Koyaanisqatsi

I really do want to click on your site, but unfortunately I'm at work and would have to answer for a hit on "punkerslut.com."

Hard to justify.

[ March 14, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

brighid

I am going to go with a few other posters here, specifically Koy and agree that you cannot determine if a plant is conscious or not. Also, in order to harvest these plants you eat you have to kill other animal and insect life forms in order to obtain this food. Death is a part of life. It cannot be escaped. The death of that plant you eat helps sustain your life and the death of those pesky slugs or moles in a garden or field allow that plant you eat to grow. There is nothing we can eat that does not require that something – some form of life, regardless of the degree of consciousness must forfeit its existence so you may continue to thrive. Damn you mole killer – they are so cute and sweet – how could you do that so you could eat your vegetables. You murderer!! (Note heavy tones of sarcasm)

So, until you can devise a way to prevent the death of any life form in order to sustain your life – you are shit out of luck with this ridiculous moral dilemma.

You can choose not to eat meat, but you are genetically predisposed and capable of eating multiple life forms – including meat. We should not abuse the earth, or any of the creatures that live on it and we should conserve our resources – animal, plant and mineral but it is not possible to institute an objective vegetarian standard that bases it’s stance on the morality of not killing conscious life forms. Especially since we cannot determine if a plant is conscious or not.

So, you can harvest those sources of nutrients humanely and with respect to the natural ecosystem and this is the most logical solution to a slew of dilemmas, without being hypocritical. We must eat to survive and in order to survive many life forms will be die, period. There is no getting around it, even if you choose not to directly put animals in a slaughterhouse. I doubt it feels any better to be put through with a pitchfork or a plow, then it does to meet the blade of the butcher.


Brighid

Mageth

There was one particular individual who believed that when I use a quote, it was an argument. Hehe... I said, I believe as Lucretius does -- yet he stipulated that the quote was an argument.

Uh huh. Once again forced to defend myself against twisterslut. My comment on the Lucretius post was sarcastic, obviously, as I previously stated. And if the quotes you post are not part of your argument, WHY THE HELL DO YOU INCLUDE THEM? And why should I or anyone else even bother reading them?

I have repeated myself a number of times

Interesting how you seem to complain about having to repeat yourself, then post a long message in which you do nothing but repeat yourself.

Go piss up a rope. There may be one hanging from the bridge you're under.

[ March 14, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]</p>

Detached9

My empathy for animals is much more than my pleasure of eating them. I think that was the original reason I became vegetarian.

Not everyone who argues for vegetarianism here is trying to convert you. Unless you think the point of debate is to convert people?

echidna

Bill (and PB if you’re still there), given we’ve also had threads using Contract Theory to justify infanticide, and last year another which seemed to say it was OK to kill intellectually disabled and comatosed people, I really don’t see how Contract Theory can be terribly reliable in this application either.

Bill Snedden

I should think it quite reasonable indeed to request that those who claim to see no difference between cows and humans, as you have, and who openly state that they would kill and eat a human child if there were no other food available, as you did, to please stay away from my children. I love my family and certainly wouldn't want them to be murdered and devoured. I can't imagine that anyone would feel differently.

I found it (that next post) quite interesting as it addressed few (if any) of the arguments offered in this thread.

I also found it interesting that I provided some argument against some of the points that you repost here, but you chose to ignore them and focus instead on a "sidebar" comment.

If you're really interested in debate, you can't simply assume that everyone accepts your presuppositions. You must lay them out and defend them.

Oh well. Have a nice day, anyway!

Bill

[ March 14, 2002: Message edited by: Bill Snedden ]</p>

Mageth

Detached99:

I'm not sure who the "you" is your comment is directed to.

This is from punkerslut's OP:

If these Civil Liberties movements were right in their ideology -- which I firmly believe that they are -- then to what end can the brutality of eating meat be defended? It is true that the color of a man's skin cannot deny him any rights. It is true that a woman's gender cannot deny her any rights. I hold even further that the quantity of legs a being has cannot deny them any rights! Despite what species, race, gender, or sexuality an animal is from, such characteristics are irrelevant. There is one primary trait held by all animals: consciousness, the capability of feeling suffering. It is for this reason -- the regard and compassion I hold for the lower animals -- that I am a Vegetarian, and it is for this reason that I make a plea for Vegetarianism.

If that's not a soapbox plea attempting to convert us meat-eating heathens, I don't know what is.

What's sad is that I (and apparently others here) have at least some sympathy for and understanding of vegetarianism. Sanctimonious rants based on unsupported assertions and demonstrated falsehoods as have been presented here has, if anything, a negative effect on those sympathies, and does nothing to enlighten anyone's understanding.

Bill Snedden

I'm not actually arguing for the application of contract theory in this case, simply pointing out to spin that he has so far failed to rebut PB's actual argument.

That said, however, I think that there are probably contractarian responses to those issues, but I'll let PB take them on if he's still around as I'm not really a contractarian myself.

Bill

Bill Snedden

But your response is self-contradictory.

You argue that refusing to eat meat somehow harms the meat industry but refusing to get a vaccine somehow doesn't harm the pharmaceutical industry.

How does your individual response actually affect either industry? If it affects the meat industry why not the other? You've simply asserted this as true with no support whatsoever. Moreover, common sense would seem to indicate that it can't really be true.

This would appear to be the primary reason why you seem to feel that you need to "keep repeating yourself": you're not really saying anything of substance to begin with. You seem to assume that your opponents will immediately see the emotive value of your argument and respond accordingly. Obviously, that's not been the case.

All you've offered in this thread are loads of quotes and comfortable platitudes. IMO, you've offered little in the way of rational justification for your position.

This thread deals with a complex, emotional issue, but emotions just aren't the way to address it.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

[ March 14, 2002: Message edited by: Bill Snedden ]</p>

Mad Kally

If there ever was a thread to promote meat-eating, this is it! I hate to say this, but I would rather have my fundie psycho mom and her friends preach at me than to be around any of you jackasses comparing us to Jeffrey Dahmer, nazi's, and on and on ad nauseum..

I will never again the rest of my life hear the word "Vegetarian" without thinking of this ridiculous bullshit..

A plea for vegetarianism, I think not.