4 ms·

Nobody on this forum has argued for granting other animals moral consideration based on cuteness or anthropomorphism. I didn't see anyone elevating anything els

Nobody on this forum has argued for granting other animals moral consideration based on cuteness or anthropomorphism. I didn't see anyone elevating anything else over rats, either. Farm animals and rats intrinsically deserve not to be tortured.

moron4hire 17y ago
Torture was never mentioned by anyone other than the anti-meat crowd here.
- ibnez120 17y ago
  That might be because we're the only ones here who are willing to call it what it is. Meat-eaters may not want to admit that they are most often supporting unbelievable torture -- a human's worst nightmare, in fact. Obviously, the issue of torture is implicit in discussions of meat-eating in our time, as the vast majority of meat has been tortured before it's been eaten.
  - evgen 17y ago
    There is a difference between pain response and suffering. The latter requires the consciousness to know what the future has in store for the organism. Animals can be abused, but very few of them have the level of consciousness required for the abuse to be "torture." You can pretend that animals are people too all you want, but wishing it to be true does not make it so.
    - ibnez120 17y ago
      evgen, You are completely wrong when you say "very few of them" have the level of consciousness required for the abuse to be torture." All factory farmed animals are tortured physically and psychologically -- tens of billions the world over. The vast majority, if not all, of lab-tested animals are tortured physically and psychologically. You have no idea what it is to be tortured (not that this is required to take those who have been tortured at their word). If you did, you wouldn't dismiss the torture of those with very similar central nervous systems to ours so lightly. And the fact is, torture of human animals can bring out all the fight or flight evolutionary responses and fears we have within us as a result of our completely animal history and existence. Your cavalier approach to the tremendous suffering of others is a disgrace. Once, again, you are trying to draw arbitrary lines based on what you want to be true to justify your own behaviors, which are morally indefensible. Do the research for yourself, since you don't want to listen to reason from anyone else.
  - danielmims 17y ago
    Evgen, the system isn't letting me reply to you directly for some reason, so my apologies if this garbles the thread. What you have written is so riddled with logical fallacies I don't know where to start, but I'll give it a shot. You said: "There is a difference between pain response and suffering. The latter requires the consciousness to know what the future has in store for the organism." Your redefinition of what it means to suffer is entirely ad hoc (and just plain weird). The word "suffering" describes a pained state of being. One who is suffering need not have any beliefs whatsoever about whether or not that suffering will continue. They need not even have a word for it. If you contest this, I suggest you look in a dictionary. And by the way, no creature "knows" what the future has in store, not even members of your delusional humanity. By your sloppy ad hoc definition, then, nobody can suffer. What a meaningless little semantic game you play with yourself. You said: "Animals can be abused, but very few of them have the level of consciousness required for the abuse to be 'torture.'" And the trivial game continues. Once again you redefine common words for your own ad hoc convenience. All of a sudden, in your view, one must have some vague level of consciousness that goes beyond the feeling of intense pain in order for the abuse one undergoes to be called "torture." Of course, this is not a part of the definition of "torture." Moreover, you say non-human creatures can be "abused" but not "tortured." That is some pretty... tortured... logic. You said: "You can pretend that animals are people too all you want, but wishing it to be true does not make it so." If by "people," you mean "humans," obviously nobody has made the claim that a cow is a human. Straw man fallacy. Also, you are conveniently defining "people" as the only beings who are worthy of deep moral concern to argue that humans are the only beings worthy of deep moral concern. That is, you've assumed a premise that is identical to your conclusion, committing a blatant, egregious fallacy of circularity. Forget about proving your point; you haven't even made one. With that, I'll throw your own words right back at ya: "Wishing it to be true does not make it so." Quite.

moron4hire 17y ago

Torture was never mentioned by anyone other than the anti-meat crowd here.

ibnez120 17y ago
That might be because we're the only ones here who are willing to call it what it is. Meat-eaters may not want to admit that they are most often supporting unbelievable torture -- a human's worst nightmare, in fact. Obviously, the issue of torture is implicit in discussions of meat-eating in our time, as the vast majority of meat has been tortured before it's been eaten.
- evgen 17y ago
  There is a difference between pain response and suffering. The latter requires the consciousness to know what the future has in store for the organism. Animals can be abused, but very few of them have the level of consciousness required for the abuse to be "torture." You can pretend that animals are people too all you want, but wishing it to be true does not make it so.
  - ibnez120 17y ago
    evgen, You are completely wrong when you say "very few of them" have the level of consciousness required for the abuse to be torture." All factory farmed animals are tortured physically and psychologically -- tens of billions the world over. The vast majority, if not all, of lab-tested animals are tortured physically and psychologically. You have no idea what it is to be tortured (not that this is required to take those who have been tortured at their word). If you did, you wouldn't dismiss the torture of those with very similar central nervous systems to ours so lightly. And the fact is, torture of human animals can bring out all the fight or flight evolutionary responses and fears we have within us as a result of our completely animal history and existence. Your cavalier approach to the tremendous suffering of others is a disgrace. Once, again, you are trying to draw arbitrary lines based on what you want to be true to justify your own behaviors, which are morally indefensible. Do the research for yourself, since you don't want to listen to reason from anyone else.
- danielmims 17y ago
  Evgen, the system isn't letting me reply to you directly for some reason, so my apologies if this garbles the thread. What you have written is so riddled with logical fallacies I don't know where to start, but I'll give it a shot. You said: "There is a difference between pain response and suffering. The latter requires the consciousness to know what the future has in store for the organism." Your redefinition of what it means to suffer is entirely ad hoc (and just plain weird). The word "suffering" describes a pained state of being. One who is suffering need not have any beliefs whatsoever about whether or not that suffering will continue. They need not even have a word for it. If you contest this, I suggest you look in a dictionary. And by the way, no creature "knows" what the future has in store, not even members of your delusional humanity. By your sloppy ad hoc definition, then, nobody can suffer. What a meaningless little semantic game you play with yourself. You said: "Animals can be abused, but very few of them have the level of consciousness required for the abuse to be 'torture.'" And the trivial game continues. Once again you redefine common words for your own ad hoc convenience. All of a sudden, in your view, one must have some vague level of consciousness that goes beyond the feeling of intense pain in order for the abuse one undergoes to be called "torture." Of course, this is not a part of the definition of "torture." Moreover, you say non-human creatures can be "abused" but not "tortured." That is some pretty... tortured... logic. You said: "You can pretend that animals are people too all you want, but wishing it to be true does not make it so." If by "people," you mean "humans," obviously nobody has made the claim that a cow is a human. Straw man fallacy. Also, you are conveniently defining "people" as the only beings who are worthy of deep moral concern to argue that humans are the only beings worthy of deep moral concern. That is, you've assumed a premise that is identical to your conclusion, committing a blatant, egregious fallacy of circularity. Forget about proving your point; you haven't even made one. With that, I'll throw your own words right back at ya: "Wishing it to be true does not make it so." Quite.