Vege

[Az]

As I said, it's only inconsistent if you hold somewhat liberal views. Mainly because it's the same line of reasoning that every oppresor uses - that you can create arbitrary definitions to support your own superiority. Blacks are below humans and women are not equal, therefor they exist to serve our needs.

the thing is that those aren't false arbitrary definitions. They're are false definitions. Black people are human. Women are human. It's not just a matter of definition, it's a biological fact.

I think it's also worth noting that all cases of inter-human oppresion involve equations between the opressed victims and other animals, specifically those that we eat or have domesticated.

so what? it's the hurting of the humans that is wrong here, and their comparison to animals, not the hurting of animals.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by General Ludd
You seem pretty relectunt to do the same to yourself, however. Maybe because it's a sure-fire way of showing that anything is "illogical" outside of complete and utter apathy.

For these sorts of thing, I am a relatavist. My viewpoint can't really be taken to an extreme that I will disagree with.

Eat meat? Soon you'll eat up all the animals and have to feast upon yourselves!

The atmosphere has rising levels of methane. Do you know why? It's because there are too many cows. More cows on the planet now then they're used to be, because we breed more of them. Yes, we have to worry about wasting the animals.

But I do agree that a more efficient method of gathering food should be researched.

But I'm glad i don't know more about him if that's all he did. Sounds like the fez of his times.

Not that I actually believe that's all he did.... surely being a dick isn't enough to earn you a place in history?

Read any Socrates? Or Plato, rather, since he didn't write anything down. Anyways, Socrates was extremely logical, whereas Giancarlo just yells at people when he figures out he's been disproved.

Your first post in this thread, I believe. you stated that you are not one (despite once considering it) and that you hate vegetarians for being inconsistent, which presumably means you view meat-eating as being consistent.

I stated what I did not do, not what I did do. I also did not say that I hated vegetarians, just that I dislike the logic they use, because it is internally inconsistent. You cannot argue that your point is correct by showing that mine is wrong, which is why I did not say what my beliefs on the matter were until now.

Even though this is just more absurdities, I will answer it since you seem to take it so seriously. I am not a utilitarian, I am an environmentalist. I believe in a natural ballance. I do not believe that nothing should ever die, but I do believe that life should not be squandered.

Or systematically raped.

But you act in a utilitarian manner. You said it's okay to eat plants, even though they are valuable, because in the long run fewer things will die that way.

Unfortunately, this is also wrong. The cows that are then not slaughtered will live longer lives and eat more living things.

And now your viewpoint has changed. It is not the 'sanctity of life' that you value but a 'natural balance' as you have stated that it is okay to kill living things in certain circumstances.

In this case, should we not kill off all human beings? Surely we have disturbed the balance of nature by our actions.

Or, if you believe humans can be made to change, there are many things you must do. Using a computer - or any luxury good for that matter - supports the capitalist economy that produced it, which is responsible for a good many of the world's abuses.

But even so, it is not a modern thing to destroy nature. Humans have been raping the environment since the birth of the species. Is there any possible way that a human being can live and not destroy the environment about them? Do you think you truly live such a life?

This is actually exactly what i am saying. Only you seem to hold the view that since you can't take ethics to some absurd extremity and coddle and protect bacteria, that it is not worthwhile to be ethical at all.

That's a pretty stupid attitude.

And I don't know why I'm wasting my effort on someone who's devoid of any morality.

Then do not claim to truly be ethical. You act the way you act because you want to, not because it is right.

And yes, I am devoid of morality. I am not insulted by your assertion. But there is a path I travel, and I do not claim that it is the right one.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Azazel

The thing is that those aren't false arbitrary definitions. They're are false definitions.

I didn't mean to offer any specific definitions, by the way. Just generalisations. By arbitrary I was refering to how "human" would be redefined to not include people of certain nationalities, or ethnicity. And how people would come up with convuluted reasons explaining their supposed superiority

Black people are human. Women are human. It's not just a matter of definition, it's a biological fact.

Cows are alive, Chickens are alive. Both even feel and think. It's a biological fact.


What makes humans superior? The means to impose dominance? That is, again, the same reasoning used by every oppressor and tyrant.

My viewpoint can't really be taken to an extreme that I will disagree with.

So let's hear why you eat meat, already, and let's see.

The atmosphere has rising levels of methane. Do you know why? It's because there are too many cows. More cows on the planet now then they're used to be, because we breed more of them. Yes, we have to worry about wasting the animals.

And you're calling me illogical? Seriously, think about what you just said.

We breed cows. If we stoped breeding them to kill them, there wouldn't be so many. They wouldn't even exist if it not for us breeding them for slaughter.

stated what I did not do, not what I did do. I also did not say that I hated vegetarians, just that I dislike the logic they use, because it is internally inconsistent. You cannot argue that your point is correct by showing that mine is wrong, which is why I did not say what my beliefs on the matter were until now

Actually, when your point is that I am inconsistent, showing that your alternative is even more inconsistent has some value.

Of course, when you won't even talk about your alternative, that's kind of hard. Holding people up to standards of consistency that you aren't willing to apply to your self - How's that for consistency?

But you act in a utilitarian manner.

No, I don't. That's how you want me to act, apparently, but it isn't what I am.

Actually, now that I think about it, I guess it could be similiar in a round about sort of way... since utilitarianism does makes use of the basic idea that some is better than none. But your "extreme logic" of killing things off for the benefit of a lesser amount of life is completely contradictory to it. Eitherway, it's just too stupid an argument to be taken seriously. I don't even know why I'm thinking about it.

I knew I shouldn't of taken the troll-bait

And now your viewpoint has changed. It is not the 'sanctity of life' that you value but a 'natural balance'

No, those two concepts go hand in hand, just as life and death.

Life and murder do not, however. Have you purposely ignored my use of the word 'squander'?


As for the rest, if you want to change subjects to environmentalism you can start a new thread. But I agree with the jist of what you're saying (minus the bullcrap about humans being born with tools)... only that I don't dismiss an ideal completely simply because it is not easy to reach.

And yes, I am devoid of morality. I am not insulted by your assertion. But there is a path I travel, and I do not claim that it is the right one.

Yes, you only claim that every other is wrong.

Fairwell, Lorizael of Borg.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Lorizael
But I will continue to argue with General Ludd over there, because he's a vegetarian for ethical reasons, and that's where all the inconsistencies show up.

I can live with that. As I said, my diet isn't for moral reasons. I've got the expensive leather shoes and jackets to prove it.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


meat takes a lot more resources

so when lean times come, everyone (who is not wealthy) will be vege

JM

not if all we have are canibals because all the plant life died because of global (fill in the blank)!

Thats another thing, what kind of resources? I saw some vegetarian propaganda that said that cattle use alot more water then agriculture would, but isn't cattle poo fertilizer?

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by General Ludd
So let's hear why you eat meat, already, and let's see.

Because I like the taste of it.

And you're calling me illogical? Seriously, think about what you just said.

We breed cows. If we stoped breeding them to kill them, there wouldn't be so many. They wouldn't even exist if it not for us breeding them for slaughter.

No, there were cows, or cow-like things, long before we started breeding them. Then humans settled down and began to control the animal populations about them in order to feed themselves. All the cows wouldn't die off, however, if we stopped eating them.

Actually, when your point is that I am inconsistent, showing that your alternative is even more inconsistent has some value.

No, that's not true, because both of us can be wrong at the same time.

Of course, when you won't even talk about your alternative, that's kind of hard. Holding people up to standards of consistency that you aren't willing to apply to your self - How's that for consistency?

I will apply the same standards to myself, but I will not do it here. I have recently come to the conclusion that when I express my ideas to other people, it just causes conflict. Thus, I am attempting to find a better way to express myself so that such conflicts will not ensue. Until then, I shall remain for the most part silent on what I think.

By the way, I critisize my own ideology harder than I critisize anyone else's. In the past year or two I have swung all the way across the spectrum, trying dozens of different philosophies - ones I created, ones I borrowed, ones I simply used aspects of - in order to find something that was entirely consistent and did not lie on false assumptions.

No, I don't. That's how you want me to act, apparently, but it isn't what I am.

Okay. I won't call you a Utilitarian, but I will say that your words suggest utilitarian actions. Utilitarians are willing to do things that they consider to be wrong in order to effect a greater good. You do the same. You are willing to kill plants, to allow the bacteria within you to die, and all that, because you believe it is serving a greater purpose.

Actually, now that I think about it, I guess it could be similiar in a round about sort of way... since utilitarianism does makes use of the basic idea that some is better than none. But your "extreme logic" of killing things off for the benefit of a lesser amount of life is completely contradictory to it. Eitherway, it's just too stupid an argument to be taken seriously. I don't even know why I'm thinking about it.

This is your logic, not mine. This is where your logic takes you. You are willing to kill off life - reduce the number of lifeforms - in order to create a place in which, in the long run, fewer lifeforms will be killed by other lifeforms.

If you follow that logic to its eventual end, you must create a world in which no lifeforms are present that have the ability to kill other lifeforms.

Thus, get rid of everything that does so. Or, engineer everything present so that it can live off of non-living organic material, or inorganic material. Do you want that?

No, those two concepts go hand in hand, just as life and death.

Life and murder do not, however. Have you purposely ignored my use of the word 'squander'?

Before I can argue that, you must define your terms. What is this 'natural balance' and what is this 'sanctity of life'? Obviously I am mistaken, for the sanctity of life does not mean that all life is valuable enough not to be killed. After all, you are still willing to eat your plants.

As for the rest, if you want to change subjects to environmentalism you can start a new thread. But I agree with the jist of what you're saying (minus the bullcrap about humans being born with tools)... only that I don't dismiss an ideal completely simply because it is not easy to reach.

Humans born with tools? What? We've been raping the land forever. Haven't always needed tools to do it.

Yes, you only claim that every other is wrong.

Fairwell, Lorizael of Borg.

I think I'm the only person that liked what Voyager did to the Borg. *sigh*

[mrmitchell]

Osweld, what makes animals any better than plants, to eat, ethics-wise?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Lorizael
No, there were cows, or cow-like things, long before we started breeding them. Then humans settled down and began to control the animal populations about them in order to feed themselves. All the cows wouldn't die off, however, if we stopped eating them.

Lorizael, come on... think about it. Would there be nearly as many cows roaming wild as there are currently kept in captivity for food production purposes, if they weren't used as food? Not even remotely. Cows would be as sparse as wild bison, and there would hence be no methane problem.

[Lorizael]

Why are wild bison sparse? Because humans nearly hunted them to extinction. We'd not be eating cows because we wouldn't want to be killing them, so I doubt there'd be much in the way of hunting.

But I do agree that the population would certainly decline due to a lack of habitat, non-humans predators and other such things.

And yes, the methane problem would then be reduced.

What's your point?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Lorizael
What's your point?

You tell me. You brought up the methane issue as some sort of point, and it seemed to imply that if it weren't for humans eating cows, we'd have a huge methane problem. Was there some other point to your mentioning it?

[Imran Siddiqui]

I do on the other side of the spectrum, however, with people who feel that it is alright to do these things... to anything that isn't human. Either through some sort of belief that humans are not animals and are some sort of destined chosen ones or gods themselves, or whatever, or for sheer selfish reasons.

So are you also protesting bears and tigers eating other animals. I mean, really, do they believe they are not animals and are some sort of destined chosen ones or gods themselves?

[Lorizael]

Oh I was just getting to the point that there were a lot of cows. Ludd said something about how we'd eat all the meat and then we'd have to eat ourselves. But we're not going to run out of meat, because our practices create more cows, not fewer. I don't care about methane in the air.

[Meticulous Man]

I'm currently an omnivore, but I can see why vegetarianism could be considered a more ethical alternative. Plants don't have mental processes and they don't have any idea of what's happening to them, like many animals do. The fact that some animals eat other animals doesn't imply that the most ethical thing for us is to do the same. Unnecessary torture of animals is always wrong - they feel pain like we do.

[Az]

Cows are alive, Chickens are alive. Both even feel and think. It's a biological fact.

So what? They're not equal to us in thinking abilities, and feeling abilities, and what's much more important, they're not us. You couldn't make a chicken behave like you, no matter what.

What makes humans superior? The means to impose dominance? That is, again, the same reasoning used by every oppressor and tyrant.

Humans are superior in our eyes, the eyes of humans, not generally "superior". There is noone to judge the later, the former is rather obvious.

[monkspider]

I'm thinking about becoming a vegetarian, but my love of certain Asian dishes has kept me from it so far.