Mageth

Speaking for myself, I'm not at all bothered. Perhaps that's because I haven't felt the least bit challenged by anything that's been posted here.

Perhaps the ones wishing to "challenge" me could have done a better job with better-formed arguments, some real evidence rather than just conjecture, quotes and demonstrable falsehoods, and a more tolerant demeanor. The old attracting flies with honey bit.

bonduca

You seem to have omitted some of your own less than cordial moments, spin. Perhaps you would like to compile a post of them here as well, for balance?

Mageth

Along those lines, accusing people of "wantonness" and the "brutality of eating meat" is not likely to win their favor.

bonduca

The Cromwell of Carrots does not take well to criticism.

tronvillain

I stand by this statement: "Anyway, fuck your plea for vegitarianism. I see no reason to care more about animals than I already do."

tronvillain

spin:
Yes, and what makes his decisions "wrong" is the result of comparable analyses by the rest of the world.

Actually, that appears to be exactly what morality is. It's possible that appearances are wrong, but that that would have to be shown.

Which of these factors are not addressed in my argument? As far as I can tell, none.

It remains an argument whether or not you find it one.

Actually, Spock was always one of my favourite Star Trek characters. I'm not exactly sure what this statement is supposed to mean though, except to say that it's not surprising that your opinion has no impact on my opinion.

David Gould

I am wondering why a moral system has to be consistent.

If I rank humans as being better than animals due to the fact that I am a human and use that as the basis for making arbitrary decisions based on that initial premise, in what way am I being immoral?

I might choose to rank animals in the following way:

1.) humans
2.) cats
3.) the rest

This is in fact how I do rate the various animals. I do not base my arguments for not eating cats on the fact that cats are conscious are can feel suffering or some such in the first place.

My first position is: I like cats. From there, I then procede to decide that eating cats is not for me. This does not even mean that I condemn others for eating cats - I would not want to be there when they did, as it would possibly cause me emotional distress but if it is not my cat then so be it.

For someone to be able to get me not to eat cows they would have to convince me to like cows more than I like beef.

I also do not have a problem with people choosing to eat other dead humans. I would not do it unless I absolutely had to but I cannot see anything inherently immoral with it.

Murdering another human being in order to eat them is of course wrong but I do not see why cannablism in and of itself is wrong (or even why it should be a crime - if I leave my body to my friends so that they can have a BBQ at my wake, where's the harm?).

tronvillain

There's nothing inconsistent about that moral system.

[EDIT: The post makes no sense without the word "inconsistent."]

[ March 15, 2002: Message edited by: tronvillain ]</p>

Pomp

David Gould,

I am wondering why a moral system has to be consistent.

If it's not consistent, it will be of very limited use in guiding one's actions. Having said that, I see nothing inconsistent about your views, as you have presented them.

If I rank humans as being better than animals due to the fact that I am a human and use that as the basis for making arbitrary decisions based on that initial premise, in what way am I being immoral?

How are the decisions arbitrary? They are founded on your initial premise.

For someone to be able to get me not to eat cows they would have to convince me to like cows more than I like beef.

That's one way. Presumably, you would also stop eating cows if it could be demonstrated to you that eating cows would have some negative impact on you that outwieghed the pleasure you got from eating beef.

Aethernaut

Some gems from spin early in this thread:

"If you eat other meat then you can't really see any problems with Dalmer eating the meat of his preference."

"Your intestines are too long meaning that meat starts decaying and becoming foetid..."

"Human evolution should show you that eating meat was pure opportunism..."

"If tofu gets equal rights then I guess PJPSYCOs should as well. Sentient beings."

"...there is nothing 'moral' about your 'contract theory'. It is equally as applicable to a school of piranha."

"Jonnikins who seems only capable of attempts at sarcasm in this discussion at the moment puts himself in the position of not having any argument and is therefore wasting everyone's time including his own."

That's within the first five pages.

-SK