Morally I'm beginning to see less and less sense in vegetarianism.

[Noir]

As vegetarian for ethical reasons can’t not be more hypocritical than an omnivore.


Omnivores say they dont care about animals being killed, though generally they start to draw the line at cats, dogs, and other ‘cute’ animals. While the line between humans and other animals is drawn only by a sense of self aggrandised superiority. Small but obvious hypocrisies.

Vegetarians think it is wrong to kill animals for food, yet many still wear leather, they will not have a slaughtered calf on their plate, but even a crude look at the milking industry shows the slaughters that are undertaken as an inevitable consequence of producing cows milk…and so on.

I was guilty of this hypocrisy myself (not the wearing of leather) until becoming Vegan, and obviously I would far rather have a planet filled with more hypocritical vegetarians than less hypocritical omnivores. However, I think any vegetarian who is so on the basis of Ethics owes it to the animals they wish to protect to look into the dairy industry.

There will always be a level of hypocrisy whether you chose to be Omnivore, Vegetarian or Vegan, it just seems to me that vegetarianism is the most blatantly hypocritical.

As an aside, the worst by far are actually pescetarians, anyone who is a pescetarian for Ethical reasons is nothing short of an idiot.

[DragonStryk72]

Um, dude, deer and rabbits are cute. Reference Bambi for this one. Cows are somewhat cute, as are sheep, and even pigs and chickens can be considered as being cute given their media exposure. So cute apparently doesn't count like you think it does, as all the tastiest meats are cute in life.

We don't eat horses mainly because they have other uses, so that's just counter-productive. Dogs and cats aren't eaten (at least not here. There are cultures that eat them.) because they are companion animals, so it would be like eating my brother or my buddy Chris... and they in general taste nasty, from what I've been told. Not eating things becuase they taste bad is NOT hypocritical. In some parts of the south they eat snakes, crocs and such.

By the way, you're a massive hypocrite for going vegan. If we all went vegan, the world's herbivore populations would overpopulate, overgraze, and kill off everything. That's simple fact, that's why we're predators, which serve a valuable purpose in any eco-system.

The problem is that your position is one born of arrogance. I don't think being omnivorous is necessarily better or worse than vegetarianism, or veganism, it's just not the way I am. I go with my own nature, which is to consume both meat and vegetable (Admittedly more potato than is likely advisable, but I'm Irish. What're you gonna do?) matter. I do care about what animals my food comes from, for one because I won't go after endangered species, and second, because some meat tastes better than other meat. I do hunt and fish, so I understand my choice on a level that most people don't get to. To make a blanket statement about what the "proper" way to eat is, just seems horribly arrogant to me overall.

If you simply enjoy being vegan, then way to go. If you feel good doing vegetarian, more power to you. If you're a guest at my place, I will make sure to have a vegan/vegetarian option for everything I can do (tofu burgers/hot dogs, salad fixings, eggplant and the like.). I'll even make sure none of it touches the meat that I've cooked, so that it's "clean".

[darin]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=2557&d=1319217155


2557

[Abbey Marie]

Since I have been told a few times in the past by Noir that I am a huge hypocrite for eating fish and not meat, I suppose this is yet another negative and condescending thread directed at least partly at me. I'm afraid all the attention is starting to go to my pretty little head.

[KarlMarx]

My doctor told me to avoid fast food. So, I've sworn off eating rabbit.

[Trigg]

people are omnivores, if you choose to be a vegetarian than that it your CHOICE.

I enjoy steak, bacon, and ham.

If you come to my house I will make you a salad, but please don't preach.

[ConHog]

Since I have been told a few times in the past by Noir that I am a huge hypocrite for eating fish and not meat, I suppose this is yet another negative and condescending thread directed at least partly at me. I'm afraid all the attention is starting to go to my pretty little head.

Pictures please. :D

[Abbey Marie]

Pictures please. :D

Lol :cool:

[Psychoblues]

Since I have been told a few times in the past by Noir that I am a huge hypocrite for eating fish and not meat, I suppose this is yet another negative and condescending thread directed at least partly at me. I'm afraid all the attention is starting to go to my pretty little head.

Flattering yourself? Again?

:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

Psychoblues

[Delenn]

I have never figured out the usefulness of attaching morality to food. There are one hundred things that I can beat myself up about. I just could not do this to myself.

I want to save the animals, but only the cute ones. The ugly ones are on their own.

I like vegetarian food and steak because I like vegetarian food and steak.

[ConHog]

Flattering yourself? Again?

:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

Psychoblues


Jumping into a thread for no purpose other than aggravating others again?

[Abbey Marie]

Flattering yourself? Again?

:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

Psychoblues

I think my best response to this drivel would be to lift a quote of yours from another thread:


Exactly, so what is your bitch again? The rest of your post is unintelligible and unworthy of any comment by me.

[LuvRPgrl]

Since I have been told a few times in the past by Noir that I am a huge hypocrite for eating fish and not meat, I suppose this is yet another negative and condescending thread directed at least partly at me. I'm afraid all the attention is starting to go to my pretty little head.

how does eating fish but not meat make you a hypocrite?

[ConHog]

how does eating fish but not meat make you a hypocrite?



Fish isn't meat?

[fj1200]

how does eating fish but not meat make you a hypocrite?

Noir said if you do it for ethical/moral reasons.

[Abbey Marie]

how does eating fish but not meat make you a hypocrite?

Good question. :rolleyes:

[Noir]

Since I have been told a few times in the past by Noir that I am a huge hypocrite for eating fish and not meat, I suppose this is yet another negative and condescending thread directed at least partly at me. I'm afraid all the attention is starting to go to my pretty little head.

Nay, not directed at yourself, i made this post a few months ago on another forum and it came up again recently and i realised i hadn't posted it here and so duly did.

As a more general and off topic note; haven't been able to post much the last day or two and prob won't (or at least not able to make in-depth responses) for another few days but should be back to normal soon.

[Noir]

Good question. :rolleyes:

People that don't eat meat for ethical reasons but do not apply the same ethics to fish are hypocrites. I'd find it remarkable to see someone argue otherwise.

[PostmodernProphet]

you vegan bastards have no consideration for the feelings of cauliflower.......

[JP Cusick]

Morally I'm beginning to see less and less sense in vegetarianism.

As vegetarian for ethical reasons can’t not be more hypocritical than an omnivore.

Omnivores say they dont care about animals being killed, though generally they start to draw the line at cats, dogs, and other ‘cute’ animals. While the line between humans and other animals is drawn only by a sense of self aggrandised superiority. Small but obvious hypocrisies.

Vegetarians think it is wrong to kill animals for food, yet many still wear leather, they will not have a slaughtered calf on their plate, but even a crude look at the milking industry shows the slaughters that are undertaken as an inevitable consequence of producing cows milk…and so on.

I was guilty of this hypocrisy myself (not the wearing of leather) until becoming Vegan, and obviously I would far rather have a planet filled with more hypocritical vegetarians than less hypocritical omnivores. However, I think any vegetarian who is so on the basis of Ethics owes it to the animals they wish to protect to look into the dairy industry.

There will always be a level of hypocrisy whether you chose to be Omnivore, Vegetarian or Vegan, it just seems to me that vegetarianism is the most blatantly hypocritical.

As an aside, the worst by far are actually pescetarians, anyone who is a pescetarian for Ethical reasons is nothing short of an idiot.


I have been a vegetarian for 15 years now, and I have tried to be a full vegan from the beginning and I get close and I stay close to being a vegan but as yet I am not quite true to it, so I do not see it as my hypocrisy when my failings are based on other factors.

As I am told both Abraham Lincoln and Adolf Hitler were both famous (and infamous) vegetarians which tells us that being a vegetarian is not the morality in itself.

I am a full vegetarian and try to be a full vegan based on my own religious and moral beliefs, so from my perspective then I see being a vegetarian as a show of morality much like being honest and trustworthy and spiritual and such as those, and that means being a vegetarian is just an action of morality and it is not the morality.

A person's motivation for being a vegetarian makes a lot of difference, and the motivation is what defines it as moral or not.

[LuvRPgrl]

People that don't eat meat for ethical reasons but do not apply the same ethics to fish are hypocrites. I'd find it remarkable to see someone argue otherwise.

how can one be ethically opposed to eating meat?

[JP Cusick]

how can one be ethically opposed to eating meat?


Because eating meat means an animal has to be killed and then the people are just feeding on a dead carcass as if we people are nothing but savage beast.

Humanity being smarter and dominating means that we are being cruel and barbaric to animals which can not protect them selves and can not defend against the humans who murder the animals as if their lives mean nothing.

When people eat animal flesh then they eat the pain and fear and violence which is inside of the meat, and it makes the person as less than ethical.

And you could try searching for the reference called = "People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals" = PETA dot org

[LuvRPgrl]

Because eating meat means an animal has to be killed and then the people are just feeding on a dead carcass as if we people are nothing but savage beast.

Humanity being smarter and dominating means that we are being cruel and barbaric to animals which can not protect them selves and can not defend against the humans who murder the animals as if their lives mean nothing.

When people eat animal flesh then they eat the pain and fear and violence which is inside of the meat, and it makes the person as less than ethical.

And you could try searching for the reference called = "People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals" = PETA dot org

You actually support peta?

Uh, either we are a superior species by choice of a creator, or we are simply a product of evolution.
If a creator, it appears that animals were put here for our use.
If evolution, then there is nothing immoral about doing what it takes to insure survival of the species. The only immorality you can have, if any, is to hurt a member of your own species.

PETA, people eating tasty animals.

[Kathianne]

Because eating meat means an animal has to be killed and then the people are just feeding on a dead carcass as if we people are nothing but savage beast.

Humanity being smarter and dominating means that we are being cruel and barbaric to animals which can not protect them selves and can not defend against the humans who murder the animals as if their lives mean nothing.

When people eat animal flesh then they eat the pain and fear and violence which is inside of the meat, and it makes the person as less than ethical.

