It's a fact that all animals suffer. It's a fact that this suffering can be reduced, and it's a fact that I'm doing all I can to reduce it. That's all I know.
I wasn't implying anything. I certainly wasn't calling you insane/delusional/unrealistic/
Perhaps now I do feel "holier than thou," though, since I've managed to not attack you. I feel pretty damn good about my debate and my conduct. You've just been rude.
But, really, this is just enough now. Do both of us need to have the last word?
Which I've been saying. I'm glad you agree. I've had enough.
Again, I simply choose to not cause suffering and death in my life. Of course life is painful; to make it more so for yourself or others is sadomasochistic and cruel, in my opinion. This opinion does not make me delusional or living in my own reality. I don't believe I ever said anything about your opinions making you delusional. I try not to use personal attacks/judgments in what should be an impersonal argument.
I find it very self-righteous of you to believe that you are absolutely right here, with no room for other opinions or other thought processes. I'm quite done with this.
We're really just running circles. I clearly don't think meat should be a main dish, a side dish, an ingredient, a... drink? (Ew.) Or any animal by-products. I've thoroughly stated my opinions on animal ab/use, as have you. Neither of us seem to be swaying, and it seems that both of us want the last word.
So... good debating with you? Or shall we continue?
That's still declaring that their lives exist solely for your benefit.
Let me modify my statement then:
When other options are available, I don't believe in using animals.
One of the primary suggested causes of CCD: malnutrition. Another huge cause: commercial beekeeping. Commercial beekeepers rent their hives to farmers to pollinate their plants, causing unrest to the hives. Also, commercial hives are constantly shifted arrive, causing stress.
It is absolutely impossible to feed the world on a truly free-range diet. I've already mentioned this.
What I meant is that we don't exist solely for the benefit of others.
Modern technology has made it unnecessary to use animals. In our past, there weren't other options; now there are. We don't need carrier pigeons; we have telephones. We don't need wool; we have synthetics. In most places. Where there are no options, there are no options. But considering that you are using you a computer and have access to the internet, I'd say you have options.
Your argument about how humans are "used" is unsound and, quite frankly, angsty. We are lucky enough to choose our jobs and how we are "used"; I've been working since I was twelve, although I do have rather a lack of experience and I'm always looking for more knowledge, experience, and information. I don't profess to be a better person or to know everything; I accept that I'm ignorant in some areas, as we all.
Nature always provides more than it has to; that's how species are a success. But do you think that before commercial fish farming/netting was invented, fish laid less eggs? Before factory farms caged chickens, they laid less eggs?
I'm finding your argument rather judgmental and offensive. Maybe you should rethink the personal attacks and concentrate on the debate.
There is no predator curbing the human population significantly. That is what I meant.
In other words, animals don't have the mental capacity to see death from the same "morally unacceptable" perspective you see it from. And yet you are still trying to project your hung ups about death onto them.
This is exactly my point. Non-humans don't have the ethical and moral principles to choose to not cause suffering. We do. If we forsake those principles, what does that make us?
That sounds a lot like another species... what is it called... oh, right, humans!
Have no predators to fear? Check.
Grown high in numbers? Check.
A danger to all other animals and humans alike? Check.
So, here's an easy way to curb the numbers... let's hunt them!
