[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by Kr0nos

Okay, I'll give you this, from a scientific point of you it's rather "useless" to adopt an unorthodox focus on classification, and there is a bit of polemics involved in my argument.

I know that science has a lot to do with identifying, naming and classifying in order to make deductions and formulate thesis.

But in a day and age, where people are actually thinking about charging folks with double homicide when they kill a pregnant woman, or liken abortion to murder ON THE GROUNDS THAT A FETUS HAS ALL THE GENETIC MATERIAL NECESSARY TO DEVELOP INTO AN ADULT, we'd do well, even if only in this instance, to not let science become an agent for moral justification and judgementalism.

Wether something is ludicrous or not might be up for debate. But when people go to the extremes in order to legislate their morality, I feel it's my right to adopt the same "extreme" position on scientific observation. At least until common sense prevails.

And until then, to me, a sperm is basically the same as an early term fetus.

Therein lies the problem.

Instead of taking science for what it is, you prefer to rejig that science to your own interpretation in order to justify your moral beliefs, in response to actions by others that are contrary to your view.

Personally I think it's better to take science for what it is, and not try to necessarily use it to justify all my moral beliefs.

ie.

I believe that an early fetus is a lot closer to a "real" baby than a single sperm is, because, well it is by scientific standards.

However, that doesn't mean I believe that people should go around blowing up abortion clinics, or that women should be stoned to death for exercizing their right to choose.

[Kr0nos]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Personally I think it's better to take science for what it is, and not try to necessarily use it to justify all my moral beliefs…

Neither do I.

But this is a debate about "moral relativism" and I was (initially) responding to this quote here:

As for me, I will stop fighting for abortions rights in this country, and advocate for its total outlaw, when the government outlaws any and all forms of execution.

You can't tell me that there isn't an extreme view on the definition of "human life" involved here.

Science or no science. But if an abortion is the same a state sponsored execution, then a "sperm" is the same as a "fetus".

Why?

Because "having all the genetic material necessary to develop into a baby" isn't the same as "human being". (Even if its a completely valid scientific classification).

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Kr0nos

And just in case you're going to try to make another dim-witted point – if my life depended on it, I'd eat meat. Until then, I would rather do without, thank you.

Geeze, don't be such a chicken- full pun intended. Answer the question and stop dodging. I know your soapbox must be wobbly, but concentrate. Which meat? Human or animal? Why would you make the choice of which?

Pffff. Yeah, I'm sure those cows are just thrilled about being slaughtered for our greedy and selfish diatary choices.

So where's the direct quote? You've interviewed the cows, right?

I don't have any cockroaches in my household, and if I did and they'd threaten my life or well being, I'd deal with them them in the same way I'd deal with vermin of the human variety.

If this was any more of a dodge, I'd have to call it the "General Lee".

So taking your "respect of all life" faux high horse to the extreme of delusion eh? Talk about a genocidal mindset, you've certainly proved my point about people who can't differentiate animals from humans. Why not answer the question specifically and stop weaseling out? What exactly is "deal with them" for either species?

[Kr0nos]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

Which meat? Human or animal? Why would you make the choice of which?

It would depend on which one couldn't get away fast enough, or whichever I could clobber to death with a blunt object.

In general though, being faced with the choice, I'd go with the non-human meat (beacsue of health concersns).

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

You've interviewed the cows, right?

Yes, I did, and it seems like I was all wrong.

They actually enjoy living under generally rotten conditions, wasting away while being masted and pumped full of antibiotics only to eventually be dragged to the slaughterhouse and carved up so we can indulge our meat eating habits.

'Guess we've got that settled. Next.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

What exactly is "deal with them" for either species?

Err, does the term "self-defense" ring a bell? Or is that a concept too hard for you to grasp?

This is really easy actually. I generally don't approve of killing animals to support our (or anybody else's culture's) dietary habits.

I think you seriously have to work on your comprehension skills, – and don't post again until you've taken your medication.