And you could try searching for the reference called = "People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals" = PETA dot org

Well except for all the animals killed to raise vegetables:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-myth-of-the-ethical-vegan/


...Unfortunately for the ethical vegan, the production of their food alone reduces their claim to impossibility. Animals are killed in untold millions, in the course of plant agriculture. Some are killed accidentally in the course of mechanized farming; some are killed deliberately in the course of pest control. Animals are killed, every day. Every potato, every stick of celery, every cup of rice, and every carrot has a blood trail leading from field to plate.
In 1999, while researching and writing Misplaced Compassion (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0595175872/pajamasmedia-20), I ran into a rice farmer who posted the following first-hand account on a Usenet forum:

[A] conservative annualized estimate of vertebrate deaths in organic rice farming is ~20 pound. … [T]his works out a bit less than two vertebrate deaths per square foot, and, again, is conservative. For conventionally grown rice, the gross body-count is at least several times that figure. … [W]hen cutting the rice, there is a (visual) green waterfall of frogs and anoles moving in front of the combine. Sometimes the “waterfall” is just a gentle trickle (± 10,000 frogs per acre) crossing the header, total for both cuttings, other times it is a deluge (+50,000 acre).
My own family was involved in corn and soybean farming; our numbers were not that high, but they were not inconsiderable. Pheasants and rabbits are routinely killed in planting and harvesting, and rodents are killed by the thousands using traps and pesticides at every step: production, storage, and transportation.
Rational people know this and don’t worry about it. It’s an inevitable consequence of modern, high-production agriculture. The ethical vegan, when confronted with these undeniable facts, collapses. Their reaction, in almost every case, is to do a rhetorical lateral arabesque into a new claim, that their vegan diet somehow causes “less death and suffering” than a non-vegan diet, a ridiculous and unsupportable argument. A pound of wild venison (net cost in animal death: about 1/120th of one animal) almost certainly causes less “death and suffering” than a pound of rice (net cost in animal death: including rodents, insect, reptiles and amphibians, number of deaths may range into the hundreds).
But the numbers don’t really matter. Not if there is a real ethical principle involved. What is at the heart of this fall-back argument is this claim: That a vegan diet has a lower cost in animal death and suffering than any non-vegan diet.
If any ethical vegan has crunched the numbers to prove this, I have yet to see the results. However, the numbers have been crunched elsewhere, and it turns out that a non-vegan diet may well cause less environmental impact than a vegan diet, for one reason: Food for livestock can be grown on land that is too poor for growing crops for human consumption...



As for PETA:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/petas-pet-slaughterhouse/


If animals are people and fish are kittens, then the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals are genocidal tyrants. Once in PETA’s death clutch, few animals escape.
In Virginia, PETA takes the notion of killing with kindness literally: only seven animals found a home out of the 2,216 it cared for in 2008. Seven animals managed a reprieve; the rest were loved to death. From the blog PETA Kills Animals (http://www.petakillsanimals.com/):

PETA’s “Animal Record” report for 2008, filed with the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, shows that the animal rights group killed 95 percent of the dogs and cats in its care last year. During all of 2008, PETA found adoptive homes for just seven pets.
Just seven animals — out of the 2,216 it took in. PETA just broke its own record.
Why would an animal rights group secretly kill animals at its headquarters? PETA’s continued silence on the matter makes it hard to say for sure. But from a cost-saving standpoint, PETA’s hypocrisy isn’t difficult to understand: Killing adoptable cats and dogs — and storing the bodies in a walk-in freezer until they can be cremated — requires far less money and effort than caring for the pets until they are adopted.
PETA has a $32 million annual budget. But instead of investing in the lives of the thousands of flesh and blood creatures in its care, the group spends millions on media campaigns telling Americans that eating meat, drinking milk, fishing, hunting, wearing leather shoes, and benefiting from medical research performed on lab rats are all “unethical.”
The bottom line: PETA’s leaders care more about cutting into their advertising budget than finding homes for the nearly six pets they kill on average, every single day.
Let’s just look at some of the hypocritical advertising. Remember the sea kittens? At the splashy PETA (http://getactive.peta.org/campaign/sea_kittens1) site:

Given the drastic situation for this country’s sea kittens-who are often the victims of many major threats to their welfare and ways of life — it’s high time that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) stop allowing our little sea kitten friends to be tortured and killed. Who’d want to hurt a sea kitten anyway?!
Sea kittens are just as intelligent (not to mention adorable) as dogs and cats, and they feel pain just as all animals do.
Please take just a few moments to send an e-mail to H. Dale Hall, the director of the FWS, asking him to stop promoting the hunting of sea kittens (otherwise known as “fishing”). The promotion of sea kitten hunting is a glaring contradiction of FWS’ mission to “conserve, protect and enhance fish, wildlife and plants and their habitats.”
If sea kittens are just as intelligent, then why does PETA kill so many intelligent, pain-feeling animals in their care? Maybe they should be cleaning up their own kennel before worrying about how U.S. Fish and Wild Life Service manages sea kittens...

[JP Cusick]

You actually support peta?


I do very much like and respect PETA (http://www.PETA.org/), and once years ago I even earned an honorary membership because I helped to bring a vegetarian diet into the Maryland prison system.

I let my membership expire but I still hold PETA in very high regard.

You asked about the ethics of not eating meat so I figured you were unaware.




Uh, either we are a superior species by choice of a creator, or we are simply a product of evolution.
If a creator, it appears that animals were put here for our use.
If evolution, then there is nothing immoral about doing what it takes to insure survival of the species. The only immorality you can have, if any, is to hurt a member of your own species.


In the Bible it tells that people were first created as vegetarians, but then came sin and with that sin came the eating of animals.

As to evolution then it is still a cruel injustice to misuse our superior intelligence to hurt and exploit the helpless and innocent animals.

Whether a religious person or an Atheist or heathen scoundrel then any person can raise their ethical standard by becoming a vegetarian.

And eating animal meat is NOT a matter of human survival, as we would have far more food available for humanity if we did not use so much grains and herbs to fatten up the animals.




PETA, people eating tasty animals.


I agree that animals as food do taste great, but it is like a sweet tasting poison which pollutes those that eat of it.

True ethics has nothing to do with flavor and taste, as it is about doing right and not doing harm.

[darin]

In the Bible it tells that people were first created as vegetarians, but then came sin and with that sin came the eating of animals.


More-accurately: The bible may tell YOU people were created as vegetarians...



As to evolution then it is still a cruel injustice to misuse our superior intelligence to hurt and exploit the helpless and innocent animals.


Why are you assigning morals to creatures without morals?


Look what these 'innocent animals' do when faced with the chance to eat:


<tbody>


Lana Hollingsworth, 61, female
July 25, 2011
Black
Pinetop-Lakeside, Arizona (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinetop-Lakeside,_Arizona)
Hollingsworth was attacked by a 250 lb (113.4 kg) black bear while walking her dog at a country club. Nearly a month later and after eleven surgeries, she died from a massive brain hemorrage, which doctors believe was a result of the attack. The bear was tracked, shot and killed.[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_bear_attacks_in_North_America#cite_n ote-reuters26july2011-5)


Bernice Adolph, 72, female
June 2011
Black
near Lillooet, British Columbia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lillooet,_British_Columbia)
Adolph's remains were found by police dogs after she was reported missing. She was an elder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Indian_elder) in the Xaxli'p First Nation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xaxli%27p_First_Nation). There was evidence that bears fed on Adolph's remains, and tried to enter her house. An autopsy confirmed that she died from a bear attack. Five suspected bears were killed by conservation officers, and DNA tests confirmed that one of dead bears killed Adolph.[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_bear_attacks_in_North_America#cite_n ote-cbc14july2011-6)


Brent Kandra, 24, male
August 19, 2010
Black
Columbia Station, Ohio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia_Station,_Ohio)
Kandra was a bear caretaker on property that kept exotic pets. The bear was out of its cage for feeding. Prior to the attack, the property's owner had his license to exhibit animals revoked, but was still allowed to keep the animals on his property.[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_bear_attacks_in_North_America#cite_n ote-nprAug202010-7)

</tbody>


<thead>
<th class="unsortable" style="width: 200px">Name, age, gender</th> <th title="Sort ascending" class="headerSort" width="100">Date</th> <th class="unsortable">Species</th> <th class="unsortable" width="150">Location</th> <th class="unsortable">Description</th>
</thead> <tbody>
John Wallace, 59, male
August 24, 2011
Brown
Yellowstone National Park (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowstone_National_Park)
Wallace's remains were found by hikers on the Mary Mountain Trail, northeast of Old Faithful (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Faithful).[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_bear_attacks_in_North_America#cite_n ote-abc_shaylor-8) Wallace was hiking alone.[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_bear_attacks_in_North_America#cite_n ote-ap_brown_2011-9) An autopsy showed that Wallace died from a bear attack.[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_bear_attacks_in_North_America#cite_n ote-ap_brown_2011-9)


Brian Matayoshi, 57, male
July 6, 2011
Brown
Yellowstone National Park (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowstone_National_Park)
Matayoshi and his wife were hiking the Wapiti Lake Trail, and came upon a mother grizzly bear in an open meadow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meadow). The couple began to walk away, and the bear charged. After attempting to run away, Matayoshi was fatally bitten and clawed. Matayoshi's wife hid behind a tree, was lifted from the ground by the bear, and dropped. She played dead, and the bear left the area. She was not injured.[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_bear_attacks_in_North_America#cite_n ote-cnnjuly72011-10)[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_bear_attacks_in_North_America#cite_n ote-nps_release_yellowstonejuly2011-11) An initial investigation by the National Park Service (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Park_Service) found the bear's actions were defensive against a perceived threat to her cubs. Since the attack was not predatory and the bear had no known violent history towards humans, no action was taken towards the bear.[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_bear_attacks_in_North_America#cite_n ote-cnnjuly72011-10)[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_bear_attacks_in_North_America#cite_n ote-nps_release_yellowstonejuly2011-11) A later investigation determined that the couple running from the bear was a mistake, and it was a "one in 3 million occurrence".[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_bear_attacks_in_North_America#cite_n ote-lat_20Sept-12)



