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:
7
6
7
1
5
5
7
10
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
Sur Reply to CCF
- From Gary L Francione
By Gary L. Francione - Rutgers University School of Law
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Horton Hears a Who
"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
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
But once again, you fail to pose an argument
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
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Emotionalism?
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
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
CCF: Inconsistency in thought
"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
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.