Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 03-16-2002, 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by spin:
<strong>Toto,

I see you are a wishful thinker in your negative sort of way.</strong>

Huh? How does this address any point that I have made?

I made some factual assertions - that eating meat is in the best interests of the health of the human species. Why is this 1) negative or 2) wishful thinking?

spin · 03-16-2002, 06:12 PM

Bill Sneddon (with red face):
-------------------
There were, in the last thread, several arguments/ethical systems outlined that provided a defense against the claim that eating meat is immoral. Your approach in all cases has been pretty much the same: either ignore them completely (as you did mine) or simply declare by fiat that they were incorrect or "not inclusive". Of course, this amounts to no argument at all.
Spin: for the last time, if you are truly interested in debating or discussing this subject, please outline the rational basis for the ethical system you use to determine that the eating of meat is immoral.

Your lack of response to this request will be taken as a sign that you are not interested in serious discussion. Thank you.

Bill Snedden
-----------------------

I have categorized all the "attempts" at a defence as "I like it and I can" or "I can't help it". There was one exception, which was an attempt to abuse contract theory which I realise is something you seem to support in some sort of way. Yet, as I pointed out in the last thread, the attempt was based on form and not spirit. Whereas the people who formulated the approach were attempting to include and defend the most possible, the user of the idea was simply attempting to exclude. I see this as a misapplication of the reasoning behind the development.

So, please decide what to do with your red face.

Viti · 03-16-2002, 06:15 PM

spin

Quote:

Chimpanzees are not monkeys. What percentage of *regular* meat intake would you call not opportunistic?

He meant that Chimpanzees regularly hunt and kill small monkeys for food. In fact they hunt as a collective unit in most cases.

spin · 03-16-2002, 06:15 PM

spin,
--------------
How much is a dictionary?
--------------

PB:
--------------
DO I get to pick whichever dictionary definition of "life" I choose to make you look foolish or would you like to define your own terms?
--------------

It would seem that the idea of "spirit of things" doesn't mean much. If you are doing anything meaningful here, you are supposed to attempting to understand things, as I am. Winning brownie points is a waste of time.

Pomp · 03-16-2002, 06:18 PM

spin,

You continue to dodge questions and make unsupported assertions.

I have given a few attempts about morality. Partly: acting morally involves protecting the most sentient lifeforms possible.

Why? You neglected to answer my question (question 2)regarding what makes the possession of sentience a non-arbitrary demarcation between things worthy or protection and things not worthy of protection.

1) What, to you, does it mean to say that an act is "right" or "wrong?"
----------------

I have been talking about morals. I use normally right and wrong with regard to information.

You have dodged yet another question. Allow me to rephrase: What, to you, does it mean to say that an act is "moral" or "immoral?"

2) Why do you think it is "wrong" to kill any sentient being? Please base this answer on your answer to question 1 and be sure to explain why sentience is not an arbitrary criterion you have invented to justify killing and eating innocent plants for the sake of your stomache.
----------------

Are you really not Koy in disguise???

Yes, I am Koy in disguise. When I step into a telephone booth take off my glasses, I am transformed from a mild mannered, yet pompous, bastard into the king of the scathing rant.

Part of the problem here is that I have answered this, but, morality is firstly about not doing harm, and the attempt to pick up the pieces when this is not possible in such a way as to minimise the harm done.

This is not an answer to the question you were asked (question 2). Please answer that question.

3) Why should any of us adopt your answers to 1 and 2 as our own?
-----------------

I have not asked anyone to do anything other than provide a moral defence of eating meat (with the proviso that it not be 1) I like it or 2) I can't help it.

The problem is that you want a moral defense that happens to coincide with your idiosyncratic beliefs about morality, which you have not described in any meaningful way.

If you reject my understanding of morals then you won't adopt my answers. This was not what I was asking you to do though.

I think I reject your understanding of morality. I'm not sure though, because you have described your understanding in only the vaguest of terms.

Toto · 03-16-2002, 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by spin:
<strong>
I have categorized all the "attempts" at a defence as "I like it and I can" or "I can't help it". There was one exception, which was an attempt to abuse contract theory which I realise is something you seem to support in some sort of way. Yet, as I pointed out in the last thread, the attempt was based on form and not spirit. Whereas the people who formulated the approach were attempting to include and defend the most possible, the user of the idea was simply attempting to exclude. I see this as a misapplication of the reasoning behind the development.

</strong>

This makes no sense. I'm out of here.

spin · 03-16-2002, 06:19 PM

spin:
--------------
I see you are a wishful thinker in your negative sort of way.
--------------

Toto:
--------------
Huh? How does this address any point that I have made?
--------------

This is what Toto had previously written:
-------------
The reason you don't see too many vegetarians in a state of ill health is that most vegetarians who get to that state figure out something is wrong and start to eat meat again.

I am sure that any statistics showing good health among vegetarians can be explained this way.
-------------

What's there to say when I know numerous long time vegetarians?

Toto · 03-16-2002, 06:27 PM

This is my last post on this. You know a lot of long time vegetarians. (Do you know if they cheat? I saw one survey that found a significant number of people who claimed to be vegetarians, but ate red meat once a week, to keep their strength up. I've known a lot of people who think chicken is a vegetable.)

I know a lot of people who tried to be vegetarian, and could not be healthy without eating meat. I've known children who failed to thrive on vegetarian diets, until they started to eat meat.

Where does that leave us? Would you admit that there was some morality to eating meat if you were persuaded that it is needed for health? Are you rejecting the evidence because you can't admit that there might be a reason to eat meat?

Did you even look at the beyondveg website??

