Vegetarian Discussion: Is Animal Rights A New Religion?

Is Animal Rights A New Religion?
Posts: 71

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8   Next  (First | Last)

A*@gmail.com
2006-03-11 06:25:47 EST
Hi guys,
I'm the editor at Philosophy Forge ( http://philosophy.answerz.be ),
and I'm trying to get a rough idea of the correlations between animal
rights and religion. So I have a few questions I hope you don't mind
me asking:

(1) Can you give an entirely rational explanation for why killing other
animals is wrong?
(2) Do you think morals are absolute? (everyone has the same morals,
even if they don't follow them)
(3) Are you part of any other religion
(4) Do you think animal testing is never necessary, and if so why?
(5) Do you follow any other religion?


Dave
2006-03-11 07:45:56 EST

a*y@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi guys,
> I'm the editor at Philosophy Forge ( http://philosophy.answerz.be ),
> and I'm trying to get a rough idea of the correlations between animal
> rights and religion. So I have a few questions I hope you don't mind
> me asking:
>
> (1) Can you give an entirely rational explanation for why killing other
> animals is wrong?

Can you give an entirely rational explanation for why killing other
humans
is wrong?

> (2) Do you think morals are absolute? (everyone has the same morals,
> even if they don't follow them)

Please explain exactly what you mean by this question.

> (3) Are you part of any other religion

I am not part of any religion.

> (4) Do you think animal testing is never necessary, and if so why?

Animal experiments have undoubtedly taught humans some knowledge
that has been put to good use. Whether devoting the same resources
to research that does not involve animals would have been equally
useful
is a more interesting question but one I am not qualified to answer.

> (5) Do you follow any other religion?

I do not follow any religion.


R*@yahoo.com
2006-03-11 08:31:57 EST

a*y@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi guys,
> I'm the editor at Philosophy Forge ( http://philosophy.answerz.be ),
> and I'm trying to get a rough idea of the correlations between animal
> rights and religion. So I have a few questions I hope you don't mind
> me asking:
>
> (1) Can you give an entirely rational explanation for why killing other
> animals is wrong?

Can you give an entirely rational explanation for why killing humans is
wrong? Presumably the reason is something like, because it harms the
humans. The same reason applies in the case of animals.

> (2) Do you think morals are absolute? (everyone has the same morals,
> even if they don't follow them)

Obviously people have different moral beliefs. I believe in objective
moral truths.

> (3) Are you part of any other religion

No.

> (4) Do you think animal testing is never necessary, and if so why?

What does "necessary" mean? We might miss out on some benefits if we
stopped testing on animals. We probably are missing out on benefits by
not testing on mentally retarded humans. But that doesn't make it
necessary.

> (5) Do you follow any other religion?

No.


D*@.
2006-03-11 11:25:48 EST
On 11 Mar 2006 03:25:47 -0800, alancooney@gmail.com wrote:

>Hi guys,
>I'm the editor at Philosophy Forge ( http://philosophy.answerz.be ),
>and I'm trying to get a rough idea of the correlations between animal
>rights and religion. So I have a few questions I hope you don't mind
>me asking:
>
>(1) Can you give an entirely rational explanation for why killing other
>animals is wrong?

LOL! They can say what the wrongness is, but not *why* it's
wrong. They can't say raising animals for food is wrong because
it cheats livestock out of life, since they only live because they're
raised to eat. Keeping that in mind and not letting them crawl
away from it, they can't come up with exactly "why".

>(2) Do you think morals are absolute? (everyone has the same morals,
>even if they don't follow them)

· Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.
What they try to avoid are products which provide life
(and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have
to avoid the following in order to be successful:

Tires, Paints, Paper, Upholstery, Floor waxes, Glass, Water
Filters, Rubber, Fertilizer, Antifreeze, Ceramics, Insecticides,
Insulation, Linoleum, Plastic, Textiles, Blood factors, Collagen,
Heparin, Insulin, Pancreatin, Thrombin, Vasopressin, Vitamin B-12,
Asphalt, auto and jet lubricants, outboard engine oil, brake fluid,
glues, inks, Solvents, Biodegradable Detergents, Herbicides, Gelatin
Capsules, Adhesive Tape, Laminated Wood Products, Plywood,
Paneling, Wallpaper and Wallpaper Paste, Cellophane Wrap and
Tape, Abrasivesl, Steel Ball Bearings.

