On June 03 2004 18:58 Servolisk wrote: Eatting things like Veal and Dogs and Shark Fins are not needed to survive. We could manage without eatting any meat in many places, and it would be healthier too.
Following the Servo line of reasoning, we should expel any kind of luxury from our lives and exist with the bare essentials. This is because luxuries are produced at the expense of others, and we should discard them because they're 'not needed to survive'. To produce simple luxuries such as power, paper, living space etc, huge areas of forest are being burned down, land is strip mined, pollution wrecks delicate ecosystems etc etc causing massive damage to the environment. Normal human inhabitation/exploitation of the earth is causing mass extinction to untold numbers of natural species. Do you really stand by the belief that you should only take what you need to survive? And to all the vegetarians, where is your conscience for all the 'poor little animals' when you turn on the lights or lie in your warm bed?
acutally by immigration i mean only let either rich ppl in, or ppl with the education to have a good job that will bring money to the country. also its necessary to have incredibly high standards of background check so no terrorists etc. about homeless ppl? i dont see the difference bw a piece of garbage u put at the corner of ur house for the truck to pick it up to the dumpster and a homeless person. they both pollute, have no economic value, and only harass ppl for money to get more alcohol. not only that but some waste more taxpayers money in mental hospitals or jails. im sure if they would be eliminated ur life wouldnt change one bit. its good to keep the publicity rolling and spiking the hype. im happy u are interested enough to comment. and if u look clearly my point in this thread was stated in my 1st post, all the others were just natural reaction to idiots. and im sure my dog is more intelligent then baal.
On June 04 2004 18:04 BlazeD wrote: acutally by immigration i mean only let either rich ppl in, or ppl with the education to have a good job that will bring money to the country. also its necessary to have incredibly high standards of background check so no terrorists etc. about homeless ppl? i dont see the difference bw a piece of garbage u put at the corner of ur house for the truck to pick it up to the dumpster and a homeless person. they both pollute, have no economic value, and only harass ppl for money to get more alcohol. not only that but some waste more taxpayers money in mental hospitals or jails. im sure if they would be eliminated ur life wouldnt change one bit. its good to keep the publicity rolling and spiking the hype. im happy u are interested enough to comment. and if u look clearly my point in this thread was stated in my 1st post, all the others were just natural reaction to idiots. and im sure my dog is more intelligent then baal.
On June 03 2004 18:58 Servolisk wrote: Eatting things like Veal and Dogs and Shark Fins are not needed to survive. We could manage without eatting any meat in many places, and it would be healthier too.
Following the Servo line of reasoning, we should expel any kind of luxury from our lives and exist with the bare essentials. This is because luxuries are produced at the expense of others, and we should discard them because they're 'not needed to survive'. To produce simple luxuries such as power, paper, living space etc, huge areas of forest are being burned down, land is strip mined, pollution wrecks delicate ecosystems etc etc causing massive damage to the environment. Normal human inhabitation/exploitation of the earth is causing mass extinction to untold numbers of natural species. Do you really stand by the belief that you should only take what you need to survive? And to all the vegetarians, where is your conscience for all the 'poor little animals' when you turn on the lights or lie in your warm bed?
Your last line is stupid. Very.
Can you not see the differance between man slaughter and cannibalism?
eating meat isn't needed at all, i've lived a fair amount of time off fruits/plants (healthily). that's not to say i'm forcing my view on anyone else :O
yeah I agree with naz.. if meat was not so tasty (and while I'm pretty clueless on nutrition, I've heard having some meat in your diet is healthy too. at least being a vegan makes you lack some things. ) I'd probably be a vegetarian.
On June 05 2004 09:31 FrozenArbiter wrote: Your last line is stupid. Very.
Can you not see the differance between man slaughter and cannibalism?
Well maybe I am stupid, I don't understand what you mean by 'the difference manslaughter and cannibalism' ^_^ Expansion on your point would be welcome so I can respond.
edit: I got confused by your emotive choice of language I understand your point to be that we commit 'manslaughter' animals by destroying that habitat etc, and that we are committing 'cannibalism' by eating them. From your post, it seems like you are saying that 'manslaughter' is justifiable/acceptable, whilst 'cannibalism' is somehow worse and unacceptable?
Well I have to say I think this is rather a misleading analogy. Your reasoning is that since we have a direct intention to kill when we eat meat, then this is morally more culpable than when we 'accidentally' kill animals via our normal inhabitation of the earth. Except the environmental/animal cost is not an 'accident', we know for certain that when we hack down that rainforest, that the local wildlife will suffer and die etc Because we know it is an unavoidable consequence, we 'intend' the death just as much as if we were killing it for its meat. A more apt comparison would be murder vs cannibalism.
An often used example to illustrate this. A terrorist blows up a plane and kills everyone on board. He intends it and has thus commited murder. (Eating meat)
A man blows up a plane with his goods upon it in order to effect an insurance scam. His primary aim is not to kill everyone on board, but to get the insurance money. But he knows that everyone on board will die as a result. In this example, the man intends the death of everyone on board just as much as in the first example. This would be analagous to our normal inhabitation of the earth and our exploitation of it.
Whether we are eating meat or turn on the heating, we're still indirectly killing animals. The effect on the animals is exactly the same, yet you are making an exception for eating meat. Since there is no practical difference in distinguishing the two, then you must have some kind of moral basis for saying animals/environment is ok to exploit for other purposes, but not for their meat. What is this moral basis? (Bearing in mind I really do not believe cannibalism/manslaughter is a good comparison for reasons stated.)
EPT
I understand your point to be that we commit 'manslaughter' animals by destroying that habitat etc, and that we are committing 'cannibalism' by eating them. From your post, it seems like you are saying that 'manslaughter' is justifiable/acceptable, whilst 'cannibalism' is somehow worse and unacceptable? 