Kevin Kammer, 48, male
July 28, 2010
Brown
Gallatin National Forest, Montana (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallatin_National_Forest)
Kammer was in his tent at Soda Butte Campground when a mother bear attacked and dragged him 25 feet (7.6 m) away. Two other campers in separate campsites were also attacked: a teenager was bitten in the leg, and a woman was bitten in the arm and leg. The bear was caught in a trap set at the campground using pieces of a culvert (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culvert) and Kammer's tent.[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_bear_attacks_in_North_America#cite_n ote-ap_29July2010-13) Later, the bear was euthanized, and her cubs were sent to ZooMontana (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZooMontana).[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_bear_attacks_in_North_America#cite_n ote-abc30July2010-14) The mother bear's unusual predatory behavior was noted by authorities.[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_bear_attacks_in_North_America#cite_n ote-abc30July2010-14)


Erwin Frank Evert, 70, male
June 17, 2010
Brown
Shoshone National Forest, Wyoming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoshone_National_Forest)
Evert, a field botanist, was mauled by a grizzly bear while hiking in the Kitty Creek Drainage area of the Shoshone National Forest, just east of Yellowstone National Park (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowstone_National_Park). The bear was trapped and tranquilized earlier in the day by a Grizzly Bear research team. Two days after the attack, the bear was shot and killed from a helicopter by wildlife officials.[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_bear_attacks_in_North_America#cite_n ote-billings_2010-15) Initially it was reported that Evert ignored posted warnings to avoid the area due to the potential danger involved with the bear research.[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_bear_attacks_in_North_America#cite_n ote-billings_2010-15) However, the sheriff's deputy who recovered the body and members of Evert's family stated that the warning signs were no longer present.[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_bear_attacks_in_North_America#cite_n ote-ap_gruver-16) A report released the following month confirmed that the warning signs were removed, though it also asserted that Evert knew there was a bear research study being conducted in the area.[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_bear_attacks_in_North_America#cite_n ote-billings_gazette29June2010-17)


</tbody>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_bear_attacks_in_North_America



Whether a religious person or an Atheist or heathen scoundrel then any person can raise their ethical standard by becoming a vegetarian.

And eating animal meat is NOT a matter of human survival, as we would have far more food available for humanity if we did not use so much grains and herbs to fatten up the animals.

...I don't buy meat that was 'fattened up' artificially.



I agree that animals as food do taste great, but it is like a sweet tasting poison which pollutes those that eat of it.

True ethics has nothing to do with flavor and taste, as it is about doing right and not doing harm.

True ethics has nothing to do with eating meat or not. Assigning relative morality or ethics to natural selection or food of choice is immature.

[JP Cusick]

More-accurately: The bible may tell YOU people were created as vegetarians...


Accurately - the Bible tells anyone who looks in that all people were created as vegetarians, see it linked here at Genesis 1:27-31 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%201:27-31&version=KJV).

And nature tells us this too because human beings have vegetarian teeth, and humans need to cook the meat in order to tenderize it and to give it a palatable flavor, so by simple scientific research we can see that human beings were not created by a God or by nature to eat animal flesh.

Eating animals is a human dysfunction.




Why are you assigning morals to creatures without morals?


I give a certain level of morality to animals because I know that there is the same God who created animals as created humans, and the animal lives do not belong to humanity.

But in this case I am really just applying the moral standard to human beings, as it is a derogatory dysfunction for people to eat animals, so I assign morals to humans because I expect better from my fellow humans.

[darin]

Accurately - the Bible tells anyone who looks in that all people were created as vegetarians, see it linked here at Genesis 1:27-31 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis 1:27-31&version=KJV).



Pretty clear we're omnivores:


29-30 Then God said, "I've given you
every sort of seed-bearing plant on Earth
And every kind of fruit-bearing tree,
given them to you for food.
To all animals and all birds,
everything that moves and breathes,
I give whatever grows out of the ground for food."
And there it was.

Course, then there's the whole "What God said to Peter.."


9-13The next day as the three travelers were approaching the town, Peter went out on the balcony to pray. It was about noon. Peter got hungry and started thinking about lunch. While lunch was being prepared, he fell into a trance. He saw the skies open up. Something that looked like a huge blanket lowered by ropes at its four corners settled on the ground. Every kind of animal and reptile and bird you could think of was on it. Then a voice came: "Go to it, Peter—kill and eat." 14Peter said, "Oh, no, Lord. I've never so much as tasted food that was not kosher."
15The voice came a second time: "If God says it's okay, it's okay."

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+10&version=MSG





And nature tells us this too because human beings have vegetarian teeth, and humans need to cook the meat in order to tenderize it and to give it a palatable flavor, so by simple scientific research we can see that human beings were not created by a God or by nature to eat animal flesh.

Eating animals is a human dysfunction.

Sushi. Uh...Lutefisk. Did you say "Scientific research" and "...created by God" as a proof? First, you didn't show any scientific evidence we are not designed to eat meat. Secondly, your proclamation is logical fallacy. You are confusing the design of our teeth with your moral decision to not eat meat.



I give a certain level of morality to animals because I know that there is the same God who created animals as created humans, and the animal lives do not belong to humanity.

...except the whole 'dominion thing' God granted...right.



But in this case I am really just applying the moral standard to human beings, as it is a derogatory dysfunction for people to eat animals, so I assign morals to humans because I expect better from my fellow humans.

I think it's insulting to equate animals and humans. Are you considering Ferrets and Puppies as part of your constituency?

[LuvRPgrl]

The issue is really quite silly, but Ill engage.


Accurately - the Bible tells anyone who looks in that all people were created as vegetarians, see it linked here at Genesis 1:27-31 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis 1:27-31&version=KJV).. Uh, no. As usual, someone takes one little quote of the Bible and assigns it as their proof. I think the Bible speaks volumes more on the issue, not to mention, the passage you linked does not in any way shape or form say we cant eat meat, or are told to eat only plants.


And nature tells us this too because human beings have vegetarian teeth, and humans need to cook the meat in order to tenderize it and to give it a palatable flavor,.
Uh, no, we also have to cook many veggies and nuts to make them palatable, so your logic also says we cant eat veggies, guess we are down to fruits only.


so by simple scientific research we can see that human beings were not created by a God or by nature to eat animal flesh..
You came to a conclusion based on observed behavior, and it is not scientific research.



Eating animals is a h cuman dysfunction.. strictly opinion.




I give a certain level of morality to animals because I know that there is the same God who created animals as created humans, and the animal lives do not belong to humanity. .

again, your opinion


But in this case I am really just applying the moral standard to human beings, as it is a derogatory dysfunction for people to eat animals, so I assign morals to humans because I expect better from my fellow humans.
?
You assign morals to humans BECAUSE YOU EXPECT BETTER FROM THEM?
well, I dont expect better from them, hence I CANT assign morals to them

[DragonStryk72]

Accurately - the Bible tells anyone who looks in that all people were created as vegetarians, see it linked here at Genesis 1:27-31 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%201:27-31&version=KJV).

And nature tells us this too because human beings have vegetarian teeth, and humans need to cook the meat in order to tenderize it and to give it a palatable flavor, so by simple scientific research we can see that human beings were not created by a God or by nature to eat animal flesh.

Eating animals is a human dysfunction.

Right... That's why omnivores don't occurs in nature

I give a certain level of morality to animals because I know that there is the same God who created animals as created humans, and the animal lives do not belong to humanity.

If eating meat is a dysfunction, then why would the ecosystem die out worldwide if we all stopped eating meat?

But in this case I am really just applying the moral standard to human beings, as it is a derogatory dysfunction for people to eat animals, so I assign morals to humans because I expect better from my fellow humans.

You know, i have these four canine teeth, and apparently, science believes them to be there in order to eat meat. So this whole "nature" thing you're throwing down is just complete Bullshit.

[Kathianne]

You know, i have these four canine teeth, and apparently, science believes them to be there in order to eat meat. So this whole "nature" thing you're throwing down is just complete Bullshit.

Yep.

http://www.biology-online.org/articles/humans-omnivores.html


...The key category in the discussion of human diet is omnivores, which are defined as generalized feeders, with neither carnivore nor herbivore specializations for acquiring or processing food, and who are capable of consuming and do consume both animal protein and vegetation. They are basically *opportunistic* feeders (survive by eating what is available) with more generalized anatomical and physiological traits, especially the dentition (teeth). All the available evidence indicates that the natural human diet is omnivorous and would include meat. We are not, however, required to consume animal protein. We have a choice...

[Thunderknuckles]

Because I like Biblical take on the morality of eating meat:
It seems people may have been vegetarian at first but after the great flood God said this:

Genesis 9:1-3:
"Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth. The fear and dread of you will fall upon all of the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air, upon every creature that moves along the ground, and upon all the fish of the sea; they are given into your hands. Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, now I give you everything."

So, in order to multiply we were given the ability to eat all living things.
Also, from an evolutionary standpoint that's a pretty advantageous trait to have.

Lastly, for all of the condescension on both sides of the argument, here's some pretty good advice:

Romans 14:2-3:
"One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The mans who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him."

[MtnBiker]

Because eating meat means an animal has to be killed and then the people are just feeding on a dead carcass as if we people are nothing but savage beast.

Humanity being smarter and dominating means that we are being cruel and barbaric to animals which can not protect them selves and can not defend against the humans who murder the animals as if their lives mean nothing.

When people eat animal flesh then they eat the pain and fear and violence which is inside of the meat, and it makes the person as less than ethical.

And you could try searching for the reference called = "People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals" = PETA dot org

Hello

I am not a vegetarian, but really do not have a problem with someone who chooses to be so, just curious, do you consume any dairy?

[Gunny]

As vegetarian for ethical reasons can’t not be more hypocritical than an omnivore.


Omnivores say they dont care about animals being killed, though generally they start to draw the line at cats, dogs, and other ‘cute’ animals. While the line between humans and other animals is drawn only by a sense of self aggrandised superiority. Small but obvious hypocrisies.

Vegetarians think it is wrong to kill animals for food, yet many still wear leather, they will not have a slaughtered calf on their plate, but even a crude look at the milking industry shows the slaughters that are undertaken as an inevitable consequence of producing cows milk…and so on.

I was guilty of this hypocrisy myself (not the wearing of leather) until becoming Vegan, and obviously I would far rather have a planet filled with more hypocritical vegetarians than less hypocritical omnivores. However, I think any vegetarian who is so on the basis of Ethics owes it to the animals they wish to protect to look into the dairy industry.

