|
On May 30 2009 19:28 Eniram wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 17:28 travis wrote:On May 30 2009 17:15 PH wrote:On May 30 2009 17:02 travis wrote:On May 30 2009 16:55 PH wrote:On May 30 2009 16:08 travis wrote:On May 30 2009 15:24 PobTheCad wrote:On May 30 2009 13:22 iNfuNdiBuLuM wrote:
1. It doesn't matter what a lion eats to survive. Lions do not have the mental capacity do make the choice: to kill or not to kill? A person can make this conscious decision and is aware of the consequences of it (or at least he should be) - which is why the question of whether we should eat meat or not exists in the first place.
2. The paleolithic diet is far removed from the modern western diet. Here's a handy list of things that many of us currently eat that prehistoric man did not evolve eating:
grains (bread, pasta, noodles, etc)
Beans and peas
Potatoes
Dairy
Sugar
Salt
By the way, prehistoric man didn't walk into any store and buy fucking anything because THERE WEREN'T ANY STORES. Maybe that was a joke but honestly i couldn't tell. I hope you were joking.
These foods only became common in mans' diet during and after the agricultural revolution and the development of cooking. In the evolutionary timescale, this is pretty recent. The notion that man ate meat in the past justifies meat eating in the present doesn't make any sense, especially when meat is not even necessary in a healthy diet when you live in a developed country (and you probably do, considering you are on the internet).
If you want to defend your position, learn to do it properly. ??.... the point was paleolithic man had to eat meat to survive because meat was the only place he could find vitamin B12.if our forefathers did not eat meat we would not be alive today. you are correct in that man has only eaten grains etc in the past 10,000 or so years.grains and carbohydrates are also the main reason DIABETES is so prevalent in society these days.meat does not cause a spike in blood glucose , unlike carbs. well, u can get b12 from fish/shellfish and most don't classify them in the same category as more intelligent animals and LOL at u blaming diabetes on grains the primary reason diabetes is prevalent is because of the mass mass sugar we are consuming. and beyond that, whole grains do not spike blood glucose So it's not okay to eat cows and chickens, but fish are totally fine? well that's certainly not what I said but if you want to take extra meaning from my words I don't mind I actually didn't assume you were supporting what you were saying...I have no idea if you're a moral vegetarian or not. The tone I got from your post was just that of someone bringing up an opposing viewpoint. Anyway...with that aside...I don't see how you could take any other meaning from that. Fish/shellfish are on a different level of intelligence than "more intelligent" animals...combining that with the previous sentence heavily implies that one can intake B12 from fish of whatever kind, but not a "more intelligent" animal, which I assume to be things like...cows and chickens. I don't get how you would expect me or anyone else to come to a different conclusion. my view is that is wrong to kill any living creature but it's more wrong to kill some creatures than other creatures I don't believe in black or white situations. How are people going to survive if nothing is ever killed?
I never said that, these are just my opinions. As I said, I don't believe in black and white situations. Some actions are worse than others. As human beings we do have to eat for survival.
Eating a pig is certainly much worse than eating a fish, which is worse than eating a worm, which is worse than eating an apple.
|
On May 30 2009 22:55 PobTheCad wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 16:08 travis wrote:
well, u can get b12 from fish/shellfish
and most don't classify them in the same category as more intelligent animals
and LOL at u blaming diabetes on grains
the primary reason diabetes is prevalent is because of the mass mass sugar we are consuming. and beyond that, whole grains do not spike blood glucose
i disagree white sugar is around 66 on the glycemic index , white bread is 100 , potato is anywhere from 55-100 depending on variety grains usually have other problems with gluten intolerance etc.other common intolerances include milk and eggs.alot less people are allergic to meats although fish and shellfish you listed are the most common meat allergy.
well for the last 10 years companies haven't been making food so much with white sugar, more with terrible shit like corn syrup
but anyways, white rice and white bread and stuff like that is bad for u if consumed in mass quantities, yes. which people do, they consume way too much of it.
lots of things are very unhealthy if you consume way too much of it.
|
On May 31 2009 03:54 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 19:28 Eniram wrote:On May 30 2009 17:28 travis wrote:On May 30 2009 17:15 PH wrote:On May 30 2009 17:02 travis wrote:On May 30 2009 16:55 PH wrote:On May 30 2009 16:08 travis wrote:On May 30 2009 15:24 PobTheCad wrote:On May 30 2009 13:22 iNfuNdiBuLuM wrote:
1. It doesn't matter what a lion eats to survive. Lions do not have the mental capacity do make the choice: to kill or not to kill? A person can make this conscious decision and is aware of the consequences of it (or at least he should be) - which is why the question of whether we should eat meat or not exists in the first place.
2. The paleolithic diet is far removed from the modern western diet. Here's a handy list of things that many of us currently eat that prehistoric man did not evolve eating:
grains (bread, pasta, noodles, etc)
Beans and peas
Potatoes
Dairy
Sugar
Salt
By the way, prehistoric man didn't walk into any store and buy fucking anything because THERE WEREN'T ANY STORES. Maybe that was a joke but honestly i couldn't tell. I hope you were joking.
These foods only became common in mans' diet during and after the agricultural revolution and the development of cooking. In the evolutionary timescale, this is pretty recent. The notion that man ate meat in the past justifies meat eating in the present doesn't make any sense, especially when meat is not even necessary in a healthy diet when you live in a developed country (and you probably do, considering you are on the internet).
If you want to defend your position, learn to do it properly. ??.... the point was paleolithic man had to eat meat to survive because meat was the only place he could find vitamin B12.if our forefathers did not eat meat we would not be alive today. you are correct in that man has only eaten grains etc in the past 10,000 or so years.grains and carbohydrates are also the main reason DIABETES is so prevalent in society these days.meat does not cause a spike in blood glucose , unlike carbs. well, u can get b12 from fish/shellfish and most don't classify them in the same category as more intelligent animals and LOL at u blaming diabetes on grains the primary reason diabetes is prevalent is because of the mass mass sugar we are consuming. and beyond that, whole grains do not spike blood glucose So it's not okay to eat cows and chickens, but fish are totally fine? well that's certainly not what I said but if you want to take extra meaning from my words I don't mind I actually didn't assume you were supporting what you were saying...I have no idea if you're a moral vegetarian or not. The tone I got from your post was just that of someone bringing up an opposing viewpoint. Anyway...with that aside...I don't see how you could take any other meaning from that. Fish/shellfish are on a different level of intelligence than "more intelligent" animals...combining that with the previous sentence heavily implies that one can intake B12 from fish of whatever kind, but not a "more intelligent" animal, which I assume to be things like...cows and chickens. I don't get how you would expect me or anyone else to come to a different conclusion. my view is that is wrong to kill any living creature but it's more wrong to kill some creatures than other creatures I don't believe in black or white situations. How are people going to survive if nothing is ever killed? I never said that, these are just my opinions. As I said, I don't believe in black and white situations. Some actions are worse than others. As human beings we do have to eat for survival. Eating a pig is certainly much worse than eating a fish, which is worse than eating a worm, which is worse than eating an apple.