Pomp · 03-16-2002, 06:27 PM

spin,

It would seem that the idea of "spirit of things" doesn't mean much.

It means whatever its interpeter thinks it means, which doesn't lead to very productive discussions. Perhaps, rather than expect me to intuitively deterine the "spirit" of the terms you are using, you would be kind enough to spell out what you mean?

Similarly, when we discuss contract theory, you might do well to discuss what its proponetns actually say rather than your interpretation of the "spirit" of their arguments. Did you ever read the link I provided for you?

spin · 03-16-2002, 06:31 PM

Bye Toto.

I've lived for 14 years without any sort of meat and as I drink milk and eat the occasional egg, I know people who don't take too kindly to it. Why the hell should I visit a site, that you are trying to sell me, which tells me that I am not doing what I've been doing??

As I said, bye.

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

03-16-2002, 06:12 PM	#72
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	Bill Sneddon (with red face): ------------------- There were, in the last thread, several arguments/ethical systems outlined that provided a defense against the claim that eating meat is immoral. Your approach in all cases has been pretty much the same: either ignore them completely (as you did mine) or simply declare by fiat that they were incorrect or "not inclusive". Of course, this amounts to no argument at all. Spin: for the last time, if you are truly interested in debating or discussing this subject, please outline the rational basis for the ethical system you use to determine that the eating of meat is immoral. Your lack of response to this request will be taken as a sign that you are not interested in serious discussion. Thank you. Bill Snedden ----------------------- I have categorized all the "attempts" at a defence as "I like it and I can" or "I can't help it". There was one exception, which was an attempt to abuse contract theory which I realise is something you seem to support in some sort of way. Yet, as I pointed out in the last thread, the attempt was based on form and not spirit. Whereas the people who formulated the approach were attempting to include and defend the most possible, the user of the idea was simply attempting to exclude. I see this as a misapplication of the reasoning behind the development. So, please decide what to do with your red face.

03-16-2002, 06:15 PM	#74
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	spin, -------------- How much is a dictionary? -------------- PB: -------------- DO I get to pick whichever dictionary definition of "life" I choose to make you look foolish or would you like to define your own terms? -------------- It would seem that the idea of "spirit of things" doesn't mean much. If you are doing anything meaningful here, you are supposed to attempting to understand things, as I am. Winning brownie points is a waste of time.

03-16-2002, 06:18 PM	#75
Pomp Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Indianapolis area Posts: 3,468	spin, You continue to dodge questions and make unsupported assertions. I have given a few attempts about morality. Partly: acting morally involves protecting the most sentient lifeforms possible. Why? You neglected to answer my question (question 2)regarding what makes the possession of sentience a non-arbitrary demarcation between things worthy or protection and things not worthy of protection. 1) What, to you, does it mean to say that an act is "right" or "wrong?" ---------------- I have been talking about morals. I use normally right and wrong with regard to information. You have dodged yet another question. Allow me to rephrase: What, to you, does it mean to say that an act is "moral" or "immoral?" 2) Why do you think it is "wrong" to kill any sentient being? Please base this answer on your answer to question 1 and be sure to explain why sentience is not an arbitrary criterion you have invented to justify killing and eating innocent plants for the sake of your stomache. ---------------- Are you really not Koy in disguise??? Yes, I am Koy in disguise. When I step into a telephone booth take off my glasses, I am transformed from a mild mannered, yet pompous, bastard into the king of the scathing rant. Part of the problem here is that I have answered this, but, morality is firstly about not doing harm, and the attempt to pick up the pieces when this is not possible in such a way as to minimise the harm done. This is not an answer to the question you were asked (question 2). Please answer that question. 3) Why should any of us adopt your answers to 1 and 2 as our own? ----------------- I have not asked anyone to do anything other than provide a moral defence of eating meat (with the proviso that it not be 1) I like it or 2) I can't help it. The problem is that you want a moral defense that happens to coincide with your idiosyncratic beliefs about morality, which you have not described in any meaningful way. If you reject my understanding of morals then you won't adopt my answers. This was not what I was asking you to do though. I think I reject your understanding of morality. I'm not sure though, because you have described your understanding in only the vaguest of terms.

03-16-2002, 06:19 PM	#77
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	spin: -------------- I see you are a wishful thinker in your negative sort of way. -------------- Toto: -------------- Huh? How does this address any point that I have made? -------------- This is what Toto had previously written: ------------- The reason you don't see too many vegetarians in a state of ill health is that most vegetarians who get to that state figure out something is wrong and start to eat meat again. I am sure that any statistics showing good health among vegetarians can be explained this way. ------------- What's there to say when I know numerous long time vegetarians?

03-16-2002, 06:27 PM	#78
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	This is my last post on this. You know a lot of long time vegetarians. (Do you know if they cheat? I saw one survey that found a significant number of people who claimed to be vegetarians, but ate red meat once a week, to keep their strength up. I've known a lot of people who think chicken is a vegetable.) I know a lot of people who tried to be vegetarian, and could not be healthy without eating meat. I've known children who failed to thrive on vegetarian diets, until they started to eat meat. Where does that leave us? Would you admit that there was some morality to eating meat if you were persuaded that it is needed for health? Are you rejecting the evidence because you can't admit that there might be a reason to eat meat? Did you even look at the beyondveg website??

03-16-2002, 06:31 PM	#80
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	Bye Toto. I've lived for 14 years without any sort of meat and as I drink milk and eat the occasional egg, I know people who don't take too kindly to it. Why the hell should I visit a site, that you are trying to sell me, which tells me that I am not doing what I've been doing?? As I said, bye.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.