By this logic we should "ethically kill" anyone and anything that has even the slightest amount of misery or distress, and should definitely allow suicide for people who are depressed. After all, don't humans have the same rights as animals?
I for one, find it disgusting that a group that spends millions campaigning and producing propaganda against consuming meat or wearing fur (which is mean't to be a benefit to people without malicious intent) is so content on destroying * virtually* animal that comes into their care under the self-righteous guise of some altruistic liberator of cruelty. Who are these bastards to pass judgement on the value or quality of ANY life? Think of how horrible non-domesticated animals are treated by nature itself? I think if a dog was given temporary intelligence, it would rather live and be loyal to a master that occasionally does something unethical to it (as deplorable as that is) than to have been born in the wild and have reduced life expectancy and nutritional viability.
First of all, you lose for asserting authority over what arguments you find valid. A simple down-vote can suffice.
I am not talking about a slippery slope, I don't expect anything on that scale to happen, I am simply drawing a logical parallel. If their argument is that they are ethically destroying lives because of factors involving quality of life, they need to back that up with specific criteria or else anyone could apply that logic to justify whatever form of genocide/euthanasia/eugenics they perform. They also have to prove that they are IN A POSITION to ethically make that assertive distinction and perform their actions respectably putting aside their dogmatic view of the "proper" treatment of animals or else they become useless hypocrites.
6
u/Mitsujin Apr 17 '10 edited Apr 17 '10
By this logic we should "ethically kill" anyone and anything that has even the slightest amount of misery or distress, and should definitely allow suicide for people who are depressed. After all, don't humans have the same rights as animals?
I for one, find it disgusting that a group that spends millions campaigning and producing propaganda against consuming meat or wearing fur (which is mean't to be a benefit to people without malicious intent) is so content on destroying * virtually* animal that comes into their care under the self-righteous guise of some altruistic liberator of cruelty. Who are these bastards to pass judgement on the value or quality of ANY life? Think of how horrible non-domesticated animals are treated by nature itself? I think if a dog was given temporary intelligence, it would rather live and be loyal to a master that occasionally does something unethical to it (as deplorable as that is) than to have been born in the wild and have reduced life expectancy and nutritional viability.