[Elminister]

Quote by: inri And yet....clearly 'some' humans exist that seem to have somehow been able to 'rise above' these urges. My argument is: these individuals are mentally/emotionall superior to those who have not. They are operating at a higher level of development than those humans who react and give-in to urges..who completely disregard any small amount of empathy they may actually be feeling.

This is a nice subjective observation you have made here. Thank you. Duely noted.

Quote by: inri I'd assume that the breeding of these animals would decrease as the need for their meat decreased. Once again...I can't imagine this occurring in any way but a very gradual process. Will there ever be a day where the entire world will suddenly declare..."Hey, every single one of us is a vegan as of yesterday, what should we do with all the animals we bred last year"....I kind of doubt it will go down like that.

Yes, quite right that the numbers would gradualy decrease over time. That's why I included that as a stipulation in my question that you seem to want to skirt around.You only repeated what I already said. Why? This gradual decrease does not exclude the scenario of these final lots of domesticated commodity aniamls needing some sort of action or idea of what to do with them. Using assessments you have made about the increasing prevalence of veganism and applying the only real absolute statement you seem to want to stick to that being the killing of sentient things being wrong; this would be a probable scenario to use to express your argument.

So I will ask again. What would you do with these final lots of commodity animals?

Quote by: inri The idea that hunters are solely responsible for keeping wildlife numbers in check is one that is debatable. Many believe that nature takes care of itself just fine, independent of man's interventions. This really opens up a whole new topic of debate.

Who said anything about hunting being "solely" resposible for keeping wild life numbers in check? I can provide as facts, though, the direct influence apon these numbers buy hunters.Wherein your posistion would erradicate this impact made by men. I asked you how you would supplement this influence. Again, you seem to want to navigate around this question. No new topic is needed as this point is being at the other end of the spectrum in regards to hunting animals to fufill this deep rooted urge I support is, well,obviously vegetarianism.


For your argument to see full fruition in regards to your key point,- that being the "killing another sentient being is wrong" due to me boiling your argument down to this very point several times- how could it be if everybody was not indeed a vegetarian?

Quote by: inri Please keep in mind, that no where here have I stated that I believe ALL people (or even 'some' of them) 'should' aspire to veganism.

Yes, indeed you have for how can this.......

Quote by: inri This would not change the fact that you'd be depriving them of life. '

and its implied actions coming to fruition not necessitate eveybody becoming a vegetarian?

I'm flabbergasted that you can not or choose not to see how your posistion demands an all vegan society as its end scenario?

Quote by: inri What I've stated is that those who deem it okay to take life wantonly, are operating at a lower level mentally/emotionally speaking....ie; they are less developed human beings than their counterparts who are capable of seeing suffering, feeling empathy for it, and adjusting their behavior as a consequence.

Another subjective observation in which you choose to both; not attempt to apply as a general argument and; also choose to forget about a key, absolute statement you have made several times.

Quote by: inri My argument is NOT that everybody should become a vegan. In my version of utopia..sure, ALL humans would act with complete kindness and intergral action. The fact is though that this is simply not presently the case...and merely wishing for this is not going to make it happen. Many humans presently appear to be lacking the emotional development to make this even a remote possibility. If I were to imply that everyone should become a vegan, I'd be in extreme denial over this very basic fact.

Depsite whatever posistion you think you will have by denying it, yes, yes you are saying that everyone should become a vegan because killing other sentient beings is wrong.

I'm anxiously awaiting your answers to my questions.

Quote by: inri In the animal kingdom, amongst many species, this appears to be true. Can you provide evidence that this is a 'necessity' where human are invovled? Seems to me, many are doing just fine without this 'cog' playing a part in their life and existence.

Seems to me you don't know enough about the intermingling of man and animal to make such an assertion.

Rapid spread of rabies predicted Raccoon population to increase in spring - The Boston Globe | Encyclopedia.com

HOOSIER RACCOON POPULATION REACHES ALL-TIME HIGH - Post-Tribune (IN) | Encyclopedia.com

Chicago Raccoon Control Pest Removal

Fall peak season for deer accidents Experts offer tips for avoiding deer damage

Public Health: Collisions with wildlife: the rising toll

prairiedog control, Prairiedog control, PRAIRIEDOG CONTROL, prairiedog control, Prairiedog Control, PRAIRIEDOG CONTROL, prarydog control, Prarydog Control, PRARYDOG CONTROL, prary dogs, Prary Dogs, PRARY DOGS, prairie dogs, Prairie Dogs, prarie dog c

Prairie Dogs: A Threatened Species or Public Health Nuisance? (EnvironmentalChemistry.com)

Attack of the Crows — Attack of the Humans « The Third Wave

Quote by: inri When empathic feelings and ability to take integral action prevail over animalistic urges...a human is demonstrating higher levels of mental/emotional development...there in a nutshell is my argument.

....and it is your 'argument' that cannot be applied outward. As you have said several times already.

Quote by: inri To some degree, BOTH of these traits exist in each of us...nothing supernatural about that.

No, nothing directly dependant either. Your correlation is circumstantial and not dependant. Therefore your "andvanced moral prowess" is not the next sequential step in mans moral evolution but merely reinforced by circumstances pertaining to dietary knowledge advancement and, if things turned out differently within society, may not even be as prevelant as it is today.

Quote by: inri But...isn't subjecting animals to confinement, fear, pain and death cruel? ....if you don't believe it is cruel, certainly you must admit that it does not fall under the heading of 'kind'?

Even in a scenario devoid of these qualites you describe here you still assert that killing is still wrong so why bother with quibbling over inconsequentials. I already said i don't promote cruelty to animals.

I could compose a four page speech describing the most humane situation,even by your standards, just for you to reply. "But your still killing" so why bother. Instead I choose to attack the principal of your argument with my hypothetical questions above.

Good luck.

Quote by: inri Is a man who gives in to animalistic urges to rape or thieve more or less emotionally developed than a man who either does not have these urges, or has the ability to overcome them? I'd say he is of a lower development than the man who possesses higher abilities in this area....likewise with the man who can overcome his urges to eat meat in order to consider the animal involved and act accordingly.

In would say the individual who rapes another is less compassionate,yes. Your not saying everybody has the compulsive urge to rape are you? Causing a person to XX amount of years of moral/physical anguish is far more heinous an act than terminating a cows life and subsequently ending the cruelty* then and there, I would say.