: 1. It is wrong to eat meat.
: 2. Humans are not superior to animals.
: 3. Homosexuality is not wrong.: :: Speaking for me personally, I believe the last two, if not the first. My choice to refrain from using animal products is based on my belief that animals are not here to exploit, that they are not a resource, that a privileged few cause hunger, injustice, and environmental degradation which could be avoided if we all ate lower on the food chain. I believe that the preparing and eating of food is sacred,
: Sacred, eh? Well I shouldn't wonder. If you mean to establish your own independent moral code it's no wonder you worship very odd things.
Odd things? Who are you to call other people's religions odd. i have nothing but respect for the Catholic Chruch and other, similar progressive minded religions. (Jesus was a communist after all.) But your narrow interpretation of Christianity seems to sanction capitalism, anti-homosexuality, and similar atrocities 9judging by what you post). Don't tell other people about strange religions.
: :: and that while it is possible to lose sight of the source of our food and its interconnectedness even when eating vegetarian, this dissociation is enshrined in our meat culture.
: I disagree totally! When you open a package of meat blood comes out. I know it. My wife and kids know it. I think everybody knows it Kevin. I believe psuedo intellectuals discuss such things as interconnectedness and dissociation to keep their fertilized minds entrenched in dogma. Children who can tell me where meat comes from?
: :: In short, eating meat is not wrong.
: That wasn't your viewpoint a while ago but thanks for that. It's all I ever wanted to hear you say 100 posts back.
Why did you want him to say it? So that you can feel justified after eating meat? So that you don't have to face up to the fact that you are harming a sentient being? What makes what 'you want to hear" so important? I want to hear you say that homosexuality is OK. But I know you don't have an inclination to. that's OK, you have the right to your own opinion. What's wrong with allowing Kevin teh same right?
: :: "higher" order consumers are NECESSARILY fewer in number, since there is a finite amount of energy in a food chain. If you chase down a lame gazelle and make a meal of it, more power to you. You are ill-equipped (sans rifle) to do so for a reason: humans need not eat as much meat as they do, if any at all.
: Plenty of historical and contemporaneous cultures had to exist almost soley on meat.
Utter nonsense. Any culture surviving mostly on meat would immediately go extinct due to nutritional deficiencies, mainly a severe carbohydrate deficit. Your brain can't burn protein, it needs sugar. Only one culture in the world, the Inuits of the Arctic, survived mainly off non-vegetarian sources, and they relied on FISH, not meat; eating fish is both healthier, environmentally more sound, and morally more acceptable than eating meat. (E.g. many hindus and Buddhists sanction eating fish but not mammalian meat).
: We can manipulate the food chain because of our superiority to animals. We are not fully bound by nature's tyranny else we wouldn't have set foot on the moon or cured polio. I'm not about to take my place in your idealistic version of reality.
Stuy, are you even aware that chimpanzees and monkeys have been observed to use medicinal plants and herbs to cure disease? Are you aware that myriad life forms have been far better at colonizing hostile environments than we have (e.g. tardigrades)? The two examples you used to suggest human superiority fall flat on their face, because in both fields you ahve animals doing exactly teh same thing- sometimes better.
A while back you said "define superiority or stop using it." Not being a despotic capitalist, I won't use words like that. But may I make a humble plea that you define superiority so that Kevin and I know what the hell you're talking about?
: : How many of you:
: : 1) believe that humans are superior to other species?
: Define the word or stop using it. You can't win this one Kevin. A cheeta can outrun me but he gets creamed at Indy.
see above!
: : 2) believe homosexuality is a sin?
: Define sin or don't use it. Biblical sin, which includes practicing homosexuality, seperates us from God. Homosexuality is only one manifestation of this. Idolotry (the worship of anything not God) is another.
Well, I thank God that my religion prohibits neither. Hindus believe in tolerance, Stu. So did Jesus, incidentally, but some people seem to have forgotten that..... Everything i claim is divinely inspired can also be defended on rational grounds, without reference to God. This is as it should be, because my God is a rational God. Where's teh rational grounds for opposing homosexuality? And please, no references to natural law. That's been dead a long time.
: : 3) preach to fellow posters that their salvation lies in Jesus?
: Salvation lies in the fact that I cannot attain to heaven or God. Jesus is God coming here to fix this problem for me. This love is not exclusive to me Kevin.
God takes many forms, Stu.
: : 4) believe that environmentalists smoke pot, and that it is wrong to do so?
: I never said this. I believe a large portion of them do.
So what?
: I did every day for many years of my early adulthood.
Good for you. Why'd you stop?
:God forbid I should judge that wasted portion of my life as morally wrong.
Why is smoking weed morally wrong? I've got news fro you Stu, the Hindu religion says that alcohol is wrong but marijuana is OK. Guess what? I don't drink but i do smoke weed (very) occasionally. what are you going to do about it?
:God forbid I should suggest that pot can sap motivation and render one useless to society.
better to have your motivation sapped than to start a business and screw the poor. Better to have it sapped than to go off and bomb peasants in Viet Nam. better to be sueless to society than to serve a twisted society that exists by for and of the rich. We need more stoned hippies and fewer capitalists and warmongers. Society would be a lot better off if we all took a long collective drag.
: God forbid I might suggest that nasty crap like angel dust, lsd, crystal meth, opium, and every pill known to man are easier to contemplate using after one has begun experimenting with pot.
This argument's been dead for three decades, Stu. Give it up. Marijuana is not physically adictoive nor very harmful. more peopel die from etaing dried fruits (sulfite allergeis) than from smoking weed.
: Don't you dare tell me that there ought to be some morality which is inclusive of pot smoking. I have plenty of dead friends who know better.
That's exactly what I'm telling you, Stu. Read it and weep. Stu, are you honestly telling me that teh moral and religious codes of the Hindus, the Native Mexicans, and myriad other cultures are full of shit? Why don't you go ahead and insult us all some more, Stu? why don't you tell us we're inferior cultures while you're at it.
: :: Speaking of preferred morality Stuart, take a look at the exclusiveness of your own doctrine.
: Actually, after having sparred with you enough to evaluate your word non-defining strategy I retract my orginal statement and offer you this:
: Why must we substitute the ideology of the left for time honored morality?
The ideology of teh left is based on the same moral principles taht underly every great religion. Equality. Nonviolence. Human brotherhood. freedom. Love. If you don't think thsoe are superior to teh ethic of teh dollar than we don't have much to argue about.
: If you won't use words like sin and can't define words like superiority, you have no morality at all.
: Stuart Gort
