Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Ah, Peter Singer, a continual font of out of context quotes for Wing-nuts to go Wing-nutty on...
Of course. You saying I'm a hypocrite, as if that would even matter? This is another debate fallacy (tu quoque). What I don't do anymore, is pay people to kill animals in a way that is highly irresponsible, when it is completely unnecessary to do so. By the way, when a mosquito is trying to take my blood, I am defending myself if i kill it. How are you defending paying corporations to treat sentient beings like commodities?
Of course. You saying I'm a hypocrite, as if that would even matter? This is another debate fallacy (tu quoque). What I don't do anymore, is pay people to kill animals in a way that is highly irresponsible, when it is completely unnecessary to do so. By the way, when a mosquito is trying to take my blood, I am defending myself if i kill it. How are you defending paying corporations to treat sentient beings like commodities?
so what do you expect all humans on earth to become vegetarian? and it is uncessary to kill a fly because a fly cant harm you, i dont talk about mosquitos
Of course. You saying I'm a hypocrite, as if that would even matter? This is another debate fallacy (tu quoque). What I don't do anymore, is pay people to kill animals in a way that is highly irresponsible, when it is completely unnecessary to do so. By the way, when a mosquito is trying to take my blood, I am defending myself if i kill it. How are you defending paying corporations to treat sentient beings like commodities?
so what do you expect all humans on earth to become vegetarian? and it is uncessary to kill a fly because a fly cant harm you, i dont talk about mosquitos
I expect people, in this age of free information, to make it a point to learn exactly how their animal products come to shelf, and to make an informed decision, as opposed to suspending themselves in willful ignorance. I would hope the truth of the state of animal treatment in factory farms would be enough to act on their own morals an make the right choice. Going vegan is the only way to fully withdraw support from these industries , but I'm not stupid enough to think all people will go vegan. However, I do think that if %100 of people learned the truth of factory farming, puppy mills, vivisection, the treatment of animals in Captivity for entertainment, enough demand would be withdrawn, that these industries would not have to exist at such a cruel capacity.
Earthlings.com | A Film by Nation Earth
Watch this, please. It's just undercover footage inside puppy mills, factory farms, fur farms, Circuses, and vivisection laboratories. It is not propaganda. Much of what is show is either known to be rampant, or defended by the industries themselves.
so what do you expect all humans on earth to become vegetarian? and it is uncessary to kill a fly because a fly cant harm you, i dont talk about mosquitos
I expect people, in this age of free information, to make it a point to learn exactly how their animal products come to shelf, and to make an informed decision, as opposed to suspending themselves in willful ignorance. I would hope the truth of the state of animal treatment in factory farms would be enough to act on their own morals an make the right choice. Going vegan is the only way to fully withdraw support from these industries , but I'm not stupid enough to think all people will go vegan. However, I do think that if %100 of people learned the truth of factory farming, puppy mills, vivisection, the treatment of animals in Captivity for entertainment, enough demand would be withdrawn, that these industries would not have to exist at such a cruel capacity.
Earthlings.com | A Film by Nation Earth
Watch this, please. It's just undercover footage inside puppy mills, factory farms, fur farms, Circuses, and vivisection laboratories. It is not propaganda. Much of what is show is either known to be rampant, or defended by the industries themselves.
i think those industries do have a Point because they feed millions of People for cheap prices
I expect people, in this age of free information, to make it a point to learn exactly how their animal products come to shelf, and to make an informed decision, as opposed to suspending themselves in willful ignorance. I would hope the truth of the state of animal treatment in factory farms would be enough to act on their own morals an make the right choice. Going vegan is the only way to fully withdraw support from these industries , but I'm not stupid enough to think all people will go vegan. However, I do think that if %100 of people learned the truth of factory farming, puppy mills, vivisection, the treatment of animals in Captivity for entertainment, enough demand would be withdrawn, that these industries would not have to exist at such a cruel capacity.
