LogFAQs > #887901988

FLUFFYGERM posted...

so what you're saying is that in order for someone to think like you, they need to be emotionally invested into an animal like a dog? that seems quite stupid and not logical. food is food. cattle aren't going to know that they're about to become someone's beef.

what I said was that "if you were emotionally invested in an animal like a dog, you'd understand they're more than motor functions." what you came away with was that "if you understand animals are more than motor functions, then you must be emotionally invested in an animal like a dog." you switched the logical implication in the other direction, you see that? it's backwards. No you don't need to be emotionally invested into an animal like a dog, but you must have some understanding of their similar level of consciousness, which since you seemed to lack, I tried to spur on with the dog example.

And you really seem to be underestimating how shitty cattle are treated. if I gave evidence that they suffered physically or emotionally, would you accept it or change the goalposts?

FLUFFYGERM posted...

so which system of ethics was that again

well we gotta establish some axioms. like do you value human life? the life of any mammals? what is reasonable cause to cause another human suffering? other mammals?