[King Bob On The Cob]

Originally Posted by Kr0nos

You can't tell me that there isn't an extreme view on the definition of "human life" involved here.

Right click the word "life" there and take a peek at the definition.

Sperm will never reproduce, therefore it is not "life" at a scientific level. A sperm is a sperm is a sperm.

The fetus has a chance to reproduce at a later time (particularly if you don't stop it from living), therefore it can be considered life.

Your definition is off.

What you're saying is going out and crushing a caterpillar is not actually killing the caterpillar because it's not a butterfly yet. (That's about what fetuses amount to, a larval stage of human life).

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by King Bob On The Cob

Sperm will never reproduce, therefore it is not "life" at a scientific level. A sperm is a sperm is a sperm.

The fetus has a chance to reproduce at a later time (particularly if you don't stop it from living), therefore it can be considered life.

The sperm has a chance to reproduce later, albeit quite a smaller one than a fetus

Originally Posted by King Bob On The Cob

What you're saying is going out and crushing a caterpillar is not actually killing the caterpillar because it's not a butterfly yet. (That's about what fetuses amount to, a larval stage of human life).

That analogy does not compute.

[Saetre]

Originally Posted by King Bob On The Cob

The fetus has a chance to reproduce at a later time (particularly if you don't stop it from living), therefore it can be considered life.

Foeti cannot reproduce. Both sperm and feoti are alive. Your arguments hold no water because your premises are false.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Kr0nos

It would depend on which one couldn't get away fast enough, or whichever I could clobber to death with a blunt object.

So in other words, you'd kill to meet your own needs, and on top of it can't distinguish any the difference between animals and humans. ooookay.

Yes, I did, and it seems like I was all wrong.

They actually enjoy living under generally rotten conditions, wasting away while being masted and pumped full of antibiotics only to eventually be dragged to the slaughterhouse and carved up so we can indulge our meat eating habits.

'Guess we've got that settled. Next.

All that from a simple "moo?"

Keep trying to convince yourself you really give a rat's crap about the plight of cows or any other animal. Maybe it'll eventually work for ya.

Err, does the term "self-defense" ring a bell? Or is that a concept too hard for you to grasp?

In your case, "self" is about the only thing I truly believe your type cares a whit about.

[Kr0nos]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

So in other words, you'd kill to meet your own needs, and on top of it can't distinguish any the difference between animals and humans. ooookay.

I think you need to look up the word "choice" here. Meat (for about 99% of people living on the planet) is a luxury, not a necessary requirement for survival.

And beyond that, factory farming has very little to do with sustenance, but is all about greed and profit.

If some people wholly depend on the consumption of animals for their well-being – so be it. Not everybody has that choice (yet). But "survival" is just about the biggest non-argument one could make to justify one's meat eating habits in the "civilized world".

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

In your case, "self" is about the only thing I truly believe your type cares a whit about.

That's quite a quote from somebody who obviously doesn't give a flying fu<k about the plight of other beings. Hey, I guess as long as life is peachy for you, who cares, right?

[besson3c]

It's bothersome to me when some (e.g. Crash Harddrive) seem unwilling to display some sensitivity towards the perfectly legitimate beliefs of others.

[King Bob On The Cob]

Originally Posted by besson3c

It's bothersome to me when some (e.g. Crash Harddrive) seem unwilling to display some sensitivity towards the perfectly legitimate beliefs of others.

Hahahahah, people in this country displaying some sensitivity towards other's beliefs...

Good one. (That's never going to happen. You're lucky if they don't just attack them outright and try to get them outlawed.)

See also: Abortion, The ability to argue religion in school (Why the hall does my history teacher have to apologize before teaching the history of the Roman Catholic Church?), Male/Female reproductive rights, ect... (basically everything that's on this board)

Edit: Spelling

[DBursey]

Some great name-calling by some of the usual intellects here.

I'd opine that we all - regardless of political slant - engage to some degree in moral relativism, and that it is quite hypocritical of one 'side' to assign it as a unique attribute to the other.

