[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: kubedawg Segregation is wrong for any human being.

It is not that "segregation" and "exploitation" are wrong in and of themselves -- it is the reasoning that they are premised on (i.e. might makes right). Reason and logic are not prejudicial -- unless perverted to be made to be so..

Animals are different in every way.

In "every way"? What do you mean by that? You are sounding like a reductionist.

Animals, like us have a central nervous system. They have nerve endings and the ability to suffer and feel pain -- perhaps even more acutely than we. They often cringe in fear when afraid, at times urinating due to fear just as we do. Many have complex social groups and family relations. Some nurture their young for long periods as we do and mourn the loss of their fellow animals. They often engage in play and deception. I don`t think you have read or studied any works or excerpts by ethologists on the matter as seen by your blanket statement.

They are similar in some ways, but where does one need to see other animals the same way we see humans?

I am not sure if you meant to say "where" or "why" at the point which is underlined. In any event, it is not about the "same way" for surely the similarities they share with us range in degree of capability and in some cases that could mean their suffering could be worse -- it is about "equal consideration of interests."

Humans, too, amongst ourselves display differences in degree.

I see animals as lower than humans. Killing animals for food is not wrong or immoral. Morality exists with only our species as human beings. Animals should and are treated lower than humans, therefore, no issue of morality.

Is it immoral to be cruel? Or perhaps eventhough one is cruel they can still be moral. Is it right to be cruel?

moral -- 1 a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ETHICAL <moral judgments> b : expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior <a moral poem> c : conforming to a standard of right behavior d : sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment <a moral obligation> e : capable of right and wrong action <a moral agent>

You claim morals can "only exist with our species as humans," then why are their anti-cruelty laws to protect animals if their is no issue of right or wrong behaviour towards them? Reality shows us that society definitely takes in moral considerations of right and wrong behaviour in how we treat them. The only question is moving the line of accepted behaviour, and that is what The Animal Liberation movement is about. Because it is moveable our acceptable treatment of them is not stuck -- just as our acceptable treatment of our fellow human beings, too, are not stuck. The pendulum can always swing back or forth.

I feel that animals should not have to endure the torture many of them do, ...

Why do you feel such if there are no moral considerations due to them -- which you stated above are only for humans? I have no moral considerations for a rock, hence if a child wants to chip away at it for his enjoyment I will let him go at it all afternoon. Most people, though, if they see a child chipping away at a kitten with a chissel would feel this child is acting without morals (i.e. not displaying right behaviour).

... but that doesn't change the fact that it isn't wrong for one to kill an animal for food.

Your reason is based on "we do to them what we do because we can" -- it is the old "might makes right" arguement. The Principle of Equal Consideration of Interests is the more moral one for it does not rest on "might" and it is the principle that puts forth the action of less violence, pain and suffering. It is wrong to cause that when there is no need to do so.

You talk about how humans literally have no instinct, then how do you explain self preservation?

Cite where I said humans have no instinct. Once again I think you are taking liberties in saying what you said I said. What I did roughly say is that "human instincts" are hotly debated amongst scholars in the field.

You say plants don't suffer, but how do you really know that?

It has not been proven or even close to proven that they do. I am under no obligation to prove a negative. Are you asserting that they do? If so, then bring forth the positive evidence for such.

Is it because they don't scream? Is it the way they reproduce? Is it their color?

Pain and suffering in a form as to how we can relate to it is known through our senses which are relayed by a central nervous system. Plants lack a central nervous system, nerve cells, a brain -- all those points that cause us to sense pain. Animal Rights, just as human rights are focused on relieving pain which we can relate to.

In addition, vegetarians never say that all death is avoidable through their lifestyle. Even if plants did experience pain as animals (which has not been proven), eating them directly would still cause LESS suffering than producing flesh, because it takes more plant life to create value added to a product that would feed less end users than if it went directly to the end users in plant form.

Explain to me how a plant is any different of a life form than an animal and please provide some notation from a reputable source if you could.

Kubedawg, do you really mean I have to provide a link to you to tell you that plants do not have a central nervous system or are incapable of locamotion, birthing young, etc... Those are all self evident as surely as stating the sky has clouds.

If you are going to take the position that they are the same, then you are asserting a positive. Prove your positive. Their differences are self evident.

And talking further about plants, provide detailed information about how their life, once taken, is less value than that of an animals, once taken. There is no validity in your statements thus far, and you are going around these issues, instead of providing proof.

You are the one bringing up the assertion, or alluding to it that plants are not different from animals and experience pain or suffering, so you provide that positive which you are alluding to.

But to humor you, show me anti-cruelty laws on the book directed at protecting plants from cruel acts. A quick look and you can find numerouls anti-cruelty laws in place for animals. Society doesn`t seem to backing your plant = animal ruse at discrediting the interests for and in lessening exploitation of animals.