:: I knew you would write this! So why do wish to provoke?
:: Why do you have so much trouble with analogies, Stuart? Your problem is that you just *can't* stand when people mention cruelty to animals in the same breath with cruetly to people. Too bad, because I think that both are wrong, and I see no need to say otherwise. Beating a man because he is another skin color is wrong, just as beating an animal is wrong simply because it's not human. Note, I did not equate the two, but simply said both are wrong., though premised on the same rationale. Can you deal with that concept, Stuart?
You did it again Mike. We are not talking about beating animals. We
are talking about eating them. Your mind is hard wired to overstate
your point so as to generate an emotionally charged support base. You
can't simply argue a point without using these offensive tactics.
:: With all due respect, Fuck your bible, Stuart. It condones a lot of shit we no longer take for granted, such as slavery.
:: Jesus, being compassionate, would be in the front lines against factory farming.
We couldn't measure your due respect with a micrometer Mike. If my
Bible and my God is not where you place your trust why did you then,
in your next breath, try to use your vision of Christ to support your
premise?
:: I don't call taking a stand against cruelty to animals a mere lifestyle preference. I will fight against cruetly to animals, even if other people are happy to incorporate it into their lifestyles.
Are you characterizing eating them as cruelty? If you are then the
group you fight(?) gets a lot bigger than the group of those people
who really are cruel to animals. You're going to get beat up
trying to fight all meat eaters.
:: My moral basis is based on my personal view of what's right and wrong.
There are lots of twisted views of right and wrong in this world.
Why is yours right? This is all I wish to know.
:: Cruelty to animals is wrong.
We agree if merely eating them is not cruel in your thinking.
:: Fortunately, this is a widely-held view,
I think our definitions of the word "wide" widely vary.
:: and if put into practice, factory farms would shut down now.
It's not put into practice because yours is a miniscule percentage
of the population.
:: Is my morality wrong because it doesn't flow from God? How do you
know it doesn't? Do you presume to know the mind of God? You can't
prove diddly squat with God, Stuart, so leave the Big Unknown out of it.
What have you proven by claiming a moral superiority based on your
opinions Mike? Arrogance perhaps? The God of the Bible is the one
true God and a part of His mind is revealed in His Bible.
: Actually, Stuart, there's a tremendous difference in a court of law between words and actions, but leaving that aside, first, try to see if for once you can post a message without using the word "rhetoric;" it's as cheap a way of demeaning your opponent's argument as simply calling it PC, and it can be thrown right back in your face. I do not know how many sins it takes to make a man a bad man -- do you?
One.
:: Wrong again. A judge looks at mens rea, or criminal intent, in sentencing defendants. Did that man mean to kill that other man when he hit him with a brick, or merely to wound him, or was it an accident, or was it in self-defense, or was in done in the heat of passion, or in cold blood, etc.
So this relates back to my hot dog exactly how? Am I ever going to
end up immoral by your standard? How is it that you call the act
immoral but find it difficult to judge the man for the act? How many
hot dogs may I eat and still be your buddy Mike.
:::...I am ignorant of a superior morality and continue with an immoral practice oblivious to a better way (Mike's way).
: Insults again, coupled with obtuseness.
You are claiming a moral superiority to me - are you not?
: Well la di da, because the majority believes it, and because it's always been done that way, how can it be wrong? I won't insult your intelligence by citing all the exceptions to that statement...at least, I hope you can answer that one yourself.
All I am saying is that if you do not accept an ecclesiastical god
as a basis of your morality then you must accept the majority opinion
of right and wrong because that is what will wind up legal or illegal.
If you have a personal opinion on the matter and attempt to shape other
people's opinions, then you have altered popular opinion. You cannot
call that morality, however. Morality never changes because it comes
from God - who never changes.
: Terrible animal suffering is THE truth behind your meat, Stuart. Can you live with that? Visit a slaughterhouse, as I have, and then answer this question.
It's not that big a deal to me Mike. I've hunted and fished enough
to have caused suffering to animals. I've seen blood and caused it to
flow. That has no effect on me so powerful as hearing that this is
immoral from someone considering himself above me. Examine your dogma
Mike. Stop being offensive.
: Look closely at that piece of flesh on the end of your fork, Stuart, and really think about how it got there.
As if I hadn't done so until you said to. I might have killed it
myself. I wonder if you ever did that. You come off yourself as
someone who suddenly discovered how meat was made. This is juvenille.
: I must really have gotten under your skin, Stuart, since you're so damned defensive. Maybe there's hope for you yet.
Don't hold your breath.
: "Man is the only animal who blushes, or needs to." -- Mark Twain
And He ends with the only Twain quote I remember having reservations
about. Man is not an animal.
Stuart Gort