Millennium said it best: Liberals suck, Conservatives suck ... we get it! That's why I'm a centrist.

Now back to the regularly scheduled mud slinging.

[Kr0nos]

Originally Posted by besson3c

It's bothersome to me when some (e.g. Crash Harddrive) seem unwilling to display some sensitivity towards the perfectly legitimate beliefs of others.

Bothersome? Yes. But surprising, – no.

If you've read some of his other posts, this kind of attitude is just what was to be expected. And as far as I'm concerned, I don't feel threatened or offended in the least.

People have a right to their opinion (as ignorant and uneducated as it might be, as is the case with C.H.)

Turning a blind eye towards ritual animal abuse and the atrocities of factory farming says a lot about a person, but the legitimacy of their views is really non of my concern, as I don't really care wether or not they find my views justified either.

Personally, I'm going to do exactly what I personally feel is right, regardless of what they say or do.

[lpkmckenna]

I'm neither a moral absolutist nor a moral relativist. I'm a moral contextualist. What's that, you ask?

A moral contextualist regards actions as neither moral nor immoral, in and of themselves. Thus, lying and killing are not inherently immoral, but depend upon the context.

Lying to an individual who deserves to know the truth is absolutely immoral, but lying to in individual who is invading your privacy is absolutely moral. In and of itself, lying is morally neutral.

Killing in self-defense or in a just war are absolutely moral, but killing for undeserved gain is absolutely immoral. Killing, in and of itself, is morally neutral.

Any moral evaluation requires knowledge of the action and the context. Within a specified context, that action is absolutely immoral.

Thus, murder (like a killing for gain) and fraud (lying for gain) are always immoral.
And, killing in self-defence or lying to nosey neighbours is always moral.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

I'm neither a moral absolutist nor a moral relativist. I'm a moral contextualist. What's that, you ask?

A moral contextualist regards actions as neither moral nor immoral, in and of themselves. Thus, lying and killing are not inherently immoral, but depend upon the context.

Lying to an individual who deserves to know the truth is absolutely immoral, but lying to in individual who is invading your privacy is absolutely moral. In and of itself, lying is morally neutral.

Killing in self-defense or in a just war are absolutely moral, but killing for undeserved gain is absolutely immoral. Killing, in and of itself, is morally neutral.

Any moral evaluation requires knowledge of the action and the context. Within a specified context, that action is absolutely immoral.

Thus, murder (like a killing for gain) and fraud (lying for gain) are always immoral.
And, killing in self-defence or lying to nosey neighbours is always moral.

Yes.

[subego]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

I'm neither a moral absolutist nor a moral relativist. I'm a moral contextualist. What's that, you ask?

I'm nitpicking here, but doesn't this mean you are both an absolutist and a relativist, it's just that which one you are at the moment and to what degree is context dependent?

[Spliffdaddy]

yeah, didn't make any logical sense to me either.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego

I'm nitpicking here, but doesn't this mean you are both an absolutist and a relativist, it's just that which one you are at the moment and to what degree is context dependent?

IMO, what lpkmckenna says makes a lot of sense. The problem is defining what is dishonest, gain, deserving, invasion, self-defense, and just.

In other words, context itself begs definition and would be predictably subjective. A "just war" for example, may be just to some unjust to another. Law attempts to meet these ambiguities with exhaustive terminology for just this reason.

[Spliffdaddy]

Ah. So after an action takes place it can be decided whether it was a moral act or not.
peachy.

Morality based on a whim of the moment.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Ah. So after an action takes place it can be decided whether it was a moral act or not.
peachy.

Morality based on a whim of the moment.

I understand your concern, but isn't that what we've been saying about Iraq Spliffdaddy? While difficult today, there will be a successful tomorrow. Many believe the war today is unjust because they see a lot of injustice and death. Ultimitely, success will be determined in hindsight.