There will always be a level of hypocrisy whether you chose to be Omnivore, Vegetarian or Vegan, it just seems to me that vegetarianism is the most blatantly hypocritical.

As an aside, the worst by far are actually pescetarians, anyone who is a pescetarian for Ethical reasons is nothing short of an idiot.


Way to start a thread with a red herring ..."Omnivores say they don't care about animals being killed ...". BS. Using animals responsibly as part of a diet doesn't have a thing to do with not caring. Sociopaths don't care. But then, a sociopath would kill YOU too quick as anything else in its way.

Quit using the word "hypocrite" until you take a class on what it means. How hypocritical is it to present a bullshit, red herring as an honest argument?

[PostmodernProphet]

Exodus 16
11 The LORD said to Moses, 12 “I have heard the grumbling of the Israelites. Tell them, ‘At twilight you will eat meat, and in the morning you will be filled with bread. Then you will know that I am the LORD your God.’”

[JP Cusick]

You know, i have these four canine teeth, and apparently, science believes them to be there in order to eat meat. So this whole "nature" thing you're throwing down is just complete xxxxxxx.


The so called human canine teeth does not make a meat eater.

Compare the 4 pointer teeth in humans with the teeth of meat eating animals like the teeth of cats and dogs and the difference is obvious and pronounced.

The human teeth are for such foods as apples and oranges, because our teeth would break if we tried to eat raw meat.

===========================

Hello

I am not a vegetarian, but really do not have a problem with someone who chooses to be so, just curious, do you consume any dairy?


I do as little dairy as I can, but it is hard to stay away from cheese in foods, so I try to do things like a pizza having more crust then cheese.

I do soy milk and no animal milk, and if some cake or veggie burgers have a little egg in them than that is okay but I do not use eggs.

It is easy to call a vegetarian as a hypocrite because it is very hard to be completely true to the ideal, but I say anyone who tries is okay with me whether they fail at it or not.

Being a vegetarian and more so a vegan vegetarian is my own ideal, but I do not see it as a burden because I love doing it and it makes eating into a fun adventure every day and every meal.

================================



Exodus 16
11 The LORD said to Moses, 12 “I have heard the grumbling of the Israelites. Tell them, ‘At twilight you will eat meat, and in the morning you will be filled with bread. Then you will know that I am the LORD your God.’”


The difference is that the Bible is NOT some book of commandments as so many people mistake the Bible to be, and as such the Bible and God does give permission for sinners (humanity) to eat the animals because the animals are God giving them as a sin sacrifice to sinful humanity.

The sin of eating each and every animal is paid for by the life of that animal, so when I or anyone stops eating the animals then that sin sacrifice is not being applied as we vegetarians do not need the sacrifice.

The sinners can eat meat, but if one wants to stop being the sinner then they need to stop eating the animal sacrifices.

===================================



Because I like Biblical take on the morality of eating meat:
It seems people may have been vegetarian at first but after the great flood God said this:

Genesis 9:1-3:
"Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth. The fear and dread of you will fall upon all of the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air, upon every creature that moves along the ground, and upon all the fish of the sea; they are given into your hands. Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, now I give you everything."

So, in order to multiply we were given the ability to eat all living things.
Also, from an evolutionary standpoint that's a pretty advantageous trait to have.


In the beginning humanity were to eat just the fruit and vegetables, but then came the sin and sinning and then people ate animal meat.

God gave Noah and his family over to eating animals because mankind was lost in their sins.

If we (or anyone) wants to come out of our barbaric living then we must stop living like barbarians and stop eating animals.

That is not the entire Bible message but it is a very powerful part thereof.




Lastly, for all of the condescension on both sides of the argument, here's some pretty good advice:

Romans 14:2-3:
"One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The mans who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him."


I love that Bible text above, because my own faith is weak and I eat vegetables to help make my faith stronger, as that text declares.

In another Bible text Jesus declares that: faith that moves mountains = Matthew 17:20 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2017:19-21&version=KJV), but many people claim to have strong faith so they are not vegetarians, but I find lots of mountains which need moving and I see no one moving the mountains, and when I myself tell the mountains to move then they do it NOT, so I confess that my faith is weak, and by me being a vegetarian then that helps to make my faith as stronger.

A person has to be humble in order to recognize that we all have very weak faith which needs to be strengthened.

[Thunderknuckles]

JP, you either missed or decided not to comment on the last line I posted in Romans:

"The mans who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him."

Pretty straight forward and good advice for all.

[JP Cusick]

JP, you either missed or decided not to comment on the last line I posted in Romans:

"The mans who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him."

Pretty straight forward and good advice for all.


I do not see myself as looking down on or condemning anyone here when I tell them that they can and need to do better than what they are doing.

Surely I tell other people not to lie or steal or adultery and not to eat animals, and I give the explanation along with Bible reference and links because that is me preaching the message.

This is a discussion board and people have asked questions and I give answers accordingly.

And I myself believe firmly that every person in all of humanity does eventually get saved, as everyone gets saved including the sinful meat eaters, see me HERE (http://www.universalpublicforum.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=peace&action=display&thread=35).

Telling the meat eaters that they are wrong is giving them the rightful info for their own self improvement, which they can embrace or reject at their own expense.

[darin]

The difference is that the Bible is NOT some book of commandments as so many people mistake the Bible to be, and as such the Bible and God does give permission for sinners (humanity) to eat the animals because the animals are God giving them as a sin sacrifice to sinful humanity.

The sin of eating each and every animal is paid for by the life of that animal, so when I or anyone stops eating the animals then that sin sacrifice is not being applied as we vegetarians do not need the sacrifice.

The sinners can eat meat, but if one wants to stop being the sinner then they need to stop eating the animal sacrifices.



Uh, what? God gives permission - hell, he COMMANDS Peter - to eat meat. So, was Peter a 'sinner' and did Peter sin by eating as he was told? What is are "the animal sacrifices" you speak of? You seemingly define it as 'any animal death, caused by man'?



In the beginning humanity were to eat just the fruit and vegetables, but then came the sin and sinning and then people ate animal meat.


Except I showed you how that idea is patently false, from a bible-based view. Are you reading what we're telling you, or simply sticking to your guns...



God gave Noah and his family over to eating animals because mankind was lost in their sins.

Speculation at best - and does not speak to God's words to Adam and Eve. For the record, Genesis points to the story of Adam and Eve - God created them first; but there's nothing to indicate those are the ONLY people he created at the time.



If we (or anyone) wants to come out of our barbaric living then we must stop living like barbarians and stop eating animals.

That is not the entire Bible message but it is a very powerful part thereof.

Personal value-judgement - silly to apply to others.


I love that Bible text above, because my own faith is weak and I eat vegetables to help make my faith stronger, as that text declares.

say again? Did you just say eating vegetables MAKES YOUR FAITH STRONGER??? That's a little bit like wearing cotton to help one get better at Call of Duty on Playstation3.



In another Bible text Jesus declares that: faith that moves mountains = Matthew 17:20 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2017:19-21&version=KJV), but many people claim to have strong faith so they are not vegetarians,

Many? Who is many? How many? You're making up a situation to point to your opinion.


but I find lots of mountains which need moving and I see no one moving the mountains, and when I myself tell the mountains to move then they do it NOT, so I confess that my faith is weak, and by me being a vegetarian then that helps to make my faith as stronger.

"What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it."


A person has to be humble in order to recognize that we all have very weak faith which needs to be strengthened.

...which has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

[JP Cusick]

Uh, what? God gives permission - hell, he COMMANDS Peter - to eat meat. So, was Peter a 'sinner' and did Peter sin by eating as he was told?


If we read the full text which you refer to then Peter is being shown that the two Men are to be considered as clean and not as unclean based on the eating of clean and unclean animals, the point is not the message there, reference link here = Acts 10:9-35 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2010:9-35&version=KJV).

And a more relevant part of that text is verse 14: "Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean", in that Peter did NOT EAT unclean meats which means he was never taught by Jesus to eat unclean meats. And that same Peter is the one who kept screwing up and doing wrong just as shown in this text in Acts 10 which show that Peter still did not have or know the Gospel correctly.

To follow Peter is not following the Gospel of Christ.




What is are "the animal sacrifices" you speak of? You seemingly define it as 'any animal death, caused by man'?


The animal sacrifices of the older Testament were done as sin offerings, see = Leviticus 4:24-35 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%204:24-35&version=KJV), and it still goes on today even though it is totally unnecessary.

So yes, any animal death caused by man is a type of sin sacrifice.

It is much like a Woman who gets an abortion is offering the unborn baby as her sin sacrifice too, even though she does not understand it herself.




Except I showed you how that idea is patently false, from a bible-based view. Are you reading what we're telling you, or simply sticking to your guns...


You did not give any such rebuttal, as I am the one who gave the direct Bible quote and link showing that humanity was originally created as vegetarians.

See it again linked here = Genesis 1:26-31 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%201:26-31&version=KJV).




say again? Did you just say eating vegetables MAKES YOUR FAITH STRONGER??? That's a little bit like wearing cotton to help one get better at Call of Duty on Playstation3.


Here it is again:

Romans 14:2-3 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2014:2-3&version=KJV):
"One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The mans who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him."

I love that Bible text above, because my own faith is weak and I eat vegetables to help make my faith stronger, as that text declares.

In another Bible text Jesus declares that: faith that moves mountains = Matthew 17:20 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2017:20&version=KJV), but many people claim to have strong faith so they are not vegetarians, but I find lots of mountains which need moving and I see no one moving the mountains, and when I myself tell the mountains to move then they do it NOT, so I confess that my faith is weak, and by me being a vegetarian then that helps to make my faith as stronger.

A person has to be humble in order to recognize that we all have very weak faith which needs to be strengthened.

[DragonStryk72]

The so called human canine teeth does not make a meat eater.

Compare the 4 pointer teeth in humans with the teeth of meat eating animals like the teeth of cats and dogs and the difference is obvious and pronounced.

The human teeth are for such foods as apples and oranges, because our teeth would break if we tried to eat raw meat.



