Prev: Flatulence-producing foods
Next: rupie, the clown prince of circular arguments
From: Dutch on 22 Aug 2008 21:43
Rupert wrote:
> On Aug 22, 5:27 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...(a)thedismalscience.noot> wrote:

> My girlfriend does not eat dogs, racist buffoon. If she did it would
> be morally wrong.

What if they were raised in a humane manner, provided
with a "decent life"? According to what moral
principle would that be worse than the animal
husbandry you grudgingly acknowledge as "probably no
worse wrt animal suffering than some commercial plant
products"?

From: Dutch on 22 Aug 2008 23:43
Rupert wrote:
> On Aug 23, 1:43 am, Dutch <n...(a)email.com> wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Aug 22, 5:27 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...(a)thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>>> My girlfriend does not eat dogs, racist buffoon. If she did it would
>>> be morally wrong.
>> What if they were raised in a humane manner, provided
>> with a "decent life"? According to what moral
>> principle would that be worse than the animal
>> husbandry you grudgingly acknowledge as "probably no
>> worse wrt animal suffering than some commercial plant
>> products"?
>
> If her diet genuinely caused no more harm than mine, obviously I would
> not have a non-hypocritical basis for criticising her. The point is
> that raising animals for food means you generally need more crop
> inputs per unit of food. Cows can sometimes be an exception, I'm not
> sure dogs would be.

That's quite an elaborate tap dance compared to your
categorical statement above where you appear to say
that eating dogs is morally wrong, period. Can you see
why people perceive that you change your position when
pressed?
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: Flatulence-producing foods
Next: rupie, the clown prince of circular arguments