Gratitude, Compulsion, Idiocy or Nobility?

[Kumar]

They still do not realize they are going to be slaughtered.

In nature, animals gravitate to where the food is. Sometimes one is killed by a predator. Does that make the rest stay away? - of course not.

Hans

Yes but what animals can perceive about him, who give food and nurse them?

 

[Kumar]

And what methods does PETA use when they kill animals? Are PETA's reasons for systematically euthanizing animals (including, in a few extreme cases, kidnapped family pets) in their care congruent with your ideals?

When beef cattle are slaughtered, there is a purpose. The meat goes to feed people. The skin goes to form durable coverings and protections, and so forth. All these are morally tolerable purposes because another organism benefits directly from it. This is the food chain. This is the basis of all life on Earth. When PETA kills otherwise adoptable rescue animals simply because they are morally opposed to adoption and pet-keeping, is that an equally noble purpose? Are the little puppies and kittens expressing gratitude, compulsion, idiocy, or nobility for staying with their PETA "rescuers" until they're led en masse to the execution chamber? Are they happy to sacrifice their lives so that PETA can continue to solicit donations and make their founders feel important?

This is the group you are relying upon to teach you morals and to place human behavior and history in a moral context. You are using that moral viewpoint as the basis for your questions, discussion, and debate. I've tried several times to get you to address the hypocrisy of your source, but you simply refuse. I suppose it's because you also embrace the hypocrisy, after which it becomes supremely arrogant of you to argue a supposedly superior moral attitude from that position.



And the rest of us here are quite able to see the difference between actual cruelty and the abstraction of raising and keeping animals. You are not. You see only a false dichotomy between PETA's extreme notion of total deference to animals, and everything else, which you characterize as savagery and barbarism.

Again, why is your thinking so limited?

Whatever wrong one is doing, do not entitle other to do that. So can't be compared or made example. I am not sure if peta do that cruelty as you told. Please give evidence.

 

[Kumar]

Long answer erased, because what is the point? So....

No they're not idiots. They're animals. They do not understand in the way we do, and such terms as arrogance, idiocy, ignorance and obstinacy, so applicable to humans, do not apply.

When a bee stings an enemy it disembowels itself and dies. Try to parse the idea of idiocy here before going too much further down the bottomless rabbit hole.

If not such or if animals have no feeling or cognition, how they can become pet animals?

 

[Kumar]

No, they are not idiots. They simply do not have the sufficient intelligence to see through things. .... Which reminds me of certain present company ...

Hans

If they have no feeling or cognition, how they become pet animals?

 

[JayUtah]

Whatever wrong one is doing, do not entitle other to do that. So can't be compared or made example.

You don't get it, do you. You're citing as a moral authority an organization well known for its hypocrisy. The point is not that one should do what the other can do. The point is that when one is preaching what is styled as a moral absolute, hypocrisy effectively kills that argument.

I am not sure if peta do that cruelty as you told. Please give evidence.

You were happy to do your homework when it was about decrying the use of animals. Now do the homework you were supposed to do. I'm not taking up the slack for you until you demonstrate some critical thinking on your own. I've given you enough to get started. The rest is up to you.

 

[JayUtah]

If they have no feeling or cognition, how they become pet animals?

Straw man.

 

[Kumar]

N



No, we don't. You are simply begging the question that vegetarianism is somehow morally superior and that meat was ever only eaten when there weren't enough vegetables. You're projecting a social agenda onto history.



No, that has nothing to do with whether animals are graciously offering themselves up as sacrifices to humans. The question was why animals do what they do, not whether the result of that is good for humans. You need to shed yourself of this stilted rhetoric before you can have a meaningful discussion about diet or food policy.

.

I think, I mentioned something odd also about normal vegetarian food as also violence food. When we kill one seed, we kill its whole generation. Except fruits, waste/superflous products of plants, milk from happy animal, mineral, nector, honey droplets etc., all other should be food by violence. Depending on our nature and basic needs, Nature has given us many many products(mostly all for our basic needs) for its purpose without cruelty or violence provided we maintain nature and natural harmony. Moreover, when we resist killing of one being, we attract killing of other as well as cause disharmony in nature. Because who need to take food will have to take either one or other at the cost of former. So just leave your emotion that I am one sided or PETA sided.

 

[Kumar]

You don't get it, do you. You're citing as a moral authority an organization well known for its hypocrisy. The point is not that one should do what the other can do. The point is that when one is preaching what is styled as a moral absolute, hypocrisy effectively kills that argument.



