The post

On one of the Aussie Farms FB pages, the anti meat/anti farmer one, there was this post (name deleted out of courtesy) - The poster's comments over 2 posts are in Bold Italics and my assessment (for whatever its worth, who cares) are not. Warning its loooong, take ya time. :-)

Animals are not commodities. They are living, sentient, beings who have individual experiences, thinking brains and beating hearts. 
Thinking brains, beating hearts, individual experiences? Yes I reckon they do. They are living, I reckon they are while they're alive but what of sentient beings? Its a mix of funny philosophical bents derived from Eastern Religions. What is a sentient being, well apparently a growing carrot is not, fungus is not but a sheep and another animal are. But again we come back to the old lion & antelope thing. Both apparently sentient beings yet the lion commits no transgressions legally, morally or ethically by chasing the antelope down to eat it. In some cases eating begins before the antelope is fully dead. If we're in a godless existence, that is there is no creator there is no purpose, no morals...everything that happens is just what happens. Funny isn't it. Personally I reject the silly notion and refer to a moral authority that transcends us, that guides me and has a rationally full explanation why morals, ethics and laws are required and why they came about. It also allows me to easily say why it is wrong indeed an abomination to murder, rape, steal etc. For the sentient being believer, the no-god-at-all-religion follower, its all evolution, by accident, without meaning or purpose, everything that happens is just, well its just what happens or what we make happen. To apply the "sentient being" angle to oppose humans eating meat and not apply it to the lion and all the other carnivores is actually a form of overt "SPECIES-ISM". The very thing meat eaters are accused of. Here we have, another logical implosion. What's even more ironic is that for the believer in a religion and a Creator-God, Species-ism actually makes perfect sense and is quite a coherent notion. We have dominion over the animals...simple really.

We don't need to exploit them or kill them. 
Exploit? Well in the case of domesticated farm animals, none that I know of are in fear of extinction so exploit yet again comes down to a worldview based truth claim. Kill them, well if they're bound for the table I'm sure as heck not eating them live :-)
They are a resource which humans have used for thousands of years and once exploration by ship started, so to did Live Export.

 We need none of it for survival. 
If you're a vegan that is correct, however for all the suggestions farms prevent an animal's from their natural behaviour, ours is very much omnivore. But for the vegan, carry on. By all means fuel your body how ever you like, I support that, defend that and encourage a person to do that if they wish. And likewise those who eat meat should be allowed, encouraged, supported and their right to do so should be defended. I'm not in survival mode, if I were that desparate then I guess any animal or vegetable is on the menu...but not humans. I know that's a bit "SPECIES-IST" but I have a moral authority I obey and humans are off the menu no matter what.

To harm and kill another being for pleasure, convenience or profit (the only reasons it's done) is unethical.
Unethical? By what standard do we decide its unethical. Glib one liner motherhood statements with little or no foundation are as useful as water proof tea bags. Without fleshing out the foundation we have one person's opinion vs another person's opposing opinion. Killing an animal for pleasure...well I am a hunter, but I only hunter declared pests in Australia. I can't say there's pleasure in it beyond the satisfaction of doing a job that needs doing and doing it properly. If I were not to kill the feral cat, wild dog, fox etc it will kill the native species and some domesticated farm species. I have no ethical dilemma killing an introduced declared pest that threatens to kill or displace other animals that should be there.
Convenience, not sure what that means. Sorry.
Profit? What's wrong with raising livestock for food and making a paid career from it?
If its unethical, if that's the truth claim, you have to back it up by citing by what standards are you making the judgement. Does society judge? If that's the case, some societies love their neighbour while others eat their neighbour, both able to comply with the ethical standards of their respective society. For me however, cannibalism is something I definitely oppose because my worldview states its not allowed no matter what a ruler decides anywhere. No human gets to trump the moral authority I follow...they do evil (that is break the moral authority) but it never ends well.

Peter Robins Thanks for the lesson in ethics. I know what professional ethics are and I'm not talking about that. 
No maybe you're not, maybe you're talking about what's good and what's evil, but we never get to find out which moral authority you're following, which exacting "Ethics" or ethical standard you're using to make the truth claim you did. But we continue...

