pretty clear at this point that elephants operate on more than raw instinct.
    - tclancy 9y ago
      And even mourn their dead! http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/08/elephants-mourning-video-animal-grief/ http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/08/elephants-mournin...
  - Allower 9y ago
    >Case in point: Most everyone is opposed to people owning people, but very few are opposed to people owning other animals. because human beings have an embarrassingly limited understanding of other creatures? ignorance is not a valid rationale (frankly this should be obvious). in fact its exactly the same thing. in 1860, people were ignorant and had to be educated. in the present day, people are ignorant and need to be educated so they can make better decisions.

robrenaud 9y ago

> There are certainly differing opinions on what constitutes animal cruelty and is moral or immoral [e.g., killing and eating them]. So what is "right" is not so clear cut. What does this kind of argument say about the morality slavery in 1860? Opinions were strongly divided, therefore was it not so clear cut?

Karunamon 9y ago
Not really the same thing. Causing suffering to a sentient being carries a different set of philosophical implications than to a being that operates on instinct. Case in point: Most everyone is opposed to people owning people, but very few are opposed to people owning other animals.
- pyre 9y ago
  Arguments are divided on what constitutes a "sentient being" though. There are plenty of science-fiction morality plays around at what points robots/ai should be considered sentient. At one point tribal cultures were seen as pretty much "not sentient" for all intents and purposes. Can you give me a test that will definitely say if a being is sentient or not that doesn't basically boil down to "is this being a human or not?" > Case in point: Most everyone is opposed to people owning people, but very few are opposed to people owning other animals. There have been cultures where "very few people" were opposed to human sacrifice. This is meaningless as an argument.
  - Karunamon 9y ago
    When we're talking about what is socially acceptable, and making comparisons to slavery as was done elsewhere in this thread, that is the entire argument.
    - pyre 9y ago
      The argument is drawing parallels between slavery (currently not socially acceptable) and treatment of animals as livestock (currently socially acceptable). You're basically responding to this argument by regurgitating what current status quo is. Stating "the status quo is the status quo" isn't an argument on why the status quo is justified. It's just a statement of fact.
- ceejayoz 9y ago
  It's pretty clear at this point that elephants operate on more than raw instinct.
  - tclancy 9y ago
    And even mourn their dead! http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/08/elephants-mourning-video-animal-grief/ http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/08/elephants-mournin...
- Allower 9y ago
  >Case in point: Most everyone is opposed to people owning people, but very few are opposed to people owning other animals. because human beings have an embarrassingly limited understanding of other creatures? ignorance is not a valid rationale (frankly this should be obvious). in fact its exactly the same thing. in 1860, people were ignorant and had to be educated. in the present day, people are ignorant and need to be educated so they can make better decisions.