theSingerNietzsche wrote:nameless, you're making a public post, so I'm quite entitled to pick up on any of your points and engage them; if you want a sole response from clinicallyinsane, pm him.
I remain disinterested in your interpretation of his OP intent. Make your own argument! If I didn't 'get it', he'll tell me.
You are boring me.
Secondly, I've claimed this is by no means the best way to address the issues, it's very indirect. Instead of discussing what's murder and what's not, why don't we discuss why killing animals is wrong.
If you think that it is 'wrong' then you discuss it as 'wrong'. I do not agree that it is (or anything is) 'wrong'. Therefore we cannot duscuss 'why' killing animals is 'wrong'. Get it?
The law and morality are two very different things and I've already said why clinging to legal definitions is fallacious.
Legal terms have specific definitions. Perhaps if you learned the terminology that best expresses your intent? The 'wrong' words do not help your case.
We do not 'murder' animals, despite your emo-argument; we kill them.
18th Century= Not murder to kill a black slave in Western Europe. Does that mean, because legally it wasn't considered murder, it wasn't wrong?
Sorry, i do not do emo-argumentation; nor 'wrong'. It depends on perspective. Few kill/destroy their own property, whether horses or slaves.
Under my interpretation of what you’re saying, you’d say it wasn’t wrong.
Perhaps you're getting it. I do not divvy the world into piles of 'right' and 'wrong' (if you are a religionist, you'd recognize such as a 'sin'!) so I cannot discuss such the world from such a Perspective.
That which is immoral isn’t necessarily illegal, for example, some wars, or intensive farming!
I do not do
'morality', as I said.
You can't refer to a manifestation of society to claim you're right, when I'm discussing why society [in general] and such manifestations are wrong! Picture an argument against woman's rights reading: it isn't wrong that woman don't have rights, look the law verifies my very point.
You so don't understand what I'm saying, that I doubt further discussion would be fruitful.
I'm not making any kind of emotional argument whatsoever; to claim that I am is simply wrong.
Your insistence on the usage of 'murder' belies your assertion. (since you seem to have morphed into some noir sock-puppet of 'clinicallyinsane'!)
I'm appealing to valid criterion and if you read my first post, you’ll clearly see that.
If i read your post I might have responded, but I did not, and responded to 'his'. What you have been saying here leaves me disinterested in going back to read your posts, though I've seen a couple. You respond to my response to another's posts and wonder why I don't read your post for clarification of... what, 'clinicallyinsane's' opinion or your's?
nameless I don't even know what you're trying to argue here. Is it, killing animals is not wrong because it is not considered legally to be murder?
1) the term 'murder' is an emotional and inappropriate term for what you are talking about
2) Killing and eating whatever we do is not 'right' or 'wrong', it is who we are and what we do! Despite your delicate sensitivities. If it is your nature to eat roses, have at it. If it's mine to eat cows and grasshoppers, it's none of your business. No 'right', no 'wrong', just is
If it is and you disagree or ignore with everything I’ve previously said, then what of torture. Legally torture doesn’t refer solely to human beings. Is it wrong to torture animals?
No. I do not do it as it is not my nature. It is not a 'choice'; 'wrong' and 'right' are non-questions/trivial in 'this' reality.
You might ask if I would do something to stop some pain. I often have, that is a feature of 'this' nature. Again, not a choice. We must be who we are, Period. 'Right' and 'wrong' are meaningless in this context.
Please coherently write your argument as concisely as possible.
I always do. If you have a particular problem understanding anything that I offer, simply ask me for clarification (after re-reading it more carefully with the attempt to understand).
Btw, no need to get personally insulting while discussing things like this, I don’t intend to enrage you although it seems that I have because your reply was ridiculously aggressive.
Enrage me!?!?! Are you serious? The only 'feeling' here, hon, is mild amusement.
Are you a female? A PETA freak? What you might find insulting is your
problem. Grow some skin if you want to talk to me; 'honesty' takes priority to 'nicety'.
I hope that i have clarified myself sufficiently. We'll just have to agree to being different Perspectives. I assume that you wear no leather or animal products, eat no meat, fish or eggs or products therefrom?