 Now, with ethics it depends on whether you're a believer of moral relativism or realism. 
For your position to float that might be the case, but I suggest it doesn't float well and not for very long at all. In fact most of the complexity involved in philosophy is trying to make it all line up with contradictions, quite funny really.
Moral Relativism can be split up in a number of groupings depending on the philosopher.
To sum up  the relative moral philosophy, Frederick Nietzsche wrote, “You have your way, I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, it does not exist.” - He also called out to God on his death bed and as a result his lover then declared him mad. Its relative, personal and well false as 3 dollar bank notes. For it to work often adherents will cite the funny old line "There is no such thing as absolute truth, its all relative"
Once in a discussion about this I asked in reply "You sure about that"
"Yes, certain with no doubt" can the quick and commanding reply.
I then replied "Serious, that's how it is, no absolute truth at all?"
The condemning reply then came, "For sure, take it to the bank"

"Wow" I pondered out loud, that sounds like an absolute truth, which you said doesn't exist then?"
The blank look was worth a mint, then came the "Ummm, ahh well you see, ahh..."
Not nice but I quietly came out "And that ladies and gentleman is the sound of a contradiction, or incoherent implosion". No its not nearly as loud as an explosion but quite the impact nonetheless. The deeper complexity follows to try and side step the problem blocking the road. It gets closely linked from time to time with evolution, which I actually agree with on a micro level. I think animals can adapt and evolve, but a cat will not evolve into a giraffe, a fish will not evolve into a mosquito. We have never seen nor found nor replicated jumps from one species to another. Never. But it is accepted on the macro level regardless. How soup of chemicals can turn from beaker fluid into a live living cell is also a mystery. But like relativism, the best bet is to find much much more complexity to overcome proven results. Just saying.

Realism - Can again be split up, but its the core atheist tenant and if its true and correct, morals are just words with no real meaning whether they're followed or not. Its ok to shoot the kid on the bus because he has a bottle of water and I'm thirsty. Yes, there's legal consequences but no moral ones.

If you believe there is no transcendent Creator lawgiver then you need to come clean and work out what morals are, how they apply and why they should be even considered or used in arguments of practices you don't personally like. Realism, well you're using "morals" as a fake trump card in a game of poker logic. You're bluffing and you know it.
Relativism, you're right, I'm right nothing is absolute..."POOF!!!" there goes that pesky implosion again.


 If you're a moral relativist then you could think it's all just opinion. Ok. Then everything that comes under ethics could be opinion, right? Rape, murder, theft, slavery, lynching, human experimentation etc. 
Correct, which is one reason why I oppose it totally. All those abominations just also happen to be abominations to the transcendent God, Creator, Lawgiver. I have no implosion. On a side note, the animals were also designed as food and we're directed so. Still no implosion. For the relativist, my view is correct, theirs is correct even though they are completely incompatiable...my moral authority also points this out :-)


 Now we can talk about law, which is related to ethics, and remember that it was once legal to rape (in marriage), keep slaves, murder (what happened during the holocaust was legal) etc. So, what's the point?
Luckily for me, whilst that may have been historically been the case to some extent, murder, rape etc has never had Moral Authority/Creator/Lawgiver approval. Slavery yes, but according to the Moral Authority, slavery is servitude, there is Jubilee Years to wipe away debt and if the slave fulfils their obligation the Moral Authority I'm under makes provision for the free slave to rejoin the house they were in servitude to as a bond servant. This huge honour was seen openly by the ear ring worn as a bond servant. They became a part of the household til they day they died and their family were under the provision of the house. It wasn't exactly Egyptian slavery or Pre American Civil War type slavery. In fact, some of those foul treatments handed out are direct violation of the Moral Authority I actually follow. Australia's legal start also came from its Judaeo-Christian base. As it formed, it like America, was a Christian country. If you read the earliest speeches from statesmen from the respective earliest days you can find this. There has been no atheist, relativism or realism society that has survive more than a few generations. Soviet Russia, Communist China and North Korea are 3 very secular societies. They all be fine with atheism but relativism would be out. Odd yeah?
Point returns, if you're a relativist, you have an incoherent problem before you even start "legally" doing those things. If you're atheist you have a slightly more coherent position regards anything dog eat dog...but sorry, my Moral Authority opposes it completely. If its legal and unethical, you're still stuck with massive elephant in the room..."ethical" by what standard? More $3 notes :-)

The point is, if we want to evolve ethically to establish what we now think is right and wrong, we need to talk about it much like the abolitionists talked about the ethics of keeping human slaves. 
Strangely the abolitionists were mainly Christians. William Wilberforce just one very notable abolitionist. He cited Christian grounds in opposing the slave trade. No relativists or realism-ists or Atheist fronts to the rescue. That's one point, but before that, you say we need to talk if we're to evolve. Again that's a thoroughly atheist position to evolve agreed ethics, but there is no moral standard that points to any higher ground whatsoever. This is dog eat dog, or dog wearing down other dogs in a conversation, where again we're left with ethics which are just words that have no standard to line up with to be ethical.

