Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 03-23-2002, 08:17 PM

PB:
--------------------
Spin, can you honestly tell me that you see no objective difference between a cow and a human being that might be morally significant?
--------------------

You do not realise the disgust I feel for the institutionalised slaughter of animals or the people who are so insensitive they cannot feel shame for such appalling tyranny.

I in no way condone sexual abuse of any kind. This should be clear from my stated moral position.

x-member · 03-23-2002, 08:18 PM

Hang on a moment..

Is eating meat wrong?

Damn.. I don't get it. I hate it when people bullshit me.

spin · 03-23-2002, 08:19 PM

spin:
--------------
What separates you from rocks and stones and water and earth?
--------------

tronvillain:
--------------
A lot of things. Why?
--------------

What's the most obvious that comes to mind? Be honest.

99Percent · 03-23-2002, 08:21 PM

spin: What separates you from rocks and stones and water and earth?

You cant be serious. So by your own logic stepping on an ant is worse than rape?

tronvillain · 03-23-2002, 08:21 PM

You haven't answered his question. Of course, you never answered mine either. Is it because you know it will negatively affect people's opinion of you?

spin · 03-23-2002, 08:21 PM

tronvillain:
---------------------------
I just do -
---------------------------

So it has nothing to do with morals then, right? It's just gut, right?

tronvillain:
---------------------------
it is simply a fact that one bothers me more than the other.
---------------------------

Why exactly?

tronvillain · 03-23-2002, 08:22 PM

spin:

Quote:

What's the most obvious that comes to mind? Be honest.

Well, I'm alive and they aren't. So?

spin · 03-23-2002, 08:23 PM

spin:
--------------
What separates you from rocks and stones and water and earth?
--------------

99%
--------------
You cant be serious. So by your own logic stepping on an ant is worse than rape?
--------------

I see you got marginally further than tronvillain, but your subsequent logic doesn't seem directly related to anything I have said.

Pomp · 03-23-2002, 08:25 PM

spin,

One more time...

This is, apparently, the full extent of your moral theory as you have presented it:

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

Is this correct?

As eating meat is inessential to the human being...

I am willing to grant you this point, provided that you are willing to concede that some individuals (Bree, for example) must eat meat due to specific medical conditions. As far as the vast majority of us are concerned, meat eating is a matter of pleasure and convenience.

I have not asked people to adhere to the morality I have stated, though many have attempted, instead of answering my plea to defend eating meat, to challenge my right to ask for the defence.

Here is the crux of the problem: you are, in reality, asking for a moral defense of eating meat assuming that your moral theory is true. Several of us have provided solid defenses of the practice assuming other moral systems, and you have dismissed them as "immoral" or, in my case, "inane." You have gone so far as to suggest that those whose moral standards are not identical to your own do not have any moral standards.

In other words, you are asking for a moral defense of spin's eating meat. I do not believe that such an argument can be made, as your moral theory (if two sentences can really be considered a "moral theory") is stacked against such a defense. According to your moral theory, eating meat is immoral. Fine. No one cares. All such a defense would do would be to provide a justification for you personally to eat meat.

Others have simply been challenged by the request and have attempted to ridicule because they were asked to put together such a defence.

I will grant you that there was some ridicule from the very beginning of the previous thread. The vast majority of the ridicule, however, is self-inflicted. You, my friend, make no effort to abide by the rules of civil discourse. You assert and do not support. You rudely dismiss arguments that you cannot refute. You pretend to knowledge that you do not have.

The answer to the last question of course, is that every idea that one holds as valuable must be able to be both questioned and survive the questioning.

Very true. Are you willing to subject your own moral system to such questioning? Please, by all means, present an argument for your view. We are all eager to see it.

tronvillain · 03-23-2002, 08:25 PM

spin:

Quote:

Why exactly?

I just do - the reasons are inaccesible to me. It's like asking why I think pumpkin pie tastes better than apple pie.

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

03-23-2002, 08:17 PM	#381
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	PB: -------------------- Spin, can you honestly tell me that you see no objective difference between a cow and a human being that might be morally significant? -------------------- You do not realise the disgust I feel for the institutionalised slaughter of animals or the people who are so insensitive they cannot feel shame for such appalling tyranny. I in no way condone sexual abuse of any kind. This should be clear from my stated moral position.

03-23-2002, 08:18 PM	#382
x-member Banned Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: free Posts: 123	Hang on a moment.. Is eating meat wrong? Damn.. I don't get it. I hate it when people bullshit me.

03-23-2002, 08:19 PM	#383
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	spin: -------------- What separates you from rocks and stones and water and earth? -------------- tronvillain: -------------- A lot of things. Why? -------------- What's the most obvious that comes to mind? Be honest.

03-23-2002, 08:21 PM	#384
99Percent Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: my mind Posts: 5,996	spin: What separates you from rocks and stones and water and earth? You cant be serious. So by your own logic stepping on an ant is worse than rape?

03-23-2002, 08:21 PM	#385
tronvillain Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 5,658	You haven't answered his question. Of course, you never answered mine either. Is it because you know it will negatively affect people's opinion of you?

03-23-2002, 08:21 PM	#386
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	tronvillain: --------------------------- I just do - --------------------------- So it has nothing to do with morals then, right? It's just gut, right? tronvillain: --------------------------- it is simply a fact that one bothers me more than the other. --------------------------- Why exactly?

03-23-2002, 08:23 PM	#388
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	spin: -------------- What separates you from rocks and stones and water and earth? -------------- 99% -------------- You cant be serious. So by your own logic stepping on an ant is worse than rape? -------------- I see you got marginally further than tronvillain, but your subsequent logic doesn't seem directly related to anything I have said.

03-23-2002, 08:25 PM	#389
Pomp Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Indianapolis area Posts: 3,468	spin, One more time... This is, apparently, the full extent of your moral theory as you have presented it: Morality involves the benefit and protection of the most possible sentient beings; where conflicts arise, morality involves resolving them with the least damage to those sentient beings. Is this correct? As eating meat is inessential to the human being... I am willing to grant you this point, provided that you are willing to concede that some individuals (Bree, for example) must eat meat due to specific medical conditions. As far as the vast majority of us are concerned, meat eating is a matter of pleasure and convenience. I have not asked people to adhere to the morality I have stated, though many have attempted, instead of answering my plea to defend eating meat, to challenge my right to ask for the defence. Here is the crux of the problem: you are, in reality, asking for a moral defense of eating meat assuming that your moral theory is true. Several of us have provided solid defenses of the practice assuming other moral systems, and you have dismissed them as "immoral" or, in my case, "inane." You have gone so far as to suggest that those whose moral standards are not identical to your own do not have any moral standards. In other words, you are asking for a moral defense of spin's eating meat. I do not believe that such an argument can be made, as your moral theory (if two sentences can really be considered a "moral theory") is stacked against such a defense. According to your moral theory, eating meat is immoral. Fine. No one cares. All such a defense would do would be to provide a justification for you personally to eat meat. Others have simply been challenged by the request and have attempted to ridicule because they were asked to put together such a defence. I will grant you that there was some ridicule from the very beginning of the previous thread. The vast majority of the ridicule, however, is self-inflicted. You, my friend, make no effort to abide by the rules of civil discourse. You assert and do not support. You rudely dismiss arguments that you cannot refute. You pretend to knowledge that you do not have. The answer to the last question of course, is that every idea that one holds as valuable must be able to be both questioned and survive the questioning. Very true. Are you willing to subject your own moral system to such questioning? Please, by all means, present an argument for your view. We are all eager to see it.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.