Discussion in 'General' started by Margo Baggins, 11 Aug 2011.
jesus your hard work
Putting Animals though what they do that feel pain, suffering, stress, fear, all for a hat or whatever that they think looks glamorous. Its unjustifiable.
Alot of Eskimos don't even use fur anymore, they know that man made thermal arctic jackets are alot better at doing the same job.
Why does it need to be justified?
Whats wrong with giving away free vegan food and information leaflets on stalls in my closest city?
Why doesn't it?
Absolutely nothing, that's very generous and kind of you.
If people could do what they liked when they liked all the time we would live in ciaos. Rape, murder, stealing would be rampant.
Otis, your argument has been like getting blood out of a stone so far, and so often unreasonably put forward, with "evidence" (Seriously, where are the references/citations?) could well just be hearsay or rumour. I'm not suggesting that it definitely is, but given your lack of supporting evidence, it could be dismissed by any other debate partner.
I don't much care what activism you get involved in, but I seriously hope you get some lessons in effective debating before they let you speak to anyone on their behalf - So far it's a shambles, and made me think "Are all activists this.. Erratic?", not to mention the concerns that whatever you're an activist for might well be a legitimate cause, but so badly put forwards that it just sounds like irrelevant dribble.
For the sake of transparency, I dislike most activists, because they tend to be the kind of air-headed jebend that just doens't want to get a real job. Sure, that's not true for all of them, but almost all the activists I've ever met have been air headed, whether that be through substance abuse or just downright ignorance towards the very things they were meant to be trying to draw attention to. Admittedly, it is more often the latter than the former.
Because you made the claim and he asked you to, that's why.
I never said it didn't. I'm asking a question, this is how debate works. Either recognise that or give up.
We're not talking about rape and murder here, we're talking about rearing animals for fur and killing them for it.
You said that this is unjustifiable, and I am asking why would one need to justify this?
edit: Double post, delete.
And I asked why, when I know he knows the answer to his own question /captain obvious
Does intelligent debate involve asking the most simplistic questions imaginable?
We are talking about raping and murdering cute and fluffy animals. Is not shoving an electrode up another living creature's anus, a form of rape? I don't think I need to explain the murder part, or the brutal torture involved...
im so sorry that the 2 or 3 so called activists have been lazy doleys.
most of them i know my self have jobs, full time or part time. Dont judge all activists as idiots until you have met them all. We are individuals. Don't get me wrong i fully aware there are plonkers in the movement, could name a few.
Look at racism for example... one black guy will steal an old lady, then fools will instantly label all black people as bad people. Where in reality there are plenty of white people stealing everyday as well.
Tell me what evidence would you like and i shall do best present it.
If he already knows the answer to his own question, perhaps he is interested in hearing your answer?
.......... thats like saying.. why anything.
Creating suffering/terror that is not necessary. Then why create it.
No, it is absolutley not.
Define necessary suffering.
When its dog eat dog.
When your life is in danger and necessary suffering is needed in order for you/me to service the ordeal.
Could you explain this more clearly for me please? I think what you're saying is that causing suffering in others is justifiable if not doing so would cause one's own death. Is this a correct approximation?
Yes. BUT im not saying if i could my self, depends on the situation.. And im also talking about other humans as well as animals.
That is not what I challenged you on. In any debate it is important to keep track of its discourse.
Now we are getting somewhere. So you are saying it is justifiable to inflict suffering and death on animals for your survival, but not for something not essential to survival as just having a stylish coat?
And mvagusta: the most simplistic questions need to be asked most. Because simplicity foes not necessarily equal truth, although it often looks that way. That's the danger with simplistic ideas.
So do you accept that you commit immoral acts by say, utilising electricity which is generated by coal, which kills people? Not having a go, just exploring your beliefs.
So far I've gotten that you consider it immoral to farm animals for fur because you believe this causes suffering and, obviously, it results in their death. You believe that while causing suffering is permissible, causing it unnecessarily is immoral. Necessary suffering being defined as that which is inflicted in the interests of self preservation.
So long as the suffering was genuinely kept to a minimum. I'm talking about been attacked by a wolf for example, and in order to survive the attack you must hurt it to scare it off, or even kill it in order not be be killed your self.
Separate names with a comma.