Free-range pigs -- not so happy

[spencelo]

Your position and, as you acknowledged, your argument, is based on your belief that animals and humans are equivalent.

Not quite accurate. Although I hold that the principle of equal consideration of interests should apply to animals, I have not relied on it in most of my arguments.

You believe that because you believe it. How you came to it is entirely subjective. Most definitely, you did not derive that from any Catholic source, because it’s directly contrary to Catholic belief.

One could say the same thing about your beliefs; if we probe far enough, we’ll arrive at the same answer – you believe in God’s moral authority because you believe it. If you attempt to advance reasons for that, I can keep asking why for every reason you give, until you either run out of answers or start to repeat them.

It certainly could be stated from a Catholic point of view that needless cruelty is immoral,

This is all one needs to believe in order to go vegan and oppose hunting.

One can certainly posit arguments against using animals for food by anthropomorphizing animals; attributing to them human attributes that they don’t actually have.

Such as what? Animals can experience a wide range of feelings and emotions, such as pain, distress, anxiety, boredom, depression, grief, anger, and sadness. Do you deny any of this?

 

[spencelo]

I totally agree. Why is this comparison always made? I think animal lovers are pretty aware that animals are not people.

I am a Catholic and believe 100% in giving animals love, compassion,and freedom to live without pain or cruelty. I don’t believe in treating them cruelly in any way. Yes God gave us “dominion” over the animals. I get that. Animals are also God’s innocent creation.

What else I know is that the way I experience God the most on this earth is through his beautiful innocent animals. Because of this, I am not inclined, nor do I agree with anyone cutting off chicken’s beaks in mass, killing them with guns, keeping them together in disgusting small spaces until they go insane, etc. To have dominion over them is not in my opinion to torture or abuse them. Sorry but I"m just crazy that way.

I look at my beautiful innocent dogs…who feel emotion just as I do, who are hungry just as I am, who thirst just as I do, who BLEED and feel pain just as I do…who I love in my life just as much as any human…who are God’s creatures who He made and loves…and I just can’t see myself shooting one for the fun of it and cutting off his head and putting it up on my wall as a trophy. I find that behavior to be deviant atrocious, and generally mentally defective.

Does it not occur to anyone that one of the reason us crazy animal lovers feel the way we do because animals are completely innocent? They cannot sin. They are pure. Because they don’t sin, some of us hold them in a very high regard. Domesticated animals give pure, unconditional love, even when humans abuse them, and in that regard, they have something over us humans. They also have no voice. They cannot run and scream to the police when they are being mistreated. Because of that, we as higher moral beings have a responsibility to protect them and generally not cut on them and kill them and perform experiments on them. WE have to be their voice. Remember when Jesus said “Whatever you did for one of the least of these, you did for me?” Argue with me all you want that he just meant people. I will smile and know differently in my heart who God has spoken to time and time again on this matter.

Who are any of you to say that I am wrong just because “they are not people.”

If serial killer hunters want to hunt, great. Go for it. I won’t and never will. It’s a free difference of opinion. But no one has any right to tell any animal lovers such as Spencelo and myself that we are bad, weird, or crazy for this. I think we are possibly more perceptive and a heck of a lot more gentle in our hearts than all the nayasyers on here.

And I have a feeling God would appreciate our gentle hearts and feelings on this matter for wanting to protect and love His creation. Conversely, is it a sin for others to blow an animal’s head off? Maybe not, but I personally think it implies a serious mental defect.

Just a thought.

Thanks for saying this. If I was Catholic, I would hold the same view as you do.

 

[Bill_Martin]

I totally agree. Why is this comparison always made? I think animal lovers are pretty aware that animals are not people.

I am a Catholic and believe 100% in giving animals love, compassion,and freedom to live without pain or cruelty. I don’t believe in treating them cruelly in any way. Yes God gave us “dominion” over the animals. I get that. Animals are also God’s innocent creation.

