There's no need for pretense. You haven't yet provided the basis for your stance and are evidently unaware that all conclusions have a basis in something, even if the person is not conscious of it. I'm not even sure you understand the difference between "the conclusion" and "the reasoning" at this point, given your reiteration of your conclusion and the moral example you gave.
There is no reasoning to morality. That's the point.
No, I didn't have some master plan for you to respond that way - that would be incredibly pretentious. The post contained two types of different information. The first half revolves entirely around me and my ideas, while the second half is entirely within your purview. That is to say, there's no way for me to directly prove that I'm right about the second half because I'm not in your head, so I elected to set up a hypothesis:
If you were simply reacting to the thread at hand and not expressing a well-founded opinion, you would consciously or unconsciously choose to reply to the bit of information you couldn't lose on. If you were expressing a well-founded opinion, you would have refuted my admittedly quite rude and cheap attempt.
The hypothesis is flawed, you made an attack on me, so I focused on it. It is that simple.
So, the question remains, do you or do you not have a basis for the ideas you express here or are you just reacting? If you're just reacting, that's fine, but then you have no basis for attacking Ajna's baseless beliefs. If you have a basis for your ideas, I'd like to hear them. For instance, I can't imagine how you ended up at a conclusion like "...I don't think animals need to be treated as bad as they are, but it's not a logic issue, it's an issue of unnecessary torment. Unnecessary and illogical is not the same, mind you. It's simply that some people don't care enough about animals to do something about it."
Some people include me by the way, and I stated that simply as an abstract compromise to better identify exactly what the central view is on the focus of animals and their suffering. I was trying to set up a preemptive for potential associations to logic and morality, which apparently was pointless as everyone ignored it. Oh well.
Why do you think that?
Well, they could be treated better. Remember that this one statement had nothing to do with my point, also, note my above point.
Ideally, an
ad infinitum.
How much suffering is the right amount of suffering the animals must go through to for us to eat them without it being "wrong"? It's not logical.
There's no gauge of right or wrong, that's my entire point. There's no logical way to conclude what is too much pain and what is too little.
Either the reasoning points to it being undesirable for animals to suffer and thus that we should all work to prevent it, or it's not undesirable for animals to suffer and we all should not give a crap if animals suffer or not. Regardless of which it is, you need to explain why it's undesirable instead of just implying that it is.
I explained why I said that already, I was trying to identify the key source of the opposing views ideology. Technically, they could be treated better. That's not a false statement. There was no basis on my beliefs in it.
"Quite simply, morality is too opinionated. In order to see anything from an angle of right or wrong, you must discard that which makes it right or that which makes it wrong." is equally nonsensical - it doesn't logically follow at all. Maybe you'd find morality easier if you used more concrete words like undesirable and desirable instead of vague religious slogans like right and wrong.
Desire is an emotional statement for positives or negatives, morality is on the basis of a religious scale, or a scale of beliefs if you feel better with that term. As stated above, it comes to a point where people simply state "Well, that's too much suffering" without any real basis, which brings me back to my original point. The logic comes after the fact, not before.
"For me, it comes to a point where you must simply accept that things suffer, and move on." - This seems to outright contradict what you said in the post before that. Here, you make the argument that if things will inevitably happen at some point on a given timeline, there's no effective difference regardless of when it happens and thus no need to concern oneself with it. This is obviously inconsistent with your earlier "unnecessary torment" argument, implying (whether or not it was intentional) there is a difference between the current, unnecessary level of animal torment and "ideal" level of animal torment.
I think my earlier point addresses that. I stated a simple fact, it had no belief behind it.
I think you try to actively avoid making assumptions because it protects you. You can't be wrong if you never make any assumptions, leaving you free to take snipes at other people's methodology and end up seeming on top if everyone else is wrong. It's not a bad strategy, honestly, but the tricky part is maintaining consistency when you're cooking up your arguments in response to a very limited set of information - apparently the post at hand.
Honestly, I try to avoid assumptions as much as I can, and if I make one, it usually has a firm reasoning behind it. The main issue is your misunderstanding of my wording and my intent, that being, if all my past statements are consistent, and one seems out of place, it's best to simply observe that statement as something besides methodology and simply a shallow fact. If you observe my previous posts in this thread, you'll note that I've been quite active and I have not avoided any part of the thread until now. I hope this resolves the issue but if not I'll be happy to continue until you understand better.
