Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
03-12-2002, 04:12 PM | #61 | ||
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: LALA Land in California
Posts: 3,764
|
Quote:
This is the statement I was talking about: Quote:
[ March 12, 2002: Message edited by: Mad Kally ]</p> |
||
03-12-2002, 04:14 PM | #62 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: India
Posts: 6,977
|
I believe that vegetarianism is morally better than eating meat. The trees and plants want you to eat their fruits and crops so that the seeds can be scattered. The animals on the other hand object very much to being eaten.
That said however, I am not going to give up eating meat. What I can and do insist on is that the animals be treated well and killed painlessly. |
03-12-2002, 04:18 PM | #63 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Alberta, Canada
Posts: 5,658
|
I find that strange - if I actually thought vegetarianism was morally better than eating meat I'd be a vegetarian.
[ March 12, 2002: Message edited by: tronvillain ]</p> |
03-12-2002, 04:38 PM | #64 |
Contributor
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
|
tronvillian says:
punkersluta: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ah, the voice of reason and compassion! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Actually, that post was a fairly concise summary of my position: 1) You compared me to racists and sexists. Fuck you. 2) You want me to assign animals a higher value because of their "consciousness", but the value I assign already takes that into account. "Anyway, fuck your plea for vegitarianism. I see no reason to care more about animals than I already do." ------------------ I must say you have a way with words, though not one that I would advocate anyone, including yourself, using. You may see no reason to care more about animals than you already do, but, if you eat them, you say that you don't care much about them at all. You mustn't feel any problems with the acts of Jeffrey Dalmer. Have you tried that diet? If not, why not? Is it because it is against the law to eat human meat? If you eat other meat then you can't really see any problems with Dalmer eating the meat of his preference. Every time you eat meat it means that an animal has died for your stomach, though your stomach doesn't need meat. This indicates that you have some other reason than necessity for eating meat. Your intestines are too long meaning that meat starts decaying and becoming foetid whereas in true carnivores the intestines are relatively much shorter and the meat remains are gone before the deterioration sets in. Human evolution should show you that eating meat was pure opportunism, when the diet that our distant ancestors had slowly disappeared with the change in climate. (Chimpanzees today will sink to eating meat opportunistically as well.) But they ate meat more out of necessity due to lack of alternatives. However, this is not your case. How do you justify eating meat without justifying Dalmer? |
03-12-2002, 04:47 PM | #65 | |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: free
Posts: 123
|
Quote:
Jon |
|
03-12-2002, 04:51 PM | #66 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Indianapolis area
Posts: 3,468
|
spin,
How do you justify eating meat without justifying Dalmer? Not everyone uses the same rules of justification that you do. Is this concept really all that difficult? Watch me justify the slaughter of those animals we use for food without justifying Dahmer's actions, using contract theory: Rights do not exist as "things in the world." They are the result of an actual (in the case of legal rights) or hypothetical (in the case of moral or "natural" rights) negotiation process, as a result of which each negotiater agrees to grant a right to all other participants, in return for which, those participants agree to grant that right to him/her. Cows/pigs/sheep/chickens/etc., being fundamentally incapable of participating in such negotitations, or even agreeing to abide by the otucome of those negotitations, do not get to take part in the agreement. Thus, no one is obliged to grant them rights. Dahmer's victims, on the other hand, were capable of engaging in such negitiations, and of agreeing to abide by the outcomes. Thus, other participants in the negotiation were obliged to grant them rights. I do not want to discuss the merits of contract theory here. I merely want to demonstrate the invalidity of the notion that we are somehow unable to simultaneously condemn Dahmer and eat meat without hypocrisy. |
03-12-2002, 04:52 PM | #67 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Rolla, Missouri
Posts: 830
|
A second point to be made is that on to hinduwomans argument is that it only works for plants with certain types of fruits. Their seeds should have a secondary wrapping(like apple, orange tomato seeds). The problem here is we can't get all of the nutrients we need from only this limited number of plants. Vegatarians consume large numbers of seeds to get their nutrition. These seed are broken open and the plants young is consumed. This is actually the reason that corn plants produce so many young. They have evolved with the fact that animals will kill so many of the offfspring that they have to produce an exesive amount or go extinct.
|
03-12-2002, 04:52 PM | #68 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Indianapolis area
Posts: 3,468
|
Jon Up North,
I'd involve myself in the debate, but single 20 page posts when I'm trying to relax after work just don't get me excited. Lazy bastard. |
03-12-2002, 04:54 PM | #69 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: On the underground
Posts: 45
|
Sorry for the long post, however, a large segment of it is simply health information to the one individual who thought that Vegetarianism was unhealthy.