Earthlings.com | A Film by Nation Earth
Watch this, please. It's just undercover footage inside puppy mills, factory farms, fur farms, Circuses, and vivisection laboratories. It is not propaganda. Much of what is show is either known to be rampant, or defended by the industries themselves.
i think those industries do have a Point because they feed millions of People for cheap prices
Have you any idea how much food we waste? Factory Farm output is not predicated on notions of public welfare, whatsoever, so dont present such an absurd motivation as if it has anything to do with why so much food is produced. Like any business, profit margins and bottom line thinking are all that matter. Incidentally, it is the overconsumption of these super cheap foods that is killing us through heart disease, diabetes, and cancer. Animal products are not meant to be consumed by humans in such quantities. So, not only is factory farming maliciously raising and slaughtering billions of innocent animals a year, they are killing millions of people a year, and destroying the environment both by destroying our fresh water supply from the millions of tons of excrement that is flushed into our fresh water systems, and by introducing vast amounts of the potent green-house gas methane into the air. For the agw denier, that last point won't matter, but all other points are demonstrable. Therefore, there are three arguments for veganism: health, ethics, and environment. I personally find the ethical argument the most compelling, but the other two add as nice buffers.
What does sentience have to with interests being considered or not? Nothing. Nor does any ability to add 2+2 or be altruistic. I don't are how superior you think we are. Cheetahs are way faster than us. Lions could kill us in an open field. Many animals can do things we could never do. Who cares?!! Using Your logic, we should ignore the interests of human babies, who cant perform any higher functions such as addition, empathy, or self-awareness. Are you willing to make this argument? This isn't a contest of attributes. This is a fact about interests for all living things. We have come out on top using our intellect, but that doesn't mean we get to ignore the interests of the animals we use, which is exactly what we are doing in factory farms, locking them in tight spaces, castrating them, ear and teeth clipping with no anesthetic, and killing and sometimes boiling and dismembering them while they are still alive. This is such a gross violation of a respect for their interests, and is a result of speciesism, mostly on the part of the consumers, who are the ones truly responsible for this. Secondly, you can not demonstrate that only humans are sentient. Inherent in declarations like these are biases about what sentience means. There have been other animals that demonstrate self awareness, such as dolphins and chimps. Whose to say that animals such as cows or pigs don't know they are alive, and hence have the ability to enjoy it or hate it? Perhaps they are self aware to a lesser extent, but again, this has nothing to do with pain detection or the inherent interests set in motion by these perceptual abilities, which we do know they possess. I claim that your position is based in a total bias and preference for human interests being considered, merely because you are a human. This kind of subjectively derived conclusion is not obviously objective, and doesn't take into any other information other than "I am human. Therefore, I am the best."
I did provide an argument for our interests being equal. We all have central nervous systems with the ability to detect pain in the exact same way, as would be expected by evolution. All mammals are evolved from the same animal years ago, so many of our morphological and functional traits are similar, and it is to be expected, that pain would be experienced in a similar way. Therefore, as I already stated, if we are to be morally consistent, we must consider the interests of animals (desire for life, aversion to pain), as valid and worth equal consideration to our own, given that empathy is possible.
You are positing that speciesism is a justifiable position, yet can not rationally justify this. You have a burden of proof since you are making the claim. All I see are a bunch of claims about our superiority as justifications.
I am pointing out the logical flaws in your position to convince you that it is not a justifiable position. That is all I need to do. I don't need to prove that animals interests are equal to our own. They either are, or they aren't. It is a true dichotomy, therefore, proving your position to be untenable is all that is required.
It's not logically flawed because it's not even a decision you can reach using logic of the traditional sense. It's an opinion, not a provable or disprovable fact. There is no 1 + 1 = 2 here, there is no "I think therefore I am" moment to be had in the discussion. Only reasons and hypothetical conclusions. Loose ones. Keeping on bringing up "logic logic logic" is a crutch.
When you say that my position is not justifiable, you're wrong again. That's a value judgement, not a logical conclusion.
The coin of logic can be flipped in any way possible in regard to a moral question.
