Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dig420
this isn't some debate about whether animals have rights, although I would say that all living creatures have a right to be free from deliberate cruelty. It's about whether you, as an individual, are debased and degenerate enough to think it's worth putting some animal thru something like this so you can have a tasty fucking treat.
|
"Debased", "degenerate", you can scream and shout as much as you want. Until you give me a reason why this is wrong in principle, I can't take this serious. Simple appeal to emotions doesn't work.
Have you seen how lions kill their prey? Wolves? Cats even play with mice before they kill them. That's all pretty awful. They rip them apart alive and play with their inner organs. You don't do anything about that. If your position is taken to the end, you'd have to stop all carnivorous activity on earth. That would, however, hurt all the carnivorous animals.
Eating other animals involves cruelty. Man is an omnivore, that includes killing (and thereby hurting) animals. We survive at their expense. They die, we live.
The idea of natural harmony where all animals live together in peace is nonsense. It's a constant fight. And it's cruel.
And Foie Gras is just the tip of the iceberg. Have you seen how chickens are treated to lay eggs, or cows, or pigs? Have you ever noticed how nobody gives a shit about how we treat the fish? It's nothing but emotionalism. We only care about animals which mimick human facial expressions. Animals with big eyes that trigger primitive parts of our brain to think "Oh how cute!".
And have you ever noticed why nobody gives a fuck about fish or shrimps or some octopus. Nobody cares if you kill flies or bugs. Why? Because they don't look cute. Because they don't scream when they are hurt. Are they hurt less? Does a bug feel less pain when I step on it and crush it alive just because it can't scream? Does a fish feel good if I pull it out of the water with a net and it can't breathe anymore and dies?
There is no reason at the basis of your argument. It's just unexamined emotion. Don't hurt the cute animals because I don't like it. That's all.
And just in case this got past your attention, I've never eaten foie gras.
I agree that one could stop producing Foie Gras without too much harm to the human populace. The problem is that once you break the principle that rights are a human thing, you've lost. Why only ban Foie Gras? Isn't killing animals wrong in general? We humans don't have a right to kill animals because animals have rights, too. That's Peta's official agenda. Forcing humans to treat animals as if they had rights. And that's what I'm opposed to and I refuse to give in to their step-by-step tactics of taking the cruel-looking stuff first and then fucking us because we've already given in.
Animals don't have rights. They don't even have the capacity to understand what a right is, and having a right includes accepting the rights of others. Animals can't do that. It's impossible to them. Zebras don't go to court if a Lion killed one of them. And if a shark eats your leg, do you demand penalties? If a stray dog shits on your lawn, do you sue it? There is no court in nature. Rights are a human invention to make living among other humans possible.
Rights are not mystical endowments inherent in all living beings and somehow we as humans have the duty to protect all the animals in the universe from cruelty.
Shit, don't we have other things to do? Stuff like ending wars and hunger. Shouldn't we take care of ourselves first?