Christopher Lord... Quote:
kctan... [quote]How can we know that plants does not possess a brain ? The fact that plants do not have a brain resembling that of animals doesn't meant that plants do not possess a "brain". I've heard this argument before, but not from the same perspective. Someone told me that rocks and mountains were conscious beings, that they had brains, but because they were not animals, their brains did not resemble the brains of animals. Of course, the fact is that an animal brain is the only type of brain there is and the only mechanism known to produce consciousness. As far as "plant brains," there is no organ within their body which even slightly resembles the sophistication of the animal brain. Quote:
Pompous Bastard... Quote:
Quote:
Since the subject itself could fill volumes of books, I am sure, and since it often and easily gets complicated with the various ethical systems of philosophers, I will restrict my comments on Subjective and Objective Moralities to a small amount. It is true that morality seems to change with culture to culture. Slavery was acceptable in the United States in the early 1800's yet now it is no longer acceptable. What brought about this change? Surely, it was not the slaves themselves. Although politically Lincoln may have opposed slavery for the grounds that he wanted to keep the nation united, the Abolitionists which caused such fervent hatred of slavery are the reason why the North eventually despised slavery. Why did these reformers hate slavery, though? Well, like any conscious being, they had suffered. From suffering, we all learn to detest it. So, when individuals saw scenes of slavery, of masters beating their slaves to a pulp and seeing the tragedies wrought by this horrible institution, they were bent merciless to the torments of the slave. The pains that were inherent in the slave's life became inherent in the life of the Abolitionist. It is for this same reason that many Jews from the Holocaust became Humanitarians and despised any sort of suffering. However, although this is a brief explanation of Objective Morality, of how suffering ourselves makes us hate it when others suffer, it is all that this time may permit me to write upon the subject. Robert Green Ingersoll, God In The Constitution, date unknown... Quote:
William Shakespeare also made an appeal... A Merchant in Venice, by William Shakespeare, Act 3, Scene 1.... Quote:
Finally, one more quote (as I am informed that BB posters have a small patience)... Henry Stephens Salt, quoted from The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, edited by James Hastings.... Quote:
Quote:
Mageth... Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Scientific American, July, 2001... Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
In concernment to TeeVee and eating meat being equal... Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Finally, Mageth... Please, produce for me evidence that the brain does not produce consciousness. PJPSYCO... Quote:
tronvillain... Quote:
alek0... Quote:
The argument "Pig is a sentient being and it is just as good as we are, but you must not eat a pig even though pig would eat you just given a chance if you are wounded and cannot defend yourself," can be reduced to, "You may kill and slaughter whomever you desire, as among the various species and races and kingdoms of this earth, there will always be one who would slaughter you without consideration." Tantament to racial profiling. For Mageth! "Nevertheless the difference in mind between man and the higher animals, great as it is, certainly is one of degree and not of kind. We have seen that the senses and intuitions, the various emotions and faculties, such as love, memory, attention, curiosity, imitation, reason, &c., of which man boasts, may be found in an incipient, or even sometimes in a well-developed condition, in the lower animals." - Charles Darwin [The Descent of Man, by Charles Darwin, part 1, chapter 4.] "The day may come when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those rights which never could have been withholden from them but by the hand of tyranny. The French have already discovered that the blackness of the skin is no reason why a human being should be abandoned without redress to the caprice of a tormentor. It may one day come to be recognised that the number of the legs, the villosity of the skin, or the termination of the os sacrum, are reasons equally insufficient for the abandoning of a sensitive being to the same fate. What else is it that should trace the insuperable line? Is it the faculty of reason, or perhaps the faculty of discourse? But a full grown horse or dog is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as a more conversable animal, than an infant of a day, or a week, or even a month, old. But suppose they were otherwise, what would it avail? The question is not, Can they reason? nor Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?" - Jeremy Bentham [Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, chapter 17, by Jeremy Bentham. Quoted from Animal Liberation by Peter Singer and Animals' Rights Considered In Relation To Social Progress, by Henry S. Salt, chapter 1, 1894.] <a href="http://www.punkerslut.com" target="_blank">www.punkerslut.com</a> For 108, Punkerslut |
||||||||||||||||||||||
03-12-2002, 04:59 PM | #70 |
Regular Member
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Bristol, UK
Posts: 279
|
Punker, thanks for the reply, it obviously took you some time and effort. Can't reply now as it's 2am here, but will see what I can do tomorrow.
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|