So the moral culpability is tied to consuming the complexity of the organism ingested? Is it still morally culpable that you eat billions of single celled organisms regardless of what you eat and then subject them to a acidic purge? Is moral culpability still there when the same purge by acid occurs when you swallow saliva? Are people with more active salivary glands inherantly more culpable in that respect?
There's a criteria that you're hinting at which you aren't stating.
well for the last 10 years companies haven't been making food so much with white sugar, more with terrible shit like corn syrup Companies have been using high fructose corn syrup for a long time as a sugar proxy because sugarcane is expensive when compared to corn and the US market doesn't want to deal with products which come from Cuba. It isn't just the last 10 years, its been that way for closer to 70 years.
Fructose has the lovely effect of bypassing a large majority of biochemical feedback loops, which has made quite a few scientists believe that obesity and diabetes rates in america skyrocketed because of this cheap sugar proxy instead of issues regarding how sedentary people are.
That said no longterm studies have linked it causally to the issue. That's mostly because the issue is relatively new in biochemistry and the studies take a massive amount of time to complete. While its quite controversial at the moment, evidence is piling up in favor of the conclusion that its a horrendously dangerous cost cutting measure.
|
On May 31 2009 00:27 Piy wrote:The point about B12 is very valid. It is the one problem with the vegan diet that everyone brings up. The truth of the matter is that it is impossible for vegans to get enough  There is talk that some foodstuffs potentially contain B12, but even in those rare cases it cannot be absorbed by the human body, and is therefore useless.
This is not necessarily true, and there are tons of healthy people who don't eat meat that are living proof. many of them don't even eat eggs or dairy, either.
but if a person is worried about it, they can just take supplements or eat fortified cereal or something
so in short, yes vegans can have problems with b12 deficiency, but it can easily be overcome.
vegetarians, however, should have no problem.
|
On May 31 2009 04:03 L wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2009 03:54 travis wrote:On May 30 2009 19:28 Eniram wrote:On May 30 2009 17:28 travis wrote:On May 30 2009 17:15 PH wrote:On May 30 2009 17:02 travis wrote:On May 30 2009 16:55 PH wrote:On May 30 2009 16:08 travis wrote:On May 30 2009 15:24 PobTheCad wrote:On May 30 2009 13:22 iNfuNdiBuLuM wrote:
1. It doesn't matter what a lion eats to survive. Lions do not have the mental capacity do make the choice: to kill or not to kill? A person can make this conscious decision and is aware of the consequences of it (or at least he should be) - which is why the question of whether we should eat meat or not exists in the first place.
2. The paleolithic diet is far removed from the modern western diet. Here's a handy list of things that many of us currently eat that prehistoric man did not evolve eating:
grains (bread, pasta, noodles, etc)
Beans and peas
Potatoes
Dairy
Sugar
Salt
By the way, prehistoric man didn't walk into any store and buy fucking anything because THERE WEREN'T ANY STORES. Maybe that was a joke but honestly i couldn't tell. I hope you were joking.
These foods only became common in mans' diet during and after the agricultural revolution and the development of cooking. In the evolutionary timescale, this is pretty recent. The notion that man ate meat in the past justifies meat eating in the present doesn't make any sense, especially when meat is not even necessary in a healthy diet when you live in a developed country (and you probably do, considering you are on the internet).
If you want to defend your position, learn to do it properly. ??.... the point was paleolithic man had to eat meat to survive because meat was the only place he could find vitamin B12.if our forefathers did not eat meat we would not be alive today. you are correct in that man has only eaten grains etc in the past 10,000 or so years.grains and carbohydrates are also the main reason DIABETES is so prevalent in society these days.meat does not cause a spike in blood glucose , unlike carbs. well, u can get b12 from fish/shellfish and most don't classify them in the same category as more intelligent animals and LOL at u blaming diabetes on grains the primary reason diabetes is prevalent is because of the mass mass sugar we are consuming. and beyond that, whole grains do not spike blood glucose So it's not okay to eat cows and chickens, but fish are totally fine? well that's certainly not what I said but if you want to take extra meaning from my words I don't mind I actually didn't assume you were supporting what you were saying...I have no idea if you're a moral vegetarian or not. The tone I got from your post was just that of someone bringing up an opposing viewpoint. Anyway...with that aside...I don't see how you could take any other meaning from that. Fish/shellfish are on a different level of intelligence than "more intelligent" animals...combining that with the previous sentence heavily implies that one can intake B12 from fish of whatever kind, but not a "more intelligent" animal, which I assume to be things like...cows and chickens. I don't get how you would expect me or anyone else to come to a different conclusion. my view is that is wrong to kill any living creature but it's more wrong to kill some creatures than other creatures I don't believe in black or white situations. How are people going to survive if nothing is ever killed? I never said that, these are just my opinions. As I said, I don't believe in black and white situations. Some actions are worse than others. As human beings we do have to eat for survival. Eating a pig is certainly much worse than eating a fish, which is worse than eating a worm, which is worse than eating an apple. So the moral culpability is tied to consuming the complexity of the organism ingested? Is it still morally culpable that you eat billions of single celled organisms regardless of what you eat and then subject them to a acidic purge? Is moral culpability still there when the same purge by acid occurs when you swallow saliva? Are people with more active salivary glands inherantly more culpable in that respect? There's a criteria that you're hinting at which you aren't stating.
well it's personal, as I said this is just my opinion (even though I do believe it is a logical truth)
my opinion is that the greater the understanding/awareness of the creature that dies for your food, the greater the moral reprehensibility in killing it.
