spin

I'm sorry, PB, I find talking to you like I'm talking to someone who has a permanent difficult with language. That is of course just me, but I feel you are in no way able to understand relatively simple sentences. For example:

spin:
---------
On consent, a life can consciously waive their protection and benefit. The result of that waiving may not be either moral or immoral.
---------

PB:
---------
So, sometimes, it is immoral to waive one’s own protection?
---------

How you go there from "may not be either moral or immoral" I haven't got a clue. (Note the word "not" in the clause. It should negate both parts of the "or".) The statement aimed at saying that there may not be any moral content placeable on the situation. Your reaction is one of too many for me to have to go through. As we are no longer dealing with my interest in the subject of why people eat meat and my communicative skills are being understood, I think you've run your course in your efforts to get to understand another's statements in English, be they attempts at explaining one's morals or attempts at explaining where you are not getting your conclusions from.

Pomp

spin,

I'm sorry, PB, I find talking to you like I'm talking to someone who has a permanent difficult with language.

The feeling is mutual, I assure you. I don't have any trouble understanding the vast majority of the people I talk to. We apparently communicate too differently to understand one another. I can't help but feel that at least part of the disconnect is caused by your apparent belief that others should be able to intuit the spirit of your sentences without your making their meaning explicit. At any rate, I'm going to drop this discussion, as per your request.

spin

Corwin, grunt, has but one reason for eating meat. Burp, fart. He likes shoving bits of dead animal, snort, down his gullet. He does not consider the consequences of this, belch, nor does he consider the basis of why he "likes" shoving, gurgle, said bits of dead animal into his stomach. Someone born in India would not shove bits of dead cow down their gullets. Someone fed on horse meat all their lives likes only horse meat. Someone brought up a vegetarian, imposed by parents obviously, finds eating meat wholly loathesome.

Corwin, in his context, likes shoving bits of dead animals into his face. Food likes unfortunately are simply acquired tastes, and basing one's complicity in the raising of animals in awful, squallid conditions, treating them badly with the sole scope of being killed to feed the acquired taste of a Corwin, grunt, seems to be an incredibly superficial excuse for the slaughter of animals. If you can eat other things then why don't Corwins do it? Burp, fart. I like the taste of meat, so there <pokes out tongue>, go *uck yourself. I ain't ashamed, slurp, of causing the deaths of numerous living creatures for my appetite. Rethinks. That didn't sound funny.

This is about the stage that the Corwins start pleading "omnivore!?" We can't help ourselves. We have to eat meat. (We remember the biological imperative rubbish don't we? Corwins run around in their native habitats without clothes, never cutting their hair, using no electronic or mechanical equipment: none of these fit into the blind acceptance of the biological imperative.) There is of course no imperative to eat meat. We can easily survive on non-meat foods.

tronvillain

You really are an offensive little fellow spin. Some people choose to eat meat, as the enjoyment and convienience they derive from it outweighs whatever empathy they feel for the supposed suffering of the animals they consume. You on the other hand do not, and therefore dissaprove of eating meat, but what rational argument do you provide against it? None. Instead you resort to insults and ridicule and abuse.

Corwin

Ah.... spin and his selective intelligence.

Read it again spin. (You CAN read, right?) The fact that I like meat is only one reason I eat it. I also eat it because it's good for me.

YOU argue with evolution if you want. (Although I'm beginning to rethink a position or two.... you might in fact be proof that Darwin was wrong...)

Your position is a bit inconsistient as well spin. You condemn me for causing the death of living beings because I 'like shovelling them down my gullet' in your most eloquent words.

Yet apparently you have no problem causing the deaths of even MORE plants to feed your hunger.

Justify that you fucking hypocrite.

[ March 29, 2002: Message edited by: Corwin ]</p>

tronvillain

Well, there's also a chance it's bad for you. I'm not sure it's really all that significant either way.

Bokonon

Yet apparently you have no problem causing the deaths of even MORE plants to feed your hunger.

Ah, one of my favorite non-arguments.

A) Plants are not sentient beings to the best of our knowledge and they're certainly not animals (or maybe beyondveg says elsewise?)

