Thanksgiving arrives every year with a heated debate over how to best cook that plump and juicy turkey. But the idea of a tofu turkey (also known as a “tofurkey”) has gone from a joke a couple years ago to a reality for many. While vegetarianism has been practiced for over a thousand years in some countries, it is a relatively new concept in the West. And so, with the question cropping up more and more often, should we eat meat?
Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
"A Person's a Person, No Matter How Small" -- or how weak, or how incapacitated. The only way you can diminish the value of a PERSON is if you're looking for a way to do it. Period.
This ridiculous excuse for logic may play at Rutgers, but in the real world where people actually encounter both animals and mentally retarded children, you're going to come out on the losing end untiol the end of time.
I understand Francione's argument perfectly well. I just refuse to concede the ridiculous way he's framing the debate. There's no justification for presuming the moral equivalence of animals and humans. Emotionalism is the only basis for doing so. I'm not going there, and I'm not obligated to acknowledge the moral superiority (or even sanity) of those who do.
To paraphrase some of what passes for argument around here, the fact that we CAN extend rights to animals isn't sufficient reason that we SHOULD.
- Consumer Freedom
August 17, 2008 8:55PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Please help this debate.
Your arguments so far: 1) It's a ridiculous thought 2) Most people don't think this way
Forgive me for not finding this convincing. If you don't like the framing, then try your own way. Either reiterate (in a way that addresses the concerns of the comments posted) your original arguments, or pose new ones.
The only reason the idea of capacity for rational thought came into the debate is because that is something you threw in as a difference that justifies needlessly harming and killing animals for profit and pleasure. It was only then that it was continuously pointed out to you that there are plenty of moral patients (recipients of rights and ethical codes) who have no concept of their benefits or their benefactors.
Instead of giving a "BECAUSE! THAT'S WHY!" response, try addressing these "ridiculous framings" with a clear, logical rebuttal.
- mike August 17, 2008 10:11PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
Hi CCF. You know; if you would have a nice objective read of the articles submitted in this particular argument ('response to CCF'’, Comments and your objections), you might notice that the only one, who is getting "Emotional", between you and the people, Mr. Francione included, who are opposing your argument, is you.
Now, why is that I wonder? I do not claim to be superior to you. But, when you are debating on a public forum such as this one, you should read the articles objectively, and come up with rational arguments, if you want to try to be taken seriously in the debate.
May I ask, regarding your last sentence: does the fact that we CAN enslave, torture, and exploit animals mean that we SHOULD? Does it give, to put it in your words, sufficient reason? You make no sense to me. This does not mean that I think I am superior. It simply means, that I, personally, cannot find any logic in your arguments, and I think it may very well be because your arguments make no sense.
- knuckles
August 18, 2008 1:03AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: No
"There's no justification for presuming the moral equivalence of animals and humans. Emotionalism is the only basis for doing so."
Well, would you care to explain in an un-"emotional" way why men and women are 'equal', even though most men and physically much stronger than women?
To me, an un-"emotional" and completely rational answer would be : power and strength are irrelevant to the moral point of male-female equality. I cannot see why this same reason is irrelevant in the moral debate of human-nonhuman equality.
- Sandy
August 23, 2008 1:55AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
6
7
10
5
5
1
7
7
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
Mass Veganism Is
- From Consumer Freedom
By The Center for Consumer Freedom - Promoting Personal Responsibility
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
how sad
Stating that we feel special about our own children, says nothing about consuming animal products. Yes we feel our children are special, and so do other non-human animals feel their children are special. And? We feel our children are special therefore we treat them differently than a stranger's child, or a non-human. OK. Now please explain how that justifies our torture and killing of non-humans, without necessity. It simply doesn't.
Don’t respond to a Gary Francione statement with any references to P.E.T.A or Peter Singer. Mr. Francione has already explicitly stated many times he completely disagrees with both P.E.T.A and Mr. Singer. And with regard to your last statement, please re-read the following "...a very poor argument. There are many human beneficiaries of rights…who may not understand rights or any other notion connected with moral philosophy.
So what? The issue is our moral obligation not their level of comprehension..." **Sigh. How sad CCF. I mean, really.
- knuckles
August 17, 2008 1:00AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
This is embarrassing.
You fail to even understand Gary Fracione's argument. He's not saying we should be legally allowed to kill retarded human children. He's saying we shouldn't be able to kill NON-human children for the same REASON we shouldn't be able to kill retarded children.
Don't you see? You can't explain why we can't kill retarded children. Do you know why? Because by YOUR logic, there's IS no reason. It's just a FEELING you have. Retarded children will live their entire lives never able to grasp the concepts of rights. Ever. It is YOUR argument that says we should, therefore, be able to torture, kill, and eat them. Gary Francione wouldn't dream of eating their flesh. Why? Because he believes that even though they don't understand their rights, rights are still bestowed upon them by people who are capable of comprehending that these creatures have interests and those interests should be protected.
- mike
August 17, 2008 8:54AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
CFC's argument needs more "meat"
CFC said, ""Rights" belong to humans alone. Why? Because we're the only species capable of even approaching the argument rationally."
Yet, if that were the case, we wouldn't owe rights to human babies, human children, human mentally challenged, the mentally ill, or even simply people who haven't had an education in logic and philosophy.
Clearly, the CFC is grasping at straws.
- ElaineVigneault
September 2, 2008 12:11PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
animals are equal to humans =/ eating animals is wrong
"There's something instinctive about the experience of parenting that brings into focus the plain differences between people and animals."
It's interesting that the CFC brings up children because children are MORE likely to go vegetarian or vegan than adults. Their reason is simple. It's not based on complex philosophy, moral superiority, rights or anything else. It's simply: I don't eat my friends.
Children LIKE animals, so they don't want to eat them. It's not that they think animals are equal or even that animals deserve rights. It's just a matter of basic respect and kindness.
You don't need to think animals are equal to humans in order to think eating them is wrong.
- ElaineVigneault
September 2, 2008 12:17PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Children and animals
Elaine Vigneault's comment on the relationship between children and animals is very accurate and I can testify on that. I was brought up on a farm and saw with my own eyes the slaughtering of my pig and chicken friends, much to my horror. I'm sure therein lies the roots of my veganism. I just knew it was wrong to kill those animals because they were crying for their lives and I felt love for them. I didn't need to be philosophically-literate to realise that, my heart told me what I had to know. It's simple really - we don't need animal products in our lives, as official data attests and knowledge and technology allows us not to, so carrying on with their breeding and killing is inconsistent with civilization, full stop. We must move on and evolve.
- apasolini
September 3, 2008 1:45PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.