The human INCISOR teeth are for apples and oranges. We'll start there, and now this: We are not carnivores. We never have been, unlike dogs and cats. the Canine teeth are used in rending meat, just like they are on other Omnivores,. I'm highlighting this because you keep disconnecting from reality on that point. Also, our teeth would break on raw meat (see steak Tar Tar as an obvious answer), just as they didn't break when Native Americans would ritualistically eat the heart and blood of a freshly killed deer or buffalo.

We do not generally eat raw meat for two reasons 1)It tastes like shit (it's okay, JP, you can leave swear words in, it's the internet. We're all adults here), and 2) Our stomaches no longer support eating raw meat, as our entire diet pretty much consists of cooked foods, vegetable and meat alike. Eating raw meat has nothing to do with our teeth.

[JP Cusick]

The human INCISOR teeth are for apples and oranges. We'll start there, and now this: We are not carnivores. We never have been, unlike dogs and cats. the Canine teeth are used in rending meat, just like they are on other Omnivores,. I'm highlighting this because you keep disconnecting from reality on that point. Also, our teeth would break on raw meat (see steak Tar Tar as an obvious answer), just as they didn't break when Native Americans would ritualistically eat the heart and blood of a freshly killed deer or buffalo.

We do not generally eat raw meat for two reasons 1)It tastes like xxxx (it's okay, JP, you can leave swear words in, it's the internet. We're all adults here), and 2) Our stomaches no longer support eating raw meat, as our entire diet pretty much consists of cooked foods, vegetable and meat alike. Eating raw meat has nothing to do with our teeth.


I have no real objection if you or people like you keep eating the garbage as I see it as your self wasting your own life and so be it.

I have most friends who eat meat and when I go to restaurants then others eat their meat while I do not.

I was simply responding to this thread subject as I am still doing now.

As to the Native Americans they used knives (unnatural), and the animal organs like the liver and heart are softer on the teeth, and the Natives then were just as barbaric as are the human meat eaters of today, except today it is a little less bloody.

The raw meat is not only unpalatable and tough but that is why the so called human carnivores have to cook their meat and dump flavoring onto it as otherwise the nasty stuff would neither go down well nor would it stay down well.

[darin]

I have no real objection if you or people like you keep eating the garbage as I see it as your self wasting your own life and so be it.



Great! But it'd behoove you to stop assigning MORAL (biblical) backing to your opinion.

[DragonStryk72]

I have no real objection if you or people like you keep eating the garbage as I see it as your self wasting your own life and so be it.This is out and out bullshit. You do object, you've made that clear. This sentence is quite frankly a lie.

I have most friends who eat meat and when I go to restaurants then others eat their meat while I do not.

I was simply responding to this thread subject as I am still doing now.

As to the Native Americans they used knives (unnatural), and the animal organs like the liver and heart are softer on the teeth, and the Natives then were just as barbaric as are the human meat eaters of today, except today it is a little less bloody. The Heart is the thoughest muscle in the body, period.

The raw meat is not only unpalatable and tough but that is why the so called human carnivores (Humans are not Carnivores. Humans have Never been carnivores. We are Omniovores.) have to cook their meat and dump flavoring onto it as otherwise the nasty stuff would neither go down well nor would it stay down well.

We used to eat raw meat, prior to that whole civilization thing, and again, Native Americans still did for thousands of years after. We stopped eating raw when we learned that cooked food TASTED Better, and over the thousands of years, we lost our taste for raw food, again, with the exception of Steak Tar Tar. If you are not going to address the whole thing, don't bother.

[JP Cusick]

Great! But it'd behoove you to stop assigning MORAL (biblical) backing to your opinion.


That might behoove you but it does not behoove me.

I gave the Biblical backing in rather vivid detail along with text quotes and source links.

If you choose to ignore the truth then that is not my concern.


================================



We used to eat raw meat, prior to that whole civilization thing, and again, Native Americans still did for thousands of years after. We stopped eating raw when we learned that cooked food TASTED Better, and over the thousands of years, we lost our taste for raw food, again, with the exception of Steak Tar Tar. If you are not going to address the whole thing, don't bother.


If you choose to believe that nonsense then it is your own loss.

I certainly do not accept that as anything other than rubbish.

[DragonStryk72]

That might behoove you but it does not behoove me.

I gave the Biblical backing in rather vivid detail along with text quotes and source links.

If you choose to ignore the truth then that is not my concern.

Yes, and then he rebutted it with later and more numerous bible passages that refuted your claim.



================================



If you choose to believe that nonsense then it is your own loss.

I certainly do not accept that as anything other than rubbish.

Alright, so you just decided to skip those point. Remember me putting in not to bother responding if you wouldn't respond to whole post? Well, now you get called out on being the intellectual coward you are.

Is Steak Tar Tar a french delicacy? Oh why yes, it is. You know what the rare component of that dish is? the steak is raw. Period, it's a presently verifiable fact. So clearly our canines are still of use for rending meat, even raw.

Is the heart the toughest muscle in the body? Why yes, it is. Again, a medically verifiable fact.

But you still keep trying to compare us to carnivores, which we are not. We are omnivores, unless you can prove otherwise. Don't hop on here, throw down a full load of bullshit, then expect not to get called on it.

[darin]

That might behoove you but it does not behoove me.

I gave the Biblical backing in rather vivid detail along with text quotes and source links.

If you choose to ignore the truth then that is not my concern.




...but I, and others, COMPLETELY showed you the err of your ways with regard to claiming GOD wants us to be vegetarians. You gave out of context verses with absolutely TERRIBLE interpretation that, when used, gets completely owned, by preponderance of teh evidence of the OTHER scriptures we gave you. Yet you stomp away - can you be more obtuse?

[LuvRPgrl]

...but I, and others, COMPLETELY showed you the err of your ways with regard to claiming GOD wants us to be vegetarians. You gave out of context verses with absolutely TERRIBLE interpretation that, when used, gets completely owned, by preponderance of teh evidence of the OTHER scriptures we gave you. Yet you stomp away - can you be more obtuse?

Didnt Jesus eat fish?

Did he ever respond to Kath's llinks, especially the one about all the animals killed in growing food?

[JP Cusick]

Is Steak Tar Tar a french delicacy? Oh why yes, it is. You know what the rare component of that dish is? the steak is raw. Period, it's a presently verifiable fact. So clearly our canines are still of use for rending meat, even raw.

Is the heart the toughest muscle in the body? Why yes, it is. Again, a medically verifiable fact.

But you still keep trying to compare us to carnivores, which we are not. We are omnivores, unless you can prove otherwise. Don't hop on here, throw down a full load of xxxxxxx, then expect not to get called on it.


I do not say that anyone can not eat meat as I only say that anyone can reject that barbaric custom and then raise them self up to a higher level as a vegetarian.

You see your self and other humans as being "omnivores" while I am saying that you can chose to stop your self from acting like an animal.

As to the French eating raw meat then the French are notoriously violent people and there is no sensible reason that the rest of humanity needs to follow along with some barbaric idea of feeding on the raw meat off of an innocent and defenseless animals. And surely the French know how to tenderize the raw meat so that the barbaric humans can feed on it.

The heart might be the toughest meat in a body as you say because I certainly do not know about such a filthy idea, but even if the heart is so tough then it still takes a sharp knife for a human being before a person can feed on a heart, so it is not a natural occurrence.

[JP Cusick]

Didnt Jesus eat fish?


That is a debatable point and I side with the position that Jesus was a vegetarian too.

Jesus fed the crowd of people with loaves and fishes but it never said that Jesus ate any of it Himself.

There is only one debatable text where after Jesus had risen from the dead that it says Jesus ate a small piece of a fish to show that He was alive and not a vision, and I say the text is not an accurate depiction.

A more notable text is that Jesus changed the Passover sacrifice away from killing and eating a sheep and changed it over to the bread and wine as the last supper, so He stopped the animal sacrifices.




Did he ever respond to Kath's llinks, especially the one about all the animals killed in growing food?


There is no response to some thing that extremely lame and senseless.

The point is to stop killing the animals and the vegetables will keep growing as if by magic - duh.

[LuvRPgrl]

First you say this:

I am saying that you can chose to stop your self from acting like an animal..

THEN you say this:


feeding on the raw meat off of an innocent and defenseless animals..

So, if animals are innocent , why shouldnt we act like them?

[LuvRPgrl]

That is a debatable point and I side with the position that Jesus was a vegetarian too..
Anything about Him refusing to eat fish?


Jesus fed the crowd of people with loaves and fishes but it never said that Jesus ate any of it Himself..Yea, "Hi, Im Jesus, and I have total mastery over all the universe, and lo, Im going to change this loaf of bread and a few fish into enough to feed all of you, but hey, Im gonna go hungry myself. Oh, not to mention, you werent designed by Me to eat fish, and eating fish is immoral, but Im gonna give it to you to eat anyways, even though I could make thousands of basket fulls of fruit, veggies , nuts, bread, etc.


There is only one debatable text where after Jesus had risen from the dead that it says Jesus ate a small piece of a fish to show that He was alive and not a vision, and I say the text is not an accurate depiction..Well, of course, whenever confronted with a scripture that disagrees with what you want to believe just claim it isnt accurate.


A more notable text is that Jesus changed the Passover sacrifice away from killing and eating a sheep and changed it over to the bread and wine as the last supper, so He stopped the animal sacrifices.. You are going to extrapolate He is a vegetarian from that, and then deny the other two texts based on inaccuracy, and it didnt indicate he ate something He Himself made to eat?

very weak, all of it.




There is no response to some thing that extremely lame and senseless..


The point is to stop killing the animals and the vegetables will keep growing as if by magic - duh.

[JP Cusick]

So, if animals are innocent , why shouldnt we act like them?


An animal's innocence is far different that human innocence.

For a human to act like an animal is not an act of maturity.

For a person as like myself in wanting myself to become a better person then I feel compelled to be a vegetarian.

It really does rank as one of the most rewarding and enjoyable things I have ever done, and being a vegetarian affects me every day as it is a very dynamic way of life which makes me work for it.

[darin]

JP, Your opinions fly in the face of supporting data/sources. Doesn't matter you can't make a logical, biblical case for a vegetarian diet, you stick by it - INSISTING you're right in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. You strike me as the type who would rather stick to their opinions even if it means they are wrong.