What else I know is that the way I experience God the most on this earth is through his beautiful innocent animals. Because of this, I am not inclined, nor do I agree with anyone cutting off chicken’s beaks in mass, killing them with guns, keeping them together in disgusting small spaces until they go insane, etc. To have dominion over them is not in my opinion to torture or abuse them. Sorry but I"m just crazy that way.

I look at my beautiful innocent dogs…who feel emotion just as I do, who are hungry just as I am, who thirst just as I do, who BLEED and feel pain just as I do…who I love in my life just as much as any human…who are God’s creatures who He made and loves…and I just can’t see myself shooting one for the fun of it and cutting off his head and putting it up on my wall as a trophy. I find that behavior to be deviant atrocious, and generally mentally defective.

Does it not occur to anyone that one of the reason us crazy animal lovers feel the way we do because animals are completely innocent? They cannot sin. They are pure. Because they don’t sin, some of us hold them in a very high regard. Domesticated animals give pure, unconditional love, even when humans abuse them, and in that regard, they have something over us humans. They also have no voice. They cannot run and scream to the police when they are being mistreated. Because of that, we as higher moral beings have a responsibility to protect them and generally not cut on them and kill them and perform experiments on them. WE have to be their voice. Remember when Jesus said “Whatever you did for one of the least of these, you did for me?” Argue with me all you want that he just meant people. I will smile and know differently in my heart who God has spoken to time and time again on this matter.

Who are any of you to say that I am wrong just because “they are not people.”

If serial killer hunters want to hunt, great. Go for it. I won’t and never will. It’s a free difference of opinion. But no one has any right to tell any animal lovers such as Spencelo and myself that we are bad, weird, or crazy for this. I think we are possibly more perceptive and a heck of a lot more gentle in our hearts than all the nayasyers on here.

And I have a feeling God would appreciate our gentle hearts and feelings on this matter for wanting to protect and love His creation. Conversely, is it a sin for others to blow an animal’s head off? Maybe not, but I personally think it implies a serious mental defect.

Just a thought.

I think most of us are tired of being told that we are serial killers because we like to hunt or are somehow not gentle or perceptive for eating meat.

 

[spencelo]

I think most of us are tired of being told that we are serial killers because we like to hunt or are somehow not gentle or perceptive for eating meat.

I never called anyone a serial killer, though I do think hunting and meat consumption are seriously wrong. But if you’re a serial killer for consuming animals, then so was I – most of us are. I never claimed or implied that I’m morally superior to anyone else.

You are (improperly) resisting my views on the same grounds that some supporters of abortion (improperly) resist your views (“I’m tired of being called a baby killer,” etc).

 

[triumphguy]

I never called anyone a serial killer, though I do think hunting and meat consumption are seriously wrong. But if you’re a serial killer for consuming animals, then so was I – most of us are. I never claimed or implied that I’m morally superior to anyone else.

You are (improperly) resisting my views on the same grounds that some supporters of abortion (improperly) resist your views (“I’m tired of being called a baby killer,” etc).

I’m just tired of being told I’m wrong when I’m not wrong.

And since you seem to have an almost inexhaustible supply of flimflam I’ll just continue to post my opposition to your most basic (and false) premises.

I eat meat. I hunt. I am also a devout Catholic, loving father and long-time animal lover, and “into” conservation. And all these positions are moral, reasonable and entirely consistent.

 

[spencelo]

I eat meat. I hunt. I am also a devout Catholic, loving father and long-time animal lover, and “into” conservation. And all these positions are moral, reasonable and entirely consistent.

Well I disagree – the inconsistency is obvious.

1. You believe that killing and harming animals needlessly is wrong.
2. Hunting and meat consumption entails killing and harming animals needlessly.
3. Therefore, if (1) is true, then ought to believe that hunting and meat consumption are wrong. (from 2, 1)
4. You believe that hunting and meat consumption are not wrong.
5. Therefore, your belief in (4) contradicts what you ought to believe in (3). (from 4, 3)
6. Hence your positions are inconsistent. (from 5)

 

[po18guy]

I thought it was only the religious that forced their beliefs upon others. Omnivores respect the rights of others, but herbivores apparently do not. Is this arrogance?

