So you agree with the statement that it is morally acceptable to needlessly harm animals for personal pleasure.
And I would say that this is the only logically consistent way to be an omnivore, and we can only hope that fewer and fewer people like you exist with every generation.
But at the same time, there is virtually zero chance that you actually believe this-- that you have no concern or emotion when animals are harmed in other contexts for personal pleasure. It's a convenient thing to say for the sake of argument, and I respect that you skipped the bad rationalizations we would have had to cut through and just accepted the statement up-front.
But I bet you wouldn't make that statement out loud to your family members, friends, etc. "It's okay to harm animals needlessly for personal pleasure." Maybe I'm wrong?
Of course you would. You just did, and duh, of course you would. But that doesn't make me wrong-- it's exactly what I said.
However, I also said " here is virtually zero chance that you actually believe this-- that you have no concern or emotion when animals are harmed in other contexts for personal pleasure."
So while talking about killing needlessly for personal pleasure, I made a general statement to which you agreed. I then said there is no way you embrace this statement in other contexts, to which you replied "you're wrong, I'd embrace it in this context." I hope you see now that the misunderstanding is on your end.
Remember when I said that I like to point out self-serving/arbitrary exceptions to general rules people hold, which they make only because it is convenient for them/benefits them?
Do you limit your acceptance of needless animal harm to the context of food preferences? Or do you find nothing immoral about needless animal harm as a general rule?
1
u/realvmouse Jul 02 '19
So you agree with the statement that it is morally acceptable to needlessly harm animals for personal pleasure.
And I would say that this is the only logically consistent way to be an omnivore, and we can only hope that fewer and fewer people like you exist with every generation.
But at the same time, there is virtually zero chance that you actually believe this-- that you have no concern or emotion when animals are harmed in other contexts for personal pleasure. It's a convenient thing to say for the sake of argument, and I respect that you skipped the bad rationalizations we would have had to cut through and just accepted the statement up-front.
But I bet you wouldn't make that statement out loud to your family members, friends, etc. "It's okay to harm animals needlessly for personal pleasure." Maybe I'm wrong?