[Wiskedjak]

The end justifies the means?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

The end justifies the means?

They often do. What is subjective is whether or not you agree with the proposed ends. For example, if you disagree with the "ends" no means can be justified. The means are also subject to interpretation. See "torture" thread. There is disagreement on "torture" up to and including anything that makes you uncomfortable. Well, is the discomfort of one worth saving one civilian? Two civilians? Two thousand civilians? Two cities? Do the ends justify the means?

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

IMO, what lpkmckenna says makes a lot of sense. The problem is defining what is dishonest, gain, deserving, invasion, self-defense, and just.

In other words, context itself begs definition and would be predictably subjective. A "just war" for example, may be just to some unjust to another. Law attempts to meet these ambiguities with exhaustive terminology for just this reason.

You're right - definitions of context, justice, etc also require definition to fully validate moral contextualism. But that's true anyway; all terms in moral philosophy are subject to such scrutiny.

The point of my post was to point out that absolutism/relativism is a non-issue. They are false alternatives.

I gave examples of lying and killing. How about another?

Is "sex" moral or immoral? Neither. It depends on the context. For instance, if the sex was forced, then it would be immoral, absolutely and in all circumstances.

The comments about "whims of the moment" or "ends justify the means" don't apply.

I'm nitpicking here, but doesn't this mean you are both an absolutist and a relativist, it's just that which one you are at the moment and to what degree is context dependent?

No, because the context is always crucial.

[Kr0nos]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

…Thus, murder (like a killing for gain) and fraud (lying for gain) are always immoral.
And, killing in self-defense or lying to nosey neighbors is always moral.

Very well put.

I guess I was taking the same stance in regards to vegetarianism.

When faced with the challenge of survival I wouldn't consider the killing of animal for consumption an immoral choice, - but when actually making a conscious choice (especially in regards to factory farming) to support a dietary habit, it's something different.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Ah. So after an action takes place it can be decided whether it was a moral act or not.
peachy.

Morality based on a whim of the moment.

In here it seems it's based on who they think they can slam on the Right.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Kr0nos

Very well put.

I guess I was taking the same stance in regards to vegetarianism.

When faced with the challenge of survival I wouldn't consider the killing of animal for consumption an immoral choice,

This includes killing humans for consumption? Same thing, right?

but when actually making a conscious choice (especially in regards to factory farming) to support a dietary habit, it's something different.

There's no difference what-so-ever, other than you casting a sanctimonious judgment over what others choose, the same as anyone could do over your choice of when you think it's okay to kill.

It's pretty humorous and hypocritical that both you and besson attempt to get up on a high horse about others not being 'sensitive' to your beliefs, when your beliefs are themselves little more than self-righteous moral judgments of the choices of others.

Millions of people worldwide choose to eat meat, use leather, and a host of other things that involve the death of animals. You don't like that- as is your right- but then you go overboard in the opposite extreme, trying to cast what you disagree with as being akin to the Holocaust, or whatever 'bad' thing you have to dredge up in the absence of an actual argument.

[Saetre]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

You're right - definitions of context, justice, etc also require definition to fully validate moral contextualism. But that's true anyway; all terms in moral philosophy are subject to such scrutiny.

The point of my post was to point out that absolutism/relativism is a non-issue. They are false alternatives.

I gave examples of lying and killing. How about another?

Is "sex" moral or immoral? Neither. It depends on the context. For instance, if the sex was forced, then it would be immoral, absolutely and in all circumstances.

The comments about "whims of the moment" or "ends justify the means" don't apply.


No, because the context is always crucial.

Is the cultural context of the moral decision considered? If so your theory may be described as a form of moral relativism. It depends, of course, on the definition or moral relativism. No one seems to agree of a definition.

So, for example, might sex before marriage be wrong in the context of the culture of the U.S. while acceptable in a culture that doesn't even recognize marriage, like that of ancient Egypt?

[Kr0nos]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

This includes killing humans for consumption? Same thing, right?

