Originally Posted By: Mithus
Quote:
Because your further arguments presuppose that animals are human, but they are not.


what this sentence means, please enlight me man!


Your arguments use circular logic based on assumption "inflicting /any/ unecessary pain on animals /is bad/."

Your argument, when distilled to its basics, boils down to following - inflicting pain is bad, we should avoid inflicting pain, growing animals for food is inflicting pain, and we shouldn't be inflicting pain so we shouldn't be growing animals for food.

This argument is problematic for two reasons, first you assume that inflicting pain on animals is bad. This assumption requires justification, you could approach it from universal morals point of view, i.e. we are all better off when there is no suffering; or sanctity of sentience and argue that even rudimentary sentience animals posses is precious and stress similarities between humans and animals; or you could abandon morals altogether and compare energy costs and environmental impact of vegan and meat-eating diets.

Second assumption in your argument is that growing animals for food constitutes inflicting pain, your argument that animals that otherwise wouldn't have existed would be better off not existing is questionable and require better justification.

Well, good luck. I hope you use some of the concepts I mentioned here to improve your argument.

[Linked Image]