[glovesforfoxes]

I agree with the first paragraph after the quote. It was a little too simplistic to say that.

You are using your own moral judgement to make decisions about your own actions; this is fine as long as it does no harm to the rest of the society you live in. There are plenty of cases where this is not an acceptable course of action though; militant religious extremism for example and, as you have alluded to, some animal rights movements. Regrettably there are often problems with idealism.

From the extremist's point of view (a well known group is ALF), animal rights must try their hardest to do everything to save animals right now. ALF are committed to non-violence against people, but not against property - they take the tools out, so to speak. I do think this is a necessary part of any revolution - it gives the AR groups a lot more leverage overall. The basic idea behind it is that they need to protect the animals by proxy, even if that means acting outside the law & even day to day morality. Civil disobedience can be a good thing against a system that is evil. After all, that system is set up to maintain the status quo; if you believe the status quo is evil (& ALF members obviously do, for pretty much the same reasons I do) one way of immediately getting attention to your cause as well as leverage is to destroy property & free animals from their cages, literally.

They recognise themselves that violence against property is not the only way for the war to be won, simply the fastest. & of course the faster ARs are recognised, the more animals will be saved. This is much different to religious extremism.

Read this page for more information on how they justify violence towards property, & their argument against pacifism: http://www.animalliberationfront.com/Philosophy/Pacifism.htm

Mostly they just come across as angry jerks, they aren't exactly professionals. What they say has some merit though.

anthropomorphising the animal, and so my feelings are not reliable, and also not a currently sustainable view in the society we live in.

It's not anthropomorphising the animal. It is not granting them human qualities. The argument is, which you've already accepted here that:

there are structural similarities in the nervous systems and it is likely that distress in such animals can be compared with that in humans; in that I agree.

If you were a cow & studied human physiology, & then said to other cows "look! they have a similar physiology, so it's likely that they feel pain in the same way we do!" those cows would not accuse you of bovinialmorphism ( [] ) in the same way you should not accuse me, or yourself, as anthropomorphic. We compare the animals to humans because we are human, but that doesn't mean that I think the animals are like humans in every way. They might not day dream, but there is evidence that both cows & humans experience pain & suffering in a very similar. Whether you use a cow as your starting point or a human as a starting point is irrelevant, because they are both very similar.

also not a currently sustainable view in the society we live in.

Of course it isn't! That's why I'm arguing for change!

Comparing past treatment of black slaves to today's treatment of animals is fallacious. It is a straw man argument. That the slave trade often treated the slaves as they would livestock is true. That this was wrong was, primarily, because they were human and not because humans should not treat any creature this way.

No, it is wrong because they can feel pain, although at the time the basis was that they are intelligent. We've already discussed why using intelligence as a measure for how well you treat something is stupid: simply because intelligence is at least partly determined by genetics, so there is no desertion, & because of the mentally disabled person or child argument. It is not a straw man argument; the blacks were treated badly by oppressors, as animals are today by all humans, either by proxy or directly.

"The French have already discovered that the blackness of the skin is no reason a human being should be abandoned without redress to the caprice of a tormentor. It may one day come to be recognized that the number of the legs, the villosity of the skin, or the termination of the os sacrum are reasons equally insufficient for abandoning a sensitive being to the same fate. What else is it that should trace the insuperable line? Is it the faculty of reason or perhaps the faculty of discourse? But a full-grown horse or dog, is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as a more conversable animal, than an infant of a day or a week or even a month, old. But suppose the case were otherwise, what would it avail? the question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?" - Jeremy Bentham

If there were a colony of apes about to be killed off by diseases spread by rats and the only option was to kill the rats then I would do that if it were in my power and there were no other viable option. I would make the decision that the apes were worth more than the rats. It may be hard to justify this, and probably impossible from your standpoint, but I would guess that most people would agree to this. If it were one species of ape versus another species of ape this would make the decision very hard but with knowledge and power comes responsibility. To them we are playing at being a God.

This is too hard a dilemna for me to respond to. I will spend time thinking about it, but I suspect my answer would be to deny the validity of the thought experiment since killing the rats would never in real life be the only option to save the apes. I'll have more of a proper think about it though.