[DragonStryk72]

I do not say that anyone can not eat meat as I only say that anyone can reject that barbaric custom and then raise them self up to a higher level as a vegetarian.

So, which is it? Either our teeth break on raw meat, or they don't, period. You're pulling a lot of bullshit here, and can't support any of it.

You see your self and other humans as being "omnivores" while I am saying that you can chose to stop your self from acting like an animal.

No, I am saying that we are CARNIVORES, as you continue to re-assert. Quit bullshitting.

As to the French eating raw meat then the French are notoriously violent people and there is no sensible reason that the rest of humanity needs to follow along with some barbaric idea of feeding on the raw meat off of an innocent and defenseless animals. And surely the French know how to tenderize the raw meat so that the barbaric humans can feed on it.

No animal, in all the world is defenseless, even cows can gore you with hooves. They cannot be innocent or guilty, as they have no will. The French have been known more widely for their culture than any violence they have ever committed, so this is just more bs.

The heart might be the toughest meat in a body as you say because I certainly do not know about such a filthy idea, but even if the heart is so tough then it still takes a sharp knife for a human being before a person can feed on a heart, so it is not a natural occurrence.

Might be?! Ask any heart surgeon, anywhere on the fucking planet, and they will tell you that. this is not a debatable point, it's simple scientific fact, just like us being omnivorous by nature. I'm not arguing choices, just facts.

It does not take a sharp knife. You can rend through skin with your bare hands. Again, this is not debatable, it's a simple fact. It's take less than fifteen pounds of pressure to break through my skin/hides, that's it. Knives simply make it faster and easier, as they are able to get greater force on a much smaller area. Again, Fact, not a point for debate, that's how knives work.

Do you have any other implausible points that you'd like to assert? Oh wait you did:


and I say the text is not an accurate depiction.

Great going, genius. You have just rendered the Bible inapplicable to your argument that the Bible says we're only supposed to eat vegetables. Any lawyer would agree that once you start making a part of a document inaccurate, then the entirety of the document becomes inadmissable. It's not that damn hard.

I gotta tell you, your prospects as a politician are slim, really. I mean, dear Lord, you're bad at debate. you don't even do double talk well.

[JP Cusick]

JP, Your opinions fly in the face of supporting data/sources. Doesn't matter you can't make a logical, biblical case for a vegetarian diet, you stick by it - INSISTING you're right in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. You strike me as the type who would rather stick to their opinions even if it means they are wrong.


I am completely satisfied that I gave the correct info from the Bible along with the text references and quotes and source links so your denials mean nothing to the verifiable reality displayed in this thread.

My opinions in this subject are correct and that is why I stand behind them as being correct and true.

If you see your self as correct then it is your own folly, and so be it.

================================



... blah blah blah ... blah blah blah ... blah blah blah



You and I have nothing further to discuss in this matter.

I love what I do, and you can go live with yours.

[DragonStryk72]

You and I have nothing further to discuss in this matter.

I love what I do, and you can go live with yours.

Ah, in other words, you have no defense for the facts that don't fit your argument, and you want to curl up in the corner to lick your wounds. I get it, it's hard having to actually defend your blatant false premises.

[ConHog]

If God hadn't meant us to eat beef, he wouldn't have made it so tasty.

[darin]

I am completely satisfied that I gave the correct info from the Bible along with the text references and quotes and source links so your denials mean nothing to the verifiable reality displayed in this thread.

My opinions in this subject are correct and that is why I stand behind them as being correct and true.

If you see your self as correct then it is your own folly, and so be it.

================================


You and I have nothing further to discuss in this matter.

I love what I do, and you can go live with yours.

Holy crap - do you really have NOTHING to say about the counter arguments? I'd LOVE to one-on-one debate you on the matter. BUT - here's the deal...you'd have to actually ANSWER counter-points which point to your position being ludicrous. What you're doing here is simply IGNORING facts that show your Biblical-based view point as being complete fantasy.

[Abbey Marie]

JP, I will say as a Christian myself, you do not need to Bible to justify your food choices. I think God stopped caring about what we ate or didn't eat when Jesus arrived. I would let that line of argument go if I were you. The Bible is full of "cultural" things that applied 2000 or more years ago; not so much today.

I applaud your decision to not eat meat, and I agree with most of your reasons.

[LuvRPgrl]

I am completely satisfied that I gave the correct info from the Bible along with the text references and quotes and source links so your denials mean nothing to the verifiable reality displayed in this thread.

My opinions in this subject are correct and that is why I stand behind them as being correct and true.

If you see your self as correct then it is your own folly, and so be it.

================================


You and I have nothing further to discuss in this matter.

I love what I do, and you can go live with yours.

well, I asked a few questions and you havent answereed them, so I suppose y0u choose to ignore some facts in order to make some of your statements seem real to yourself.

[DragonStryk72]

I am completely satisfied that I gave the correct info from the Bible along with the text references and quotes and source links so your denials mean nothing to the verifiable reality displayed in this thread.

My opinions in this subject are correct and that is why I stand behind them as being correct and true.

If you see your self as correct then it is your own folly, and so be it.

================================


You and I have nothing further to discuss in this matter.

I love what I do, and you can go live with yours.

Do I hear crickets?

[Gunny]

I do not see myself as looking down on or condemning anyone here when I tell them that they can and need to do better than what they are doing.

Surely I tell other people not to lie or steal or adultery and not to eat animals, and I give the explanation along with Bible reference and links because that is me preaching the message.

This is a discussion board and people have asked questions and I give answers accordingly.

And I myself believe firmly that every person in all of humanity does eventually get saved, as everyone gets saved including the sinful meat eaters, see me HERE (http://www.universalpublicforum.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=peace&action=display&thread=35).

Telling the meat eaters that they are wrong is giving them the rightful info for their own self improvement, which they can embrace or reject at their own expense.

Try again. I can tell you are one of those wannabe intellectual types that thinks he's got the answer for everyone and really just sounds like a nerd. I think the scripture thunderknuckles quoted spells it out rather succinctly ... there is no "expense", as you say.

[ConHog]

Anyone else find it odd that JP is concerned about animals , but not his own children?

[DragonStryk72]

Anyone else find it odd that JP is concerned about animals , but not his own children?

Nope. he's seriously messed up as a person I don't know what makes him think he's ready for office.

[LuvRPgrl]

Nope. he's seriously messed up as a person I don't know what makes him think he's ready for office. Ive seen worse throw their hat into the ring, ever hear of a guy named obama, and on the issue of child support, what about that john edwards dude.

[Abbey Marie]

I think we need to give JP a chance before piling on.

[DragonStryk72]

Ive seen worse throw their hat into the ring, ever hear of a guy named obama, and on the issue of child support, what about that john edwards dude.

No, see, what they said made sense. it was well-worded for the intended audience. That is just not the case with JP

[JP Cusick]

Try again.


I have already given the info both clearly and precisely so there is nothing else to try.

People that deny the given info are just shutting them selves out.

[DragonStryk72]

I have already given the info both clearly and precisely so there is nothing else to try.

People that deny the given info are just shutting them selves out.

Again, you have no ability to defend your arguments, and want to crawl off in a corner. You're right, you stated a bunch of things. The difference is that your claims were repeatedly refuted, using basic logic, science, and even the Bible you "claim' commands vegetarianism. When the facts went against you, you ran off like a kid, with these sorts of immature, and poorly worded excuses.

[ConHog]

I think we need to give JP a chance before piling on.

After reading a few of JP's posts in the child support thread, I can honestly say I would kick his ass and gladly serve my my jail sentence if I ever met him. He is a total piece of shit.

[Gunny]

I am completely satisfied that I gave the correct info from the Bible along with the text references and quotes and source links so your denials mean nothing to the verifiable reality displayed in this thread.

My opinions in this subject are correct and that is why I stand behind them as being correct and true.

If you see your self as correct then it is your own folly, and so be it.

================================


You and I have nothing further to discuss in this matter.

I love what I do, and you can go live with yours.

In other words, you cannot respond in the face of facts.

[Gunny]

Holy crap - do you really have NOTHING to say about the counter arguments? I'd LOVE to one-on-one debate you on the matter. BUT - here's the deal...you'd have to actually ANSWER counter-points which point to your position being ludicrous. What you're doing here is simply IGNORING facts that show your Biblical-based view point as being complete fantasy.

Nah ... pseudo-intellectuals like JP can't be bothered with us lowly minions and our meat-eating ways. Damn, now I'm hungry for a ribeye. Medium rare.

[Gunny]

Nope. he's seriously messed up as a person I don't know what makes him think he's ready for office.

Office Hours, maybe ....

[LuvRPgrl]

Nah ... pseudo-intellectuals like JP can't be bothered with us lowly minions and our meat-eating ways. Damn, now I'm hungry for a ribeye. Medium rare.

best steak there is !!

CH, why would you want to kick his ass? He is pathetic, I only have pity fdor him, he isnt worth bothering with, or spending time in jail.
Plus, if anyone wants to kick his ass, it should be his kids. And I would fully understand that, I stood up to my bio father and when he threatened to get physical with me, I told him, "I aint no 14 year old kid that you can slap around anymore", he changed his mind.

But I think kicking Jps ass would only be to show how bad one is.

[Gunny]

I have already given the info both clearly and precisely so there is nothing else to try.

People that deny the given info are just shutting them selves out.

People running for office on a bunch of BS are shutting themselves out. I've been through this system more times than you have opinion polls as both a child and an adult. You have YET to address my point; which, is how it REALLY is. You want to blame the law when the law has nothing to do with it. Those who enforce the law DO.

So yeah, you got PLENTY to say if you're actually looking for votes, Einstein. You can't address the REAL issue in favor of your red herring. That given, I don't even care what party you are hiding behind .... you wouldn't get my vote because your willful blindness is just a bit too much for me.

[Gunny]

best steak there is !!

CH, why would you want to kick his ass? He is pathetic, I only have pity fdor him, he isnt worth bothering with, or spending time in jail.
Plus, if anyone wants to kick his ass, it should be his kids. And I would fully understand that, I stood up to my bio father and when he threatened to get physical with me, I told him, "I aint no 14 year old kid that you can slap around anymore", he changed his mind.

