There's a bunch of giant snails that are threatened by a quarry near their only habitat here in New Zealand, and a staunch group of activists trying to save them.
But yeah, most Petards (see what I did there?) will say "save the seals!" and feed them tuna. "Fuck the tuna, save the seals!"
As a smart (I think!) person, it appears that I am in danger of having the same problem as the GP. I have never heard of anyone confused about the source of milk, let alone meat (???!??) or eggs. Please show me these mystical people with the mental capacity of two year olds.
You're right, there is no such thing, but then that's what makes it hypothetical. Perhaps if I changed it to genetic engineering; cows now grow nerveless steaks on their backs, akin to trees fruit. They could be sedated then have the steaks surgically removed.
But you're ignoring the whole vegans-eat-more-than-fruit thing.
As for pain, it's just a more complex form of damage detection, which plants have.
I actually had that argument in my head, I guess it fell out somewhere:). It's an excellent position to take and I can respect someone who ethically doesn't eat meat because of its impact on the environment. However, in my experience, it's a rational argument to not eat meat that obscures the vegetarian's real base moral decision to not eat meat.
This can be tested; simply ask this person "so if we got to the point where raising cows was just as environmentally friendly as growing corn, it'd be okay to eat them?". If they say yes, shake their hand. But I don't predict you'll be shaking many hands.
You are very correct, and with that admission I quote a post I made elsewhere in this thread:
I didn't get around to this, but I guess this is as good a place as any: my reason for eating meat is that I want to eat meat and it outweighs the two possible arguments I know against eating meat. The first is that it's bad for the environment... I'm weak like that. The second is that some people believe it's bad for you (it probably is in too great a quantity), but I don't subsribe to it and there's plenty of people who would claim the opposite.
Furthermore, I believe any base ethical argument for or against eating meat is completely fluid and arbitrary in its nature. Don't eat this type of life, eat that type of life. Don't cause animals pain; cause plants pain instead. The only line I'd draw is between those who have the cognetive functioning to value the basic rights of life, and those that can't (if that makes sense, it's difficult to convey in a sentence) and even that is pretty damn arbitrary.
Somebody with mod points mod the parent up. Thank you, sir, for presenting probably the first rational, non-emotive argument for vegetarianism I have ever recieved:)
In my first point, I think I should have bolded If, as it's getting misunderstood. Perhaps it's just a redundant sentence.
I'd like to refute your answer to reason 5. A biologist replied to me somewhere and he's right. Here, I'll quote him:
This seems to be the sticking point with most non-(seemingly-)dogmatic vegetarians I've met. I cannot understand this magic line that is drawn between 'sensory input->reaction' and 'pain->reaction'. They are one in the same. As humans we empathize with cry of a mammal. Is this not a reason FOR distant far-off slaughterhouses rather than for the removal of a (reasonably) critical fraction of our natural diet?
I'm also a biochemist - I know very well the processes involved. I understand that the pain I feel is simply a much more complicated variant of the sensing done in the amoebas I study.
I fear that this is simply an extension of the anthropocentric view that denies the fact that we are simply complicated versions of everything else - nothing less, nothing more.
I didn't get around to this, but I guess this is as good a place as any: my reason for eating meat is that I want to eat meat and it outweighs the two possible arguments I know against eating meat. The first is that it's bad for the environment... I'm weak like that. The second is that some people believe it's bad for you (it probably is in too great a quantity), but I don't subsribe to it and there's plenty of people who would claim the opposite.
Furthermore, I believe any base ethical argument for or against eating meat is completely fluid and arbitrary in its nature. Don't eat this type of life, eat that type of life. Don't cause animals pain; cause plants pain instead. The only line I'd draw is between those who have the cognetive functioning to value the basic rights of life, and those that can't (if that makes sense, it's difficult to convey in a sentence) and even that is pretty damn arbitrary.
I was going to respond to this before I realised you're either getting a little too worked up about this, or you're an excellent troll. Kindly do not fop off my points with "that's ridiculous" and kindly do not twist my words into what they're not. Also kindly do not change the definition of vegetarianism without first consulting all vegetarians.
I hadn't heard this one before. It's easy to refute though, I think...
1. You're forgetting the types of commonly eaten veges that are killed upon consumption; root vegetables and the like. If your argument were to hold up then vegans wouldn't be eating them, but they are.
