Stu, I doubt you'll respond, since you never choose to respond to any of my posts, and you obviously don't respect mmy postings, but this is begging for an answer and a few factual corrections. : Thanks Nikhil. Before you came along I never knew how left and right idealism was divided up so cleanly between good and evil.
Well, they are. The right stands for things like hierarchy, exploitation, and oppression, which i think are horrible. Simple as that. The term "religious right" incidentally, is an oxymoron- go back and look at how communist Jesus was.
"Catholicism and Conservatism are incompatible bedfellows." - Graham Greene.
: :: 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.
have you ever heard of living lightly on the earth? have you ever heard of nonviolence? Perhaps these concepts are foreign to your way of thinking, but for a good billion and a half people they are the basis of teh moral code.
: :: Obviously, i think that I have many more important causes to devote my life to than vegetarianism- spreading socialism, for example.
: Spreading failure?
capitalism hgas produced nothing but starvation, diseaser, inequality and the loss of freedom on a scale unprevcendented in human history. Before you argue with this statement, ask yourself teh following. 1) Why is it that the highest standards of living, across the spectrum of wealth levels, is invariably found in socialist states. 2) Why has every state that goes from capitalism to socialism seen an increase in the standard of living? 3) Why ahs every state so far that goes from socialism to capitalism seen a drop in teh standard of living, with no turnaround seen for the near future?
I've been asking capitalists these questions for months and I have yet to hear an answer. perhaps you have one.
Long Live International Communism!
: :: 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.
I don't have a problem if everyone except me and one nice girl turn homosexual, Stu. The way tehy find romantic fulfilment is none of my concern. Nor is it yours.
: :: "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.
No, I judge the right wing and the capitalists all the time. but there's no yardstick for measuring superior. Arguably, dolphins are superior because they don't kill each other. Monkeys which share their food are superior because they practice communism. Bonobo chimpanzees are superior because they are totally nonviolent. Etc. etc. What do you mean by superior?
: :: 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.
1) none of recorded history has man eating the amount fo meat he does today, if anything it's the modern western diet that's horribly unnatural- no, that's too obvious for me to even state. In other words, if eating meat once a week is more natural than eating it not at all, then eating it every day has to be the least natural of all- by far.
No society ahs ever eaten as much red meat as the North Americans and Argentinians today.
: : 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's your right to believe whatever you want. Well, then, don't condemn homosexuals for not feeling "guilty" about their homosexuality- it is also a gift from God. Don't condemn me for upholding socialsim, it's God's economic system.
: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.
no, it falls on everyone. We are guilty, Stu, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not. We are guilty for living in a capitalist system taht exploits teh Third Wporld and sucks it dry, taht thrives on teh degradation and starvation of others. You can't be rich unless someone else is poor.
: : 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.
,man is not an animal? Looks like someone slept through evolution class. what are we, Stu, a plant? Please. We are an animal. A moral animal, an animal with a soul (how do you know chimpanzees don't have a soul?) but an animal nonetheless. 100% animal. Read it and weep.
: : : 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.
Your refusal to open your eyes to facts does not render thsoe facts invalid.
:
: : : 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.
They are allowed to be so based, but I want to hear you explain why it's reasonable taht god would say something liek that. See, I can claim that God wants us to eat vegetables, and tehn I can give a non-religious, rational argument as to why such a pronouncement si reasonable. i think anything claimed as a divboine commandment should be eminently reasonable and defensible from a secular viewpoint. this accords with my view of a Rational God. Do you think God is irrational and arbitrary, Stu? Does his moral code come down to "because I said so?" Do you think so little of God?
: 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.
irrelevant, we convert energy into less and less usable forms. Secodn Law of Thermodynamics. And eating meat speeds up the process.
: 3. Your not even buying the health argument.
Let me qualify. Obviously, teh typical vegetarian's diet is a WHOLE lot healthier than teh typical meat-eating A,mericans. however, it is POSSIBLE to eat meat and be perfectly healthy (within moderation).
: 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.
It isn't based on their feelings. It's based on evident moral principles, natural law, or religion,w hatever you choose to call it. I could say your revulsion towards homosexuality is based on your 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.
And it's equally natural to kill your neighbor. Killing your neighbor is wrong, Stu, i can defedn that on both religious and rational grounds. can you do teh same for homosexuality? Let's hear some rational grounds.
: :: 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.
We certainly do disagree. homosexual marriage doesn't exist within thsi culture, bu t that's only because we've chosen to disallow it.
: : :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.
1) check your anthropology?
2) irrelevant, irrelevant, irrelevant. If you're a woman and a lewd amn in a bar tries to hit on you, you would tell him to piss off. Does that mean that you suddenly came to see heterosexual sex as immoral?
: Stuart Gort
