I read posts here that call different things, "harmful to humanity." Others call something, "good" or "bad" or "evil."
A very simple question, who gets to decide the definition of "harmful to humanity" and what is there critieria? The same for "good," "bad," and "evil?" These are not material terms. If everything is material isn't there just "is" and not these moral declarations if one is being thoroughly atheist?
Help me understand your position so I am fair and honest about the views. Thanks.
Your last argument about the child labour and nudism was a terrible argument that Dogly saw through. There can be a pack mentality on the forum with people not wanting to disagree with their buddies. I hope I'm wrong, but I get the feeling Keith looks for your approval but I could be wrong.
He did castigate me for the beaver remarks when you'd lost the argument too.
Why is winning so important to you?
Why do you think animal welfare is important?
"He did castigate me for the beaver remarks when you'd lost the argument too."
In honesty, he castigated you for continually pursuing an argument which was conceded. You used it at at least a dozen different posts after conceit.
"Why is winning so important to you?"
Yes, I keep score.
"Why do you think animal welfare is important?"
Yes, I have already stated this. Why bring it up again, unless you want to sidetrack. I've already stated that death, in my view, is different than welfare.
@John - I did not castigate you for the beaver remark because Arcus "lost the argument". I castigated you for pushing the point after Arcus had admitted that he was incorrect. I was not "defending" Arcus, I was merely pointing out civilized rules of debate. I would do the same thing for a xian if he conceded a point and another atheist kept pushing it. It's not that I agree with the xian, it's that there are rules to civilized debate.
@John - One other thing, you are completely wrong with me "looking for approval" from Arcus. Just because we happen to mostly agree, doesn't mean we are "buddies". I find it incredibly disappointing that you are throwing an ad hominem attack at me, even after I specifically state that I respect your viewpoint.
I think your question to Arcus can be bounced right back at you - Why is "winning" so important to you? Do you really think that you are going to intimidate either of us into agreeing with you, even when neither of us concede that your arguments are valid? I mean, ya, that's certainly a tact that the religious use, but I'm a little shocked to find that tact used by an atheist.
To be honest, I think I've been pretty reasonable in acknowledging and respecting your point of view, but if the only thing you are looking for is someone who will agree with you without question, and if you refuse to respect anyone who doesn't, then I think we're pretty much at an impasse. I don't see any reason to continue having a conversation with someone who refuses to show the slightest bit of courtesy to a person who has been nothing but civilized in a debate.
You're child labour thing was far from a good argument, quickly picked up by Dogly. I agree, Keith is fairer than you. I was just shocked that he didn't see through the nudist thing which was so obviously wide of the mark!
@John - As far as I can tell, your main argument for not eating meat is the way animals are treated in both the raising and slaughter process. Arcus had a valid point, in that if the animal is not treated poorly in either process, there is no problem with the 'morality' of eating that animal. It is a relevant comparison.
Not sure where you got that idea. Sure suffering is awful but I think I made it clear that killing animals for food is morally wrong. An extract from my argument:
1. Causing harm is prima facie morally wrong (assumed).
2. Killing sentient nonhuman animals causes them harm.
3. Therefore, killing sentient nonhuman animals is prima facie morally wrong.
4. Eating sentient nonhuman animals requires the killing of sentient nonhuman animals.
5. Therefore, eating sentient nonhuman animals is prima facie morally wrong.
6. The moral wrongness of eating sentient nonhuman animals cannot be overidden.
7. Therefore, eating sentient nonhuman animals is ultima facie morally wrong.
Right. Except this isn't an argument. This is just a list of assertions with only your opinion as a basis. I have already clearly stated that I believe your first assertion (1. Causing harm is prima facie morally wrong (assumed).) is not valid. Since everything else rides on it, that blows away your entire list of assertions.
Sorry. Didn't mean yo upset you. I only said I got the feeling......You've put me right, I accept this is not the case and I misread the meaning of your remarks. I didn't take your 'you suck at banter' to heart and hope you will not do the same. Friends?
Killing animals does not require them being subjected to pain and suffering. Unless you have divine insight, you cannot say death (or process thereof) necessarily implies pain and suffering.
That's not an argument, merely a statement.