however there would be other factors specific to the exact situation, that I don't think we really need to get into 
|
On May 31 2009 04:08 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2009 04:03 L wrote:On May 31 2009 03:54 travis wrote:On May 30 2009 19:28 Eniram wrote:On May 30 2009 17:28 travis wrote:On May 30 2009 17:15 PH wrote:On May 30 2009 17:02 travis wrote:On May 30 2009 16:55 PH wrote:On May 30 2009 16:08 travis wrote:On May 30 2009 15:24 PobTheCad wrote:
[quote]
??.... the point was paleolithic man had to eat meat to survive because meat was the only place he could find vitamin B12.if our forefathers did not eat meat we would not be alive today.
you are correct in that man has only eaten grains etc in the past 10,000 or so years.grains and carbohydrates are also the main reason DIABETES is so prevalent in society these days.meat does not cause a spike in blood glucose , unlike carbs. well, u can get b12 from fish/shellfish and most don't classify them in the same category as more intelligent animals and LOL at u blaming diabetes on grains the primary reason diabetes is prevalent is because of the mass mass sugar we are consuming. and beyond that, whole grains do not spike blood glucose So it's not okay to eat cows and chickens, but fish are totally fine? well that's certainly not what I said but if you want to take extra meaning from my words I don't mind I actually didn't assume you were supporting what you were saying...I have no idea if you're a moral vegetarian or not. The tone I got from your post was just that of someone bringing up an opposing viewpoint. Anyway...with that aside...I don't see how you could take any other meaning from that. Fish/shellfish are on a different level of intelligence than "more intelligent" animals...combining that with the previous sentence heavily implies that one can intake B12 from fish of whatever kind, but not a "more intelligent" animal, which I assume to be things like...cows and chickens. I don't get how you would expect me or anyone else to come to a different conclusion. my view is that is wrong to kill any living creature but it's more wrong to kill some creatures than other creatures I don't believe in black or white situations. How are people going to survive if nothing is ever killed? I never said that, these are just my opinions. As I said, I don't believe in black and white situations. Some actions are worse than others. As human beings we do have to eat for survival. Eating a pig is certainly much worse than eating a fish, which is worse than eating a worm, which is worse than eating an apple. So the moral culpability is tied to consuming the complexity of the organism ingested? Is it still morally culpable that you eat billions of single celled organisms regardless of what you eat and then subject them to a acidic purge? Is moral culpability still there when the same purge by acid occurs when you swallow saliva? Are people with more active salivary glands inherantly more culpable in that respect? There's a criteria that you're hinting at which you aren't stating. well it's personal, as I said this is just my opinion (even though I do believe it is a logical truth) my opinion is that the greater the understanding/awareness of the creature that dies for your food, the greater the moral reprehensibility in killing it. however there would be other factors specific to the exact situation, that I don't think we really need to get into
So, you're putting value on awareness? Why? Does the type of awareness matter? Is there a goal for the awareness?
|
On May 31 2009 04:14 L wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2009 04:08 travis wrote:On May 31 2009 04:03 L wrote:On May 31 2009 03:54 travis wrote:On May 30 2009 19:28 Eniram wrote:On May 30 2009 17:28 travis wrote:On May 30 2009 17:15 PH wrote:On May 30 2009 17:02 travis wrote:On May 30 2009 16:55 PH wrote:On May 30 2009 16:08 travis wrote:
[quote]
well, u can get b12 from fish/shellfish
and most don't classify them in the same category as more intelligent animals
and LOL at u blaming diabetes on grains
the primary reason diabetes is prevalent is because of the mass mass sugar we are consuming. and beyond that, whole grains do not spike blood glucose
So it's not okay to eat cows and chickens, but fish are totally fine? well that's certainly not what I said but if you want to take extra meaning from my words I don't mind I actually didn't assume you were supporting what you were saying...I have no idea if you're a moral vegetarian or not. The tone I got from your post was just that of someone bringing up an opposing viewpoint. Anyway...with that aside...I don't see how you could take any other meaning from that. Fish/shellfish are on a different level of intelligence than "more intelligent" animals...combining that with the previous sentence heavily implies that one can intake B12 from fish of whatever kind, but not a "more intelligent" animal, which I assume to be things like...cows and chickens. I don't get how you would expect me or anyone else to come to a different conclusion. my view is that is wrong to kill any living creature but it's more wrong to kill some creatures than other creatures I don't believe in black or white situations. How are people going to survive if nothing is ever killed? I never said that, these are just my opinions. As I said, I don't believe in black and white situations. Some actions are worse than others. As human beings we do have to eat for survival. Eating a pig is certainly much worse than eating a fish, which is worse than eating a worm, which is worse than eating an apple. So the moral culpability is tied to consuming the complexity of the organism ingested? Is it still morally culpable that you eat billions of single celled organisms regardless of what you eat and then subject them to a acidic purge? Is moral culpability still there when the same purge by acid occurs when you swallow saliva? Are people with more active salivary glands inherantly more culpable in that respect? There's a criteria that you're hinting at which you aren't stating. well it's personal, as I said this is just my opinion (even though I do believe it is a logical truth) my opinion is that the greater the understanding/awareness of the creature that dies for your food, the greater the moral reprehensibility in killing it. however there would be other factors specific to the exact situation, that I don't think we really need to get into So, you're putting value on awareness? Why? Does the type of awareness matter? Is there a goal for the awareness?
Yes.
Because awareness is the greatest indicator of one's capacity for "spiritual growth".
There is only one type of awareness. Where the awareness is focused is irrelevant.
The goal for the awareness is to gain understanding(the "spiritual growth").
kinda sidetracking here hehe
hopefully no one minds
|
On May 30 2009 01:50 iNfuNdiBuLuM wrote:
In my opinion, liking the way something tastes isn't a justification for the method it was produced. There are many bad things involved in the making of mass produced meat. They have been discussed before, and include: cruelty, pollution (air and water), growth hormones in food, and deforestation (e.g. Brazil) which leads to a degraded landscape that is eventually unusable for any sort of agricultural production. These aren't some made up bullshit facts by environmentalists, this stuff has happened in the past and is happening in the present. When faced with these issues, his reaction (and yours and many others) was to say "but I like eating meat, so all of that doesn't matter."
"But I like it" is a selfish and shortsighted excuse.
But you like hot running water, paved roads, and other modern conveniences. To live in such a lifestyle, you had to develop wilderness and destroy animal habitats. Why can't you give that up and live a more ecological lifestyle, like an Indian holy man?
Because you like the lifestyle you live. I don't think thats a "selfish and shortsighted excuse".
