[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin I already have and will continue to do so as the thread evolves. I`ve brought it up several times in this thread. Several times with Capt. Chaos. Aren`t you following along? You may also want to consider the meaning "not solely."

I meant only that argument. Although it is subjective, it is not invalid, like your "Death =/= Pain" argument.

That is what AWists do. You seem to not be understanding what ARists do.

I don't care what anyone "does", eliminating pain from the harvesting process eliminates all objectivity from your argument.

I am not going to make this personal and call you a racist. I`ve outlined two different men that are respected for their wisdom around the world on ethics and morals. You protested to quotes being used by a wise and respected person by saying you didn`t care about what he said and explained to you that the world puts values on the words of respected men known the world over.

Defend your point with reason; don't fall back on this appeal to authority fallacy. It does nothing for your argument, no matter how much you equate me to a moral degenerate (yet another ad hominem fallacy).

You need to stop taking things personal in a debate and learn to handle the arguments with a response without an imparative just because you become indignant.

You equated me to a racist earlier. Preceding that, you called me a "stupid meat eater with no reason", or the like. What if I continuously called you a communist in response to all of your points? It would, like your points, attack the debator and not the arguments, and I could fall back on "Don't take it personally".

Ghandi`s thoughts are just as objective or subjective as MLK`s. The object of thoughts do not dictate truths within the thoughts.

Human equality = Fact. There is no biological difference.
Animal/Human equality = Fiction. There are numorous biological and mental differences.

Of course they don`t equal each other. Only death equals death. Only pain and suffering equal pain and suffering. Death for market animals is a release from the pain and suffering which our commercialization and exploitive use of them causes.

THEY DO NOT NEED TO EXPERIENCE PAIN IN THE HARVESTING PROCESS. This is a much more suitable solution than abolishing meat eating altogether.

Sure they are, now. The whole Movement is towards winning more and more rights for animals. If they were equal there would be no Movement. You are stating an obvious. The status quo always gives ground slowly in widening the circle of rights. At one time rights of whites were greater than non-whites, as well as the rights of men were greater than women as Believers were greater than infidels or Pagans, or Wiccans. Rights are the moral and eithical considerations which protect others from wanton abuse codified, recognized and granted by man. They are man made. Being man made man can grant them as he wishes when he comes to a point in time that he recognizes that they should be granted to another group that is either seeking them or that is being sought them for another group by a third party -- such as Abolitionists petitioning and fighting for the granting of rights for blacks. I do not argue that human rights are not greater than animal rights. They most certainly are. It is merely a fact of the present situation -- one that is over time being moved on the spectrum little by little.

Human rights > Animal rights means animals should have less rights than humans. Animals are lesser beings. All you can say in response to this is that they should have equal rights. This is why your whole argument is subjective, and why you have no right to impose your personal decision onto others.

Suffering through acts caused by an owner can lead to the death of an animal. Are you denying that? Value of an animal is independent of the rights they do possess in the eyes of the law.

I meant that animals don't have rights in regards to their life (the topic of the conversation, if you haven't noticed).

Never said it did. I even said in the example above that even if I anethetized my dog so he would not suffer and feel no pain, it still would not keep me from being prosecuted if I treated it like mere property such as a piano which I decide to saw up on my front lawn. With the dog under sedation it would not suffer as I saw away at it. But, its mere non-suffering death at my hands would still get me prosecuted. It is protected with rights which over ride my property rights regardless of what value I allow it to have -- in this case very little in my eyes, or perhaps a lot if the value is in the form of pleasure I would get from performing such an act.

If a law states that someone who owns an animal can't take the animals life, with no pain, then it is a poor law.