|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
12-19-2010, 01:44 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
But even if I did. I believe in the free exchange of information and the power of rational discussion and reason. If an Indian wants to convince me that cows should not be eaten then he is more than welcome to try. The only thing is that he/she would have to do so rationally. Considering the argument Indians make is based on hinduism... I highly doubt it will be a rational one. The argument I make is rational and consistent. But more importantly it's relevant. The killing of another species that is self aware causes pain and suffering in that animal. Even species that aren't self aware should not be subjected to highly stressful situations each and every day. Your argument simply says "they're not human therefore it's OK". It's really a crude and simple one and actually skirts the moral question being asked altogether. 
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
12-19-2010, 02:03 PM
scientific basis? lol. no - the reason you don't eat them is purely emotional. there is no science - no scientist has said - got damn it, my burger has feelings. just because they detected that they have doesn't mean anything.
on the other hand i present more logical therefore more scientific view where whole life is equal. animals eat animals - everyone feeds on everyone. now there is basic fact. 10x times the science you can offer, eh. white people now have a member. P.S rational argument? what's fu**ing rational about emotions? could say the very definition of emotions is irrational!
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
12-19-2010, 02:16 PM
Quote:
Scientific studies have suggested that dolphins are highly self aware and marine biologists say evidence points to the same being true with whales. Dolphin Self-Recognition Mirrors Our Own: Scientific American Whales Might Be as Much Like People as Apes Are | Wired Science | Wired.com Furthermore my justification for not eating other animals is that most of it is factory farmed which places animals in a constant high stress environment and has nothing to do with their sentience (other than the fact that they can experience distress). And your argument is logical but as I said before... it doesn't address the moral question which is the one I'm asking (and answering). It's like saying war is natural because it's natural for societies to conflict. It's a reasonable statement (without getting into the big debate about human nature let's just say it is) but it says nothing about whether it's OK or not. I wonder what your parents or grandparents think of that argument? Your country was nothing a stepping stone for the Russians and Germans to get to each other after all.
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
12-19-2010, 02:25 PM
just because scientists discovered self awareness doesn't make your argument scientific. only basis is that animals feel and so other people feel sorry for hurting those animals. its pure moral investment. nothing else.
yea. my argument might not be as morally based as yours but it is the natural one. on the other hand moral question arises when people chose to let one life forms die and other to live. i think self awareness is far from being enough of a reason to decide how worthy ones life is. in my opinion it is immoral to make those decisions so lets treat everyone equally.
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
12-19-2010, 02:51 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
And I don't believe it is your opinion to treat everyone equally unless you think it's OK to eat other humans too. (if you follow your thought to it's logical conclusion then that's where it takes you)
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
12-19-2010, 03:04 PM
not relevant? how thick headed are you? it is and i explained it to you in detail! you now have "white people vision" too when you only see what you want to see? i said moral question arises when you choose who lives and dies! that's why i say everyone is equal and i say eat what you want!
and yes your argument is not scientific. people discovered it by using science but your argument is based on emotional result that they came to by using science. argument itself is not scientific. its wrong because you say its wrong and that's it. eat people? i don't have to, i have options plus law forbids it. however im not going to object to man who chose to eat his partner on uninhabited island to survive. eating people in a normal situation - well that's just murder.
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
12-19-2010, 03:19 PM
lol.. "white people vision". You're a racist prick you know that not to mention that I'm pretty sure most white people would not agree with me on my stance on animals (though I think a lot of Tibetans might).
You're the one that fails to see the flaw in logic of your own argument. I'll repeat what I said earlier. You draw the line at a specific amount of chromosomes. (Your comment implies that you hold humans above animals to some degree and you mentioning scenarios where eating humans would be "OK" to you doesn't change your stance all that much) I however draw the line at sentience. A high level of self awareness to be exact. Where I've drawn the line is rational and addresses the moral question completely. (It's not the only line I've drawn as I've given my reasons for not eating beef, pork, chicken and other factory farmed animals). Yours doesn't. The question of which species it is OK to kill or not has been decided. But to you merely deciding is immoral. I'd like to know how merely deciding violates your morality? PS- My argument is not strictly scientific. But it's more scientific than yours and it's scientific where it needs to be. Furthermore you'd be hard pressed to find any opinion that is strictly scientific.
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
12-19-2010, 03:35 PM
There is a country that committed genocide of the whale from the latter half of the 1790's to 1964.
It slaughtered it until the price of whale oil falling, and not becoming business. The attitude is strapping though it is a criminal group that drives it in to the edge of extinction. 90% of people is opposite to the whale fishing. (The aborigine of 12% seems not to include it in "People" ) There is no problem because it is not a person though the rank is applied to the living being. The criminal is supported to the other party of "We do not like it" though it is a law-abiding country. Cryptanalysis is necessary for you. set a goal：English at the same level as Johan Cruyff
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
12-19-2010, 06:58 PM
Woah... I didn't think my post would ressurect this thread in such a way!
I won't get involved in Ronin's and evanny's argument because it seems to be deeply rooted amongst themselves at this point...
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
01-10-2011, 05:23 AM
Quote:
That is why the bureaucracies that are challenged by it are doing everything in their power to stop it being seen and to create group think disarming it. As for the "joke nationalists" who rallied against it, they are just ridiculous attention whores attempting to cream off their little bit of media from the hype surrounding it by attacking people's innocent mothers at their homes. What sort of assholes would attack someone else mother with mobs and loudspeakers out their homes?
|
 |
| Thread Tools | |
|
|
