Gratitude, Compulsion, Idiocy or Nobility?

[John Jones]

Btw, are you suggesting, if law permit, if humans are nourishing, tasty and serve as food, should/can they be also treated similarily?

Are you? You were the first to introduce the idea.

 

[JayUtah]

I do not want complexing which can become lie. Truth is simple and simple truth seems that we are just one/our sided and they are not.

The truth is that you continue to conflate humans and animals. If you didn't want your absurdity pointed out to you, you shouldn't have brought up the topic.

 

[bruto]

I do not want complexing which can become lie. Truth is simple and simple truth seems that we are just one/our sided and they are not.

No, sir. Some things are simple and some are not. The world is complicated and easy lies are not truer for being easy.

 

[Kumar]

Are you? You were the first to introduce the idea.

No. I like non-violence with equanimity.

 

[Kumar]

The truth is that you continue to conflate humans and animals. If you didn't want your absurdity pointed out to you, you shouldn't have brought up the topic.

I just want to understand emotional and natural values on this aspect on both sides.

 

[JayUtah]

I just want to understand emotional and natural values on this aspect on both sides.

No. There's no evidence in this thread that you are seeking understanding. You've steeped yourself in radical animal rights advocates and you've uncritically accepted all their premises. Then you insist that your critics accept those same premises while you ignore their very well stated reasons why they will not do that. That is not seeking understanding; that is pure evangelism. If your goal is understanding, you need to stop conflating animals with humans. Are you ready to do that?

 

[JayUtah]

No. I like non-violence with equanimity.

Then will you please stipulate that humans-as-food is not an issue in this debate? Your entire argument is based on the faulty premise that there are operative similarities between animals and humans that make it immoral to breed animals for food. You've also inexplicably suggested it is immoral to raise crops for food, but that's too absurd to even think about. Your suggestion that we should accept the notion of humans as foodstuff simply extends that faulty premise.

 

[Kumar]

No. There's no evidence in this thread that you are seeking understanding. You've steeped yourself in radical animal rights advocates and you've uncritically accepted all their premises. Then you insist that your critics accept those same premises while you ignore their very well stated reasons why they will not do that. That is not seeking understanding; that is pure evangelism. If your goal is understanding, you need to stop conflating animals with humans. Are you ready to do that?

This is not science forum. Moreover situation can be different at different place. Conditions prevailing at one place may not apply to other place. Even in peta link, basic needs are not denied.

 

[Kumar]

Then will you please stipulate that humans-as-food is not an issue in this debate? Your entire argument is based on the faulty premise that there are operative similarities between animals and humans that make it immoral to breed animals for food. You've also inexplicably suggested it is immoral to raise crops for food, but that's too absurd to even think about. Your suggestion that we should accept the notion of humans as foodstuff simply extends that faulty premise.

Yes, it is not an issue of debate butTruth should be applicable universally. If we accept, pain and violence are odd, we should accept it with equanimity. Yes in selfish interests, might can become right.

 

[JayUtah]

This is not science forum.

Among many other things, yes it is. Despite the fact that you've chosen to raise the issue as a matter of "Religion and Philosophy," science does not go away just because you've choosen not to pay attention to it.

Moreover situation can be different at different place.

I'm not talking about conditions elsewhere. I'm talking about conditions here, where you claim to be here to share information and gain understanding, but instead you have just swallowed the self-indulgent nonsense of a group well known for its hypocrisy and continue to insist that we must accept it as fact.

You continue to conflate humans and animals. Will you renounce that presumption in order to gain understanding?

 

[JayUtah]

Yes, it is not an issue of debate butTruth should be applicable universally.

No, your desire to simplify away important differences does not somehow magically equate to "truth." You stipuluated, but then continued the same debate on the same point. Look up what it means to stipulate. You are trying on several fronts to equate animals with humans, but you provide no evidence that this is so.

If we accept, pain and violence are odd, we should accept it with equanimity.

No. You've simply declared -- without any knowledge or experience -- that agriculture is tantamount to pain and violence.

Yes in selfish interests, might can become right.

Gibberish.

 

[Mojo]

Yes, it is not an issue of debate butTruth should be applicable universally.

In your immediately preceding post, only three minutes before, you implied that it doesn't matter whether or not your premises are true because "this is not science forum". That is not consistent with stating that "truth should be applicable universally".

 

[bruto]

This is not science forum. Moreover situation can be different at different place. Conditions prevailing at one place may not apply to other place. Even in peta link, basic needs are not denied.

Yes, it is not an issue of debate butTruth should be applicable universally. If we accept, pain and violence are odd, we should accept it with equanimity. Yes in selfish interests, might can become right.

One thing is not like the other.

 

[Kumar]

No, your desire to simplify away important differences does not somehow magically equate to "truth." You stipuluated, but then continued the same debate on the same point. Look up what it means to stipulate. You are trying on several fronts to equate animals with humans, but you provide no evidence that this is so.



No. You've simply declared -- without any knowledge or experience -- that agriculture is tantamount to pain and violence.



Gibberish.

Both are live beings. Human is also animal. Both feel pain. Both should have right to life. Many such.

 

[Kumar]

One thing is not like the other.

Yes, so many different truths.

 

[Mojo]

Yes, so many different truths.

Some of your "truths" are lies. Where they contradict each other, for example your statements that truth should be "applicable universally", and "limited to this forum only", at least one of them must be false.

 

[Kumar]

Theory of Relativity--Special and General.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Theory of Relativity--Special and General.

Oh, this should be good. Go on, Kumar, let's hear what you think you're trying to say here.

Dave

 

[fagin]

? General is all your family, special is when you have the hots for your sister in law.
(This is an example only, I don't have a brother.)

 

[Filippo Lippi]

Theory of Relativity--Special and General.

What does this have to do with the rights and wrongs of slaughtering animals for food?