It is subjective no matter which conclusion you reach, and yours is no more or less justified by logic than mine.
Anyways,
Your post is full of missing words and shit, it was hard to decipher, but one thing is certain - half of your argument is against things that I never even said.
That's, in a word, annoying and a waste of my time.
You keep on bringing up animal torture and abuse, and I keep saying that I'm not for that.
You're wasting both of our time, and again, that's annoying as fawk.
I'm kind of lost as to what you're getting at, also. In practice, our interests are superior in that there's nothing they can fucking do about it that we consider them so. So what being or force in the end decides what is equal, if not the forces of nature that brought us to being a more intelligent, thus dominant, species? I can't think of one. Mother earth isn't a real chick, you know. (or do you know?)
And also - what I said about doctors? A totally sound reasoning as to why we're superior. We posess the ability to do more good than any other species posesses period, and that alone to me is a good and justifiable reasoning.
That we also do bad is something called "what is," or "the nature of the beast," and it doesnt negate the fact that we posess the ability to do more good than any other species that ever lived on this planet, period. That makes our "interests" superior, and by "interests" we haven't even defined our terms but when I mention "interests" I'm referring to us being more important period.
I am addressing the lack of basis you have for your position. You admit you can not rationally justify speciesism. Then you try to say logic isn't everything. Yet, we are making arguments, which are conclusions drawn from premises. Logic is inherent in all thought, belief, argument, and debate. It is not always sound or valid logic, but there is logic nonetheless. To try and denigrate logic itself is an attempt at escaping the fact that you have no logical justification for your own position, and you know it. You mention values. Values are normative statements, therefore you are left making the naturalistic fallacy again, trying to derive an ought from an is. i am saying animal interests should be considered out if hand, if we are to be morally consistent. i already said this, yet you said i had mo justification for my own beliefs. thats annoying. How can you even justify your own values on which to make an argument about how to treat animals? None of this makes any sense. I guess that this is something you never thought about, because it seemed so intuitive to you that humans be above animals.
You contradict yourself when you say you are against animal cruelty, but don't believe animal interests should be respected as equal to our own. It is only through the ill consideration of animal interests that people can justify buying animal products from factory farms.
Of course. You saying I'm a hypocrite, as if that would even matter? This is another debate fallacy (tu quoque). What I don't do anymore, is pay people to kill animals in a way that is highly irresponsible, when it is completely unnecessary to do so. By the way, when a mosquito is trying to take my blood, I am defending myself if i kill it. How are you defending paying corporations to treat sentient beings like commodities?
It's not logically flawed because it's not even a decision you can reach using logic of the traditional sense. It's an opinion, not a provable or disprovable fact. There is no 1 + 1 = 2 here, there is no "I think therefore I am" moment to be had in the discussion. Only reasons and hypothetical conclusions. Loose ones. Keeping on bringing up "logic logic logic" is a crutch.
When you say that my position is not justifiable, you're wrong again. That's a value judgement, not a logical conclusion.
The coin of logic can be flipped in any way possible in regard to a moral question.
It is subjective no matter which conclusion you reach, and yours is no more or less justified by logic than mine.
Anyways,
Your post is full of missing words and shit, it was hard to decipher, but one thing is certain - half of your argument is against things that I never even said.
That's, in a word, annoying and a waste of my time.
You keep on bringing up animal torture and abuse, and I keep saying that I'm not for that.
You're wasting both of our time, and again, that's annoying as fawk.
I'm kind of lost as to what you're getting at, also. In practice, our interests are superior in that there's nothing they can fucking do about it that we consider them so. So what being or force in the end decides what is equal, if not the forces of nature that brought us to being a more intelligent, thus dominant, species? I can't think of one. Mother earth isn't a real chick, you know. (or do you know?)
And also - what I said about doctors? A totally sound reasoning as to why we're superior. We posess the ability to do more good than any other species posesses period, and that alone to me is a good and justifiable reasoning.