Seriously, I don't know what I'd do if I was faced with the choice of starving. I think you'd have to be in that kind of situation to actually know.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

There's no difference what-so-ever, other than you casting a sanctimonious judgment over what others choose, the same as anyone could do over your choice of when you think it's okay to kill.

Errr, no, because in your case it isn't a matter of survival. That's what "having a choice" implies.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

It's pretty humorous and hypocritical that both you and besson attempt to get up on a high horse about others not being 'sensitive' to your beliefs…

It's not about my "belief", but about the way livestock is treated in factory farms because people make the conscious choice of indulging in a habit which isn't necessary for their survival.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

…or whatever 'bad' thing you have to dredge up in the absence of an actual argument.

The argument isn't absent, you simply choose to ignore it. Again, it's a choice. If it really was a matter of live or die, it'd be a whole different ball-game.

The ritual abuse of animals in these kinds of conditions is well documented. If you chose to ignore this, that's your right. But don't act like these things don't happen (a lot of times), – and if they do, they are as gruesome and inhumane as what went on in Auschwitz etc. (even if the cattle is killed for our consumption)

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Saetre

Is the cultural context of the moral decision considered?

No.

Originally Posted by Saetre

So, for example, might sex before marriage be wrong in the context of the culture of the U.S. while acceptable in a culture that doesn't even recognize marriage, like that of ancient Egypt?

Sex before marriage is wrong in the US?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Kr0nos 

Seriously, I don't know what I'd do if I was faced with the choice of starving. I think you'd have to be in that kind of situation to actually know.

Most people don't, but most know they could probably kill and eat an animal for survival without much if any guilt. Only a psychopath would make the same claim about killing another human being, and only as the last possible of resorts, and for a lot more bothersome reasons than your total cop out "for heath issues" bullcrap. There's simply a vast moral difference between the two things, which despite your pretense, I'd wager even you recognize.

Errr, no, because in your case it isn't a matter of survival. That's what "having a choice" implies.

So you're against "choice" that isn't a matter of survival? Funny, I hadn't pegged you as the anti-abortion type!

It's not about my "belief", but about the way livestock is treated in factory farms because people make the conscious choice of indulging in a habit which isn't necessary for their survival.

It's not anyone's "belief" that the process of aborting an unborn baby is pretty gruesome. So you're against someone's "...conscious choice of indulging in a habit which isn't necessary for their survival." ?

The argument isn't absent, you simply choose to ignore it. Again, it's a choice. If it really was a matter of live or die, it'd be a whole different ball-game.

So again, only life and death choices are valid?

they are as gruesome and inhumane as what went on in Auschwitz etc. (even if the cattle is killed for our consumption)

Trying to compare the two shows you have no clue about either, and are merely trying the age old tactic of elevating the emotional status you attach to a pet cause by comparing it with something far worse. On most forums, once a poster does this, it's game over for their argument, because it's recognized as a cheap ploy used by those who can't actually make an argument, and devolve everything they disagree with into comparisons with Nazis. You keep proving that point.

[Saetre]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

No.

Sex before marriage is wrong in the US?

Many people think so.

[Buckaroo]

Liberals have NO morals.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Saetre 

Some nuts think so.

[Kr0nos]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

There's simply a vast moral difference between the two things, which despite your pretense, I'd wager even you recognize.

This is just another ill conceived non-argument by you. How often do you find yourself in a situation where you neither have the option of vegetarian or non-human meat based food? My argument isn't about equating the value of life and importance of ethical treatment in terms of "preference" in ALL SITUATIONS. But serves as a guide for the process of judging what is moral (and healthy choice) and at the same time ensures my survival.

I see that you're trying your best to pull just about any dumb situation outta your ass to discredit my argument (and failing miserably, if I may add), – but in the end it will make no difference what-so-ever.

