Carracci - The Butchers Shop - 1583
Some dogs do and some don't appear to recognize themselves in the mirror. Does that mean it's okay to kill and eat the dogs that don't recognize themselves? This seems like a silly criterion. Animals can recognize and fear physical threats, as well as experience pain from injuries inflicted on them, regardless of whether they understand that it's themselves in the mirror or not.
Have you any studies to cite that indicate dogs can recognize themselves in a mirror? I've personally never witnessed that and I've never seen dogs listed in the very short list of species that can.
Pigs pass the mirror test. They are well aware of themselves and the brutality inflicted upon them in the meat industry.
Thanks, Albert. I saw something about this quite some time ago on discoveryblogs. It did indicate that the pigs could interpret information for a mirror, but doesn't indicate whether or not they can interpret themselves - or if they even have a concept of self. Smart, yes - selfaware, no.
Even if the pig were self aware, that still doesn't justify a leap to avoiding oysters at all - that is the part that make veganism seem like a religion to me; arbitrary dogma to create an ingroup with a sense of moral superiority.
Why would it not be okay to eat dog?
All insects recognize and react to physical threats.
Plants can also recognize and react to physical threats. See previously posted studies. Your point?
There has to be some line drawn on which life is sacred to you and what isnt. Currently it seems based on the big eye, round head phenomenon.
I'm sure you would agree however, that there are certain humans that can neither assert their rights nor possibly even have an idea that they have any rights to begin with: babies and probably most young children, people with various kinds of mental illnesses, people who are unable to communicate for many different reasons, etc. Do they not have rights? Yes, they do. And they have spokesmen for their rights. Your assertion that it is a prerequisite that an individual has to be able to reason to the point of identifying that they have rights is spurious. Because other species are unable to defend their rights doesn't mean that there aren't rational arguments for conveying rights upon them. That is one other thing that makes humans so remarkable, they actually have the capacity to act with compassion towards other species and to not see all the world and everything in it as being here simply to do with what we please and at our leisure.
You know, you really throw your intellectual integrity into question when you revert to the babies argument - unless you can't actually associate a baby with the adult that it will become. I'll just leave it at that and respond to a cleaned up version if you care to try again.
Responding to Stephen's assertion that "The reason humans have rights is simply because we assert them." And babies were only one the examples, and I don't see the problem in this context.
So you really can't see babies as being human beings then? You can't differentiate between a baby that is in the process of developing full self-awareness and a cow that never will?
Huh? By that logic, we shouldn't kill newly conceived fetuses because they have a high probability of some day developing full self-awareness. Are you secretly Catholic? And, again, what about the severely mentally retarded, severely mentally ill, demented, etc.? They don't have the potential of which you speak, yet we grant them rights. The basis of human rights, at least in the view of just about everybody I've ever met besides you, is not the fact that humans have current or potential self-awareness; otherwise, we wouldn't grant rights to individuals who belong to the above groups.