That we also do bad is something called "what is," or "the nature of the beast," and it doesnt negate the fact that we posess the ability to do more good than any other species that ever lived on this planet, period. That makes our "interests" superior, and by "interests" we haven't even defined our terms but when I mention "interests" I'm referring to us being more important period.
I am addressing the lack of basis you have for your position. You admit you can not rationally justify speciesism. Then you try to say logic isn't everything. Yet, we are making arguments, which are conclusions drawn from premises. Logic is inherent in all thought, belief, argument, and debate. It is not always sound or valid logic, but there is logic nonetheless. To try and denigrate logic itself is an attempt at escaping the fact that you have no logical justification for your own position, and you know it. You mention values. Values are normative statements, therefore you are left making the naturalistic fallacy again, trying to derive an ought from an is. i am saying animal interests should be considered out if hand, if we are to be morally consistent. i already said this, yet you said i had mo justification for my own beliefs. thats annoying. How can you even justify your own values on which to make an argument about how to treat animals? None of this makes any sense. I guess that this is something you never thought about, because it seemed so intuitive to you that humans be above animals.
You contradict yourself when you say you are against animal cruelty, but don't believe animal interests should be respected as equal to our own. It is only through the ill consideration of animal interests that people can justify buying animal products from factory farms.
This is the most ignorant example of someone trying to sound smart I think anyone could even TRY to do, if they were trying to do it on purpose.
I had a logical justification for my position. You have not debunked my logic, and yes logic was used there but my point about there being no 1+1 = 2 in the equation is that there is no provable FACT to be concluded. It went right over your head.
I am addressing the lack of basis you have for your position. You admit you can not rationally justify speciesism. Then you try to say logic isn't everything. Yet, we are making arguments, which are conclusions drawn from premises. Logic is inherent in all thought, belief, argument, and debate. It is not always sound or valid logic, but there is logic nonetheless. To try and denigrate logic itself is an attempt at escaping the fact that you have no logical justification for your own position, and you know it. You mention values. Values are normative statements, therefore you are left making the naturalistic fallacy again, trying to derive an ought from an is. i am saying animal interests should be considered out if hand, if we are to be morally consistent. i already said this, yet you said i had mo justification for my own beliefs. thats annoying. How can you even justify your own values on which to make an argument about how to treat animals? None of this makes any sense. I guess that this is something you never thought about, because it seemed so intuitive to you that humans be above animals.
You contradict yourself when you say you are against animal cruelty, but don't believe animal interests should be respected as equal to our own. It is only through the ill consideration of animal interests that people can justify buying animal products from factory farms.
This is the most ignorant example of someone trying to sound smart I think anyone could even TRY to do, if they were trying to do it on purpose.
I had a logical justification for my position. You have not debunked my logic, and yes logic was used there but my point about there being no 1+1 = 2 in the equation is that there is no provable FACT to be concluded. It went right over your head.
You had one? Where did it go? You admitted that you don't care about rationality, and basically implied that its just a given humans are above animals. I'm asking for some justification for this, other than "we are human, that is why we are superior" or "we are a predator, therefore it is our right," which is the naturalistic fallacy, yet you can't give me me one after you made the claim that it is basically obvious that human interests be considered above the of animals. Now you insult my intelligence because of my views? Grow up. You are presenting logical fallacies as arguments for your position. I am going to call you out on this. Get over it. You don like how mathematical it is? That's logic. Everything can be reduced to logic, and if it can't, then you don't have justification for belief. I hold myself to the same standard.