But I think kicking Jps ass would only be to show how bad one is.

Let's just back off the talking about kicking people's asses line. It can't go anywhere but down.

[ConHog]

best steak there is !!

CH, why would you want to kick his ass? He is pathetic, I only have pity fdor him, he isnt worth bothering with, or spending time in jail.
Plus, if anyone wants to kick his ass, it should be his kids. And I would fully understand that, I stood up to my bio father and when he threatened to get physical with me, I told him, "I aint no 14 year old kid that you can slap around anymore", he changed his mind.

But I think kicking Jps ass would only be to show how bad one is.

Ribeys are okay. I'll take a porterhouse though :)

As for why I'd slap the dogshit out of that cum dumpster. Because it sickens me to see an alleged man abandon his kids.

[Kathianne]

Nah ... pseudo-intellectuals like JP can't be bothered with us lowly minions and our meat-eating ways. Damn, now I'm hungry for a ribeye. Medium rare.

He's not even a pseudo intellectual. Nope, he got his GED, got married, had a kid and ran off. All in like 5 years. He doesn't bother with politics, with the exception of a non-issue, child support enforcement. Proven to reduce the numbers on welfare, food stamps, it's not going away.

As for other issues asked of him? 'My primary issue is the child support system, anything else I'll follow democrat party. If I've time, unlikely due to my disabilities, I'll consider them.'

From the candidate he's promising the same care he gave his child, none.

[ConHog]

He's not even a pseudo intellectual. Nope, he got his GED, got married, had a kid and ran off. All in like 5 years. He doesn't bother with politics, with the exception of a non-issue, child support enforcement. Proven to reduce the numbers on welfare, food stamps, it's not going away.

As for other issues asked of him? 'My primary issue is the child support system, anything else I'll follow democrat party. If I've time, unlikely due to my disabilities, I'll consider them.'

From the candidate he's promising the same care he gave his child, none.

There's a solid point. This piece of shit couldn't even make time, nor money, for his own child. Who in their right minds thinks he would care any more about the voters who elected him?

[PostmodernProphet]

Now Abel kept flocks, and Cain worked the soil. 3 In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the LORD. 4 And Abel also brought an offering—fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. The LORD looked with favor on Abel and his offering, 5 but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor.

I wonder if God didn't know why Abel was keeping flocks........

[logroller]

Ribeys are okay. I'll take a porterhouse though :)

As for why I'd slap the dogshit out of that cum dumpster. Because it sickens me to see an alleged man abandon his kids.

Uh oh, another porterhouse is better than ribeye statement. Why are you and DMP such liars?:laugh2:

Speaking of cum dumpsters, if a vegan woman swallows semen, does it violate vegan principles? Would it matter if the man is vegan?

[Noir]

Uh oh, another porterhouse is better than ribeye statement. Why are you and DMP such liars?:laugh2:

Speaking of cum dumpsters, if a vegan woman swallows semen, does it violate vegan principles? Would it matter if the man is vegan?

The essence of Veganism is not wanting to exploit animals, i dare say that no man or woman is being exploited when giving/receiving oral ^,^

[logroller]

The essence of Veganism is not wanting to exploit animals, i dare say that no man or woman is being exploited when giving/receiving oral ^,^

Kenneth Star might take issue with you there.

Seriously though, i raise chickens, well two chickens, they're more like pets- but we eat the eggs-- still exploited in your opinion?

[Noir]

Kenneth Star might take issue with you there.

Seriously though, i raise chickens, well two chickens, they're more like pets- but we eat the eggs-- still exploited in your opinion?

Yes.

Obviously there are different levels at which things are undoubtablty worse, for example i have no doubt that you will be treating your chickens with care, unlike some mega-farm that is interested only in egg count etc.

As it so often comes around to the question would haveto be 'would you do that to a human?' I know its rude to answer a question with a question but if i may be even ruder and presume your answer (of 'no i wouldn't) then you are exploiting them imo.

[Noir]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=2557&d=1319217155


2557

Reminds me of a tshirt i use to have ^,^
http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j176/jonathan-mcc/veg.png

[logroller]

Yes.

Obviously there are different levels at which things are undoubtablty worse, for example i have no doubt that you will be treating your chickens with care, unlike some mega-farm that is interested only in egg count etc.

As it so often comes around to the question would haveto be 'would you do that to a human?' I know its rude to answer a question with a question but if i may be even ruder and presume your answer (of 'no i wouldn't) then you are exploiting them imo.

Rude is subjective; and given my previous question re:swallowing semen, asking me if I had my red-wings is fair game-- I do not BTW-- but in consideration of my previous question re:swallowing and your 'Would I do that to a human?', could I assume a person could partake in the intake of animal semen and still be considered vegan?
And what about cow milk; humans are mammals, ergo, they drink human milk.
Or honey, is honey vegan?

Land of milk and honey:laugh:

I completely understand your point about exploitation of mega-farms, but I have done a bit of research on human development between hunter gatherer and animal husbandry, and I can state many of the species now farmed have little common ancestry with any naturally occurring species; their existence of being thanks entirely to their capacity to provide humans sustenance. I can likewise consider the ramifications of these actions, like attracting predators which are then negatively impacted, creating a maelstrom of downstream effects upon ecosystems; which in the end brings about the issue of sustainability. Not to discount animals and their suffering, but in the broad context of man's pursuit of food, modern farming techniques don't strike me as ethically or morally superior.

[LuvRPgrl]

Yes.

Obviously there are different levels at which things are undoubtablty worse, for example i have no doubt that you will be treating your chickens with care, unlike some mega-farm that is interested only in egg count etc.

As it so often comes around to the question would haveto be 'would you do that to a human?' I know its rude to answer a question with a question but if i may be even ruder and presume your answer (of 'no i wouldn't) then you are exploiting them imo.
Id be willing to bet a majority of vegans/vegetarians are pro abortion.

[logroller]

Id be willing to bet a majority of vegans/vegetarians are pro abortion.

This really isn't the thread for such discussions. But I'll bite.

Did you mean pro-choice? I highly doubt any major subset of people are pro-abortion.

Here's an example: I'm pro-business, free-market trade etc. In a free market, fraud can and does occur; but this isn't to mean I'm pro-fraud. Likewise, I'm pro-choice; understanding abortions can and do occur, but that doesn't mean I'm pro-abortion.

Back to the thread topic. Veganism is an extreme POV IMO. I do think people on the whole eat too much meat and processed food, and veganism represents a social reaction to unbalanced eating habits. Truth is most people don't eat enough fruits and veggies, compromising their health along with a variety of other undesirable external social effects: including healthcare costs, environmental damage and unsustainable resource allocation.

[Noir]

Rude is subjective; and given my previous question re:swallowing semen, asking me if I had my red-wings is fair game-- I do not BTW-- but in consideration of my previous question re:swallowing and your 'Would I do that to a human?', could I assume a person could partake in the intake of animal semen and still be considered vegan?
And what about cow milk; humans are mammals, ergo, they drink human milk.
Or honey, is honey vegan?

If the animal is not consenting (as a human can) then you are exploiting. Until such a time as an animal can consent they are being exploited when you take from them.

[logroller]

If the animal is not consenting (as a human can) then you are exploiting. Until such a time as an animal can consent they are being exploited when you take from them.


Nature v nurture me thinks; there isn't as a clear a line as you have premised. Were you to evict a gopher from a garden, has it consented-- hasn't the garden been created and nurtured to provide for you-- yet duly exploited the gopher's natural behavior?

My point is that any ethical argument, when taken to an extreme, has exceptions. As Mark Twain said, "All generalizations are false, including this one."

I see many benefits to veganism-- the ethical treatment of animals seems obtuse, if not outright fallacious, but I guess the ends could justify the means. Kinda like Anthropomorphic Climate Change.:poke:


On the subject of ethics, you ever considered the trolley dilemma? Here's my favorite version--

You are the engineer of a trolley. One day you are driving when you notice a stalled school bus on the tracks ahead; its full of children. Hitting the bus would likely kill all aboard the bus, but you and your passengers would escape unscathed. There is a diversionary track ahead, but it isn't capable of handling the speed you are travelling and you would assuredly derail by using it. A derailment will, in all likelihood, cause your own death as well as that of most of your passengers. You have only a few passengers aboard-- about ten, compared to fifty on the bus. You estimate you have about fifteen seconds to activate the switch to change tracks, derailment would be imminent---what do you do?

[DragonStryk72]

Nature v nurture me thinks; there isn't as a clear a line as you have premised. Were you to evict a gopher from a garden, has it consented-- hasn't the garden been created and nurtured to provide for you-- yet duly exploited the gopher's natural behavior?

My point is that any ethical argument, when taken to an extreme, has exceptions. As Mark Twain said, "All generalizations are false, including this one."

I see many benefits to veganism-- the ethical treatment of animals seems obtuse, if not outright fallacious, but I guess the ends could justify the means. Kinda like Anthropomorphic Climate Change.:poke:


On the subject of ethics, you ever considered the trolley dilemma? Here's my favorite version--

You are the engineer of a trolley. One day you are driving when you notice a stalled school bus on the tracks ahead; its full of children. Hitting the bus would likely kill all aboard the bus, but you and your passengers would escape unscathed. There is a diversionary track ahead, but it isn't capable of handling the speed you are travelling and you would assuredly derail by using it. A derailment will, in all likelihood, cause your own death as well as that of most of your passengers. You have only a few passengers aboard-- about ten, compared to fifty on the bus. You estimate you have about fifteen seconds to activate the switch to change tracks, derailment would be imminent---what do you do?

I always hate these sorts of "tests". With 15 seconds to stop, I hit the brakes, and everyone lives, shit, I can stop a vehicle going 200+ mph with 15 seconds to stop. Alternatively, I take 3 seconds to shout to people to get on the side of the trolley that will go high when we turn, and brace myself either staving off the derailment, or at least minimizing casualties. The point is, it's not really a test because it makes this A or B out of a situation with a plethora of options available, all of which would preserve life on both sides. The only these "tests" work is if you keep adding modifier after modifier to keep people from even vaguely making a choice other than A or B.

