Topic: the moral hand and veganism - page 3. (Read 5661 times)

You didn't answer my question, you simply replied with a single example that fit your ideology. Lets try this with a more specific question.

Why is it ok for say chimpanzees (omnivores) for example to eat meat, but not humans? What is different between animals and humans that it is ok for animals to eat meat, and not ok for humans?

Biodiversity (How is this existentially significant?) could still be reduced by economic activities (e.g., the destruction of habitats for the exploitation of their resources).

sorry for the quotes; I hope this is better...
(and I hope you can give counterarguments point by point insetad of merely saying that I'm lacking logic.

That is the ring finger of the moral hand. Briefly put: you and I and all primates don't need meat in order to survive. So if all beings who do not need meat stop eating meat, those populations would no go extinct and biodiversity would not decrease. But a lion needs meat. So if a lion is not allowed to hunt and eat, then no animal is (apply the thumb principle of rule universalism to the ring finger principle), and then all obligate carnivores would die from starvation and then biodiversity decreases a lot. Now we can democratically decide how much moral value biodiversity should have. I want to give it a lot of value, and therefore my ethic says that predation by obligate carnivores is permissible. 

Indeed, one is welcome to deny virtue: this is one's choice; however, if one should have cause to change his or her mind in the near future, that is welcomed.




P.s., I appreciate any and all engagement I have suffered here.

At this point in time, altcoins have only won in an overall principle sense. At the rate that Bitcoin is growing, if the fiats don't crash themselves, it will be generations before the principle of altcoins becomes an effective reality.

One of the things that is slowing altcoins down is that there are too many varieties. What we need is a method to trade all altcoins among themselves conveniently. Ripple tried, maybe is still trying.

Organic cold fusion “could be” yet another “way.”

For me, it comes down to mind over matter:  If you don't mind, it don't matter.  But this idea of mind over matter is hugely important.  It's been repeatedly proven in case study after case study that the "sugar pill" yields actual physical affects that the user expected it would for no other reason than it would.  If this is true than veganism (not even a word yet.. give it time) could be a way towards which we evolve.  Of course that depends on all sorts of things as far as the timing... but maybe it is just a matter of time.

Humans “know better,” and can subsist without so consuming metazoa.

Stijn, you are so completely lacking in logic that I feel like trying to debate you point by point might actually damage my ability for critical reasoning by being exposed to such an extreme density of ignorance. Also you are too lazy to set up your quotes correctly, and I don't think I could live with myself if someone mistook your words for my own by mistake. I want you to answer this.


If it is so horrible to eat animals, why is it ok for animals to eat other animals? What is different between animals and humans that it is ok for animals to eat meat, and not ok for humans?

How do you know that?

“Morality,” as an adaptive mechanism, is, by extension, begotten of the arbitrary circumstances that beget its originators; therefore, it is “meaningless.”

It is the banking system that is ruining the world. The bankers are raping the people more successfully than anyone else ever. They are "farming" the people rather than simply killing them and taking their property.

Hitler was bad. The bad parts of Nazism are extremely bad. Neither Hitler nor the Nazis are nearly as bad as the banking system.

Hitler and the Nazis never stood a chance. Their end was inevitable from the start, though they fought a ferocious fight. The one good thing that they almost did was, they almost destroyed the banking system. They set it back a few decades. But it is back, stronger than ever.

Will Bitcoin stand a chance against the banking system?

After seeing multiple pro/anti vegan threads on this board, I'm going to draw the conclusion that there are not many threads on the internet that will go full Godwin faster than a thread about veganism.

Saint Paul says it this way, in Romans 14:1-4, in the Bible:

I personally don't see any difference between between vegans and meat eaters. I'm sorry but you're just adding insult to injury with your moral hand. People who become vegan 'out of consideration' for animal life are just self-important hypocrites, nothing more. They are always very careful not to dig too deep with the self-righteousness, the trick is to build a gloriously moral theory just strong enough to negate the pressure they feel from guilt. You'd have to go a LOT deeper in your understanding of equality for it to mean anything at all.