All animals have the same interests. It is special pleading to say our rights are above that of any other animals. oyr intelligence doesn't make a difference. our self-awareness doesnt make a difference, nor does our place on the food chain. Animals do what they do in the wild out of necessity in order to survive. it is not necessary that humans eat animal products to survive, given modern agricultural technology and the aid of nutrient supplements, therefore animal suffering should be spared. Factory farming should be avoided and boycotted. Humans never ate meat at every meal, historically, if you want to use the naturalistic fallacy. So it is not even justifiable using your own logic to eat as much meat or eggs as we do. Milk is a baby food of another animal that was never available to our hunter-gatherer ancestors, so you can't use this as an "ought" based on what "was." Humans ability to digest lactase into adulthood only came about through a genetic mutation in 5,000 BC. Today, we rape cattle to keep them perpetually pregnant, milk them like they are machines, and slaughter them when they are spent. In other words, all of their interests are completely ignored so we can accomplish our own selfish ends. W are a terrible species for doing this, and I contend this is indefensible. Might does not make right, yet that seems to be the implicit justification.
You had one? Where did it go? You admitted that you don't care about rationality, and basically implied that its just a given humans are above animals. I'm asking for some justification for this, other than "we are human, that is why we are superior" or "we are a predator, therefore it is our right," which is the naturalistic fallacy, yet you can't give me me one after you made the claim that it is basically obvious that human interests be considered above the of animals. Now you insult my intelligence because of my views? Grow up. You are presenting logical fallacies as arguments for your position. I am going to call you out on this. Get over it. You don like how mathematical it is? That's logic. Everything can be reduced to logic, and if it can't, then you don't have justification for belief. I hold myself to the same standard.
All animals have the same interests. It is special pleading to say our rights are above that of any other animals. oyr intelligence doesn't make a difference. our self-awareness doesnt make a difference, nor does our place on the food chain. Animals do what they do in the wild out of necessity in order to survive. it is not necessary that humans eat animal products to survive, given modern agricultural technology and the aid of nutrient supplements, therefore animal suffering should be spared. Factory farming should be avoided and boycotted. Humans never ate meat at every meal, historically, if you want to use the naturalistic fallacy. So it is not even justifiable using your own logic to eat as much meat or eggs as we do. Milk is a baby food of another animal that was never available to our hunter-gatherer ancestors, so you can't use this as an "ought" based on what "was." Humans ability to digest lactase into adulthood only came about through a genetic mutation in 5,000 BC. Today, we rape cattle to keep them perpetually pregnant, milk them like they are machines, and slaughter them when they are spent. In other words, all of their interests are completely ignored so we can accomplish our own selfish ends. W are a terrible species for doing this, and I contend this is indefensible. Might does not make right, yet that seems to be the implicit justification.
You had one? Where did it go? You admitted that you don't care about rationality, and basically implied that its just a given humans are above animals. I'm asking for some justification for this, other than "we are human, that is why we are superior" or "we are a predator, therefore it is our right," which is the naturalistic fallacy, yet you can't give me me one after you made the claim that it is basically obvious that human interests be considered above the of animals. Now you insult my intelligence because of my views? Grow up. You are presenting logical fallacies as arguments for your position. I am going to call you out on this. Get over it. You don like how mathematical it is? That's logic. Everything can be reduced to logic, and if it can't, then you don't have justification for belief. I hold myself to the same standard.
All animals have the same interests. It is special pleading to say our rights are above that of any other animals. oyr intelligence doesn't make a difference. our self-awareness doesnt make a difference, nor does our place on the food chain. Animals do what they do in the wild out of necessity in order to survive. it is not necessary that humans eat animal products to survive, given modern agricultural technology and the aid of nutrient supplements, therefore animal suffering should be spared. Factory farming should be avoided and boycotted. Humans never ate meat at every meal, historically, if you want to use the naturalistic fallacy. So it is not even justifiable using your own logic to eat as much meat or eggs as we do. Milk is a baby food of another animal that was never available to our hunter-gatherer ancestors, so you can't use this as an "ought" based on what "was." Humans ability to digest lactase into adulthood only came about through a genetic mutation in 5,000 BC. Today, we rape cattle to keep them perpetually pregnant, milk them like they are machines, and slaughter them when they are spent. In other words, all of their interests are completely ignored so we can accomplish our own selfish ends. W are a terrible species for doing this, and I contend this is indefensible. Might does not make right, yet that seems to be the implicit justification.
