|
|
#81
09-14-2007, 03:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Biggest lie in the history of mankind
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] You accused lucksack of this, when he made no such claims. Then when he denied it, you said you didn't believe him. [/ QUOTE ] Ah. So when he's talking about ethics, morals, good / bad, right / wrong, animal abuse, animal suffering etc., he's not referring to meat eaters like me. Got it. My bad. [/ QUOTE ] I don't recall him saying he considered meat-eaters "subhuman" or that he has no respect for their beliefs. You are equating making an ethical argument to making a personal attack and that's silly. 
|
|
#82
09-14-2007, 04:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Biggest lie in the history of mankind
[ QUOTE ]
There are exceptions, and we call them sociopaths. These are people who really do not share the same basic moral tenets that all the rest of us humans share. But the majority of Germans during WWII were not sociopaths. They did not condone genocide. They were either cowards or they didn't think it was genocide. [/ QUOTE ] There is a fair amount of controversy as to know many germans actually knew the jews, communists, homosexuals, disabled people, gypsies, etc. were being murdered at the time. It's not like it was annuounced on front pages or anything sidenote: am I the only that that's annoyed that "the jews" is used as a synecdoche for all the genocide victims of WW2?
|
|
#83
09-14-2007, 04:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Biggest lie in the history of mankind
[ QUOTE ]
I don't recall him saying he considered meat-eaters "subhuman" or that he has no respect for their beliefs. You are equating making an ethical argument to making a personal attack and that's silly. [/ QUOTE ] Change "subhuman" to "sub-par human", this is more of an inference than a quote. And yes, when someone argues that something I do, especially something as basic and essential as eating, is somehow unethical, immoral, abusive, wrong, bad, etc. -- I take that as a personal attack. Silly me.
|
|
#85
09-14-2007, 06:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Biggest lie in the history of mankind
[ QUOTE ]
And yes, when someone argues that something I do, especially something as basic and essential as eating, is somehow unethical, immoral, abusive, wrong, bad, etc. -- I take that as a personal attack. Silly me. [/ QUOTE ] Foal's right, RG. Looks like you're not cut out for big boy discussions yet.
|
|
#86
09-15-2007, 03:37 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Biggest lie in the history of mankind
My point in OP was that if one thought humans have objective huge value, then there would be no rational argument to think animals don't have similar value as well. And a lot of people seem to think that way, and when asked why they think so, answer with some of the bad arguments I wrote about in OP.
If they said morality is always subjective, and they (irrationally) believe in humans as a higher species, my thought would be pretty much the same as SNOWBALL138's thought regarding Hitler's thinking of Aryan race as a higher race. Generally though, instead of admitting to Hitler-type thinking, people seem to base their subjective view on morality of (ab-)using animals the way we do today on incorrect (outdated) scientific information about animal psychology, incorrect knowledge about animal treatment today, social norms, Christian speciesism (belief in humans as a higher species) and emotional speciesism.
|
|
#87
09-15-2007, 11:27 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Biggest lie in the history of mankind
[ QUOTE ]
My point in OP was that if one thought humans have objective huge value, then there would be no rational argument to think animals don't have similar value as well. [/ QUOTE ] Value is inherently subjective by pretty much any way we can describe it, so there just isn't much room for rational arguments there. If you're going to say "if humans have value then animals have value too", you are essentially saying "the same reasons that humans have value also apply to other animals". Since we don't know the reasons humans have value, this argument can't be evaluated. [ QUOTE ] If they said morality is always subjective, and they (irrationally) believe in humans as a higher species, my thought would be pretty much the same as SNOWBALL138's thought regarding Hitler's thinking of Aryan race as a higher race. [/ QUOTE ] I don't know why you're combining subjective morality with believing in humans as a higher species. I think most moral relativists would consider "higher" a completely subjective term.
|
|
#88
09-15-2007, 02:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Biggest lie in the history of mankind
[ QUOTE ]
If you're going to say "if humans have value then animals have value too", you are essentially saying "the same reasons that humans have value also apply to other animals". Since we don't know the reasons humans have value, this argument can't be evaluated. [/ QUOTE ] Even if we don't know why humans have value, but we do know that humans have value and that the reason is none of the characteristics that humans have but other animals lack, logically follows that others have value too. But I have not claimed humans have objective value. [ QUOTE ] I don't know why you're combining subjective morality with believing in humans as a higher species. I think most moral relativists would consider "higher" a completely subjective term. [/ QUOTE ] Ok, well, they don't need to say that morality is subjective, just admitting to irrational belief in humans as a higher species or something like that (the type of thinking that one human is somehow worth more than a billion pigs) is enough.
|
|
#89
09-15-2007, 02:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Biggest lie in the history of mankind
[ QUOTE ]
Ok, well, they don't need to say that morality is subjective, just admitting to irrational belief in humans as a higher species or something like that (the type of thinking that one human is somehow worth more than a billion pigs) is enough. [/ QUOTE ] We could consider humans as a 'lower species' and still value them more than cockroaches and remain rational. luckyme
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