 

[spencelo]

I thought it was only the religious that forced their beliefs upon others. Omnivores respect the rights of others, but herbivores apparently do not. Is this arrogance?

The notion that I’m forcing my beliefs on anyone is absurd, since all I’ve done is present my views and arguments. Is it not hyperbolic in the extreme to suggest that my discussions here involve some of “force” on my part?

 

[adrift]

To the atheist, who believes that all life is accidental, and being a product of our age of non-judgmentalism (except for Spanish bullfighting), I can see where one’s compass would lead off in a strange direction. However, pain cannot be measured, and I maintain that plants suffer just as much, perhaps even more, proportionately, than animals, since plant death is a much slower process after harvesting.

I haven’t heard anyone say how cruel it is to circumcise a boy without anesthesia?

 

[triumphguy]

Well I disagree – the inconsistency is obvious.

1. You believe that killing and harming animals needlessly is wrong.
2. Hunting and meat consumption entails killing and harming animals needlessly.
3. Therefore, if (1) is true, then ought to believe that hunting and meat consumption are wrong. (from 2, 1)
4. You believe that hunting and meat consumption are not wrong.
5. Therefore, your belief in (4) contradicts what you ought to believe in (3). (from 4, 3)
6. Hence your positions are inconsistent. (from 5)

See you are adding the value judgments again.

Bad Vegan. Stop that.:tsktsk::tsktsk::tsktsk:

I never said it is needless. You did. I think hunting and meat consumption are needful.

I need to eat and I believe hunting is good. So neither eating meat nor hunting is “needless.”

 

[triumphguy]

The notion that I’m forcing my beliefs on anyone is absurd, since all I’ve done is present my views and arguments. Is it not hyperbolic in the extreme to suggest that my discussions here involve some of “force” on my part?

While adding the obfuscations, value judgments, twisting what we say etc…

 

[spencelo]

See you are adding the value judgments again.

Bad Vegan. Stop that.:tsktsk::tsktsk::tsktsk:

I never said it is needless. You did. I think hunting and meat consumption are needful.

I need to eat and I believe hunting is good. So neither eating meat nor hunting is “needless.”

That’s where you’re wrong: you don’t need to hunt and you don’t need to consume meat – you can live a happy and healthy life without both (many vegans and vegetarians do).

 

[spencelo]

I need to eat and I believe hunting is good. So neither eating meat nor hunting is “needless.”

Just to reiterate: your conclusion doesn’t follow. Sure, you need to eat but you don’t need to eat meat – so it doesn’t follow from the fact that you need to eat that eating meet is necessary.

Regarding hunting, sure you may derive some good from hunting, but you can derive other goods from vegan-friendly activities – so it doesn’t from the fact that hunting is “good” that it is necessary. As a matter of pure logic, you are wrong.

 

[po18guy]

Regarding the article linked in the OP, this just came in:

(UTICP) September 26th, 2012 - An admitted unwilling atheist stated earlier today that his beliefs in non-belief were actually contrary to logic. “Lord knows why I believe that He doesn’t exist” Leonard H. Finchweiler told a UTICP reporter in an interview earlier today. Mr. Finchweiler clearly saw the inconsistency in his viewpoint, but said that the demand for atheism in modern society had pressured him into maintaining contradictory beliefs. “I know that one day I’ll probably pay an eternal price for this” he said, adding that “Some people think it’s easy to believe in something that you know you should not believe in, especially in light of all the evidence.” Mr. Finchweiler noted that some of his neighbors seem to think that he is “just plain stupid”, but he noted, “I’m just providing a thought process that answers today’s demands, even though, in my heart, I know that I’m wrong.” Finchweiler believes that it may take several generations to overcome this hesitance to believe against one’s own will, as he said in closing remarks.

