Quote:
|
Originally Posted by CSflim
When we examine racism, we see that the justifications for it came from dividing the world into the 'in-group' and the 'out-group'. We are obligated to extend to those in the in-group (for example, white people) rights and ethical treatment. Those in the out-group are inferior and unimportant and as such, are not worthy of such rights. We are justified in treating them in whatever manner we so choose.
(snip)
|
So you're arguing one of two things.
Most likely you're arguing that we should eat plants instead of animals, but then your logic breaks down because we are now putting plants in the "out-group." After your passioned argument about how animals can feel pain (I agree, they can), you surely aren't going to sit there and tell me that plants absolutely cannot feel pain even though you have no evidence to back up that proposition. Therefore, if you're willing to put plants in the out-group, you're no better than the rest of us.
The other possible argument you are making is that we not eat anything lest something be in an out-group. The obvious logical flaw in this concept is that by doing so we would starve ourselves, and therefore be putting ourselves in the out-group.
Fact is, the world's cruel. Some things must be eaten so that other things can live. Sucks, but until we come up with protein synthesis replicator systems a-la Star Trek, that's how it goes.