-->
@fauxlaw
Pretense is the nonsense that defense is a fence.
Please stop publicly masturbating.
Between man and other animals? What would you call it. Related?
Your original quote was this: "intelligence in animals, including man, is relative". You said intelligence *IN* animals, not intelligence *RELATIVE* to humans.
Hence, my criticism of your original quote still stands.
As I said, relative intelligence is not the factor of greatest importance. And it is not a moral question, either, since we cannot murder other animals animals, only humans.
It shouldn't be a factor period because harm can be caused regardless of the 'g' factor of the thing experiencing it.
"Murder" is a legal term that is (you'll love this word) *related* to morality, but isn't morality in itself. For example, it was once legal to own slaves in plenty of countries around the world, despite it being considered nowadays a moral conundrum. Since we are debating morality, appealing to legal standings is a red herring, so your defense doesn't stand.
Your claim of a naturalist fallacy is, itself, fallacious. You ignore that a tool designed for a specific purpose can only be used for the designed purpose. So, people who use a screwdriver as a stirring stick for a screwdriver cocktail are fallacious? No, just innovative.
You're so confused with your stupid claims that you have it backwards hahaha. You were the one implying that canine teeth were designed for tearing meat, hence we should eat meat: "Not to mention that among our tooth variety, we have canines, the purpose of which exclusively to tear flesh." That was the naturalistic fallacy which you've now argued against here xD
So thanks for agreeing with me lol.
I can certainly have my canines removed to put small molars in their place, but such would be inefficient relative to cost and the extended time required to fully masticate meat. And, you cannot say the animal is aware of being harmed to use it as a food source. You're going to have to obtain that testimony from the animal. Harm is a self-generated claim. Good luck with that.
For the first sentence, you're still arguing against yourself.
I will absolutely say that an animal is aware that it is being harmed, hence why animals flee danger. You don't need a testimony to see that an animal is being harmed when its body language is screaming that it is. This is textbook moving the goalposts.
"Harm is a self-generated claim" is such a ridiculous comment that I'm baffled a thoroughly educated man would ever construct it. Clearly, people can witness harm being done to others, hence the entire concept of empathy. This is easily the worst thing you've written so far, despite the stiff competition.
I cannot designate which enzyme in my saliva can be turned off. Can you do so to stop the digestion of vegetable matter if I claim a carnivor's right to demand an end to eating vegetables? And what of the harm done to vegetables you claim is the right of animals to claim as a morally superior position? Are not vegetables also living things?
I'm not telling you to turn it off. I'm telling you to not eat meat, hence not use it.
"Living" isn't a sufficient qualifier for experiencing harm. Unless you would like to demonstrate that vegetables have emotions, then your counter-argument does not parallel the moral issues with meat consumption.
You first. You're the one claiming moral superiority of eating only vegetation. I'm claiming morality has naught to do with humans eating anything but other humans. Your prior claim takes timely precedent. Je vous en pris.
Wrong. You made the initial claim: morality has no nexus with meat-eating. You have the burden of proof. We're waiting for your defense.
Animal abuse is an entirely different matter than killing an animal with the express purpose of eating it. Do you not pick a living carrot from the ground with the express purpose of eating it? Why should your morality be the deciding factor? We're both doing the same thing to living things.
Yes, because killing animals to eat them causes them no harm.
Idiot.
But I do have moral qualms about hitting a dog with a shovel to crush its skull. I would use the best weapon to kill the dog, but only do so to eat it. My purpose is not abuse, but specifically to eat, and the two are entirely different purposes. By the way, I have eaten dog meat in China. Not bad, really. But you're not the best judge of that. I've also eaten roasted locusts. Roasted peppers are very good, but you don't have a problem with that, do you? As I said, Ma gavte la nada: Please remove the cork. The cork that is a pretense.
Eating animals *INVOLVES* abusing animals. You have to kill it to eat it, unless you eat it alive (which causes far more harm). You also cause it tremendous harm as it is dying, unless you anesthetize it.