I wonder if Hitler ate Hamburg?   

yeah, and that's why I rape women, because Hitler did not rape women. And I eat dogs and humans, because Hitler didn't.

of course there will always remain void gaps, because not all fossils of all our dead ancestors remained conserved. But evolution can predict something: that new fossil discoveries make the gaps smaller. And indeed that is what we see happening again and again. And we see the fossils in different layers in the ground corresponding with different eras in the past. And that all makes sense. The genesis flood will predict another patern of fossil deposits, and we don't see that pattern.
So yes: if (yes, of course "if") evolution is true, we expect to see X, Y and Z. If genesis is true, we expect to see A, B and C. Now, we see none of A, B nor C, but we already see X and Z. Then it is irrational to believe in genesis and not in evolution by claiming that there is a gap, that we didn't see Y yet.

we can deduce that those fossils are intermediate species (or relatives of intermediates), by first dating how old those fossils are. Then we put all the fossils next to each other, the oldest ones left, the newest ones right. Then we look at structural differences between the fossils, the shapes of the bones. And then we see some changes when we move from left to right. And those changes make sense from the point of evolution. For example we see an old fossil of an animal with arms, a newer fossil of an animal with featherlike things at his arms, a newer fossil of an animal with winglike arms, and still a newer fossil of an animal with full blown wings. And of course now there are three gaps in the fossil record. And then we find another fossil of an animal that lived between the second and third and looked a bit like the second and a bit like the third in the row. So it is an intermediate, but now there are four gaps. But the gaps are getting smaller.

here we can see a clear distinction between current science and religion. Like evolution, god is a hypothesis. But it in contrast to evolution, god is not a fruitful hypothesis. After all those millenia, christians still don't know anything about how god did it, what he is like. Whereas evolutionary biologists are moving ahead at fast speed, gaining new insights every time. I have the impression that christians are not even investigating their god hypothesis. The god hypothesis is not fruitful.

well, we have mathematics to determine whether they are plausible, in the sense of whether they are consistent and whether they predict things that corresponds with empirical data. You see scientists thinking about how the universe began, constructing and testing models. Why are christians so incapable of doing that? Why don't they construct a clear model of god and then test it against empirical data?

well, scientists (physicists) are moving ahead at great speed and understand more and more about the big bang. Whereas christians remain stuck with those basic questions.

how do you even know that an entity like that even exists?
Scientists are able to discover things (particles, dark matter,...) that are not visible...

why can't the bible exist?
If the bible can't exist, then neither can the bhagavat gita.

I guess no-one who makes something thinks about the mistakes and pplans for the failures. But the failure and mistake of eve eating from the forbidden fruit is not automatically corrected. All this suffering after the fall is not a good correction for a single person eating from a fruit. A correction would be to induce vomitting in Eve.

very strange question...

oh, sure :-)
God is sooo good, that he is allowed to be sooo narcissistic...

and then someone ate from a fruit, and god turned 180° and decided to make the world far worse than perfect. And with far worse I mean: far worse. Why would he change his mind like that? Why would he suddenly allow so much unnecessary suffering?


this doesn't make any sense to me. Giving someone an opportunity for A without giving him at the same time the opportunity for non-A? You are free to choose A but not free to choose anything else but A?

well he clearly did, with his floods and plagues and genocides and infanticides...

 I think god has to know what he wants. He can't have the cake and eat it too. Either he wants to be sure that he will be worshipped by his creatures, or he wants his creatures to be free.
But are people made for worshipping god? How egocentric and narcissistic is this god? If I would be a creator and I want to be worshipped, I can create people who worship me. But why would I make these people sentient, with their own preferences, likes and dislikes, if all I'm going to do is destroy these people (against their preferences) once they no longer worship me? Why didn't god make insentient robots that worshipped him?

and that innocent child that died from a horrible disease did not even get one chance...

well, according to your descriptions and to what I read in the bible...

ok, on the engineering part, god can be clever, but reading the bible, on the psychological-moral part he is really crazy. He is jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully. (quote from Dawkins)

well I can't understand the jesus part either. God sends himself as his son to earth to be tortured for the things that someone else did wrong in order to forgive some other people? It doesn't make any sense... Perhaps god watched too many episodes of Monty Python's flying circus: "and now for something completely different"

but jesus is still not helping all those innocent victims now. Where is he waiting for? He does not even want to say when he will come to help. He still does not give us any evidence that he will come and compensate for all the unnecessary suffering. That's not good. Look at how a medic does it in the hospital. Suppose we have a patient, and a doctor can heal him instantly. But the doctor does not heal him. Instead, he goes away, does not even tell when he will be back, that he will heal the patient. And he remains absent for a long long time without giving the patient any sign of hope... That's not a good doctor.

 
but why all the unnecessary suffering? It is like a thief. Suppose we have a thief who already has enough money. Still he steals money from you. So you are stolen and poor. You won't hear anything from the thief, but then, some 50 years later, the thief comes back and gives you back your money and much much more. Ok, what the thief did in the end, giving that fortune, was very good. But that still doesn't justify him stealing your money. The thief did not need your money. Compare this thief with a second person: someone who did not steal from you, but still gave you the fortune. I think this second person did something better.

That's why I eat hamburger