6 ms·
It's more like David vs. Goliath. The food industry has MUCH more money than any animal rights advocacy group.
by sparrc 7y ago
It's more like David vs. Goliath. The food industry has MUCH more money than any animal rights advocacy group.
- geggam 7y agoAll higher life on this planet survives by eating another life form. Animal rights groups tend to elevate my food to having similar rights as humans. I find this to be a minimum facetious at maximum a threat to my life.
- sparrc 7y ago> All higher life on this planet survives by eating another life form. Does it? What about vegetarian and vegans animals? (including some humans) > Animal rights groups tend to elevate my food to having similar rights as humans. It's more accurate to say that animal rights groups believe that the lives of animals are more important than your taste buds.
- geggam 7y agoAre you saying plant life isnt life ? https://www.the-scientist.com/features/plant-talk-38209 https://www.the-scientist.com/features/plant-talk-38209 >It's more accurate to say that animal rights groups believe that the lives of animals are more important than your taste buds. My belief is I am healthier eating animals. Burden is on you to prove me wrong.
- sparrc 7y agoThere are 3 orders of living things: plants, funghi, and animals. Animal rights is concerned with all animals, not with all living things. Every major dietician association says the same thing about veg diets, that they are healthy for all stages of life, including pregnancy, infancy (excepting breastmilk of course), and early childhood. There's no burden on me to change your behavior, you can do whatever you want.
- geggam 7y ago>There's no burden on me to change your behavior, you can do whatever you want. agreed I will add that the food chain should remain natural. When I die I would get eaten except humans today pump their old body full of toxins and put it inside a coffin inside a concrete box.... This breaks the natural cycle. Eat or be eaten ;)
- sparrc 7y agoThe food chain is not a scientific concept, it's useful for teaching children and for Disney movies but it's probably time for you to evolve your reasoning.
- geggam 7y agoIts also useful for communicating to people on the internet. You seem to grasp the concept so its a success.
- sparrc 7y agoI grasp the concept in the sense that I grasp that it is a fallacy put forward by someone who either hasn't fully thought through the concept, or is being intellectually dishonest.
- remarkEon 7y ago>excepting breastmilk of course Seems to be a ... rather glaring exception.
- Falling3 7y ago> Animal rights groups tend to elevate my food to having similar rights as humans. I find this to be a minimum facetious at maximum a threat to my life. It's certainly not facetious (not sure if you're looking for another word here?) and laughable that it's a threat to your life. AR activists look to people to grant non-humans rights based on their interests - the same as we do with humans, but not the same rights. And to be honest, almost every single person I've ever spoken to holds the exact same moral beliefs as any vegan, but are unwilling to consistently apply those beliefs to their actions. >All higher life on this planet survives by eating another life form. That's not relevant to this discussion unless you're talking to someone who thinks consuming any life is immoral. Sounds like you're arguing a straw man.
- geggam 7y ago>All higher life on this planet survives by eating another life form. >That's not relevant to this discussion unless you're talking to someone who thinks consuming any life is immoral. Sounds like you're arguing a straw man. But it is relevant. You would elevate animals above plants. If you want to give rights to things with life give it to everything.
- Falling3 7y ago> If you want to give rights to things with life give it to everything. That's another straw man. I could reply in the exact same way to you wanting to give rights to humans. Your argument for granting rights to humans is not based on the fact that we're alive and neither is the Animal Rights argument. You understand that - right? There is literally no one arguing that we should grant rights to animals on the basis on them being alive.
- geggam 7y agoHumans have rights, you dont grant them rights. Animals and plants do not have rights. You dont have the power to grant them rights. Animals and plants are food. Granny was right when she said people have it too good. Folks look around for things to do instead of just enjoying what they have.