bossel said:
You're playing the emotional card, I don't.
There is nothing wrong with emotions being part of an argument if it is one based on empathy and not causing pain and suffering.
Besides, court cases are often decided on by not only the evidence that is brought into the proceedings, but by how the jury and judges are often times moved by the emotions of the victims and their families.
In criminal proceedings, things need to be only proven beyond a reasonable doubt. In civil proceedings the bar of proof is even lower. Emotions do get in the way of decisions and emotions are often the impetus that drives people to even look at and bring the issues up. Their emotions often compelll them to take action. The world is built on action that are driven by emotions.
If you choose not to use emotions, then that is to your disadvantage. I will not hobble my argument because you choose to do so.
It was some years ago when I think it was the "Natural Museum" of Washington (sorry I don`t have the exact name down -- could get it for you though) was using beagles or primates to study trauma and burn injuries. Taking out an ad in the Newspapers with pictures of beagles caused the emotions of tens of thousands of people to write and take action to get the experiments halted and the funding for it recinded. They were successful and it was their emotions that moved them. You may want to deny it, but they are a factor, and I will use them to speak up against or to stop suffering when I can.
Whether you can relate to another species' experience (or even another human's) is entirely subjective & isn't of much use in an argumentation.
Sorry, bossel -- it is of use. Seeing that all scientists and politicians have not yet come to agree that animals have sentience or can even feel pain or suffer for that matter, more and more laws are being passed protecting animals from abuse because those with "emotion" in the animal welfare and animal rights groups have been pushing these agendas. They have been successful and even Germany for the first time has mentioned animals in their constitution -- a precedent in the world. Emotions are what is driving the change in animal welfare rules, laws, and regulations.
People are moved by them and these groups appeal to them and they do filter down into law.
We don't know which animals can experience pain & suffering in a similar way to humans (primates are probably very close, but the more unrelated a species is, the fuzzier the picture gets).
It isn`t so important that they feel or experience exactly as we do. It could be even more intense. We can give meaning to our pain. We can accept the pain of a dentist drilling into our teeth knowing that it is for a purpose and that it will be over soon. An animal being forced to undergo something of a violation of its body, even for its own good, just cannot know that it will be over soon or that it has a purpose. That could magnify pain, suffering and fear. Humans can also fall back on religion or some kind of personal belief of cosmic justice as a comfort if they so choose to mitigate the pain. Animals can`t.
Whatever, we do know that "pain" is a state that is not pleasant and that animals seek to move away from the source of that pain. They often shout out when experiencing it.
Some researchers say that even men and women may have some differences in pain perception or the ability to withstand it. Knowing that, I wouldn`t say that that is enough to not extend protection from suffering when it is possible. Difference in pain does not justify causing it.
We certainly can't say whether plants (& if so which species) can experience pain & suffering in similar ways to animals, but according to current research many plants have the necessary sensory equipment to "feel pain".
Well, then I would say those researchers have a lot more to do to get that out to the public and accepted. Still, going off onto plants is a diversion.
Well, if you bring all animals as an argument, you should expect your argument to be examined. If it's only an emotional appeal, it's a zero argument anyway, IMO.
I don`t mind my argument being examined. However, I see a reductionist argument when one is presented and most reject those because it boils down to micro-organisms and extremes of hyberbol.
Yes, it is "in your opinion." Sorry, emotions are parts of arguments when pain and suffering are involved and one need only look at human court cases, jury and judge decisions and the sentencing they mett out and also the many animal welfare/rights victories via campaigns and court cases that have been embraced and championed by parts of the public. The public responds to emotional arguments and they do often influence what actions are taken.
Are you denying that?
So, when killing whales is done under anaesthesia that would be OK with you?
No. That is a violation of their autonomy. However, if they are serial child rapist murderers, I may change my mind on it -- or opt for the lobotomy seeing that I don`t see how they could get a job to pay back the victims in a work release program. ;-)
Er..., if it wasn't to support your (rather strange) usage of the imperative, why bring it up? Since it doesn't add anything to the question whether your usage was permissable or not, isn't it irrelevant? Maybe even reductionist?
Er..., nothing strange about it. The imperative on a forum as this is known by all to be rhetorical. I could never expect an order to be fulfilled. You seemed to have not understood it.