2. I highly, highly doubt that you would be in support of surgically and painlessly removing limbs or flesh from animals for consumption.
While a bit of a squeamish action if you're not a butcher or farmer or hunter, what message are PETA actually trying to get across? That it's bad to eat meat because it's... from an animal? Kind of redundant.
Okay -- I was being an asshole there. I know full well what they're trying to do, and that is simply to put people off eating meat because its "gross" and "its a doe-eyed living breathing animal". I would like to make my stance known now; I think this reasoning for being a vegetarian is retarded. I present to you, the flawed circular logic of the intelligent vegitarian/vegan.
Reason 1: I saw a baby lamb on a farm and I just couldn't bear myself to kill and eat that!
Go away. This isn't a reason. It's your squeamish stomach. If you're trying to convince people not to eat meat based on this reason alone then I despise you.
Reason 2: In this day and age it's unethical to eat meat when you can easily sustain yourself on plant sources.
This isn't a reason. The core argument here is "its unethical to eat meat". I'd like to know why.
Reason 3: It's unethical to cause suffering. Thus it is unethical to eat meat.
Now we're getting somewhere! So if in the future we hooked up newly born cows to a Virtual Reality system ala. the matrix, where there was no suffering, disconnected cows would remain virtually in the world (no percieved death or loss) and execution was done painlessly and with the cow blissfuly unaware, it'd be okay to eat meat? Somehow I don't think a real vegan's going to say yes. So what's the real reason?
Reason 4: It's unethical to kill.
What, now plants aren't life?
Reason 5: Plants aren't on the same level as human beings.
Then why are cows? Rabbits? Sheep? Birds? Insects? Where is this magical, arbitrary line that says it's okay to eat a pumpkin but not to eat a fish?
Reason 6: Meat is bad for you.
Citation needed. Last I heard you need a meticulous diet of a huge array of vegetables (something that no human could have done pre-civilisation) to maintain a healthy vegan life. We've been eating meat since the dawn of man, literally, and yet here we are living just as long as the average vegetarian. However, this is the only reason on the list I could accept as being non-retarded. If you honestly think you feel better on a vegetarian diet then hey, don't let me put you down.
On that note, there's another couple things that's always bugged me. Why do some vegetarians eat fish and/or chicken but not duck or lamb, and I'm not talking about the dietary-consideration kind? And why do some (ie. vegans) go as far as to not eat animal products like eggs, milk and the like, including from "ethical" sources? Because I have never had a rational, coherent argument with a vegan. I'm pretty close to just dumping them in the "ewww intestines" category.
WoW's first attempt at a LFG system was a complete downgrade from that "spammed channel" they had going. If you were there for its implementation then you would have seen the immediate effect of a lot less groups happening because instead of a "hey we're doing this everyone, wanna come?" thing it became an opt-in system limited to only three things you wanted to do with an extremely broken class matcher (yeah I really want to run Stratholme with five rogues).
It's slowly crawled its way up to what it is now but it's yet to reach the efficiency of the old city LFG channel.
Have you seen those forums? Hives of scum and villainy. Whiners and trolls litter the thing and every 10th god damn thread is locked because it was created by a fucktard. These people complain about drastic changes. They complain about minor changes. They complain when there are no changes, and they complain about all the people complaining. On a quiet day, I even saw someone complain about the lack of complaining.
It's no surprise that the zombie fun put these people off. These are people that wake up on a sunny day to a hot blonde chick serving them their favourite breakfast and have friends shower them with expensive gifts, then complain about being woken up.
As for the zombie event itself... yes, there were "actual" complainers. But by and large these people were drowned out by the legions of players enjoying what was to be the first and final zombie outbreak, a fun, once in a lifetime event that will never again grace the surface of azeroth.
You're going to be waiting a while. The second WoW expansion, Wrath of the Lich king, was released just the other week and the game's never been more fun than it is now.;)
Slashdot Mirror
Whoa.
There's a bunch of giant snails that are threatened by a quarry near their only habitat here in New Zealand, and a staunch group of activists trying to save them.
But yeah, most Petards (see what I did there?) will say "save the seals!" and feed them tuna. "Fuck the tuna, save the seals!"
Right, because before division of labour, nobody ate meat.
