Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Grainne who wrote (94044)	1/19/2005 3:17:25 PM
From: one_less	Respond to of 108807

I heard slavery was his idea too. Dang Buschman ... probably one of your evil ancestors haunting this thread. Know a good exorcist?

To: Grainne who wrote (94044)	1/19/2005 3:57:51 PM
From: Oeconomicus	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

"So I see you assume first that humans have total dominion over animals, including inflicting whatever cruelties they choose to inflict?" Assume what you want, but let me warn you - some here get upset at meritless inferences (except for their own, of course). "Do you agree then that humans have the inherent right to treat chickens this way?" No creature has "the inherent right" to treat other creatures cruelly. Did someone suggest otherwise? "Could you entertain the possibility that even if humans do slaughter animals for food, that animals deserve some sort of basic rights? Or do you believe that humans have every right to torture animals before they eat them?" Ignoring the redundancy of your questioning, no creature has "every right" to treat other creatures cruelly. Did someone suggest otherwise? Treating animals cruelly is a manifestation of human faults and judging a given act as cruel is a human judgement. That said, do animals suffer? Sure. Should we humans behave as humanely as is reasonably possible toward animals, including those we use as a food source? Yes, but that is only my opinion based on human values, not any notion of "rights". Of course, humans differ as to exactly what treatment or practices they consider cruel (as well as the degree to which they empathize with animals and care about cruelty at all). Some, for example, consider killing animals for food when humans can clearly survive on a vegetarian diet cruel. I do not. Some consider artificial insemination of animals cruel. I do not. Some consider milking a cow cruel. I do not. I do, however, consider people "tortur[ing] animals before they eat them" cruel. But then you start an argument about whether killing them in order to eat them, keeping them in any kind of enclosure, artificially inseminating them or milking them is torture. "There is nothing of the silly, psuedo-intellectual show about the campaign for animal rights..." Campaigning to prevent genuine cruelty to animals is not silly and I never said it was. What is silly is circularly reasoned proofs that animals have "rights", independent of human-imposed or granted ones, in order to justify restricting human behavior toward them. If we want to make and enforce laws preventing what we, as humans, consider cruel, then we should do so on the basis of our own values and judgements, not because someone invented a "right". "You are quick to assert your arguments, but I wonder if you actually know the level of cruelty you defend." You are quick to assert my arguments - or more precisely, make them up. What cruelty have I defended, precisely?