Currently, I have absolutely no problem living a vegetarian lifestyle and should the situation ever come to pass that I need to eat an animal so I can survive, that won't be a problem…any other situation is so far fetched that I don't even concern myself with it.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

So you're against "choice" that isn't a matter of survival? Funny, I hadn't pegged you as the anti-abortion type!

Funny, you're actually blasting me for comparing humans to livestock, but you'd equate a micro-organism with a grown, sentient, being. I've already put this argument to rest in a different thread. There is a crucial difference between a grown being and a fetus, which makes my side of the argument so much more feasible than assessing equal importance to all "stages of potential life".

I don't think you'll find anybody arguing pro-choice, and anti non-human abortion at the same time. *duh*

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

It's not anyone's "belief" that the process of aborting an unborn baby is pretty gruesome?

True, it's a fairly gruesome process for the woman having the abortion. But not for the early term fetus (and don't even argue that a 3 week old fetus has the same capacity to feel pain, fear and disparity as a grown animal).

Try again.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

So again, only life and death choices are valid?

You really don't get the point here, do you? It's not about validity, it's about "I don't give a fu<k about how animals are treated, since they aren't humans, and I want to indulge in my meat-eating habits" not being a moral CHOICE!

Just like "I don't give a fu<k about how Jews are treated, since they aren't human beings, and I want to have free labour and my ideology requires that they all die etc. etc."

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

Trying to compare the two shows you have no clue about either, and are merely trying the age old tactic of elevating the emotional status you attach to a pet cause by comparing it with something far worse.

It's not about any emotional attachment, it's about recognizing that it is essential for any moral philosophy to treat sentient beings with dignity and in an ethical manner. Sadly, the only thing you have to counter is the age-old "I don't care, because I can".

That's certainly your right, but it sure as hell isn't an equal moral choice.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

On most forums, once a poster does this, it's game over for their argument, because it's recognized as a cheap ploy used by those who can't actually make an argument, and devolve everything they disagree with into comparisons with Nazis. You keep proving that point.

No, actually I've proven over and over again that you are the one who doesn't have an argument other than "I have every right to do whatever I want, regardless of what this means for other beings" The NAZI comparison is completely arbitrary (yet absolutely valid) and isn't really necessary for my argument at all.

[BlueSky]

I don't know what this thread is about intrinsically, only have seen the title, but I had a dream last night where I read the title and I wondered aloud, "What kind of bullshit question is that?"

Apologies if it's working out for y'all, just wanted to share. Too much forum time for me.

[Saetre]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

[img]Some nuts think so[/img]

We have a lot of those here. However I don't find that moral position much nuttier than thinking it is possible to meaningfully assign truth values to moral propositions. We are all nuts in our own ways.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Kr0nos 

Currently, I have absolutely no problem living a vegetarian lifestyle and should the situation ever come to pass that I need to eat an animal so I can survive, that won't be a problem…

Of course it wouldn't. It wouldn't present a moral delima to anyone to eat an animal. Notice you can't say the same thing about a human, and keep ducking the issue. Even you know that just stating you could kill or eat a human carries actual moral significance. But by all means, keep pretending you can't understand that, and keep smokescreening.

Funny, you're actually blasting me for comparing humans to livestock, but you'd equate a micro-organism with a grown, sentient, being. I've already put this argument to rest in a different thread. There is a crucial difference between a grown being and a fetus, which makes my side of the argument so much more feasible than assessing equal importance to all "stages of potential life".

So here it is in a nutshell- your sanctimonious attitude about someone else's choice is merely based on your own belief system. There's nothing wrong with having a belief, it's just that you fail to recognize that's all it is- your belief. Nothing more. It carries no weight what-so-ever for anyone else who doesn't care what you believe about abortion, or eating meat.

True, it's a fairly gruesome process for the woman having the abortion. But not for the early term fetus (and don't even argue that a 3 week old fetus has the same capacity to feel pain, fear and disparity as a grown animal).

This is just stupid. Both things (Abortion, and eating meat) are choices that aren't a matter of life and death for the person choosing them- that's the comparison, not all your smokescreening nonsense.

