> I don't know what you're talking about. You said it is wrong to assume humans are different from animals, which makes this case a case of animals (humans) causing suffering in other animals (cows).
I'm making a claim about what humans should and shouldn't do to cows, namely that we shouldn't torture them. The behavior of some kind of predator does towards its prey is not relevant.
> If I crapped gold, I would be rich. That doesn't mean you can assume I am rich. You can't make a convincing argument by basing your assumptions in fantasy.
You found a loophole in thousands of years of logical reasoning! Hypotheticals aren't real or useful in thinking and communicating, who knew!!
> What? No. This has nothing to do with parent-child relationships, it has to do with the fact that humans teach and write and communicate ideas across long periods of time. If you take away the ability of humans to communicate and teach each other, then their suffering will be comparable to animal suffering. If you teach cows to read and write, they will stop being treated like animals.
By your reasoning, then, it's actually the torture victims writing about it who are causing the reverberating suffering. If they didn't opt to communicate and teach, their suffering would be fine. Maybe after you've finished convincing everyone to torture animals you can start to shame the writing of memoirs by torture victims?
I don't think you've honestly tried to understand what I'm saying, and I don't think your attitude reflects the maturity I expect of someone seriously attempting to discuss ethics.
I'm making a claim about what humans should and shouldn't do to cows, namely that we shouldn't torture them. The behavior of some kind of predator does towards its prey is not relevant.
> If I crapped gold, I would be rich. That doesn't mean you can assume I am rich. You can't make a convincing argument by basing your assumptions in fantasy.
You found a loophole in thousands of years of logical reasoning! Hypotheticals aren't real or useful in thinking and communicating, who knew!!
> What? No. This has nothing to do with parent-child relationships, it has to do with the fact that humans teach and write and communicate ideas across long periods of time. If you take away the ability of humans to communicate and teach each other, then their suffering will be comparable to animal suffering. If you teach cows to read and write, they will stop being treated like animals.
By your reasoning, then, it's actually the torture victims writing about it who are causing the reverberating suffering. If they didn't opt to communicate and teach, their suffering would be fine. Maybe after you've finished convincing everyone to torture animals you can start to shame the writing of memoirs by torture victims?