As a smart (I think!) person, it appears that I am in danger of having the same problem as the GP. I have never heard of anyone confused about the source of milk, let alone meat (???!??) or eggs. Please show me these mystical people with the mental capacity of two year olds.
You're right, there is no such thing, but then that's what makes it hypothetical. Perhaps if I changed it to genetic engineering; cows now grow nerveless steaks on their backs, akin to trees fruit. They could be sedated then have the steaks surgically removed.
But you're ignoring the whole vegans-eat-more-than-fruit thing.
As for pain, it's just a more complex form of damage detection, which plants have.
I've got the chops but it doesn't seem to be getting me very far. I do get a lot of odd stares, though...
I love PETA. Mostly because they don't quite realise just how crazy they look :)
If you're trying to convince people not to eat meat based on this reason alone then I despise you.
Emphasis on "If". But you go ahead and skim read.
http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1040979&cid=25890329
I never mentioned fruit. The discussion on pain is handled elsewhere in this thread... by a biologist no less ;)
I actually had that argument in my head, I guess it fell out somewhere :). It's an excellent position to take and I can respect someone who ethically doesn't eat meat because of its impact on the environment. However, in my experience, it's a rational argument to not eat meat that obscures the vegetarian's real base moral decision to not eat meat.
This can be tested; simply ask this person "so if we got to the point where raising cows was just as environmentally friendly as growing corn, it'd be okay to eat them?". If they say yes, shake their hand. But I don't predict you'll be shaking many hands.
That would be perfect and I really do believe that's where we're heading.
I didn't get around to this, but I guess this is as good a place as any: my reason for eating meat is that I want to eat meat and it outweighs the two possible arguments I know against eating meat. The first is that it's bad for the environment... I'm weak like that. The second is that some people believe it's bad for you (it probably is in too great a quantity), but I don't subsribe to it and there's plenty of people who would claim the opposite. Furthermore, I believe any base ethical argument for or against eating meat is completely fluid and arbitrary in its nature. Don't eat this type of life, eat that type of life. Don't cause animals pain; cause plants pain instead. The only line I'd draw is between those who have the cognetive functioning to value the basic rights of life, and those that can't (if that makes sense, it's difficult to convey in a sentence) and even that is pretty damn arbitrary.
In my first point, I think I should have bolded If, as it's getting misunderstood. Perhaps it's just a redundant sentence.
I'd like to refute your answer to reason 5. A biologist replied to me somewhere and he's right. Here, I'll quote him:
This seems to be the sticking point with most non-(seemingly-)dogmatic vegetarians I've met. I cannot understand this magic line that is drawn between 'sensory input->reaction' and 'pain->reaction'. They are one in the same. As humans we empathize with cry of a mammal. Is this not a reason FOR distant far-off slaughterhouses rather than for the removal of a (reasonably) critical fraction of our natural diet?
I'm also a biochemist - I know very well the processes involved. I understand that the pain I feel is simply a much more complicated variant of the sensing done in the amoebas I study.
I fear that this is simply an extension of the anthropocentric view that denies the fact that we are simply complicated versions of everything else - nothing less, nothing more.
I didn't get around to this, but I guess this is as good a place as any: my reason for eating meat is that I want to eat meat and it outweighs the two possible arguments I know against eating meat. The first is that it's bad for the environment... I'm weak like that. The second is that some people believe it's bad for you (it probably is in too great a quantity), but I don't subsribe to it and there's plenty of people who would claim the opposite.
Furthermore, I believe any base ethical argument for or against eating meat is completely fluid and arbitrary in its nature. Don't eat this type of life, eat that type of life. Don't cause animals pain; cause plants pain instead. The only line I'd draw is between those who have the cognetive functioning to value the basic rights of life, and those that can't (if that makes sense, it's difficult to convey in a sentence) and even that is pretty damn arbitrary.
I think you mispelt "I'm a troll" on the first line of your post, there.
I was going to respond to this before I realised you're either getting a little too worked up about this, or you're an excellent troll. Kindly do not fop off my points with "that's ridiculous" and kindly do not twist my words into what they're not. Also kindly do not change the definition of vegetarianism without first consulting all vegetarians.
I hadn't heard this one before. It's easy to refute though, I think...