You approve of one choice, and disagree with the other, based on your beliefs about both. Nothing wrong with that in and of itself, it's just the high-horse self-righteous attitude you take about having your beliefs challenged. You're no different from a street corner bible thumper with all of your ranting and raving about what you beleive are the evils of eating meat, and making up dumb comparisons to things that aren't the same because you can't articulate an argument any other way.

You're not convincing anyone, in fact, the nuts like PETA and yourself often do more damage than good to the pet causes you constantly thump on about. Telling people you think they're like nazis because they make a choice you disagree with, is no less insane or non-compelling to anyone than a street corner preacher telling people they're going to hell because of something he disagrees with. But hey, carry on.

As I said originally, you're just too shallow to realize that you're the flip side of the same fugly coin.

[ironknee]

i'd say the liberal extremes like hippies believe in peace, love and understanding (what's so funny 'bought it?)

i'd say conservatives think there are 3 ingrediences to a human, sperm, egg and god's stamp of approval.

of course some would argue, no, god is built into the sperm/egg relationship. but then god is in nature or is nature itself,,,but, but wait...that means we have to take care of the earth...wait...that means god is allen and sally and that tree and spot...no, no nevermind


but seriously, my personal thoughts

i ask when does life END? when the heart stops? when the brain dies? when the one stops breathing?

i say when one stops breathing.

therefore, the first breath is the beginning of a human life (didn't god give life to adam with a breath?). it's a good symmetry

[- - e r i k - -]

Life ends when your brain activity stops. You can come back to life after you've stopped breathing.

[Face Ache]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Life ends when your brain activity stops.

Explain Kevin then.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by Dr Reducto 

Most American liberals still have a judeo-christian based set of morals, but simply knock out all the inconvenient parts of it.

Whereas conservatives simply ignore those inconvenient bits behind closed doors...oh, and often the same bits they spent the day proudly expousing.

I'd rather be a liberal than a xenophobic, self-serving hypocrite...just in case there are any of them out there...you know, somewhere...

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Face Ache 

Explain Kevin then.

*Ba-da-pisch!*

[Spliffdaddy]

Liberals don't like the idea of morality. Life is so much easier when you don't have any expectations in particular to live up to.

But when somebody decides to accept moral principles and try to live up to them - and doesn't - the liberals revel in the "hypocrisy" of it all.

Well, human beings aren't perfect.

Besides, the only way to fail at something is to attempt to achieve something.

You can't fail if you never make an effort to try. Which explains the ideology of liberalism - that is, the unwillingness to fail. You'll never hear a liberal blame themselves or their ideology for failure. To a liberal, failure is something caused by outside influence. Liberals can never be hypocrites when it comes to morality. After all, they never tried to live up to any moral principles.

[- - e r i k - -]

Being neither a liberal, nor a conservative I don't understand the whole broadbrush, blanket statement that comes out of either side. Statements like "Liberals don't like the idea of morality" or worse "Liberals have NO morals." just doesn't make sense to me.

Everyone has morals, they might not be yours or mine or general societies morals (more likely your personal view of what society's morals OUGHT to be), but they are morals nonetheless.

[Kr0nos]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

It wouldn't present a moral delima to anyone to eat an animal.

Yes it would if somebody realized that their dietary choices (more or less!) directly result in the suffering and cruel treatment of animals (factory farming etc.)

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Notice you can't say the same thing about a human, and keep ducking the issue.

I already pointed to the health issue (which you so cowardly dismissed as insignificant)

I'll just turn the tables for you here in a second.

Let's say I was allergic to pork and beef, and was stranded on an island with another human being, a pig and a cow (yes, very simplistic - but it will suffice for the sake of the argument).

What do you think I would go for when eating pork or beef would be tantamount to killing myself? What would you do in my situation?

So much for your "moral hierarchy" premise - it's all about survival first. The rest just depends upon how much you care.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Even you know that just stating you could kill or eat a human carries actual moral significance.

