The Internet: 1 Cat Abuser: 0Follow

lol "inherent rights" We didn't -recognize- that humans have inherent rights. We invented them.

Just because we have not emancipated pets to a greater extent does not mean that we should not or can not. As for wearing or eating animals.. we shouldn't. Stop with this is/ought conflation sh*t.



What would you pick if you had to decide between your cat and someone else's child? Would your answer change depending on how close you were to the child. I know how I'd react, but I'd like to see how other's would.

Edited, Feb 17th 2009 12:59pm by Pensive

If I was starving to death, Id eat your cat without a second thought. Also, meat is delicious and humans are omnivores. That settles whether or not we should eat animals.

You'd lose. I doubt the baby would even be capable of finding proper shelter the first night.

Interesting chain of logic.

1) I want to eat meat.
2 It is OK for me to eat meat.

1) I want A.
2) It is OK for me to get A.

1) I want to kill everyone who's ever used Digg and one clown.
2) It is OK for me to kill everyone who's ever used Digg and one clown.

1) I want to annoy you.
2) It is OK for me to annoy you.

Wow, talk about applying logic in all the wrong ways. We as human's are built to eat meat. Just because you think that taking something to an extreme is an automatic progression doesn't make it so. Some in this thread may want to kill you, they haven't. I wonder how your cat's doing on its vegetarian diet?

Wow, talk about applying logic in all the wrong ways.

We as human's are built to eat meat.

Just because you think that taking something to an extreme is an automatic progression doesn't make it so.

Some in this thread may want to kill you, they haven't.

I wonder how your cat's doing on its vegetarian diet?

Your cat is as retarded as you are.

It's like no one can talk to me without making a whole boat load of assumptions about me. What is the world coming to?

The obvious answer is to start farming Palestinians and use their flesh to feed hungry Jews.

All value that we put on humans or animals is subjective and arbitrary. My cat versus my mother is a hard choice. My cat versus some random @#%^er's child isn't. Why should I be forced to capitulate with someone else's wishes that their child should be held in higher regard when I get more enjoyment out of my animals?

It's not like I expect them to place MY cat over their OWN child's life. Fair's fair.

***

Beside's katie is emotional about this particular ethic. I've presented a consistent argument. I've hardly ever taken this tack to justify a decision; it reminds me of reading Anthem or something, and I much prefer universal compassion, but we're talking about hypothetical and necessarily difficult ethical thought experiments, where you -have- to pick something. It's very easy to simply go with the most valuable thing from your own perspective.

You entirely missed the point of that quote.

Shakespeare's point is that the rose is still exactly the same, just the name is different.

An animal's "something like" love isn't exactly love.