You were happy to do your homework when it was about decrying the use of animals. Now do the homework you were supposed to do. I'm not taking up the slack for you until you demonstrate some critical thinking on your own. I've given you enough to get started. The rest is up to you.

As you have claimed about cruelty by PETA, you should only give evidence.

 

[Kumar]

Straw man.

"A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument which was not advanced by that opponent."

 

[JayUtah]

As you have claimed about cruelty by PETA, you should only give evidence.

Have you even read the Wikipedia page on PETA? In fact have you done any reading on the organization you're citing as moral authority except to read their propaganda?

Please give actual answers to these questions. They are not rhetorical.

 

[JayUtah]

"A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument which was not advanced by that opponent."

Yes, that is correct. It derives from the notion of attacking a man made of straw rather than an actual potent enemy. Now go back and read his post and yours and tell me why your response constitutes a straw man fallacy.

 

[JayUtah]

I think, I mentioned something odd also about normal vegetarian food as also violence food.

Yes, you define all means of obtaining sustenance as violence. It's one of the most notably absurd things about your argument. You appear to have a moral compunction against all life on Earth. Good luck with that.

 

[Mojo]

They still do not realize they are going to be slaughtered.

In nature, animals gravitate to where the food is. Sometimes one is killed by a predator. Does that make the rest stay away? - of course not.

Hans

Yes but what animals can perceive about him, who give food and nurse them?

It's kind of implicit in Hans's post.

 

[Mojo]

If they have no feeling or cognition, how they become pet animals?

I think you're confusing pet animals with judges. Judges have to pass the rigorous judging examinations, but there is no such requirement for pet animals. You never, ever, hear a cat saying, "I could have been a pet animal, but I never had the Latin."

 

[Kumar]

Yes, you define all means of obtaining sustenance as violence. It's one of the most notably absurd things about your argument. You appear to have a moral compunction against all life on Earth. Good luck with that.

No, not true. Life is also possible without odds. We existed since millions of years. Can't claim, it is only due to our work. Nature has done it mostly. I doubt any immorarility by nature. Fullfilling basic natural needs should not be an issue but greed, luxury or otherwise can be.

 

[Kumar]

Have you even read the Wikipedia page on PETA? In fact have you done any reading on the organization you're citing as moral authority except to read their propaganda?

Please give actual answers to these questions. They are not rhetorical.

I am not bothered about them. I just gave their one link. If Í give a wikipedià link, it does not mean I own it. Moreover when I say with equanímity and natural harmony, all forms of life are important to me not just animals. I dont feel they are concerned simílarily with all forms of life. Even They may advocate for few species of blooded animals but not all esp those used for food.
Probably, they do not oppose cruelty for food but oppose for greed, luxury n entertainment. Frankly, if we want to decreasé cruelty n violence, these should be decreased overall not just on one speci which will also be quite odd.

 

[Mojo]

No, not true. Life is also possible without odds. We existed since millions of years.

And during all that time we ate living beings which died as a result.

Can't claim, it is only due to our work. Nature has done it mostly.

The way animals die in nature is rarely pleasant.

I doubt any immorarility by nature.

"Nature" is not an entity that is capable of morality.

 

[Mojo]

I am not bothered about them. I just gave their one link.

You quoted them to support your argument.

If Í give a wikipedià link, it does not mean I own it.

It doesn't even mean that you have read it.

Moreover when I say with equanímity and natural harmony, all forms of life are important to me not just animals.

Should you not stop killing them, then?

 

[Kumar]

All,
We had good discussions in this thread. Thanks. I think, I can conclude now. Idiócy: on part of those animals, who do not leave even if set free. They overestimate their owners like their godfather, who nurse, feed and show lóve towards them but got killed by them ultimately. 2. Compulsion: Those who always kept in captivity. I feel gratitude and nobility do not apply in this case. Ok?

 

[Mojo]

All,
We had good discussions in this thread. Thanks. I think, I can conclude now. Idiócy: on part of those animals, who do not leave even if set free. They overestimate their owners like their godfather, who nurse, feed and show lóve towards them but got killed by them ultimately. 2. Compulsion: Those who always kept in captivity. I feel gratitude and nobility do not apply in this case. Ok?

"Good discussions" do not involve repeating your initial premises, having ignored all the well argued and supported objections to them. You are taking a "one sided approach".