- Joined
- Oct 9, 2014
- Messages
- 7,454
- Reaction score
- 4,473
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
Oh, broooooother. Your argument is self defeating. The choice to make a food animal's rights greater than those of a human being is simply imposing your beliefs on others. You are the monster you fear.
Actually, this is not a question of human verses animal rights, this is a question of animal rights verses god, for lack of a better description. Clearly you think that someone claiming to believe in an arbitrary superstition endows believers with the right to be cruel. I disagree. There is an attitude amongst many of the faithful that their own hyperbolic spiritual entitlement includes not just free rein to proselytize and lie to everyone but that their entitlement extends to acts of violence.
I have a limit for how much I will patronize the magical hysteria of theists. That limit is harm. When a person feels they have a right to beliefs that are contradicted by established science, they are choosing an anti- intellectual god. When they feel authorized to ignore evolved moral processes in society, they have chosen an ethically ambivalent god. When they persist in practices, based upon traditions, with no concern about whether it is cruel, only whether it complies with the dictates of arbitrary faith, they have chosen a cruel god.
I am constantly stunned by the unapologetic idiocy of those who claim a higher power is theirs. If the spiritual anachronisms of our time can only gather meaning from the past, they are sentencing the rest of us to a dark future. To them I ask what kind of loving god would demand that we stagnate in a changing universe?
I'll tell you what kind, an imaginary one.