[chotadipo]

>Thanx for your response,at leasst you gave me your
>views.
You are most welcomed
>
>>1.) If the farmed becoming stronger or more intelligent than
>>you, would it not be fair for you to submit to them and be
>>farmed?
>
>If they can do it that's better for them,but trut me
> they will have to cross 10 rivers before they do
>that.
>
That is exactly the point why we have to consider the ethical and moral implications. Deep inside you, you would not want to be game to another human being because you do understand that he 'sees' the world the same same way as you. A frightening scenario when you have cows that are easier prey and do not bring you into conflict with the other human being.

>>2.) If your basis for farming is for food, are you then
>>implying implicitly that you have run out of other food
>>sources?
>
>Come on now,When you put fish on your menu to
>replace chicken,were you running out of food?
>
You don't get it, you are assuming that fellow human beings can be equated to other forms of life. This is a faulty way of arguing knowing full well then even lesser animals don't sustitute food with their own unless they are compelled to. Preservation is a basic instinct.

>>3.) If your argument would be for labour, then basiclly it
>>would be retrogressive development, we move from buffalo to
>>tractor, but you suggest we go back to buffalo?
>
>My arguement had nothing to do with that labour
>thing,but even if it's labour,who cares if it's buffalo
> or tractor so long as the job get done.

We will leave this out respecting your view that it was not part of the arument.
>
>>4.) Humans have empathy, something that you will have to
>>wrestlle with when it comes to farming brain dead people.
>
>I wonder what happens to the emphathy when we
>slaughter chickens.You can't know how other humans feel
> unless you are them,in this case you might have
>emphathy but I might not have it.

Good point because you specifically refer to other animals, I thought your argument was about human to human farming. In this case there is a lot of empathy going on. You can choose to deny it though
>
>>5.) The question on the contribution to society has been
>>tackled elsewhere on the topic of Good vs. evil where it is
>>apparent that the one wielding power tends to detrmine what
>is
>>good or not. An example of this is an article I read about a
>>belgian professor who was arguing that poor people should
>not
>>be allowed to give birth. First of all poor is relative,
>>second I come from a 'poor' upbringing according to him, yet
>I
>>have an advanced degree in electronics and I'm economicaly
>>well-off, how would he have justified to my mom to abort me
>>knowing what I am today?
>
>I think you are off my main topic here. Hit me with
>some more points.....
>
I don't think so, because if you argue that it is ethically or morally sound to farm others because of their perceived non contribution to society, my question is where do you draw the line? A rogue scientist is worse to mankind than a 70 IQ labourer, I would rather we farm the scientist and 'eat' him and preserve ourselves.