Originally Posted by
Mallymkun
I'm guessing you're still mad about the abortion thing. Alright, go ahead.
No. Are you mad or something though? Seems like you're projecting.
Originally Posted by
Mallymkun
What's with the inclusive pronouns? I care and lots of others do, otherwise animal rights wouldn't be debated so often.
Are you a vegetarian then? You ever visited a zoo? You ever had a pet? Generally, most people can relate with these things. There's no need to dispute such a pedantic point.
Originally Posted by
Mallymkun
Firstly, pigs being slaughtered blah blah
Dogs being raised blah blah
As for lions, blah blah blah
The point of the examples was to show that all of these things are done
without consent and the majority of people are fine with it. You're trying to disprove a point I wasn't making.
Originally Posted by
Mallymkun
Right now we are deeming it appropriate to kill for pleasure; living beings with the ability to feel pain and emotion.
Uhh, explain to me how you came to this conclusion in the context of animal testing? I don't see how it relates.
Originally Posted by
Mallymkun
It's very dangerous to state objective standpoints in morality. We are constantly changing our perception of morality, and we have done for the last century (e.g. giving homosexuals and women equality)... If it's just your opinion that they're not morally wrong for doing what they do, then you're free to that opinion, but you did state it like a fact, which I'm just trying to clarify.
I think it's possible to establish a baseline standard of morality that all sane people would agree with - I don't think it's absurd to suggest there are some objective truths in ethics. I briefly mentioned it before; maximising happiness and minimising suffering. You seem interested in podcasts, so give a listen to
this conversation between Sam Harris and philosopher/ethicist Peter Singer.