On May 30 2009 01:50 iNfuNdiBuLuM wrote:
And FieryBalrog, the reason vegetarianism is such a big deal is that diet is one of the few parts of a lifestyle you have almost complete control over.
You have complete control over how you choose to live, given enough willpower.
On May 30 2009 01:50 iNfuNdiBuLuM wrote:
Yes, the very act of living the western lifestyle is harmful to the environment and even to other people. However most of us didn't have control over where we were born and how we were raised, or choice in the matter that we have to drive to work to make money to eat and have shelter and clothe ourselves. If I had the means and necessary motiviation to become some agrarian hilldorf, I might do that.
You do have control over this, but like you say you lack the motivation. A lot of people enjoy meat and want to eat it, because they like it. That's a good reason to keep eating it since there isn't the motivation to change.
On May 30 2009 01:50 iNfuNdiBuLuM wrote:
But I do not. Diet is one of the perhaps few places someone can make a conscious choice about his or her impact on the rest of the world. Some people choose to not eat meat and others do. That's essentially what it boils down to. The notion that one group is somehow "better" than the other is foolish.
Thats what I've been saying all along. There is no compunction to vegetarianism. I do agree that if people eat meat they shouldn't be gluttons, because gluttony is degrading. But thats about it.
|
On May 31 2009 00:58 Diomedes wrote:
B12 is made by bacteria, not by animals or plants. These bacteria live in our bodies, but we can't get the B12 from them.
These bacteria do not live in plants. There is some debate about some potential sources in fungi.
But in the end you need animal products, yes. And many foods aimed at vegetarians/vegans are fortified with B12.
So vegans do need B12 vitamin suppliments. But vegetarians generally don't.
Humans evolution was certainly influenced by their diet. Many studies have been done on the role of humans leaving the trees and hunting on the savanne and the effect on the evolution of our brain. And it is almost a fundamental rule of evolution that to be intelligent a species needs to be a hunter. Herbivores are generally always less intelligent than carnivores because if they weren't the carnivores would go instinct. So if there is intelligent life on another planet we know that species must have evolved hunting prey.
Even chimps eat meat. They hunt monkeys and eat them. Now maybe our common ancestor already did that or both evolved it independently while the common ancestor didn't. But all that doesn't really matter. Humans do have a choice on this issue. And our evolutionary heritage doesn't dictate what is right and wrong. Rape is a successful reproduction tactic. It must have been used many times by many of our direct ancestors. Without rape, be it in some basic mammel 40 million years ago or in a human within 1 million years ago, without it you wouldn't be here. But that doesn't make it right.
The problem with being a vegetarian and getting all you're B12 from their is that all the moral and ethical arguments for vegetarianism work for veganism equally well, especially when you consider that the meat and animal product industry are self supporting
The main reason I switched over.
|
On May 30 2009 17:28 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 17:15 PH wrote:On May 30 2009 17:02 travis wrote:On May 30 2009 16:55 PH wrote:On May 30 2009 16:08 travis wrote:On May 30 2009 15:24 PobTheCad wrote:On May 30 2009 13:22 iNfuNdiBuLuM wrote:
1. It doesn't matter what a lion eats to survive. Lions do not have the mental capacity do make the choice: to kill or not to kill? A person can make this conscious decision and is aware of the consequences of it (or at least he should be) - which is why the question of whether we should eat meat or not exists in the first place.
2. The paleolithic diet is far removed from the modern western diet. Here's a handy list of things that many of us currently eat that prehistoric man did not evolve eating:
grains (bread, pasta, noodles, etc)
Beans and peas
Potatoes
Dairy
Sugar
Salt
By the way, prehistoric man didn't walk into any store and buy fucking anything because THERE WEREN'T ANY STORES. Maybe that was a joke but honestly i couldn't tell. I hope you were joking.
These foods only became common in mans' diet during and after the agricultural revolution and the development of cooking. In the evolutionary timescale, this is pretty recent. The notion that man ate meat in the past justifies meat eating in the present doesn't make any sense, especially when meat is not even necessary in a healthy diet when you live in a developed country (and you probably do, considering you are on the internet).
If you want to defend your position, learn to do it properly. ??.... the point was paleolithic man had to eat meat to survive because meat was the only place he could find vitamin B12.if our forefathers did not eat meat we would not be alive today. you are correct in that man has only eaten grains etc in the past 10,000 or so years.grains and carbohydrates are also the main reason DIABETES is so prevalent in society these days.meat does not cause a spike in blood glucose , unlike carbs. well, u can get b12 from fish/shellfish and most don't classify them in the same category as more intelligent animals and LOL at u blaming diabetes on grains the primary reason diabetes is prevalent is because of the mass mass sugar we are consuming. and beyond that, whole grains do not spike blood glucose So it's not okay to eat cows and chickens, but fish are totally fine? well that's certainly not what I said but if you want to take extra meaning from my words I don't mind I actually didn't assume you were supporting what you were saying...I have no idea if you're a moral vegetarian or not. The tone I got from your post was just that of someone bringing up an opposing viewpoint. Anyway...with that aside...I don't see how you could take any other meaning from that. Fish/shellfish are on a different level of intelligence than "more intelligent" animals...combining that with the previous sentence heavily implies that one can intake B12 from fish of whatever kind, but not a "more intelligent" animal, which I assume to be things like...cows and chickens. I don't get how you would expect me or anyone else to come to a different conclusion. my view is that is wrong to kill any living creature but it's more wrong to kill some creatures than other creatures I don't believe in black or white situations.
You just contradict yourself.
"It is wrong to kill any living creature" That sounds pretty black and white to me.
For a start it doesn't make sense. Is it wrong to kill a raging ape about to rip your genitals off? (see recent thread on ape attack).
There is no definitive set of morals, so stating "it's morally wrong" is stupid. Everyone makes their own morals.
I think you're coming from the wrong side. You need to start from the idea that we are all individuals looking out for ourselves.
Now genetics found that hurting other humans was a bad idea, because they are equal to ourselves. Bad people are quickly removed from the group. Mutual trust among humans allows us to work together and prosper. Like most of our traits being kind is a trait that helps us (and those who share our genes) survive.
It works in part by you taking on the feelings of others. When someone is sad... you feel sad.
Now with animals you just get a backfiring of that emotion. You feel the pain of the animal as if it were you, that's why you don't like watching animals get hurt. It's not something magical, or a deep set feeling of a supernatural moral code... it's just backfiring genetics.
