Have you considered that the they probably wouldn't have lives at all if it were not for the consumption of their products? Are their lives so terrible that they're better off not having existed in the first place?
I'm asking (IFF) you consider chickens (and or books) property or not.
Yes, I would consider them property. But they are also distinct because one is alive and one is not.
Is a chicken more "alive" or less "alive" than a dog ?
People make the exact same argument in favor of owning human slaves.The east india company was "rescuing" the wretched savages from certain doom.
Is a chicken more "alive" or less "alive" than a dog ?It is just as much "alive" as a dog is. The only distinction between the two is a manmade one that is a matter of perception. But they are both just animals.
In this case of the cows, well they probably are better off existing rather than not existing at all.
Do you think it's "moral" to keep a dog locked in a small cage for it's entire life ?
Do you think it's "moral" to keep a dog locked in a small cage for it's entire life ?Dogs have certain requirements to maintain their health. Being kept in a small cage would be seriously detrimental to a dog's health. However, I would be hesitant to assign a black and white moral imperative not to keep a dog in a cage.
Do you think it's "moral" to keep a chicken (and or a calf and or a goose) locked in a small cage for it's entire life ?
ZOIKS.
" to keep a chicken (and or a calf and or a goose) locked in a small cage for it's entire life ?That would depend on the needs of the animal. A chicken would do better in a cage than a dog, though neither would thrive in that environment. I would suggest that no one keep such an animal in those conditions but again, I would be hesitant to make it a black and white moral imperative.
I don't see that milking cows makes them suffer much.
Yes, I would consider them property.
What about shocking a dog with a cattle prod every time you want them to move from one cage to another ?
And does property have rights ?
What about shocking a dog with a cattle prod every time you want them to move from one cage to another ?What does this have to do with the original question of whether bestiality is morally evil or not?
And does property have rights ?Only humans have rights.
Isn't it obvious ?
So, what anyone happens to do with their own property is of no concern to the state.
So, what anyone happens to do with their own property is of no concern to the state.
(IFF) you want to protect animals from pain and discomfort (THEN) you must grant them rights(IFF) you grant rights to animals (THEN) you should not slaughter them
If rights are granted by humans, then humans can also take those rights away.
Is it wrong for humans to have sex with animals? Quit dodging the question.
I personally do not condone either the abuse and or slaughter of humans or animals.
The question posed in this topic, the question that you've been dodging is,How can someone be in favor of granting rights to animals and still fabricate elaborate excuses for maintaining modern factory farms ?
The question posed in this topic, the question that you've been dodging is,How can someone be in favor of granting rights to animals and still fabricate elaborate excuses for maintaining modern factory farms ?If you go back to the OP, you will see that your statement is a misrepresentation.
Me: If you care about animal consent, why aren't you vegetarian? [POST#1]
Why can't you answer this simple question ?
I personally do not condone either the abuse and or slaughter of humans or animals.That is not a direct answer to my question. Is it wrong for humans to have sex with animals? A yes or no will suffice.
Why can't you answer this simple question ?Why can't you answer mine?
Morality is a personal impulse.