You should read about whether a 3 month fetus is sentient or not. You were debating the possibility of whether flies should be harmed the other day and yet take a pro-choice view
on abortion. I don't disagree with your choice but I do not find it at all consistant with your views on how to treat animals. Stem cell research is fine with me too because a Zygote has no nervous system. A 3 month fetus is considerably developed however. There was much debate on the legality of whether there should be elective abortions at this point of development or whether the term should be shortened or lengthened. Not easy, but part of the responsibility I was talking about.

It is fully consistant; I would not kill a sentient, feeling creature whether it is an unborn child or a cow. I would not pay someone to do it for me, & I would not agree with anyone that does, since in terms of consequences it amounts to the same thing, though I recognise a different in intent. Like you've said - you would not harm an animal yourself, yet you are going to long lengths to defend why it's okay for someone to do it on your behalf. The two actions, financing suffering/killing or doing it yourself, amount to the same consequence. That is why I take care not to accidentally step on insects or kill them - it results in the same thing, though I recognise I am less culpable for one than the other. I am still culpable for both though, even if it's just in my own head.

[graham.d]

It is fully consistant; I would not kill a sentient, feeling creature whether it is an unborn child or a cow.

How is it consistant? You said you were pro-choice not pro-life.

I do not claim such self consistancy. I recognise that there are contradictory positions in all aspects of life and choose to live with them. All extreme positions are arrived at by not choosing to see this.

[glovesforfoxes]

Yeah. It's consistent because I'm not against killing as an absolute; I am against killing sentient, feeling creatures as an absolute. I'm not sure about the evidence or exact time, but there is a certain point where a fetus is unfeeling & unaware - it is a mass of cells, no more feeling than a rock. I am for abortion until this point, until the fetus becomes sentient, at which point I would call it an unborn child rather than a fetus, but I know that this is medically incorrect. IMO, if people pushed for this change in meaning, it would not only be more meaningful, but perhaps discourage people from having abortions after the point where the fetus grows into sentiency/feeling.

I'm well aware that humans are full of contradictions & we have to live with it.. we simply do not have the time, intelligence or awareness to tackle them all of our hypocritical attitudes, but when 10 billion animals are killed per year for food alone, with a vast majority of them suffering through life, it is definitely an important enough contradictions to tackle. Like I've said.. even if me being vegan for the rest of my life only results in saving just one creature from that suffering life, I'm sure that creature would be eternally grateful for it.

[Ethos]

 I'm not sure about the evidence or exact time, but there is a certain point where a fetus is unfeeling & unaware - it is a mass of cells, no more feeling than a rock.

That may or may not be true. At least a rock is by no means organic nor alive. I'd like to see your evidence for that statement. Frankly, I doubt you have any....................Ethos

[graham.d]

Gloves, I guess we all have specific missions which we regard as ones worth pursuing. I am more active on a political website (with a pseudonym). I have enjoyed the discussion with you here though.

[glovesforfoxes]

That may or may not be true. At least a rock is by no means organic nor alive. I'd like to see your evidence for that statement. Frankly, I doubt you have any....................Ethos

I already said I don't have evidence for when, but I do have reasoning: a zygote does not feel pain or is aware. There will be some time passage between when it is a zygote & to the point where it is aware, in which the cells multiply but are not yet aware. When that is I have no idea - I've never claimed perfect knowledge, & I doubt I will, unless I get working on those delusions of grandeur.. yes.. hmm.. []

Gloves, I guess we all have specific missions which we regard as ones worth pursuing. I am more active on a political website (with a pseudonym). I have enjoyed the discussion with you here though.

Cheers graham, me too [] Politics are definitely important - I can only hope that you perhaps become a politician one day - we need more politicans with an appreciation of science. You've asked some great questions, thanks for taking the time to debate.

[sansal]

Nowadays,mostly humans have increased consumption of flesh foods over time, probably in order to survive in poor environments when there was a scarcity of fruits.Meat is a best source of protein.Thanks for sharing views,good healthy tips.

[FuzzyUK]

Fish Ok !! food chain of fish is very less .. it's Ok with fish not all other.

What hypocrisy to say it is wrong to eat meat but it is OK to kill fish.