Now if you want to argue that eating meat is a waste of resources, that's different and you might have a point.
|
On May 31 2009 04:29 Klive5ive wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 17:28 travis wrote:On May 30 2009 17:15 PH wrote:On May 30 2009 17:02 travis wrote:On May 30 2009 16:55 PH wrote:On May 30 2009 16:08 travis wrote:On May 30 2009 15:24 PobTheCad wrote:On May 30 2009 13:22 iNfuNdiBuLuM wrote:
1. It doesn't matter what a lion eats to survive. Lions do not have the mental capacity do make the choice: to kill or not to kill? A person can make this conscious decision and is aware of the consequences of it (or at least he should be) - which is why the question of whether we should eat meat or not exists in the first place.
2. The paleolithic diet is far removed from the modern western diet. Here's a handy list of things that many of us currently eat that prehistoric man did not evolve eating:
grains (bread, pasta, noodles, etc)
Beans and peas
Potatoes
Dairy
Sugar
Salt
By the way, prehistoric man didn't walk into any store and buy fucking anything because THERE WEREN'T ANY STORES. Maybe that was a joke but honestly i couldn't tell. I hope you were joking.
These foods only became common in mans' diet during and after the agricultural revolution and the development of cooking. In the evolutionary timescale, this is pretty recent. The notion that man ate meat in the past justifies meat eating in the present doesn't make any sense, especially when meat is not even necessary in a healthy diet when you live in a developed country (and you probably do, considering you are on the internet).
If you want to defend your position, learn to do it properly. ??.... the point was paleolithic man had to eat meat to survive because meat was the only place he could find vitamin B12.if our forefathers did not eat meat we would not be alive today. you are correct in that man has only eaten grains etc in the past 10,000 or so years.grains and carbohydrates are also the main reason DIABETES is so prevalent in society these days.meat does not cause a spike in blood glucose , unlike carbs. well, u can get b12 from fish/shellfish and most don't classify them in the same category as more intelligent animals and LOL at u blaming diabetes on grains the primary reason diabetes is prevalent is because of the mass mass sugar we are consuming. and beyond that, whole grains do not spike blood glucose So it's not okay to eat cows and chickens, but fish are totally fine? well that's certainly not what I said but if you want to take extra meaning from my words I don't mind I actually didn't assume you were supporting what you were saying...I have no idea if you're a moral vegetarian or not. The tone I got from your post was just that of someone bringing up an opposing viewpoint. Anyway...with that aside...I don't see how you could take any other meaning from that. Fish/shellfish are on a different level of intelligence than "more intelligent" animals...combining that with the previous sentence heavily implies that one can intake B12 from fish of whatever kind, but not a "more intelligent" animal, which I assume to be things like...cows and chickens. I don't get how you would expect me or anyone else to come to a different conclusion. my view is that is wrong to kill any living creature but it's more wrong to kill some creatures than other creatures I don't believe in black or white situations. You just contradict yourself. "It is wrong to kill any living creature" That sounds pretty black and white to me.
The stove is hot. The sun is more hot. No contradiction.
Things can be both wrong and right at the same time. That's the fuzziness of it. An event can be wrong on one level, and right on another level.
It's wrong to kill a murderer, but it's right to remove the danger from society.
It's wrong to kill an animal, but it is right to feed your family. No real contradiction.
For a start it doesn't make sense. Is it wrong to kill a raging ape about to rip your genitals off? (see recent thread on ape attack).
yes it's wrong. but it's right to want to keep your ballz and defend yourself.
we aren't really arguing about anything here. I agree with what you are saying, I just want to make sure that you understand what I am saying.
There is no definitive set of morals, so stating "it's morally wrong" is stupid. Everyone makes their own morals.
well morality is just a word, it's us that define it. but I think that logic exists and that in any situation there is more or less logical courses of action, depending upon your level of understanding and the thought you give to it. And as a person who's ultimate aim is selflessness, I consider objective logic to be the same as morality.
|
I don't think its sidetracking at all.
Basically you've revealed that your assumption is that complex organisms have the potential for spiritual growth, and that spiritual growth is the ultimate aim for existance. If someone disagrees with these starting points, or comes to a different conclusion about how to maximize potential for spiritual growth then you'll find criticisms on those points.
For instance:
If someone believes that the most complex beings are those who have the most ability to grow spiritually, then his opinion might be that a sustainable system for the maximization of spiritual growth would 1) moral and 2) necessarily allow for consumption of organisms with less potential in order to maximize growth in the long term.
If someone, by contrast, believes that the starting premises are false in their entirety, we find that they can come to an entire rainbow of conclusions about the moral character of consuming another animal. The maori, for instance, believed that beings contain a mystical force called mana, and that a prime aim of life was to consume mana by consuming those who had it. This led to cannibalization of enemy warriors and a culture centered around warfare. In such a society, eating HUMANS was not only moral, but honourable. Hinduism and Buddism operate on a similar assumptions to yours; the concept of karma and the existance of a system of reincarnation shaped their concept of consumption.
The western experience is far different. The three monotheistic religions and the two dominant legal traditions consider animals as property, putting them under the purvey of capitalist thought and economics. Western thought, by its assumptions, considers animals as an appropriable resource that they must manage. The concept of agribusiness, the invention of genetically modified crops, the use of pesticides and fertilizer in order to increase output are all harmonious with those assumptions.
|
On May 31 2009 04:29 Klive5ive wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 17:28 travis wrote:On May 30 2009 17:15 PH wrote:On May 30 2009 17:02 travis wrote:On May 30 2009 16:55 PH wrote:On May 30 2009 16:08 travis wrote:On May 30 2009 15:24 PobTheCad wrote:On May 30 2009 13:22 iNfuNdiBuLuM wrote:
1. It doesn't matter what a lion eats to survive. Lions do not have the mental capacity do make the choice: to kill or not to kill? A person can make this conscious decision and is aware of the consequences of it (or at least he should be) - which is why the question of whether we should eat meat or not exists in the first place.
2. The paleolithic diet is far removed from the modern western diet. Here's a handy list of things that many of us currently eat that prehistoric man did not evolve eating:
grains (bread, pasta, noodles, etc)
Beans and peas
Potatoes
Dairy
Sugar
Salt
By the way, prehistoric man didn't walk into any store and buy fucking anything because THERE WEREN'T ANY STORES. Maybe that was a joke but honestly i couldn't tell. I hope you were joking.