 Slave owners asked the same questions, made the same objections and, thankfully, people realised that black people have rights and were not commodities for use by others. 
Abolition of the slave trade came about by people pointing to the Moral Authority, they employ sound hermeneutics in relation to their Lawgiver's instructions. It was not the Atheist hard fought and slogged out talk fest. If those who began the slave trade actually adhered to the Moral Authority that Wilberforce and others adhered to, the trade would never have started. The beginnings are far more likely to be the outcomes of devout non believers, doing the Darwinian dog eat dog, survival of the fittest. We should never slip into revisionism of history either :-)   

 Now, you being so bright, I'm sure you know where I'm going with this.
Got a rough idea...this is the rim of Ground Zero where a lot of implosions happen or already happened...but sadly continue on :-)

If you want to know the stem of these ethics, you can refer to Prof Gary L. Francione: The Abolitionist Approach to Animal Rights, whose views I most closely adhere to and consider logical and rational. 
So Francione is your moral authority? You know his views are...well his views. He made them up, you do realise that don't you. He has made up theories he's gifted with under Relativism, what's true to him is true enough. You do know his idea of rights of the animal not to be property don't extend to lions and antelope relationship? All sentient beings have rights but no ability to enforce them. Somehow (as yet unexplained) we are the only animal capable to enforcing these rights for other species. Extended to the highest forms, we all roam, we hunt, we gather and we don't farm at all.
Sadly its not uncommon for a philosopher to spout things profoundly vague or vaguely profound in a crisp authorative well educated accent and accept without full and proper testing. If all these folk are so clever and smart...Francione, Singer, Regan and others should have, as you put it, done the logical, rational thing, sat down and talk and as a result a better approach evolved as you put it? But alas no, each has a career or side career pushing past implosions. Add Dawkins to the list, the biologist who somehow makes theological decrees. More$3 notes, I still ain't buying.

 I used to like Peter Singer but have since moved on from utilitarian philosophy. 
Yes, Animal Australia founder and still lingering poster boy. That will fade. He's the guy who asked the question on ABCTV's "Q&A" what exactly is wrong with a human and an non human species engaging in sex if the animal is not forced but is willing. My Moral Authority rules that out, pretty simple but whilst you may reject Singer a bit now, relativism could allow that to happen and be morally ok. So too realism. Of course if you were to come home and your significant other, endearing life partner happened to be in the laundry having sex with the dog, how would you react? A true realism atheist and relativist would have to say "Oopsy sorry to barge in, I shoulda knocked" if they were true adherents to the cult. Kinda doubt that.

 I also like Tom Regan. They each have something to offer but, overall, I prefer Francione.
Regan, Francione, Singer, coupla things in common. Pre-suppositional, they all begin from the prior belief God does not exist. All are seeking to develop a moral code and see it become the norm and the mainstream. Good luck with that, my Moral Authority says if they don't align with the Moral Authority/Creator/Lawgiver they're quite wrong. Despite whatever they each or together concoct, it is self developed, self decided. They're all trying to develop a moral stance which cannot be tested against a moral standard. Ahh think they've got little chance of evolving as you put it.

You say we kill animals for food. 
Yes we do.

That suggests we need to do this for survival, which is not true for the vast majority of us. 
That suggestion is true for the relativist and the realism-ist...so too the opposing position.
No one is pushing for the abolition of Veganism, however some are arguing for meat eating and any non-vegan menus to be abolished. To do so on ethical grounds, on moral grounds one must cite which moral standard this is pulled from. Sorry but it could be acceptable to you that I presume its correct to say the Abolitionist Three Stooges (Regan, Singer, Francione) are pushing for a diminutive moral position which doesn't actually exist until all people are (rightly or wrongly) convinced and agree with them. You can survive on solely McDonalds but I wouldn't advise it, its up to you but to attach a moral/immorality stance to it whilst avoiding what the moral standard actually is, well its pretty odd. I eat meat, not because I have to, not because I think I'll die without it. Its a traditional food source and forms part of my diet. Y'know what's really funny? when some folk say "Yeah well eating meat cause cancer"

Ahh says who. Is this a cancer debate? Is it provable claim, is it worse than smoking? Not its a quick pull from the desperate basket to help float a sinking argument.