You do grasp that you're mentally ill, and in need of serious help, don't you?
Of course. You saying I'm a hypocrite, as if that would even matter? This is another debate fallacy (tu quoque). What I don't do anymore, is pay people to kill animals in a way that is highly irresponsible, when it is completely unnecessary to do so. By the way, when a mosquito is trying to take my blood, I am defending myself if i kill it. How are you defending paying corporations to treat sentient beings like commodities?
Those who term animals "sentient" are irrational, and frankly, mentally ill.
People buy products. If they buy beef, they are not paying a corporation or anyone else to kill, they are simply buying beef. To claim a cow is sentient is the level of insanity that renders the arguments of the animal rights crowd meaningless. If you go full retard, as you have, you'll convince no one.
The fact is that most people would advocate for the humane treatment of animals. Cattle are some of the more stupid creatures on Earth, and are prey in every aspect - as are all grazing animals. Eating them is a natural thing to do, for humans and other predators. Oh, and if you don't like being a predator, then kill yourself, as that is the ONLY way you will stop being a predator.
Still, most people want cattle treated decently and killed in a humane manner. Outrage at using a forklift to push a sick bull into the chute was partially about safe meat, but also about the abuse of the animal.
You had one? Where did it go? You admitted that you don't care about rationality, and basically implied that its just a given humans are above animals. I'm asking for some justification for this, other than "we are human, that is why we are superior" or "we are a predator, therefore it is our right," which is the naturalistic fallacy, yet you can't give me me one after you made the claim that it is basically obvious that human interests be considered above the of animals. Now you insult my intelligence because of my views? Grow up. You are presenting logical fallacies as arguments for your position. I am going to call you out on this. Get over it. You don like how mathematical it is? That's logic. Everything can be reduced to logic, and if it can't, then you don't have justification for belief. I hold myself to the same standard.
All animals have the same interests. It is special pleading to say our rights are above that of any other animals. oyr intelligence doesn't make a difference. our self-awareness doesnt make a difference, nor does our place on the food chain. Animals do what they do in the wild out of necessity in order to survive. it is not necessary that humans eat animal products to survive, given modern agricultural technology and the aid of nutrient supplements, therefore animal suffering should be spared. Factory farming should be avoided and boycotted. Humans never ate meat at every meal, historically, if you want to use the naturalistic fallacy. So it is not even justifiable using your own logic to eat as much meat or eggs as we do. Milk is a baby food of another animal that was never available to our hunter-gatherer ancestors, so you can't use this as an "ought" based on what "was." Humans ability to digest lactase into adulthood only came about through a genetic mutation in 5,000 BC. Today, we rape cattle to keep them perpetually pregnant, milk them like they are machines, and slaughter them when they are spent. In other words, all of their interests are completely ignored so we can accomplish our own selfish ends. W are a terrible species for doing this, and I contend this is indefensible. Might does not make right, yet that seems to be the implicit justification.
You do grasp that you're mentally ill, and in need of serious help, don't you?
You had one? Where did it go? You admitted that you don't care about rationality, and basically implied that its just a given humans are above animals. I'm asking for some justification for this, other than "we are human, that is why we are superior" or "we are a predator, therefore it is our right," which is the naturalistic fallacy, yet you can't give me me one after you made the claim that it is basically obvious that human interests be considered above the of animals. Now you insult my intelligence because of my views? Grow up. You are presenting logical fallacies as arguments for your position. I am going to call you out on this. Get over it. You don like how mathematical it is? That's logic. Everything can be reduced to logic, and if it can't, then you don't have justification for belief. I hold myself to the same standard.