These foods only became common in mans' diet during and after the agricultural revolution and the development of cooking. In the evolutionary timescale, this is pretty recent. The notion that man ate meat in the past justifies meat eating in the present doesn't make any sense, especially when meat is not even necessary in a healthy diet when you live in a developed country (and you probably do, considering you are on the internet).
If you want to defend your position, learn to do it properly. ??.... the point was paleolithic man had to eat meat to survive because meat was the only place he could find vitamin B12.if our forefathers did not eat meat we would not be alive today. you are correct in that man has only eaten grains etc in the past 10,000 or so years.grains and carbohydrates are also the main reason DIABETES is so prevalent in society these days.meat does not cause a spike in blood glucose , unlike carbs. well, u can get b12 from fish/shellfish and most don't classify them in the same category as more intelligent animals and LOL at u blaming diabetes on grains the primary reason diabetes is prevalent is because of the mass mass sugar we are consuming. and beyond that, whole grains do not spike blood glucose So it's not okay to eat cows and chickens, but fish are totally fine? well that's certainly not what I said but if you want to take extra meaning from my words I don't mind I actually didn't assume you were supporting what you were saying...I have no idea if you're a moral vegetarian or not. The tone I got from your post was just that of someone bringing up an opposing viewpoint. Anyway...with that aside...I don't see how you could take any other meaning from that. Fish/shellfish are on a different level of intelligence than "more intelligent" animals...combining that with the previous sentence heavily implies that one can intake B12 from fish of whatever kind, but not a "more intelligent" animal, which I assume to be things like...cows and chickens. I don't get how you would expect me or anyone else to come to a different conclusion. my view is that is wrong to kill any living creature but it's more wrong to kill some creatures than other creatures I don't believe in black or white situations. + Show Spoiler +You just contradict yourself.
"It is wrong to kill any living creature" That sounds pretty black and white to me.
For a start it doesn't make sense. Is it wrong to kill a raging ape about to rip your genitals off? (see recent thread on ape attack).
There is no definitive set of morals, so stating "it's morally wrong" is stupid. Everyone makes their own morals.
I think you're coming from the wrong side. You need to start from the idea that we are all individuals looking out for ourselves.
Now genetics found that hurting other humans was a bad idea, because they are equal to ourselves. Bad people are quickly removed from the group. Mutual trust among humans allows us to work together and prosper. Like most of our traits being kind is a trait that helps us (and those who share our genes) survive.
It works in part by you taking on the feelings of others. When someone is sad... you feel sad.
Now with animals you just get a backfiring of that emotion. You feel the pain of the animal as if it were you, that's why you don't like watching animals get hurt. It's not something magical, or a deep set feeling of a supernatural moral code... it's just backfiring genetics.
Now if you want to argue that eating meat is a waste of resources, that's different and you might have a point.
Yeah, but everyone has an intrinsic sense of right and wrong. It's pretty difficult to justify meat eating, shy of the "I like it" argument. If you can genuinely find one that logically follows through and adheres to your principle of right and wrong that would be very interesting to me.
Oh and you're argument about empathy towards animals being a genetic misfire is pretty flawed. Sure it might be, but then what does that prove anyway? Does that mean we should stop helping homeless people because it doesnt benefit us?
|
On May 31 2009 04:41 L wrote:
I don't think its sidetracking at all.
Basically you've revealed that your assumption is that complex organisms have the potential for spiritual growth, and that spiritual growth is the ultimate aim for existance. If someone disagrees with these starting points, or comes to a different conclusion about how to maximize potential for spiritual growth then you'll find criticisms on those points.
You are correct, but unless that is the direction people think the discussion should go, I would try to keep it to myself
But I believe what I believe for logical reasons, there is a very deep chain of rationale that comes with my beliefs.
If someone believes that the most complex beings are those who have the most ability to grow spiritually, then his opinion might be that a sustainable system for the maximization of spiritual growth would 1) moral and 2) necessarily allow for consumption of organisms with less potential in order to maximize growth in the long term.
If someone, by contrast, believes that the starting premises are false in their entirety, we find that they can come to an entire rainbow of conclusions about the moral character of consuming another animal. The maori, for instance, believed that beings contain a mystical force called mana, and that a prime aim of life was to consume mana by consuming those who had it. This led to cannibalization of enemy warriors and a culture centered around warfare. In such a society, eating HUMANS was not only moral, but honourable. Hinduism and Buddism operate on a similar assumptions to yours; the concept of karma and the existance of a system of reincarnation shaped their concept of consumption.
rebirth actually. not reincarnation
http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?topic_id=94085
anyways yes I agree with you. my opinion on the matter is shaped by beliefs I hold that I would expect the majority of people do not hold. but I have no problem with this.
|
On May 31 2009 04:41 Piy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2009 04:29 Klive5ive wrote:On May 30 2009 17:28 travis wrote:On May 30 2009 17:15 PH wrote:On May 30 2009 17:02 travis wrote:On May 30 2009 16:55 PH wrote:On May 30 2009 16:08 travis wrote:On May 30 2009 15:24 PobTheCad wrote:On May 30 2009 13:22 iNfuNdiBuLuM wrote:
1. It doesn't matter what a lion eats to survive. Lions do not have the mental capacity do make the choice: to kill or not to kill? A person can make this conscious decision and is aware of the consequences of it (or at least he should be) - which is why the question of whether we should eat meat or not exists in the first place.
2. The paleolithic diet is far removed from the modern western diet. Here's a handy list of things that many of us currently eat that prehistoric man did not evolve eating:
grains (bread, pasta, noodles, etc)
Beans and peas
Potatoes
Dairy
Sugar
Salt
By the way, prehistoric man didn't walk into any store and buy fucking anything because THERE WEREN'T ANY STORES. Maybe that was a joke but honestly i couldn't tell. I hope you were joking.
These foods only became common in mans' diet during and after the agricultural revolution and the development of cooking. In the evolutionary timescale, this is pretty recent. The notion that man ate meat in the past justifies meat eating in the present doesn't make any sense, especially when meat is not even necessary in a healthy diet when you live in a developed country (and you probably do, considering you are on the internet).
