Halfordian Golfer wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
If you kill an animal, any animal, the only ethical thing
to do is eat it.

Therefore if you use an earthworm to catch a fish you must
then eat both the fish and the earthworm.

If you do not eat the fish and the earthworm that is the
same thing as torturing dogs and cats.

Given "logic" like this it's no wonder Socrates drank hemlock. LOL !!

EXCELLENT Socratic Dialog!

Was it ? It was supposed to be over-the-top sarcasm.

"Therefore if you use an earthworm to catch a fish you must then eat
both the fish and the earthworm."

No, not nececessarily, Kenicles. For there is no longer a need to eat
the earthworm as you have a fish. If you are starving and the fish is
poor than I would agree.

So if you're starving and the fish can loan you a five spot
you can grab a burger at Mickey D's and you don't have to eat
either the fish or the worm, but if the fish is poor you have
to eat both ?

I think I'm starting to get the hang of this Socratic dialogue.

What about rats and roaches ? If I kill a rat or a roach can
their families slip me a little cash and claim the bodies or
am I ethically bound to eat them ?

--
Ken Fortenberry