What the fucking hell is this. This is peak anthropocentricism. Cats are not people, because they are not humans. What you’re suggesting is that we basically murder every species in Earth that are carnivores because you find murder morally incorrect based on human law which in turn is based (most probably) in the bible.
not related to the actual conversation you’re having but i just have to ask; what defines people? a person? is the requirement for being a person, to be human? what would we call other people with the same perceptions as humans, then? from my point of view, people define anyone with equal abstract level of understanding as us, with concepts of culture, medicine and ceremonial traditions. so technically, elephants could be considered people, too (and legally speaking, is being seriously considered as such by some international groups and governments).
What you’re suggesting is that we basically murder every species in Earth that are carnivores because you find murder morally incorrect based on human law which in turn is based (most probably) in the bible.
I’m an atheist. There is no god nor gods, Jesus was a fictional person, and morality is a human construct.
And whether or not I believe “cats are people” personally, it is an accurate observation of the modern world. For the past 15 years or more, I’ve been mind-boggled by the number of people using the word “adopt” to describe their acquisition of pets. Describing them as “babies”, “child(ren)”, etc. Spending positively insane amounts of their income on the animals (not just cats, obviously, but dogs, what-have-you).
If you believe this, just this one thing, then veganism’s not much of a stretch. If cats are people, so too must cows and pigs be people. Or even tilapia. At which point you cannot eat them. But the illogic inevitably becomes circular, because if they are people, they have similar moral obligations. And if somehow they don’t, then it would mean they aren’t people, and there’d be nothing wrong with eating the critters.
Quite frankly, veganism is a dietary law in search of a prophet. An interesting case study into how proto-religions form and evolve.
It doesn’t matter you are an atheist, the law is based on the bible you like it or not, and you’ve been raised with Western notions of morality which you internalize as normal. Morality being a human construct is a totally irrelevant sentence because whether it is or not it still has real world implications.
If you dress a monkey in silk, it’s still a monkey; have you ever heard of a science called taxonomy? How humans interact with other species is not a factor at determining how they are divided.
It doesn’t matter you are an atheist, the law is based on the bible you like it or not
Sounds like a nonsense statement. What does “based on” mean? I suspect it’s a phrase you learned in early childhood and never examined thoroughly. Let’s do that.
When you say “based on”, you’re saying “I perceive a similarity that my inferior heuristics indicate is causal”. However, as an authority on my own mind and history, I assert that this is not the case. You have no basis for dispute of this assertion, just as I would have none if I disputed claims about your own personal history or state of mind.
If you dress a monkey in silk, it’s still a monkey; have you ever heard of a science called taxonomy?
I’ve literally taught my children since they could listen and talk that they themselves are monkeys. That humans are a species of monkeys that have less fur.
How humans interact with other species is not a factor at determining how they are divided.
What the fucking hell is this. This is peak anthropocentricism. Cats are not people, because they are not humans. What you’re suggesting is that we basically murder every species in Earth that are carnivores because you find murder morally incorrect based on human law which in turn is based (most probably) in the bible.
not related to the actual conversation you’re having but i just have to ask; what defines people? a person? is the requirement for being a person, to be human? what would we call other people with the same perceptions as humans, then? from my point of view, people define anyone with equal abstract level of understanding as us, with concepts of culture, medicine and ceremonial traditions. so technically, elephants could be considered people, too (and legally speaking, is being seriously considered as such by some international groups and governments).
deleted by creator
I’m an atheist. There is no god nor gods, Jesus was a fictional person, and morality is a human construct.
And whether or not I believe “cats are people” personally, it is an accurate observation of the modern world. For the past 15 years or more, I’ve been mind-boggled by the number of people using the word “adopt” to describe their acquisition of pets. Describing them as “babies”, “child(ren)”, etc. Spending positively insane amounts of their income on the animals (not just cats, obviously, but dogs, what-have-you).
If you believe this, just this one thing, then veganism’s not much of a stretch. If cats are people, so too must cows and pigs be people. Or even tilapia. At which point you cannot eat them. But the illogic inevitably becomes circular, because if they are people, they have similar moral obligations. And if somehow they don’t, then it would mean they aren’t people, and there’d be nothing wrong with eating the critters.
Quite frankly, veganism is a dietary law in search of a prophet. An interesting case study into how proto-religions form and evolve.
It doesn’t matter you are an atheist, the law is based on the bible you like it or not, and you’ve been raised with Western notions of morality which you internalize as normal. Morality being a human construct is a totally irrelevant sentence because whether it is or not it still has real world implications.
If you dress a monkey in silk, it’s still a monkey; have you ever heard of a science called taxonomy? How humans interact with other species is not a factor at determining how they are divided.
Sounds like a nonsense statement. What does “based on” mean? I suspect it’s a phrase you learned in early childhood and never examined thoroughly. Let’s do that.
When you say “based on”, you’re saying “I perceive a similarity that my inferior heuristics indicate is causal”. However, as an authority on my own mind and history, I assert that this is not the case. You have no basis for dispute of this assertion, just as I would have none if I disputed claims about your own personal history or state of mind.
I’ve literally taught my children since they could listen and talk that they themselves are monkeys. That humans are a species of monkeys that have less fur.
Please, enlighten me.
goo goo tata