If you want to defend your position, learn to do it properly. ??.... the point was paleolithic man had to eat meat to survive because meat was the only place he could find vitamin B12.if our forefathers did not eat meat we would not be alive today. you are correct in that man has only eaten grains etc in the past 10,000 or so years.grains and carbohydrates are also the main reason DIABETES is so prevalent in society these days.meat does not cause a spike in blood glucose , unlike carbs. well, u can get b12 from fish/shellfish and most don't classify them in the same category as more intelligent animals and LOL at u blaming diabetes on grains the primary reason diabetes is prevalent is because of the mass mass sugar we are consuming. and beyond that, whole grains do not spike blood glucose So it's not okay to eat cows and chickens, but fish are totally fine? well that's certainly not what I said but if you want to take extra meaning from my words I don't mind I actually didn't assume you were supporting what you were saying...I have no idea if you're a moral vegetarian or not. The tone I got from your post was just that of someone bringing up an opposing viewpoint. Anyway...with that aside...I don't see how you could take any other meaning from that. Fish/shellfish are on a different level of intelligence than "more intelligent" animals...combining that with the previous sentence heavily implies that one can intake B12 from fish of whatever kind, but not a "more intelligent" animal, which I assume to be things like...cows and chickens. I don't get how you would expect me or anyone else to come to a different conclusion. my view is that is wrong to kill any living creature but it's more wrong to kill some creatures than other creatures I don't believe in black or white situations. + Show Spoiler +You just contradict yourself.
"It is wrong to kill any living creature" That sounds pretty black and white to me.
For a start it doesn't make sense. Is it wrong to kill a raging ape about to rip your genitals off? (see recent thread on ape attack).
There is no definitive set of morals, so stating "it's morally wrong" is stupid. Everyone makes their own morals.
I think you're coming from the wrong side. You need to start from the idea that we are all individuals looking out for ourselves.
Now genetics found that hurting other humans was a bad idea, because they are equal to ourselves. Bad people are quickly removed from the group. Mutual trust among humans allows us to work together and prosper. Like most of our traits being kind is a trait that helps us (and those who share our genes) survive.
It works in part by you taking on the feelings of others. When someone is sad... you feel sad.
Now with animals you just get a backfiring of that emotion. You feel the pain of the animal as if it were you, that's why you don't like watching animals get hurt. It's not something magical, or a deep set feeling of a supernatural moral code... it's just backfiring genetics.
Now if you want to argue that eating meat is a waste of resources, that's different and you might have a point. Yeah, but everyone has an intrinsic sense of right and wrong. It's pretty difficult to justify meat eating, shy of the "I like it" argument. If you can genuinely find one that logically follows through and adheres to your principle of right and wrong that would be very interesting to me. Oh and you're argument about empathy towards animals being a genetic misfire is pretty flawed. Sure it might be, but then what does that prove anyway? Does that mean we should stop helping homeless people because it doesnt benefit us?
We all have an Intrinsic sense of right and wrong? Either this statement is false, or you mean that we internalize consistent extrinsic forces upon our behavior which completely invalidates your point.
|
On May 31 2009 04:45 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2009 04:41 L wrote:
I don't think its sidetracking at all.
Basically you've revealed that your assumption is that complex organisms have the potential for spiritual growth, and that spiritual growth is the ultimate aim for existance. If someone disagrees with these starting points, or comes to a different conclusion about how to maximize potential for spiritual growth then you'll find criticisms on those points.
You are correct, but unless that is the direction people think the discussion should go, I would try to keep it to myself But I believe what I believe for logical reasons, there is a very deep chain of rationale that comes with my beliefs. Show nested quote +
If someone believes that the most complex beings are those who have the most ability to grow spiritually, then his opinion might be that a sustainable system for the maximization of spiritual growth would 1) moral and 2) necessarily allow for consumption of organisms with less potential in order to maximize growth in the long term.
If someone, by contrast, believes that the starting premises are false in their entirety, we find that they can come to an entire rainbow of conclusions about the moral character of consuming another animal. The maori, for instance, believed that beings contain a mystical force called mana, and that a prime aim of life was to consume mana by consuming those who had it. This led to cannibalization of enemy warriors and a culture centered around warfare. In such a society, eating HUMANS was not only moral, but honourable. Hinduism and Buddism operate on a similar assumptions to yours; the concept of karma and the existance of a system of reincarnation shaped their concept of consumption.
rebirth actually. not reincarnation http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?topic_id=94085anyways yes I agree with you. my opinion on the matter is shaped by beliefs I hold that I would expect the majority of people do not hold. but I have no problem with this.
Its not so much a statement that your opinion is shaped by your beliefs, but that an argument which doesn't include those beliefs is ultimately futile unless it manages to change those underlying assumptions by exposing a logical inconsistency with the conclusion itself.
Simply put; people are wasting a lot of time here :3.
Also: the hindu tradition is heavily based on reincarnation, the buddist tradition on rebirth. The two systems are, however, nearly identical when viewed from outside their respective traditions, so I didn't see it necessary to distinguish between them.
|
On May 31 2009 04:49 L wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2009 04:45 travis wrote:On May 31 2009 04:41 L wrote:
I don't think its sidetracking at all.
Basically you've revealed that your assumption is that complex organisms have the potential for spiritual growth, and that spiritual growth is the ultimate aim for existance. If someone disagrees with these starting points, or comes to a different conclusion about how to maximize potential for spiritual growth then you'll find criticisms on those points.
You are correct, but unless that is the direction people think the discussion should go, I would try to keep it to myself But I believe what I believe for logical reasons, there is a very deep chain of rationale that comes with my beliefs.
If someone believes that the most complex beings are those who have the most ability to grow spiritually, then his opinion might be that a sustainable system for the maximization of spiritual growth would 1) moral and 2) necessarily allow for consumption of organisms with less potential in order to maximize growth in the long term.
If someone, by contrast, believes that the starting premises are false in their entirety, we find that they can come to an entire rainbow of conclusions about the moral character of consuming another animal. The maori, for instance, believed that beings contain a mystical force called mana, and that a prime aim of life was to consume mana by consuming those who had it. This led to cannibalization of enemy warriors and a culture centered around warfare. In such a society, eating HUMANS was not only moral, but honourable. Hinduism and Buddism operate on a similar assumptions to yours; the concept of karma and the existance of a system of reincarnation shaped their concept of consumption.
rebirth actually. not reincarnation http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?topic_id=94085anyways yes I agree with you. my opinion on the matter is shaped by beliefs I hold that I would expect the majority of people do not hold. but I have no problem with this. Its not so much a statement that your opinion is shaped by your beliefs, but that an argument which doesn't include those beliefs is ultimately futile unless it manages to change those underlying assumption by exposing a logical inconsistency with the conclusion itself. Simply put; people are wasting a lot of time here :3. Also: the hindu tradition is heavily based on reincarnation, the buddist tradition on rebirth. The two systems are, however, nearly identical when viewed from outside their respective traditions, so I didn't see it necessary to distinguish between them.