1. You're forgetting the types of commonly eaten veges that are killed upon consumption; root vegetables and the like. If your argument were to hold up then vegans wouldn't be eating them, but they are.
2. I highly, highly doubt that you would be in support of surgically and painlessly removing limbs or flesh from animals for consumption.
Troll != I don't agree with you
Quit abusing mod points. You know who you are.
You should register an account, as I'd have modded you informative for that ;)
While a bit of a squeamish action if you're not a butcher or farmer or hunter, what message are PETA actually trying to get across? That it's bad to eat meat because it's... from an animal? Kind of redundant.
Okay -- I was being an asshole there. I know full well what they're trying to do, and that is simply to put people off eating meat because its "gross" and "its a doe-eyed living breathing animal". I would like to make my stance known now; I think this reasoning for being a vegetarian is retarded. I present to you, the flawed circular logic of the intelligent vegitarian/vegan.
Reason 1: I saw a baby lamb on a farm and I just couldn't bear myself to kill and eat that!
Go away. This isn't a reason. It's your squeamish stomach. If you're trying to convince people not to eat meat based on this reason alone then I despise you.
Reason 2: In this day and age it's unethical to eat meat when you can easily sustain yourself on plant sources.
This isn't a reason. The core argument here is "its unethical to eat meat". I'd like to know why.
Reason 3: It's unethical to cause suffering. Thus it is unethical to eat meat.
Now we're getting somewhere! So if in the future we hooked up newly born cows to a Virtual Reality system ala. the matrix, where there was no suffering, disconnected cows would remain virtually in the world (no percieved death or loss) and execution was done painlessly and with the cow blissfuly unaware, it'd be okay to eat meat? Somehow I don't think a real vegan's going to say yes. So what's the real reason?
Reason 4: It's unethical to kill.
What, now plants aren't life?
Reason 5: Plants aren't on the same level as human beings.
Then why are cows? Rabbits? Sheep? Birds? Insects? Where is this magical, arbitrary line that says it's okay to eat a pumpkin but not to eat a fish?
Reason 6: Meat is bad for you.
Citation needed. Last I heard you need a meticulous diet of a huge array of vegetables (something that no human could have done pre-civilisation) to maintain a healthy vegan life. We've been eating meat since the dawn of man, literally, and yet here we are living just as long as the average vegetarian. However, this is the only reason on the list I could accept as being non-retarded. If you honestly think you feel better on a vegetarian diet then hey, don't let me put you down.
On that note, there's another couple things that's always bugged me. Why do some vegetarians eat fish and/or chicken but not duck or lamb, and I'm not talking about the dietary-consideration kind? And why do some (ie. vegans) go as far as to not eat animal products like eggs, milk and the like, including from "ethical" sources? Because I have never had a rational, coherent argument with a vegan. I'm pretty close to just dumping them in the "ewww intestines" category.
WoW's first attempt at a LFG system was a complete downgrade from that "spammed channel" they had going. If you were there for its implementation then you would have seen the immediate effect of a lot less groups happening because instead of a "hey we're doing this everyone, wanna come?" thing it became an opt-in system limited to only three things you wanted to do with an extremely broken class matcher (yeah I really want to run Stratholme with five rogues).
It's slowly crawled its way up to what it is now but it's yet to reach the efficiency of the old city LFG channel.
Have you seen those forums? Hives of scum and villainy. Whiners and trolls litter the thing and every 10th god damn thread is locked because it was created by a fucktard. These people complain about drastic changes. They complain about minor changes. They complain when there are no changes, and they complain about all the people complaining. On a quiet day, I even saw someone complain about the lack of complaining.
It's no surprise that the zombie fun put these people off. These are people that wake up on a sunny day to a hot blonde chick serving them their favourite breakfast and have friends shower them with expensive gifts, then complain about being woken up.
As for the zombie event itself... yes, there were "actual" complainers. But by and large these people were drowned out by the legions of players enjoying what was to be the first and final zombie outbreak, a fun, once in a lifetime event that will never again grace the surface of azeroth.
You just can't please everyone.
that the game you just described sounds like arse.
You're going to be waiting a while. The second WoW expansion, Wrath of the Lich king, was released just the other week and the game's never been more fun than it is now. ;)
Haha, conspiracy noob, everyone knows they monitor th