Originally Posted by Direckshun
You still have not responded to my question, mr. tegu. Even now. I mean, Jesus Christ.
Here's what you've said in this thread:
1. Animal abuse is immoral -- or at least, specifically, smashing the skull of a piglet into concrete is immoral.
2. I, mr. tegu, do not believe that humans have an ethical responsibility to prevent undue harm upon animals we intend to eat.
I've walked you into this dead-end because you need to address this. These are two conflicting statements. Clearly.
If animal abuse exists and is immoral, which you clearly agree it is from point #1, then the only logical conclusion to draw from that is that we have a morality regarding pigs. We have a moral obligation not to bestow abuse upon them.
That is the logical follow-through of your claim. Which baldly contradicts point number #2.
I've been pointing this out for about twenty posts now, slow-walking you into it.
Your response, rather than recanting point #1 or point #2, is to simply not address it, and pretend like that contradiction doesn't exist by ignoring it and criticizing me for any number of reasons.
And if that's where we're going to end up, where your arguments don't have to make sense, and don't have to maintain any intellectual honesty, then where could this discussion possibly go that's productive.
Those are not contradicting statements. Not even close. There is no dead end. I could think smashing a pigs head into concrete is immoral because I think they are reincarnated humans, but it doesn't matter. At all. How would that be relevant to my belief that my morals don't have to extend to others? Here is the logical conclusion:
If animal abuse exists and is immoral, which I agree some things are from point #1, then the logical conclusion to draw from that is that
have a morality regarding pigs.
have a moral obligation not
to bestow abuse upon them.