[logroller]

I always hate these sorts of "tests". With 15 seconds to stop, I hit the brakes, and everyone lives, shit, I can stop a vehicle going 200+ mph with 15 seconds to stop. Alternatively, I take 3 seconds to shout to people to get on the side of the trolley that will go high when we turn, and brace myself either staving off the derailment, or at least minimizing casualties. The point is, it's not really a test because it makes this A or B out of a situation with a plethora of options available, all of which would preserve life on both sides. The only these "tests" work is if you keep adding modifier after modifier to keep people from even vaguely making a choice other than A or B.

A trolley is a train.. I was speaking in Noir's vernacular. I don't think a 200 MPH train can stop in 15 seconds. besides, the time it took to consider all the other options was probably longer than 15 sec (certainly the typing took longer;)) SO you just killed a busload of kids. For what its worth, they weren't very good kids; downright irresponsible if you ask me--combined they had almost a $1.5 million share of the public debt-- good riddance!!!:lol:

[LuvRPgrl]

Nature v nurture me thinks; there isn't as a clear a line as you have premised. Were you to evict a gopher from a garden, has it consented-- hasn't the garden been created and nurtured to provide for you-- yet duly exploited the gopher's natural behavior?

My point is that any ethical argument, when taken to an extreme, has exceptions. As Mark Twain said, "All generalizations are false, including this one."

I see many benefits to veganism-- the ethical treatment of animals seems obtuse, if not outright fallacious, but I guess the ends could justify the means. Kinda like Anthropomorphic Climate Change.:poke:


On the subject of ethics, you ever considered the trolley dilemma? Here's my favorite version--

You are the engineer of a trolley. One day you are driving when you notice a stalled school bus on the tracks ahead; its full of children. Hitting the bus would likely kill all aboard the bus, but you and your passengers would escape unscathed. There is a diversionary track ahead, but it isn't capable of handling the speed you are travelling and you would assuredly derail by using it. A derailment will, in all likelihood, cause your own death as well as that of most of your passengers. You have only a few passengers aboard-- about ten, compared to fifty on the bus. You estimate you have about fifteen seconds to activate the switch to change tracks, derailment would be imminent---what do you do?

contact my union rep

[LuvRPgrl]

I always hate these sorts of "tests". With 15 seconds to stop, I hit the brakes, and everyone lives, shit, I can stop a vehicle going 200+ mph with 15 seconds to stop. Alternatively, I take 3 seconds to shout to people to get on the side of the trolley that will go high when we turn, and brace myself either staving off the derailment, or at least minimizing casualties. The point is, it's not really a test because it makes this A or B out of a situation with a plethora of options available, all of which would preserve life on both sides. The only these "tests" work is if you keep adding modifier after modifier to keep people from even vaguely making a choice other than A or B.
Its not really all that difficult, just keep it simple.
You have been given a choice, kill a group of 10 adults and yourself, or a busload of kids. If you dont choose, everybody dies.

[Toro]

I have no moral qualms because meat is delicious.

Mm-mmm!

Top o' the food chain, and all that.

[logroller]

contact my union rep

After consulting with the union it has been decided that asking you such questions places undue stress on you. A few days off paid while you recoup from this, plus counseling, more training for all the drivers and new upgrades to automated safety systems. Consequently, passenger fees were raised, business has dropped off and routes have been cut back; a quarter of the staff is now laid off.

[LuvRPgrl]

[QUOTE=logroller;504178]After consulting with the union it has been decided that asking you such questions places undue stress on you. A few days off paid while you recoup from this, plus counseling, more training for all the drivers and new upgrades to automated safety systems. Consequently, passenger fees were raised, business has dropped off and routes have been cut back; a quarter of the staff is now laid off.[/QUOTEw

how awesome ! PROGRESS !

[Noir]

Nature v nurture me thinks; there isn't as a clear a line as you have premised. Were you to evict a gopher from a garden, has it consented-- hasn't the garden been created and nurtured to provide for you-- yet duly exploited the gopher's natural behavior?

My point is that any ethical argument, when taken to an extreme, has exceptions. As Mark Twain said, "All generalizations are false, including this one."

I see many benefits to veganism-- the ethical treatment of animals seems obtuse, if not outright fallacious, but I guess the ends could justify the means. Kinda like Anthropomorphic Climate Change.:poke:


On the subject of ethics, you ever considered the trolley dilemma? Here's my favorite version--

You are the engineer of a trolley. One day you are driving when you notice a stalled school bus on the tracks ahead; its full of children. Hitting the bus would likely kill all aboard the bus, but you and your passengers would escape unscathed. There is a diversionary track ahead, but it isn't capable of handling the speed you are travelling and you would assuredly derail by using it. A derailment will, in all likelihood, cause your own death as well as that of most of your passengers. You have only a few passengers aboard-- about ten, compared to fifty on the bus. You estimate you have about fifteen seconds to activate the switch to change tracks, derailment would be imminent---what do you do?

Indeed, of course there are exceptions, i'm i'm sure there are a whole range of vegans who view things in different ways because there's no 'right' answer as such, however there is an underlying effort to try and go out of your way to cause as little harm (physically and mentally) to other creatures as possible.

As for ethics, my gf and I both study/studied philosophy at University, and we spend farrrr too long discussing those kind of questions xD
Personally i'd flick the switch and take my chances, but there are much trickier questions imo, heres the one that always gets me -

You are given a choice, either someone you love (wife/child/brother etc) is killed. Or, someone you don't know, will never know, and will never know anything about is killed instead, which would you chose?
Obiously everyone would chose their loved one to live, from then on you just up the stakes, 5 other people, 10, 500...at what point would you consider the lives of people who may as well not exist to you (and their friends/family/loved ones) to be worth more than your loved one. And how much misery are you willing to inflict on others so as to have none yourself.

[revelarts]

Nature v nurture me thinks; there isn't as a clear a line as you have premised. Were you to evict a gopher from a garden, has it consented-- hasn't the garden been created and nurtured to provide for you-- yet duly exploited the gopher's natural behavior?

My point is that any ethical argument, when taken to an extreme, has exceptions. As Mark Twain said, "All generalizations are false, including this one."

I see many benefits to veganism-- the ethical treatment of animals seems obtuse, if not outright fallacious, but I guess the ends could justify the means. Kinda like Anthropomorphic Climate Change.:poke:


On the subject of ethics, you ever considered the trolley dilemma? Here's my favorite version--

You are the engineer of a trolley. One day you are driving when you notice a stalled school bus on the tracks ahead; its full of children. Hitting the bus would likely kill all aboard the bus, but you and your passengers would escape unscathed. There is a diversionary track ahead, but it isn't capable of handling the speed you are travelling and you would assuredly derail by using it. A derailment will, in all likelihood, cause your own death as well as that of most of your passengers. You have only a few passengers aboard-- about ten, compared to fifty on the bus. You estimate you have about fifteen seconds to activate the switch to change tracks, derailment would be imminent---what do you do?

I'm with dragon I hate these questions,
It's fishing for an answer that's morally right where both choices have moral failings. Do you kill the kids or do you kill the passengers? what's right? neither is "right". but on the other side do you save the passengers or do you save the kids? both are right -alone-.
the only way to answer the question from a good moral position is to start from WHO DO YOU SAVE position. I'd say save the Kids, IMO if the adults onboard had the chance to put it to a vote my guess, based on regular folks, would be that most on the train would agree. BUT as Dragon Said GET TO THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE TROLLEY NOW!!!!

[Wind Song]

There certainly can be a moral argument made for vegetarianism. There can also be a moral argument to be made that vegetarianism also kills living beings.

In Buddhism, sentient beings include insects. Even vegetarians have karma due to the large number of insects killed in the harvesting of vegetables and grains.

We cannot avoid killing entirely. Our cars kill countless beings.

[LuvRPgrl]

indeed, of course there are exceptions, i'm i'm sure there are a whole range of vegans who view things in different ways because there's no 'right' answer as such, however there is an underlying effort to try and go out of your way to cause as little harm (physically and mentally) to other creatures as possible.

As for ethics, my gf and i both study/studied philosophy at university, and we spend farrrr too long discussing those kind of questions xd
personally i'd flick the switch and take my chances, but there are much trickier questions imo, heres the one that always gets me -

you are given a choice, either someone you love (wife/child/brother etc) is killed. Or, someone you don't know, will never know, and will never know anything about is killed instead, which would you chose?
Obiously everyone would chose their loved one to live, from then on you just up the stakes, 5 other people, 10, 500...at what point would you consider the lives of people who may as well not exist to you (and their friends/family/loved ones) to be worth more than your loved one. And how much misery are you willing to inflict on others so as to have none yourself.

philosophy is immoral.
Your question isnt one of morality or lack of. Its a question of emotions. The moment the choice is between two others or your loved one, you know the right thing is to choose the two.

[LuvRPgrl]

philosophy is immoral.
Your question isnt one of morality or lack of. Its a question of emotions. The moment the choice is between two others or your loved one, you know the right thing is to choose the two.

no that is not true at all. IT DEPENDS OF MANY CIRCUMSTANCES.

[LuvRPgrl]

no that is not true at all. It depends of many circumstances.

how do you figure? What a moronic reply, i would neg rep you if i could.

[Noir]

philosophy is immoral.
Your question isnt one of morality or lack of. Its a question of emotions. The moment the choice is between two others or your loved one, you know the right thing is to choose the two.

Not at all, you're taking the question too much at face value. The key component is the fact that you know nothing, nothing at all about who the other people are that who die. They could just aswell be new born babies as they could be Islamic terrorists in training. Does that change the morality? Should it? In the moral vacuum created by the lack of knowledge is it immoral to try and convince yourself that the other people could well be 'evil' etc?

[LuvRPgrl]

Not at all, you're taking the question too much at face value. The key component is the fact that you know nothing, nothing at all about who the other people are that who die. They could just aswell be new born babies as they could be Islamic terrorists in training. Does that change the morality? Should it? In the moral vacuum created by the lack of knowledge is it immoral to try and convince yourself that the other people could well be 'evil' etc?

maybe, but purple ball bearings will never work.
I love moose tracks ice cream.