 

[adrift]

Such as what? Animals can experience a wide range of feelings and emotions, such as pain, distress, anxiety, boredom, depression, grief, anger, and sadness. Do you deny any of this?

When you can show me that an animal has said that he experiences these emotions and are not assumed than you say that it is true. You are putting your emotions on to animals.

Well I disagree – the inconsistency is obvious.

1. You believe that killing and harming animals needlessly is wrong.
   Your problem is that you are defining needlessly according to your own misconception.

Here
2) Hunting and meat consumption entails killing and harming animals needlessly. Here again you are using an incorrect definition.
3) Therefore, if (1) is true, then ought to believe that hunting and meat consumption are wrong. (from 2, 1)Therefore your argument of inconsistent fails because you are using your own understanding of needlessly not what is meant.
4) You believe that hunting and meat consumption are not wrong. It isn’t
5) Therefore, your belief in (4) contradicts what you ought to believe in (3). (from 4, 3)
Your definition is what is wrong not the belief.
6) Hence your positions are inconsistent. (from 5)The position isn’t inconsistent but your reasoning is.

1. Ah but read on from the CCC
   2417 God entrusted animals to the stewardship of those whom he created in his own image. Hence it is legitimate to use animals for food and clothing. They may be domesticated to help man in his work and leisure. Medical and scientific experimentation on animals is a morally acceptable practice if it remains within reasonable limits and contributes to caring for or saving human lives.

2418 It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly. It is likewise unworthy to spend money on them that should as a priority go to the relief of human misery. One can love animals; one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons.

1. I would say that the moral lesson is less about eating food than it is about giving good example to others.

---

It is not considered needlessly when we use them for food and clothing. The only one be inconsistent is the man in the article that you are trying to use as a moral force.

 

[spencelo]

When you can show me that an animal has said that he experiences these emotions and are not assumed than you say that it is true.

I already posted several links on this. I’ll do so again.

livescience.com/17378-rats-show-empathy.html

sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100803212013.htm

greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/expanding_our_compassion_footprint/

alternet.org/story/150424/animals_have_emotional_lives,_too

uchospitals.edu/news/2011/20111208-empathy.html

phys.org/news6250.html

psychologytoday.com/blog/animal-emotions/200907/stalking-hunting-stress-and-emotion

It is not considered needlessly when we use them for food and clothing.

I already ate dinner, so I’m full. If I blow 10 dollars for another main course in order to stuff myself further, am I not acting needlessly? The mere fact that I use my money for food doesn’t mean it’s necessary – otherwise necessity would have no meaning.

 

[spencelo]

When you can show me that an animal has said that he experiences these emotions and are not assumed than you say that it is true.

I actually misread your statement. Are you saying that the only proof you’ll accept is if animals start to talk about their emotions?

 

[spencelo]

Regarding the article linked in the OP, this just came in:

I have no idea how that’s relevant to the op article in any way.

 

[jenwha]

I’m just tired of being told I’m wrong when I’m not wrong.

And since you seem to have an almost inexhaustible supply of flimflam I’ll just continue to post my opposition to your most basic (and false) premises.

How did you know you were not wrong? Did God show you? He also showed me I am not wrong when it comes to protecting animals and not hunting them, torturing or abusing them. Go figure.

I do not eat meat. I do not hunt. I am also a devout Catholic. So? All of my positions are also moral, reasonable, and entirely consistent as well.

 

[triumphguy]

That’s where you’re wrong: you don’t need to hunt and you don’t need to consume meat – you can live a happy and healthy life without both (many vegans and vegetarians do).

Oh can I? So now you know what kind of life I can live eh?

And you know what will make me happy and healthy too.

Gosh: You should set up your own website and charge people for this information (and with any luck you wouldn’t have time to post on here).