Like I said above, survival first. Extreme hunger makes people do erratic things that they'd never do under normal circumstances. Of, course, you're completely ignoring that point to make your argument valid in the first place.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

So here it is in a nutshell- your sanctimonious attitude about someone else's choice is merely based on your own belief system.

What goes on in factory farming, the fur industry etc. etc. isn't based on any "belief", but on well documented, observable, facts. Why do you keep ignoring this?

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

It carries no weight what-so-ever for anyone else who doesn't care what you believe about abortion, or eating meat.

I already addressed this in an earlier post. There is a BIG differences between choosing to abstain from the consumption of meat and abortion, which has absolutely nothing to do with "belief".

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Both things (Abortion, and eating meat) are choices that aren't a matter of life and death for the person choosing them- that's the comparison…

Errrr, no it's not. But I'm seeing where you fail to understand the argument at hand.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

You approve of one choice, and disagree with the other, based on your beliefs about both.

No. One has absolutely nothing to do with the other.

Here's a hint, I'm VERY much against late-term abortion (unless there's a serious chance of the mother dying or receiving serious injuries because of it).

Why do you think that is?

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

…dumb comparisons to things that aren't the same because you can't articulate an argument any other way.

Errr, you were the one making the dumb comparisons (abortion and dietary choices).

I am aware that your lack of understanding and reluctance to make morally valid choices stem from a world view which has been out-dated for quite some time now. But don't blame others for your lack of mental aptitude and discipline. After all, it's your choice what you believe.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Telling people you think they're like nazis…

And see, this is where I KNOW that you simply cannot grasp the gist of the "concentration camp" comparison. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with calling people who eat meat NAZIs.

Interesting though, that you would so vehemently chastise somebody for inferring you were a NAZI. but you feel totally justified turning a blind eye towards the plight of other living beings.

Quite telling indeed.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

As I said originally, you're just too shallow to realize that you're the flip side of the same fugly coin.

As I pointed out in my reply here, it seems like you're the one who's too shallow to realize. Face it, the choices you make in life are usually based on real life experiences and situations. "Belief" might figure into it, but ultimately, it's what you experience that drives your desires and moral choices. That's just the way it is. No "smoke-screening" necessary.

[- - e r i k - -]

Mmmmmm.... meat. Stop making me hungry dammit!

[Kr0nos]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Mmmmmm.... meat. Stop making me hungry dammit!

...

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Kr0nos 

I already pointed to the health issue (which you so cowardly dismissed as insignificant)

I'll just turn the tables for you here in a second.

Let's say I was allergic to pork and beef, and was stranded on an island with another human being, a pig and a cow (yes, very simplistic - but it will suffice for the sake of the argument).

What do you think I would go for when eating pork or beef would be tantamount to killing myself? What would you do in my situation?

So much for your "moral hierarchy" premise - it's all about survival first. The rest just depends upon how much you care.

Remember how I said people like you only care about 'self'? Perfect example.
This one is easy.

The 'other human being' -the normal one- would have more milk, seafood, and pork for himself after he killed the “I’m allergic, so I guess I’ll eat you” psychopath he was stuck on an island with.

[- - e r i k - -]

Hehe. Nice retort.

[Kr0nos]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

The 'other human being' -the normal one- would have more milk, seafood, and pork for himself after he killed the “I’m allergic, so I guess I’ll eat you” psychopath he was stuck on an island with.

LOL. That's the biggest cop-out reply in the history of arguments.

Not only do you completely side-step the issue by evading the premise of my challenge, but you ignore the fact that you are the one who so hypocritically points the finger at others for only caring about "self"!

But, by all means, keep on dodging the issue. It only shows that you've pretty much run out of valid points to make (not that you had any to begin with).

Incidentally – "the inability to feel empathy for the victim or not to be able to put oneself in it's situation"...hmmm...I think I've heard that definition before. I guess we know who the "psychopath" is here.