: Not at all, but there are just so many minutes in a day. I believe I can poke rather large holes in most of the parroting you guys call reason. Problem is, when I post something I consider substantive it generally sets off an avalance that I can scarcely respond fully to.Please poke away, i'm still waiting for REASON. Just in case, the webster cites this as considering both sides and I don't think you are sincerely doing that.
: This, for instance says "Man's tenatious existence marks one aspect of his superiority over millions of other life forms which weren't clever enough to deal with changes around them". This must certainly fulfill at least ONE dictionary definition of the word. If you don't like the attached ad hominem, too bad. Take note that I tweak you guys for sport at times. Forgive me if I don't consider these posts to be dead serious. If you take this stuff that seriously and consider ad hominem attacks as taboo, call your buddies on it when they do it as well.
Well sporty, we have not been around long, as humans, in terms of the world and it's species', so we still have time to prove ourselves as un-adaptable as anything else. Also you may like to consider the point that it is considered more to do with luck when a species survives a major catastrophy, then any skill or superiority on their part, but they don't mention that in webster, I actually had to do RESEARCH to learn this.
: Which one of you guys will admit that man is superior to animals by at least one dictionary definition? Anybody? Is man not manifestly superior in a miriad measurable ways to animals? Of course he is!
: Only head of programmed mush will overlook what is manifest to win an argument.
Vice versa, mushy mushy. I don't need to repeat the many examples of how we are not any more superior than anything else. Once again try REASON:consider (at least for a second, sincerely) both sides of the debate. Just for a moment entertain the notion that you could be wrong the teeniest bit on this. I got out the big webster for manifest to make sure we are on the same page so to speak, and this superiority may appeal to your senses but not mine and since you imply this is such a widely held view, and you are even outnumbered on that point in this debate room i'd feel safe in guessing you are outnumbered in the world at large on this thought also.
: I recognize if you cut me any slack at all it undermines an argument that animals are not subject to man. Of course, I don't need your affirmation if I base my opinion of this issue on biblical decree.
: I could be smug and just parrot biblical tenets. Instead, I use the logic of applying the model we have in the animal kingdom as it relates to homosexuality (which you guys provided) to the morality of meat eating.
By the same 'reasoning' children are subject to the will of adults, so lets grill up little joey on the BBQ out back, eh? I'll trade you for one of my cats, what do you think? (as long as we are being rediculous)
: It is said;
: Animals practice sexual behavior on their same sex and that is natural so it is also natural for man to do so. What is natural should not be judged immoral.
: Let's all just accept that for the purposes of this argument.
: I then say;
: Animals practice meat eating and that is natural so it is also natural for man to do so. What is natural should not be judged immoral.
: Except it is judged immoral by the same folks who offer us this style of reasoning. I'm not addressing the half a million tangents and peripheral obfuscatory arguments that you are all going off on - just the moral judgment issue - JUST THAT!
OK then lets go from there:
1. Where do you get the meat YOU consume? if you answer grocery store-restaurant I have a whole string of MORAL arguing to follow.
2. About how much meat do you consume a month? as a 'superior' thinking reasoning human you should have the mental faculties to weigh out what is the most healthy, practical, ecologicly sound diet to pursue, making moral choices so you are around longer to be there for your family and to set a good example for them.
3. I have many relatives and friends over 50 who have eaten their share of meat and animal fat, and upon consulting the doc about resulting health problems they were instructed to eat a vegi diet.
4. Western culture eats way more meat than any in history. The huge rise in related health problems would seem to indicate that we are not superior enough to handle this. So it may be our Moral obligation as responsible adults to change accordingly.
: But I am unreasonable somehow. Look people, admit this lapse of logic and be more consistent with your reasoning.
You said it!!!REASONING-both sides remember?
: I'm sorry you spent so much time on your XB=YB treatise Red, I still don't have the time or the inclination to answer it though. I might if there were some connection to the stated position which spawned this
: thread. Do you suppose that your "meat causes pain" argument sufficed, freeing to argue the periphery? Tell me why animals are not immoral when they cause pain among themselves. Then proceed to tell me why humans are immoral when they do the same. I have no interest in your XB=YB treatise if you blow past my fundamental point.
: If you suggest here that man has a choice of what he eats and choosing meat makes him immoral because of the pain he inflicts, I'll counter by suggesting that you make two assumptions.
: First, you assume animal pain is the technical equivalent of human pain. Prove that. I say the cognitive complexity of humans amplifies pain. I say the anticipation, experience, rememberance, and processing of pain for humans is greviously higher in quantity and quality than in animals. Proving that should not be too difficult should you wish to argue this further.
PLEASE PLEASE provide proof for your theory that humans are even superior in their ability to feel pain! I would love to hear PROOF one way or the other. You must have some clever secrets.
: Second, I'll argue that morality is:
: 1. Universally constant and therefore ought to apply to the animal kingdom as well, making animals immoral when they kill. or...
: 2. Ecclesiastically ordained and therefore is beyond debate. or...
: 3. The product of fickle consensus opinion and therefore has no imperative other than legal consequence. or...
: 4. Is based on opinions and therefore has no absolutes if we are not to esteem one's opinion over another's.
: You guys are not seeming to accept 1, 2, or 3. Number 4 leaves us with no absolute right and wrong yet we still hear condemnation of meat eating. This is inconsistent.
Hmm... only 4 choices, how can one person possibly speak for the masses and the other species to top it off. It seems fairly obvious that when something is bad for your health, the eco system, hurts cute furries(hahaha) and you are not a carnivore, as a human able to live on vegies if needed, the choice is clear.
: I rarely work less than 60 hours a week, Red. My business is growing quickly and requires most of my brain (powerfin.com). In addition, I have a wonderful wife and two very upright, conservative fiddle playing sons who I am priviledged to offer my attentions.
I'm busy too, college, 2 jobs, social life, boyfriend yadayada, just moved this weekend. SO when you find the time i'm eagerly waiting.
: Sometimes I have something to offer you guys. Sometimes I take a hard day out on you. But, high levels of reason and adult debate are no more the purview of this board than are ad hominem attack and spite, nor am I the exclusive distributor of either.
: Stuart Gort
Sit back relax, take a load off, have a burger.
Then tell me how does this homo-meat thing apply, when most meat eaters in our western culture are not aquiring their meat the same way as the other animals? If you want the OK via the homo thing, than let's close the groceries, fast food, etc. and go get our meat the way the other animals do. If that were the case we'd avoid so many moral issues. Otherwise it's pure hypocrisy according to my webster.
None.
