Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Detached9 · 03-26-2002, 03:39 PM

my idea of being a vegetarian is eating a salad every meal, can't do it.

Sorry, but this is a horribly inaccurate description of a vegetarian diet. Don't eat at an all-american restauraunt, and you will find vegetarian alternatives. I don't eat salad daily, and I am a healthy vegetarian (if you want to take my word for it, since I can't really prove my healthiness).

Not Prince Hamlet · 03-26-2002, 03:39 PM

Better yet, why not have Spin represent his side in the debate?

Detached9 · 03-26-2002, 03:42 PM

What about PunkerSluta? I think he might have left his contact details on the 'a plea for vegetarianism' thread. He's a moral subjectivist (well, he doesn't believe moral statements have are objective truth status over all time, even though he applies the term objective to his morals, in that it is irrational for someone to eat meat, [I think]) and an atheist too, which would make for a cleaner debate. Perhaps you could invite him?

I don't know if he even reads Infidels threads anymore, and I do talk to him on a regular basis through AIM. I don't take everything as far as he does, but I think he has some excellent points to make.

He believes that suffering is objectively immoral, and I'm going to have to agree. If you enjoy suffering, then you aren't actually suffering, for that contradicts the very definition of what suffering is.

Suffering is relative to the individual though, so I'm not sure if that means it is still objective?

Pomp · 03-26-2002, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Not Prince Hamlet:
<strong>Better yet, why not have Spin represent his side in the debate?</strong>

Spin? We'd all love to see it.

spin · 03-26-2002, 03:51 PM

There is no debate, babies. You may rail and rant, but until someone gets over the subjectivity cul-de-sac, there can be no debate.

bonduca · 03-26-2002, 04:30 PM

pug846 · 03-26-2002, 04:35 PM

Detached said:

Quote:

If you enjoy suffering, then you aren't actually suffering, for that contradicts the very definition of what suffering is.

If by �suffering� you mean that which we don�t like or enjoy, then you are indeed correct as your statement has simply been reduced to a trivial, analytic truth. I don�t like/enjoy what I don�t like/enjoy. Not very useful.

So, to convince me of your position, you need to explain how I get from the fact that I don�t like what I don�t like to the conclusion that I morally ought to avoid causing suffering in others.

Pomp · 03-26-2002, 04:40 PM

spin,

There is no debate, babies. You may rail and rant, but until someone gets over the subjectivity cul-de-sac, there can be no debate.

There are non-subjective moral systems that allow meat-eating. Here is but one example:

Morality involves the benefit and protection of the most possible human beings; where conflicts arise, morality involves resolving them with the least damage to those human beings.

Meat-eating is fine and dandy according to this objective standard.

99Percent · 03-26-2002, 04:46 PM

For the Ayn Rand type objectivists, nature not having a mind of its own, exists for the benefit and exploitation of man. All animals are part of nature, so man has the right to exploit animals for whatever he thinks is best.

Not Prince Hamlet · 03-26-2002, 04:57 PM

Quote:

There is no debate, babies.

Whoa, hey! I like you, too, but let's keep our relationship professional.

Jeff

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-26-2002, 03:39 PM	#51
Detached9 Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Posts: 341	my idea of being a vegetarian is eating a salad every meal, can't do it. Sorry, but this is a horribly inaccurate description of a vegetarian diet. Don't eat at an all-american restauraunt, and you will find vegetarian alternatives. I don't eat salad daily, and I am a healthy vegetarian (if you want to take my word for it, since I can't really prove my healthiness).

03-26-2002, 03:39 PM	#52
Not Prince Hamlet Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: New Jersey, USA Posts: 1,309	Better yet, why not have Spin represent his side in the debate?

03-26-2002, 03:42 PM	#53
Detached9 Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Posts: 341	What about PunkerSluta? I think he might have left his contact details on the 'a plea for vegetarianism' thread. He's a moral subjectivist (well, he doesn't believe moral statements have are objective truth status over all time, even though he applies the term objective to his morals, in that it is irrational for someone to eat meat, [I think]) and an atheist too, which would make for a cleaner debate. Perhaps you could invite him? I don't know if he even reads Infidels threads anymore, and I do talk to him on a regular basis through AIM. I don't take everything as far as he does, but I think he has some excellent points to make. He believes that suffering is objectively immoral, and I'm going to have to agree. If you enjoy suffering, then you aren't actually suffering, for that contradicts the very definition of what suffering is. Suffering is relative to the individual though, so I'm not sure if that means it is still objective?

03-26-2002, 03:51 PM	#55
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	There is no debate, babies. You may rail and rant, but until someone gets over the subjectivity cul-de-sac, there can be no debate.

03-26-2002, 04:30 PM	#56
bonduca Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: . Posts: 1,653

03-26-2002, 04:40 PM	#58
Pomp Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Indianapolis area Posts: 3,468	spin, There is no debate, babies. You may rail and rant, but until someone gets over the subjectivity cul-de-sac, there can be no debate. There are non-subjective moral systems that allow meat-eating. Here is but one example: Morality involves the benefit and protection of the most possible human beings; where conflicts arise, morality involves resolving them with the least damage to those human beings. Meat-eating is fine and dandy according to this objective standard.

03-26-2002, 04:46 PM	#59
99Percent Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: my mind Posts: 5,996	For the Ayn Rand type objectivists, nature not having a mind of its own, exists for the benefit and exploitation of man. All animals are part of nature, so man has the right to exploit animals for whatever he thinks is best.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.