Apr 22, 2010 -- 1:17AM, bluehorserunning wrote:

I gotta say, I'm with Solf on this one.  The fur industry might not be inherently cruel, but the way it actually functions is:  either fur farms with many animals confined to small cages in close proximity, or traps that exert far too much cruelty because they must not damage the pelt in the process of killing the animals.

You may be right about the way a lot of this is done, BHR, but I still think the distinction is important. If the way in which it is done is needlessly cruel, then reform the method. Don't say that the product of the method should be banned. There are a lot of products that can be produced in responsible ways or irresponsible ways.... probably most of them. The answer is not to ban the products but to supervise the methodology.

But, strangely enough, I know exactly where you're coming from in much  of what you've said, because when I was younger I was a meat-eater,  too.  I enjoyed the taste of meat and ate it often, never giving a  thought to where it came from.

That is the thing Solf, that is not where I am coming from. 

See, it is possible that some people have exactly the same information that you do, yet make a different decision. 

In fact, I've probably got more information than you do.  It's not like I don't give a thought about where my diet comes from.  I've actually worked in many of the areas to put myself through school.  Which I have a lot of.  I have the little piece of paper that says I'm a Doctor, after all. 

So the attitude that all who don't come to the same immediate conclusion that you do because they are ignorant kind of bugs me.  Especially when it is repeated.  Over and over, and done so without looking at the information that the other interested party tries to say. 

all

Apr 22, 2010 -- 1:17AM, bluehorserunning wrote:

On the subject of rights, I absolutely disagree that rights are absolute; our rights come from the humans around us, not from some preternatural source.

I would claim that there are three bases that one can use to argue for the existence and nature of rights....

1. Arguments from philosophical positions.

2. Arguments from obeserved nature (which may be a subset of 1, above)

3. Arguments from law and legal precedent.

Oh, I suppose you could have

4. Arguments from religious belief, but that is probably both a subset of 1, and is inherently weak, unless made among adherents of the same sub-relgious group.

Depending on what you think under the categories of (1) and (3) some rights may or may not be regarded as absolute, or quasi-absolute (absolute unless conflicting with the same right, or another right of the same order of precedence.

allthegood -

I can't imagine where you got this idea that I was ever impugning your intelligence or implying that you're ignorant, because I certainly never said or implied that. 

All I've been trying to do here is explain where I stand.  As I must have said fifty times over the years I've posted in this forum, I honestly believe that all sentient life is equally valuable, whether human or nonhuman.  I also believe that it is morally wrong to take a life for no good reason.  And I do not believe that taking an animal's life because you want to eat its flesh is a good reason.

Furthermore, I reject the regulation of animal exploitation, and I base this thinking on animal sentience and cognition.

As I have pointed out, my beliefs have to do with my own experiences through life and how my thinking has evolved. 

This has nothing to do with you or your profession, so I don't know why you would insist upon making it personal. 

Apr 22, 2010 -- 11:35PM, solfeggio wrote:

allthegood -

I can't imagine where you got this idea that I was ever impugning your intelligence or implying that you're ignorant, because I certainly never said or implied that.

You keep saying that the only reason why people would continue to eat meat is that they haven't thought about it.  How else am I supposed to take that?

Apr 22, 2010 -- 11:35PM, solfeggio wrote:

All I've been trying to do here is explain where I stand.

No.  You also offer reasoning why people come to different conclusions than you have.  In and of itself, this is fine.  We all do it.  The difference is that most people change that reasoning in the face of new evidence.  You don't.  You keep saying the same things over and over. 

Apr 22, 2010 -- 11:35PM, solfeggio wrote:

  As I must have said fifty times over the years I've posted in this forum, I honestly believe that all sentient life is equally valuable, whether human or nonhuman.  I also believe that it is morally wrong to take a life for no good reason.  And I do not believe that taking an animal's life because you want to eat its flesh is a good reason.

Good.  You can believe that. 

The disconnect happens when you assert it is the only conclusion that one can come to. 

Apr 22, 2010 -- 11:35PM, solfeggio wrote:

This has nothing to do with you or your profession, so I don't know why you would insist upon making it personal. 

 

You did it first.