Well, when I come to these threads and debate, it is generally(but not necessarily) more for me than for other people.
It's entertaining, it helps sharpen my analytical and communication skills, and it makes me go over my own beliefs.
Plus good posters like you ask questions which make it go a little deeper.
And if someone takes issue with my underlying beliefs they can certainly move the discussion in that direction.
I never actually come to these threads expecting to change anyone's mind, though it certainly would be a nice outcome.
|
On May 31 2009 04:41 Piy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2009 04:29 Klive5ive wrote:On May 30 2009 17:28 travis wrote:On May 30 2009 17:15 PH wrote:On May 30 2009 17:02 travis wrote:On May 30 2009 16:55 PH wrote:On May 30 2009 16:08 travis wrote:On May 30 2009 15:24 PobTheCad wrote:On May 30 2009 13:22 iNfuNdiBuLuM wrote:
1. It doesn't matter what a lion eats to survive. Lions do not have the mental capacity do make the choice: to kill or not to kill? A person can make this conscious decision and is aware of the consequences of it (or at least he should be) - which is why the question of whether we should eat meat or not exists in the first place.
2. The paleolithic diet is far removed from the modern western diet. Here's a handy list of things that many of us currently eat that prehistoric man did not evolve eating:
grains (bread, pasta, noodles, etc)
Beans and peas
Potatoes
Dairy
Sugar
Salt
By the way, prehistoric man didn't walk into any store and buy fucking anything because THERE WEREN'T ANY STORES. Maybe that was a joke but honestly i couldn't tell. I hope you were joking.
These foods only became common in mans' diet during and after the agricultural revolution and the development of cooking. In the evolutionary timescale, this is pretty recent. The notion that man ate meat in the past justifies meat eating in the present doesn't make any sense, especially when meat is not even necessary in a healthy diet when you live in a developed country (and you probably do, considering you are on the internet).
If you want to defend your position, learn to do it properly. ??.... the point was paleolithic man had to eat meat to survive because meat was the only place he could find vitamin B12.if our forefathers did not eat meat we would not be alive today. you are correct in that man has only eaten grains etc in the past 10,000 or so years.grains and carbohydrates are also the main reason DIABETES is so prevalent in society these days.meat does not cause a spike in blood glucose , unlike carbs. well, u can get b12 from fish/shellfish and most don't classify them in the same category as more intelligent animals and LOL at u blaming diabetes on grains the primary reason diabetes is prevalent is because of the mass mass sugar we are consuming. and beyond that, whole grains do not spike blood glucose So it's not okay to eat cows and chickens, but fish are totally fine? well that's certainly not what I said but if you want to take extra meaning from my words I don't mind I actually didn't assume you were supporting what you were saying...I have no idea if you're a moral vegetarian or not. The tone I got from your post was just that of someone bringing up an opposing viewpoint. Anyway...with that aside...I don't see how you could take any other meaning from that. Fish/shellfish are on a different level of intelligence than "more intelligent" animals...combining that with the previous sentence heavily implies that one can intake B12 from fish of whatever kind, but not a "more intelligent" animal, which I assume to be things like...cows and chickens. I don't get how you would expect me or anyone else to come to a different conclusion. my view is that is wrong to kill any living creature but it's more wrong to kill some creatures than other creatures I don't believe in black or white situations. + Show Spoiler +You just contradict yourself.
"It is wrong to kill any living creature" That sounds pretty black and white to me.
For a start it doesn't make sense. Is it wrong to kill a raging ape about to rip your genitals off? (see recent thread on ape attack).
There is no definitive set of morals, so stating "it's morally wrong" is stupid. Everyone makes their own morals.
I think you're coming from the wrong side. You need to start from the idea that we are all individuals looking out for ourselves.
Now genetics found that hurting other humans was a bad idea, because they are equal to ourselves. Bad people are quickly removed from the group. Mutual trust among humans allows us to work together and prosper. Like most of our traits being kind is a trait that helps us (and those who share our genes) survive.
It works in part by you taking on the feelings of others. When someone is sad... you feel sad.
Now with animals you just get a backfiring of that emotion. You feel the pain of the animal as if it were you, that's why you don't like watching animals get hurt. It's not something magical, or a deep set feeling of a supernatural moral code... it's just backfiring genetics.
Now if you want to argue that eating meat is a waste of resources, that's different and you might have a point. Yeah, but everyone has an intrinsic sense of right and wrong. It's pretty difficult to justify meat eating, shy of the "I like it" argument. If you can genuinely find one that logically follows through and adheres to your principle of right and wrong that would be very interesting to me. Oh and you're argument about empathy towards animals being a genetic misfire is pretty flawed. Sure it might be, but then what does that prove anyway? Does that mean we should stop helping homeless people because it doesnt benefit us?
Helping the homeless does benefit you, it makes you feel good and it shows that you're a nice person... helping you even more in the future.
Also you could one day be in that situation and maybe someone will repay the favor.
A human is your equal so it makes sense.
People don't have an intrinsic sense of right and wrong. Society has taught you what you should and should not do.
We have emotions based upon taking the feeling of others onto ourselves. That's not the same thing.
I can justify eating meat very easily.
A fisherman's livelihood rests on the ability to sell fish. He trains in the ability to catch fish.
If he offered me a fish and I was hungry I would buy and eat it. Making me feel good because fish is nice and he gets the money he needs to feed his family. Everyone wins... except the fish.
But I genuinely don't care about the limited emotions of a fish.
|
Well, if people would work backwards from their beliefs and hit upon the basal assumptions that they hold, you'd find that a lot more conversations and arguments end in something other than two talking heads trying to headbutt each other into a corner. You change world views instead of stances.
Anyways, that's all for my interlude.
|
On May 31 2009 05:09 L wrote:
Well, if people would work backwards from their beliefs and hit upon the basal assumptions that they hold, you'd find that a lot more conversations and arguments end in something other than two talking heads trying to headbutt each other into a corner. You change world views instead of stances.
Anyways, that's all for my interlude.
Yeah I think you've hit the nail on the head.
In the end it appears something as seemingly simple as Vegetarianism can't be debated by people with different world views.
This is because it's a matter of morals. As soon as you touch on that you start to reach people with belief in the supernatural.
Logical there is no argument to disregard meat entirely.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