The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it
as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for
their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume
animal products from animals they think are raised in decent
ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the
future.
From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·

Leif Erikson
2006-03-11 13:31:51 EST
Dave wrote:

> alancooney@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>Hi guys,
>>I'm the editor at Philosophy Forge ( http://philosophy.answerz.be ),
>>and I'm trying to get a rough idea of the correlations between animal
>>rights and religion. So I have a few questions I hope you don't mind
>>me asking:
>>
>>(1) Can you give an entirely rational explanation for why killing other
>>animals is wrong?
>
>
> Can you give an entirely rational explanation for why killing other
> humans is wrong?

Of course one can. At some point in the explanation,
one may have to employ some things that are believed as
axioms rather than as demonstrated facts (go look up
'axiom', davey - I know you don't know it), but the
explanation still is rational. Mathematics employs
axioms all the time, and math is the supremely rational
discipline.

>
>
>>(2) Do you think morals are absolute? (everyone has the same morals,
>>even if they don't follow them)
>
>
> Please explain exactly what you mean by this question.
>
>
>>(3) Are you part of any other religion
>
>
> I am not part of any religion.

Oh, yes you are, davey! You are a true-believing
adherent of the Church of "ar".


>>(4) Do you think animal testing is never necessary, and if so why?
>
>
> Animal experiments have undoubtedly taught humans some knowledge
> that has been put to good use. Whether devoting the same resources
> to research that does not involve animals would have been equally
> useful is a more interesting question but one I am not
qualified to answer.

You aren't qualified to answer *any* of this.

The fact is that animal testing, while imperfect, is
for many types of things the only tool in the box. The
practical arguments against animal use are acknowledged
by the scientists who perform the testing and research;
the *logical* arguments against it are null.


>>(5) Do you follow any other religion?
>
>
> I do not follow any religion.

Oh, yes you do, davey! You are a true-believing
adherent of the Church of "ar".

Rudy Canoza's Empty Skull
2006-03-11 13:59:40 EST

a*y@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi guys,
> I'm the editor at Philosophy Forge ( http://philosophy.answerz.be ),
> and I'm trying to get a rough idea of the correlations between animal
> rights and religion. So I have a few questions I hope you don't mind
> me asking:
>
> (1) Can you give an entirely rational explanation for why killing other
> animals is wrong?

Why would it be right?

> (2) Do you think morals are absolute? (everyone has the same morals,
> even if they don't follow them)


Live and let live.


> (3) Are you part of any other religion


"Other"? As opposed to what?

> (4) Do you think animal testing is never necessary, and if so why?


Every specie has a different physiology, metabolism, etc. Animal
testing does not necessarily correlate to the effects on humans.

> (5) Do you follow any other religion?


See (3)


R*@yahoo.com
2006-03-11 20:29:56 EST

Leif Erikson wrote:
> Dave wrote:
>
> > alancooney@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >>Hi guys,
> >>I'm the editor at Philosophy Forge ( http://philosophy.answerz.be ),
> >>and I'm trying to get a rough idea of the correlations between animal
> >>rights and religion. So I have a few questions I hope you don't mind
> >>me asking:
> >>
> >>(1) Can you give an entirely rational explanation for why killing other
> >>animals is wrong?
> >
> >
> > Can you give an entirely rational explanation for why killing other
> > humans is wrong?
>
> Of course one can. At some point in the explanation,
> one may have to employ some things that are believed as
> axioms rather than as demonstrated facts (go look up
> 'axiom', davey - I know you don't know it), but the
> explanation still is rational. Mathematics employs
> axioms all the time, and math is the supremely rational
> discipline.
>

Yes, this is fine. But which axioms would you use?

> >
> >
> >>(2) Do you think morals are absolute? (everyone has the same morals,
> >>even if they don't follow them)
> >
> >
> > Please explain exactly what you mean by this question.
> >
> >
> >>(3) Are you part of any other religion
> >
> >
> > I am not part of any religion.
>
> Oh, yes you are, davey! You are a true-believing
> adherent of the Church of "ar".
>

This is silly. Animal rights is not a religion. It's a set of ethical
beliefs which is not attached to any particular religion.

>
> >>(4) Do you think animal testing is never necessary, and if so why?
> >
> >
> > Animal experiments have undoubtedly taught humans some knowledge
> > that has been put to good use. Whether devoting the same resources
> > to research that does not involve animals would have been equally
> > useful is a more interesting question but one I am not
> qualified to answer.
>
> You aren't qualified to answer *any* of this.
>
> The fact is that animal testing, while imperfect, is
> for many types of things the only tool in the box. The
> practical arguments against animal use are acknowledged
> by the scientists who perform the testing and research;
> the *logical* arguments against it are null.
>
>
> >>(5) Do you follow any other religion?
> >
> >
> > I do not follow any religion.
>
> Oh, yes you do, davey! You are a true-believing
> adherent of the Church of "ar".


