:: None of these are particularly leftist positions, Stu. The Left consists of those who support freedom and equality, and the right generally consists of those who defend established power and privilege. There are plenty of conservative Hindus who would say that eating meat is a sin, for example. Thanks Nikhil. Before you came along I never knew how left and right idealism was divided up so cleanly between good and evil.
:: Personally, I think that eating meat is....well, not "evil", but certainly an act of violence against a sentient being. I eat meat, personally, but i do view it as a shortcoming.
Of course you do. I imagine you view your whole imposition on this gorgeous planet as a shortcoming.
:: Obviously, i think that I have many more important causes to devote my life to than vegetarianism- spreading socialism, for example.
Spreading failure?
:: Of course, I think that consensual homosexuality is perfectly OK, although I have absolutely no taste for it myself.
It's OK unless everyone chooses it. That would be really unnatural, eh? No taste for it? Maybe you're normal.
:: "Superior" is a somewhat meaningless term. I think that a man is more spiritually and mentally developed than a slug, for example. But I would hesitate to say the same about a chimpanzee. of course, "superior' is in itself a totally subjective term, so I can only ask, superior according to what definition?
Yeah, we ought to just throw that word out. You wouldn't want to have to judge anyone. For the record, Webster suits me just fine.
:: Invariably, the argument against eating meat always boils down to the
: : notion that humans have the choice to eat meat or not so it is incumbant upon mankind to choose not to eat meat to spare that animal.
: No, the argument doesn't 'invariably" boil down to anything of the kind. Stop trying to look at the world through a [pair of blinkers. There are many reasons why people choose to be vegetarian.
Sorry, I should have said the moral argument. That's what I was thinking about when I wrote that.
: 1) the religious argument. Two of the oldest world religions, as well as many other smaller ones, condemn eating meat as a form of unnecessary violence against a sentient being. This is inarguable.
Well, you could argue whether they were right. All recorded history has man as an omnivore.
: 2) the environmental reason. eating a vegetarian diet is more energy-efficient. A;lthough i don't advocate universal vegetarianism, I do think it is inanely stupid, as well as invcredibly selfish, for Americans to be eating as much grain-fed beef as they do, seeing as how these grain supplies are desparately needed by poorer countries.
If you wish to eat the quality of grain they feed cattle, go ahead. We are not talking about high quality stuff here. I'm sick of this argument. I will never feel guilty for enjoying prosperity Nikhil. That is a gift from God. I should share my prosperity with those poor that are within my personal contact. But the shame of ignoring the poor that are not within my reach falls on those who are within reach but fail to help.
: 3) the health argument, about which I have my doubts,
: 4) the secular animal rights argument.
: Obviously, the religious argument against eating meat is the strongest, because it depends on undebatable axioms. If you accept teh axiomms it's hard to deny the conclusion.
: :But what code is man obligated to follow? Is man not an animal too?
: Yes, obviously, but the more intelligent animals may possibly have a code of morality- at any rate, tehy ahve a capacity for empathy. Humans have a moral sense which tells us right and wrong, we also have a capacity for evil that dwarfs that of any other animal.
I was being sarcastic. Man is not an animal and he is obligated to follow God's moral code. His capacity for evil is as great as his ability to temporarily ignore God.
: : If man is an animal then he is superior to other animals because he can practice morality where the others cannot.
: Questionable, among the higher apes morality may exist....the data is currently insufficient. Anyway, an alien onbserver rpobably wouldn't conclude that humans were moral either- our behavior doesn't seem to show it. Only we knwo we have morality, because we can see inside our own minds...similarly, i would hesitate before judging chimpanzees.
Yeah, the data that proves stop signs are really green is also currently insufficient.
: : Indeed, if we are to practice the morality of meat abstinence and spare the lamb our animalistic urges then what of sexual abstinence and morality. You know, the kind that suggests it is proper to enter into a normal sexual relationship only in the context of a committed relationship.
:: Non sequitur, first of all you have to explain to me WHY homosexuality is immoral.
:: I've already given you an argument why meat eating may reasonably be regarded as wrong, though I feel somewhat silly since I eat meat myself. i haven't seen a good argument why homosexuality is wrong. I don't wwant to hear legal arguments, tehy ahve no moral force. Give me some moral arguments, please.
1. If my position on homosexuality isn't allowed to be based on ecclesiastical standards then your above religious rationalizations for vegetarianism aren't either.
2. Your claims of the environmental impact of meat consumption are dubious at best and over exaggerated leftist nonsense at worst. Energy is neither created or destroyed - only manipulated.
3. Your not even buying the health argument.
4. The secular animal rights movement uses their own contrived morality as a tool to manipulate emotions and behavior but will not accept that morality is nothing when it is based soley on their relativistic feelings.
: : You see, I find it rather odd that examples of same gender sex in the animal kingdom are used to rationalize homosexuality.
:: They're not, they're ponly used to deny the premise taht homosexuality is unnatural.
Then it's natural to eat meat as well.
:: Too many right-wingers, unable to argue taht homosexuality is harmful to anyone, fall back on the false cliche about being unnatural.
I'm only suggesting that it is intellectually dishonest to offer the animal kingdom as an argument to support homosexual behavior in humans and then ignore the animal kindom when discussing meat.
: :This argument flies in the face of the first premise. If man is an animal when it comes to his sexual urges, why can't he also follow his dietary urges?
: No one says that all sexual desires should be gratified. Sex without consent is wrong, e.g. sex with children, comatose people, mentally disbaled people, etc.
We disagree. Sex outside of a marriage is wrong. Homosexual marriage does not even exist.
: :Are not the instincts to survive both engendered equally in sex and food?
: Erm?
If the instinct to procreate and to eat are just about as basic an urge as can be had, why is the male animal who trys to have sex with another male justification for homosexuality and the animal who eats the other not justification for me to eat meat?
: : Why must we practice the preferred morality of the left and disregard time honored morality?
: Time honored according to whom? Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, and several other religions all condemn meat eating. most of these religions don't particulalry condemn homosexuality. Homsoexuality is fully accepted in many societies including ancient Greece, traditional Samoa, Tibet, and most progressive countries today.
Fully accepted is not the truth. Tolerated would be a better choice don't you think? But let the homosexual make an advance to you and we will see whether you accept it or not.
Stuart Gort