B) We need plants to survive. We most certainly do not need meat. Ask Carl Lewis. He's a vegan.

And my favorite... yes, most certainly...

C) By eating meat (at least meat from animals raised for the slaughter), you in fact kill more plants than I do. I shall show this to you when I get those sources together which will be this evening barring any unforseen circumstances.

tronvillain

Yes, that's not really much of an argument. One thing I will point out is that plants and land used to produce meat are frequently unlikely to be used to feed humans if they were not used to produce meat.

spin

A dose of tronvillainian hypocrisy:
----------------
You really are an offensive little fellow spin. Some people choose to eat meat, as the enjoyment and convienience they derive from it outweighs whatever empathy they feel for the supposed suffering of the animals they consume. You on the other hand do not, and therefore dissaprove of eating meat, but what rational argument do you provide against it? None. Instead you resort to insults and ridicule and abuse.
-----------------

How about reading in context, huh, fellah?

-----------------
Originally posted by Corwin:

I eat meat for a number of reasons. I happen to like it. I happen to like it very much. In fact I happen to like it to the point where Bambi just isn't terribly safe from me. (Although legal issues restrict me to Bambi's daddy. No problem... he has a bigger rack and more meat on him anyway...) I also happen to be healthier when I eat meat. So bring me a steak. Rare. No fuck that. BRING ME A LIVE COW!!!!! I'LL CARVE OFF WHAT I WANT.... AND RIDE THE REST HOME!!!!!!!

There. Now that I've gotten that off my chest... and cleared the air on that topic... fuck the rest. What the hell am I doing bringing up these points? YOU are the ones that are supposed to be defending vegetarianism.

I don't have to defend jack shit. YOU argue that vegetarianism is somehow more moral? Back it up. I'm not under any obligation to justify eating meat, for the reasons I've already given.

Go back and read the first post in the thread.
-------------------

You duffers think it's alright for some twit to post this garbage? And then you have the audacity to make cute little empty value judgements like:

-------------------
You really are an offensive little fellow spin.
-------------------

Was the "offending post" aimed at you, tronvillain? Are you a Corwin? If you are do you write the sort of garbage that has been posted here with the name of Corwin attached to it?

You can think whatever you like, but don't spew your bias, will you? You didn't bat an eyebrow about the post I responded to, nor did you do so about the one that followed yours, did you?

You, for some reason, also apparently have difficulty extracting meaning from texts, being too distracted by ornamentation. This has been the case with far too many readers who only pay attention to form and not notice that there is content. This is how the Bushes of the world get elected: aim at form and fuck the content.

You ask what rational argument I provide? Let me make a run-down for you:

1) Corwin argues various things at various times.

2) The last argument was he likes eating meat (so who needs any other, invalidating his previous one about biological necessities).

3) Food likes are almost certainly acquired through one's upbringing, which indicates that an argument based on taste merely reflects one's training and nothing more. One can be trained to do almost anything (just have a look at Skinner box torture and the various human applications of the idea of Skinner's conditioning).

4) Basing the lives and deaths of animals purely on one's acquired taste (usually formed without one's consent and usually by one's mother) is a trivialisation of the existence of the animals involved for these acquired tastes which the individual (Corwin in this case) slavishly adheres to for want of any understanding of why they hoold sway.

5) So as not to permit another shift, back to a previous argument, the biological imperative, well,... you should be able to read the original message, if you'd take the filtered glasses off.

Let me just finish by recommending that you put on a larger pair of underpants.

[ March 30, 2002: Message edited by: spin ]</p>

Bill Snedden

Enough is enough. This thread has degenerated into more of the same nonsense as the first one. I'm locking it to prevent more of the same.

It's a pity that we don't seem to be able to discuss this rationally. It's an interesting topic.

I'm going to make one more stab at it by opening a new thread. My aim in doing so is to offer a fresh start to those of us interested in discussing this topic rationally. To aid in that process, any off-topic or frivolous posts will be deleted. Insults will either be expurgated or deleted.

Thanks!

Bill