Dave
2006-03-12 07:20:12 EST

Leif Erikson wrote:
> Dave wrote:
>
> > alancooney@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >>Hi guys,
> >>I'm the editor at Philosophy Forge ( http://philosophy.answerz.be ),
> >>and I'm trying to get a rough idea of the correlations between animal
> >>rights and religion. So I have a few questions I hope you don't mind
> >>me asking:
> >>
> >>(1) Can you give an entirely rational explanation for why killing other
> >>animals is wrong?
> >
> >
> > Can you give an entirely rational explanation for why killing other
> > humans is wrong?
>
> Of course one can.

In your own time.....

> At some point in the explanation,
> one may have to employ some things that are believed as
> axioms rather than as demonstrated facts (go look up
> 'axiom', davey - I know you don't know it), but the
> explanation still is rational. Mathematics employs
> axioms all the time, and math is the supremely rational
> discipline.
>
> >
> >
> >>(2) Do you think morals are absolute? (everyone has the same morals,
> >>even if they don't follow them)
> >
> >
> > Please explain exactly what you mean by this question.
> >
> >
> >>(3) Are you part of any other religion
> >
> >
> > I am not part of any religion.
>
> Oh, yes you are, davey! You are a true-believing
> adherent of the Church of "ar".

I am not a true believing adherent of AR and ARis not a religion.

> >>(4) Do you think animal testing is never necessary, and if so why?
> >
> >
> > Animal experiments have undoubtedly taught humans some knowledge
> > that has been put to good use. Whether devoting the same resources
> > to research that does not involve animals would have been equally
> > useful is a more interesting question but one I am not
> qualified to answer.
>
> You aren't qualified to answer *any* of this.
>
> The fact is that animal testing, while imperfect, is
> for many types of things the only tool in the box.

I have no reason to doubt that. The statement informs us that many
of the life saving techniques/drugs available today would not be
available without animal testing. What it does not tell us is what
other life saving drugs and techniques would have been available
if the resources employed in animal experiments had been used
to pursue other areas of study where animal testing was not required.
Note I am not claiming there are any. I am not claiming the
ability to talk authoratively on the topic. I am merely raising
questions.

> The
> practical arguments against animal use are acknowledged
> by the scientists who perform the testing and research;
> the *logical* arguments against it are null.
>
>
> >>(5) Do you follow any other religion?
> >
> >
> > I do not follow any religion.
>
> Oh, yes you do, davey! You are a true-believing
> adherent of the Church of "ar".

I am not a true believing adherent of AR and ARis not a religion.


FHWAT
2006-03-12 18:37:40 EST
a*y@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi guys,
> I'm the editor at Philosophy Forge ( http://philosophy.answerz.be ),
> and I'm trying to get a rough idea of the correlations between animal
> rights and religion. So I have a few questions I hope you don't mind
> me asking:
>
> (1) Can you give an entirely rational explanation for why killing other
> animals is wrong?
> (2) Do you think morals are absolute? (everyone has the same morals,
> even if they don't follow them)
> (3) Are you part of any other religion
> (4) Do you think animal testing is never necessary, and if so why?
> (5) Do you follow any other religion?
>


If you knew the basics of "animal rights" and religion you wouldn't ask
the nonsensical question: "Is animal rights a new religion?".

Suggest you start here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_rights




Rick
2006-03-12 22:56:52 EST

"FHWAT" <fhwat@tasngidkwib.com> wrote in message
news:47jphdFg2l6kU1@individual.net...
> alancooney@gmail.com wrote:
>> Hi guys,
>> I'm the editor at Philosophy Forge (
>> http://philosophy.answerz.be ),
>> and I'm trying to get a rough idea of the correlations between
>> animal
>> rights and religion. So I have a few questions I hope you
>> don't mind
>> me asking:
>>
>> (1) Can you give an entirely rational explanation for why
>> killing other
>> animals is wrong?
>> (2) Do you think morals are absolute? (everyone has the same
>> morals,
>> even if they don't follow them)
>> (3) Are you part of any other religion
>> (4) Do you think animal testing is never necessary, and if so
>> why?
>> (5) Do you follow any other religion?
>>
>
>
> If you knew the basics of "animal rights" and religion you
> wouldn't ask the nonsensical question: "Is animal rights a new
> religion?".
==========================
It is a religion. It's based on faith, delusion, and idiocy.

Your posting here proves that animals do not have rights, and
that YOU don't believe that they do.



>
> Suggest you start here:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_rights
>
>
>


Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8   Next  (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron