Enlightened Vegetarianism (and more)

[Blake]

It is interesting that people can equate fleeting pleasure to quality of life.

[Blake]

Originally posted by David Floyd
No, the answer is that while non-violent resistance, or acceptance of oppression and hostility may be the easy way out at times, it is rarely effective.

Let's take another scenario. Let's say that you carry a handgun, and you get mugged at knife point. You have the opportunity to pull out your gun, but you know that if you pull out your gun the mugger will rush you and try to stab you, and you'll have to shoot him. Should you pull out your gun and end up killing him, or give him your wallet?

To me, the answer is obvious. You pull out your gun and HOPE he gives you a reason to shoot him, thus ridding the world of a violent offender, who will more than likely continue mugging people in the future. The mugger's future criminal history will probably be even more assured by the negative reinforcement involved in just rolling over and letting him win, so you don't have to kill him for "only" stealing your wallet.

I forgot to address this point directly.

It's worth the risk to me

There's always a chance, albeit a very low one in NZ, that by not carrying a handgun I'll one day be killed when I could otherwise have avoided dying through using the handgun in an intimidating or lethal way.

There's always a chance, a very good one, that by having a generally hostile and paranoid attitude, I'll be perceived as a less pleasant person and will miss out on some marvelous interactions with other people.

There's a REMOTE possibility that a handgun will help preserve my life.

There's a GUARANTEE that universal compassion and loving-kindness will bring me great personal rewards.

I can't possibly maintain a high strength of universal compassion and loving-kindness while carrying around a handgun and wondering if I need to get ready to use it on that suspicious looking dude...

Realistically, there's no chance that I'd ever shoot someone. I am not however above intimidation, you should bear in mind I stand 6"5' tall and am in excellent physical condition, furthermore I have an extremely confident attitude and in a way which is not perceived as arrogant - I've had foolish people ask, genuinely, if I know some kind of martial arts - they were surprised when I said I didn't. I have that kind of air of confidence - that I simply don't need to worry about my safety, it is assured. Furthermore I'm plain excellent at the art of intimidation in terms of mind-games, I kind of have a good intuitive understanding of that kind of thing, I'm exceedingly difficult to intimidate and always have been - that usually meant I won be default, anyone who wanted to intimidate me would back down.

In a sense I have to be skillful in order to NOT intimidate people.

I am fortunate in some sense that I am not perceived as someone who is in any shape or form, an attractive target. It's not as inherently easy for a young 5"4' female to be non-violent, that's mainly because of rapists, lust is a VERY overpowering emotion. The Buddha was extremely reluctant to allow females to be monastics for this very reason and when he finally consented (I can't imagine persuading the Buddha was easy) he set additional rules for the Nun's, over what the Monk's had. This wasn't sexism, it was simple protection from rape. The Nuns for instance were not allowed to wander alone - safety in numbers.

Regardless of confidence - it is important to not tempt fate. It could be said to be foolish for me to go wander around at night in the worst neighborhood in America, or to advise someone who lives there to adopt non-violence - certainly foolish to do so for sh*ts and giggles, I would of course if I had a good reason to.

It is wise to not act in a foolhardy way.

[Elok]

No, I equate the ability to eat some succulent meat as opposed to some nasty meat substitute made out of soy/tofu to quality of life.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Blake
You see the lions have a very good reason to kill, they HAVE to eat meat in order to survive...

You sure about this? Modern human science is pretty amazing.

[Asher]

Re: Re: "Meat"

Originally posted by aneeshm


And you design the Civ AI.....

No, he didn't. He's an expansion pack's "AI programmer". It's more likely he fixed a couple bugs in some scenarios. Calling him an AI designer is a huge stretch. As we've seen from his posts, if he was the AI designer the game would be a lot easier.

[Lorizael]

Er, I thought you didn't even play civ anymore.

[Asher]

I've played all the Civs. I don't keep playing them for years on end.

[Lorizael]

Did you play BtS?

[Cort Haus]

Re: Re: Re: "Meat"

Originally posted by Asher
It's more likely he fixed a couple bugs in some scenarios.

There's a wealth of documentary evidence on this site that contradicts that claim.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Lorizael
Did you play BtS?

Yes, if only for Trip's excellent Final Frontier.

[Asher]

Re: Re: Re: Re: "Meat"

Originally posted by Cort Haus


There's a wealth of documentary evidence on this site that contradicts that claim.

I refuse to believe fabricated lies! So should you!

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Blake
It is interesting that people can equate fleeting pleasure to quality of life.

A quality of life has a balance of pleasure, fleeting and otherwise.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Blake
It is interesting that people can equate fleeting pleasure to quality of life.

So, to you, a life of forced celibacy is equivalent, quality-wise, to a life with normal sexual activity?

[LordShiva]

What do you call a vegetarian with diarrhea?

A salad shooter.

[Heraclitus]

I don't get Blake's comment on the fact that being keept in horrible conditions clearly isn't in the animals best interest. It beats non-existance doesen't it?

And with selection and GE we can make the animals adore any conditions we see fit for them to have.

From a Utilitarian standpoint this would be the best possible course of action. It would benefit the species being modified, since it would adapt the animals to their environment much much faster than the natural process of evolution.

Clearly this in their best interest, since it ensures the spread of their genes. And if humans go extinct? Well, species die out all the time so it really isn't a biggie... since unmodified animals would probably still exist.