There is no moral standard that says you must not eat meat, nor own livestock and treat them as property.  

We do it for profit and taste. 
So do meat eaters, neither meat eaters nor vegans transgress or violate any ethical standards or moral authority. However some folk are busily trying to construct some.

 Harming and killing another being for pleasure or profit is wrong.
Ahh have you told the lion lately? He has no recognised legal tender I grant you and not sure its for the pure fun of it. Wrong by what standard? Who created the standard? If we're all just animals who evolved from a primordial soup then its all there for the taking and you can only be bluffed by dawkins, singer, regan, francione and others...if you don't believe in God, you're just an animal too in the food chain. Its ok, I won't ever eat you...its against the Moral Authority I follow :-)
If you are a firm believer in evolution and oppose the idea that there exists a (any) Creator with a purpose, then everything is fair game y'know. Strip it away the moral ideas float are just words and when you wipe them off the whiteboard there is no purpose...its all accident, survival of the fittest. No purpose, everything that happens is just whatever happens. Pays to be consistent.
Its far more coherent for the follower of a Moral Authority ;-)

I think I've answered your question. 
Seriously, it doesn't matter if you have or haven't if you're a core non believer of God. Its all 2 animals barking, "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing"
Its quite possible you're as presuppositional as I am. Mine comes from a Moral Authority which thankfully validates itself and did so long before I found it and understood it and yours comes from...well yours comes from you. You may not have concocted it, but you careful selected it. Singer outlast his welcome and you selected another couple of prophets who are still working on the incoherent details and have yet to (as you put it, allow me to paraphrase) come together talk and evolve into one idea.

 If you'd return the favour and answer this simple question: do you think it's right to harm and kill another being for pleasure or profit?
1)I think there is no grounds to harm or kill another human being for pleasure or profit. That view is consistent with the moral authority I follow. (like you and the many more than Three Stooges, its a Moral Authority I chose so in the relativism/realism realm, that quite ok)

2) Do I think its right to harm or kill another (non human) creature for pleasure or profit?
No & yes in that order. No for pleasure, yes for profit. They're a vital resource that my Moral Authority is very clear about, animals are under my stewardship and should be afforded the best treatment possible before they become a meal. I didn't make it up, its the Lawgiver's instructions, however you have room to move, you can follow that lawgiver and be vegan if you like, because remarkably neither choice has a moral basis.

On Hunting, some do it for a past time & I have no problem with that. In fact I support it IF its a part of a properly worked out conservation plan or its the destruction of declared pests and invasive species. But hunting should always be swift, clean and quick. I don't its right to see any animal suffer for pleasure or profit.

Ironic isn't it, Mr AA poster boy cheerfully quizzes what's wrong with a human having non forced sex with their companion animal but shooting a feral cat or wild dog is a pleasure based perversion of the highest order.

Francione says animal rights is all about no ownership...some folk think that means release everything. Think he's still "evolving"

Regan's inherent value is...well only recognised by him and his ilk - so he made that up. Wipe it off the blackboard, it doesn't exist you know? Apparently as an individual, we all have some distinctive and unique value, that's the "inherent value." He argues that the basis for rights is this inherent value and not rationality, autonomy, or some other quality. Soooo....the idea he made up, that wasn't previously invented is the basis for the value he says is morally a part of each individual. It really is like herding cats in a snow storm.

Dawkins - well there is no God, its all dog eat dog, please buy another Flying Spaghetti Monster badge and root out and ridicule all people of faith cos we're all just animals, nothing more, nothing less...accidents of evolutionary mutations over enough "given time" so morals are a false survival construct that have no real foundation except to survive as a species and dominant all others. Now the real logic atheist will go this view and if we're all lucky they'll also adhere to the law of the land because morals are bogus traits of evolutionary survival...the philosophers are all bull dusters :-)