All animals have the same interests. It is special pleading to say our rights are above that of any other animals. oyr intelligence doesn't make a difference. our self-awareness doesnt make a difference, nor does our place on the food chain. Animals do what they do in the wild out of necessity in order to survive. it is not necessary that humans eat animal products to survive, given modern agricultural technology and the aid of nutrient supplements, therefore animal suffering should be spared. Factory farming should be avoided and boycotted. Humans never ate meat at every meal, historically, if you want to use the naturalistic fallacy. So it is not even justifiable using your own logic to eat as much meat or eggs as we do. Milk is a baby food of another animal that was never available to our hunter-gatherer ancestors, so you can't use this as an "ought" based on what "was." Humans ability to digest lactase into adulthood only came about through a genetic mutation in 5,000 BC. Today, we rape cattle to keep them perpetually pregnant, milk them like they are machines, and slaughter them when they are spent. In other words, all of their interests are completely ignored so we can accomplish our own selfish ends. W are a terrible species for doing this, and I contend this is indefensible. Might does not make right, yet that seems to be the implicit justification.
You do grasp that you're mentally ill, and in need of serious help, don't you?
What you are witnessing in the patient....er, poster....is the result of years of exposure to Liberal 'education,' focused on destroying any attachment to Judeo-Christian beliefs, central being that human beings are created in God's image.
How better to abolish same than to convince dolts that we are no different from animals.
You do grasp that you're mentally ill, and in need of serious help, don't you?
What you are witnessing in the patient....er, poster....is the result of years of exposure to Liberal 'education,' focused on destroying any attachment to Judeo-Christian beliefs, central being that human beings are created in God's image.
How better to abolish same than to convince dolts that we are no different from animals.
Would you get off politics PC? How indoctrinated are you? There is no evidence for god, and until you produce some, there is no justification for belief, or taking anything the bible says as gospel. Therefore, you are left to justify speciesism apart from god, which you can't rationally do. In other words, your position is entirely irrational. Faith is not evidence, and I find it sad that you would justify the suffering of billions if animals through your god. You are pathetic.
What you are witnessing in the patient....er, poster....is the result of years of exposure to Liberal 'education,' focused on destroying any attachment to Judeo-Christian beliefs, central being that human beings are created in God's image.
How better to abolish same than to convince dolts that we are no different from animals.
Would you get off politics PC? How indoctrinated are you? There is no evidence for god, and until you produce some, there is no justification for belief, or taking anything the bible says as gospel. Therefore, you are left to justify speciesism apart from god, which you can't rationally do. In other words, your position is entirely irrational. Faith is not evidence, and I find it sad that you would justify the suffering of billions if animals through your god. You are pathetic.
Lucky you,...
..... youll survive a zombie apocalypse: no brains.
Sentience is defined as the ability to feel or perceive.
Animals are sentient creatures, by definition.
Perhaps you are confused, as is largely indicated by the rest of your post. Your next point is so ignorant, I'm not sure how to respond to it.
You are aware that when products reach shelf, they came from somewhere prior to that, right? They don't just magically appear.
Okay, so when you buy beef, you understand that came from a living, SENTIENT being
that lived in factory farm, owned and operated by a CORPORATION whom you are paying to raise and kill your food. How else do you think beef gets to shelf?
If you are not buying local, then you are likely buying from one of the four major corporations who collectively raise (via factory farms) %99 of the animals sold in America. It is an oligopoly, as the case in most industries.
Eating animals may be a natural thing, but this is irrelevant and commits the naturalistic fallacy, again.
Besides, the way we raise and treat them is entirely unnatural. Do you see tigers farming their prey? No. So using your own logic, you refute your own argument.
Your last claim is laughable, and contradictory to your support of modern harming. People want the ethical treatment of animals yet pay corporations to treat them unethically?
Interesting logic you have. He truth is, people don't want to know about factory farming, because they might actually care were they to discover the truth of its methods.
They don't want to relinquish the pleasure of consuming animals products, so are willing to suspend themselves in ignorance to the suffering they cause with the support to these corporations.
Because I care about the suffering that we are causing for other sentient creatures?
I think it is you who is mentally deranged for not understanding how hypocritical this makes you. You would service your own interests, but deny them to animals, based on what justification, exactly? Have you any? Please don't tell me you read the bible and this is where you are getting your views from.
