You pro-farmyard-abortionists are scum.Stuart Arnot wrote:No, they just wouldn't be born.Dinos Sfyris wrote:I'm an omnivore for moral purposes. If everyone were veggies, all the farmyard critters aren't exactly going to live in a wonderous sanctuary where they serve man no purpose or financial gain, are they?
Veggies
Moderator: Jon O'Neill
Re: Veggies
- Charlie Reams
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9494
- Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
- Location: Cambridge
- Contact:
Re: Veggies
...your territory?Rosemary Roberts wrote:And I object to you or them grinding axes on my territory.
-
- Series 58 Champion
- Posts: 2010
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 2:27 pm
- Location: Cardiff
Re: Veggies
I have lost count of the number of times the word moral has been used in this thread without actually referring to a moral argument. In most cases there seems to be a confusion between the moral realm and the ethical realm.
I have done work, a few years ago now, on Singer's argument that eating meat is morally wrong and came to the conclusion that, from the vantage point of moral theory, he is probably right. The problem is complicated since we may have a wrong but there is no witness: the animal can never testify. The problem is an example of differend since there can be no tribunal that can decide whether the animal has been wronged: it will merely ascribe human idioms to the moral status of animals.
The simple argument is that we must look at it from the human point of view. It's not a question of how advanced animals are (for instance, as in the argument that we shouldn't eat the smart ones or cute ones) but can they suffer? If they suffer then surely it is inhuman to treat them in this way: it is morally wrong.
These arguments convinced me to become a vegetarian a few years ago. I am convinced that eating meat is morally wrong but I have also realised that I am not moral and will be having a rare fillet steak tonight!
I have done work, a few years ago now, on Singer's argument that eating meat is morally wrong and came to the conclusion that, from the vantage point of moral theory, he is probably right. The problem is complicated since we may have a wrong but there is no witness: the animal can never testify. The problem is an example of differend since there can be no tribunal that can decide whether the animal has been wronged: it will merely ascribe human idioms to the moral status of animals.
The simple argument is that we must look at it from the human point of view. It's not a question of how advanced animals are (for instance, as in the argument that we shouldn't eat the smart ones or cute ones) but can they suffer? If they suffer then surely it is inhuman to treat them in this way: it is morally wrong.
These arguments convinced me to become a vegetarian a few years ago. I am convinced that eating meat is morally wrong but I have also realised that I am not moral and will be having a rare fillet steak tonight!
- Kai Laddiman
- Fanatic
- Posts: 2314
- Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2008 3:37 pm
- Location: My bedroom
Re: Veggies
Proven using 'it is morally wrong to swear in front of young children'.David O'Donnell wrote:I am not moral
16/10/2007 - Episode 4460
Dinos Sfyris 76 - 78 Dorian Lidell
Proof that even idiots can get well and truly mainwheeled.
Dinos Sfyris 76 - 78 Dorian Lidell
Proof that even idiots can get well and truly mainwheeled.
- Charlie Reams
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9494
- Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
- Location: Cambridge
- Contact:
Re: Veggies
Only if you make them suffer when you slaughter them, which might be common in practice but certainly isn't necessary.David O'Donnell wrote:If they suffer then surely it is inhuman to treat them in this way: it is morally wrong.
- Derek Hazell
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1535
- Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 10:52 am
- Location: Swindon
- Contact:
Re: Veggies
At least meat-eaters kill their food before they eat it.
Living life in a gyratory circus kind of way.
- Michael Wallace
- Racoonteur
- Posts: 5458
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:01 am
- Location: London
Re: Veggies
It's a Friday afternoon, let's start an argument. If you eat meat, you cannot be opposed to hunting for sport, or wearing fur (obviously on the presumption that all animals are treated similarly, so no "oh fur is murder because the industry treats them so terribly", please). Discuss.
-
- Series 58 Champion
- Posts: 2010
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 2:27 pm
- Location: Cardiff
Re: Veggies
You are still depriving them of their existence! Wouldn't that occasion you with a feeling close to suffering?Charlie Reams wrote:Only if you make them suffer when you slaughter them, which might be common in practice but certainly isn't necessary.David O'Donnell wrote:If they suffer then surely it is inhuman to treat them in this way: it is morally wrong.
- Rosemary Roberts
- Devotee
- Posts: 555
- Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 5:36 pm
Re: Veggies
Charlie Reams wrote: your territory?
Stuart Arnot wrote: p.s. Our territory.
Of course this is your territory, Charlie, and ours, Stuart, I wasn't intending to claim any exclusive rights. I was mainly thinking of other forums and contexts where people like to claim possession of the moral high ground.Paul Howe wrote:what exactly makes the off-topic forum your territory? I don't agree with a lot of what Stuart said but he has every right to make his point on here.
Paul Howe wrote:It's always a bit hairy labelling something a moral issue due to the impossibility of agreeing on a set of moral imperatives, but I'm stunned you don't think climate change has political implications.
I think it is stupid to fuck up the planet, not morally wrong. As a matter of fact I think there are absolutely no issues where anybody at all has the right to tell me what is or is not moral. Note that I don't dispute that some things may be less moral than others: I dispute that anybody has the right to pontificate about it.Stuart Arnot wrote:I think it's morally wrong to fuck up the planet.
As regards climate change, I consider it to be entirely a scientific issue. What exactly is happening and what is causing it (and what not) is not a matter of opinion, and therefore not a political question. What is a political question is what action should be taken by individuals and/or communities, and this is where the moral high ground tends to be dragged in: "If you restrict industry some people will starve"; "If you don't restrict industry some people will drown". This is going to be a question of "you pays your money and you takes your choice": the rich countries will decide what they choose to do and the poor countries will starve or drown. I don't think there is anything that any individual can do to change this, all we can do is reduce our own footprint as far as possible and stay out of the fight.
- Charlie Reams
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9494
- Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
- Location: Cambridge
- Contact:
Re: Veggies
I don't think so. If depriving something of its existence counts as suffering then it would be equally cruel to kill a bacterium as a cow.David O'Donnell wrote:You are still depriving them of their existence! Wouldn't that occasion you with a feeling close to suffering?Charlie Reams wrote:Only if you make them suffer when you slaughter them, which might be common in practice but certainly isn't necessary.David O'Donnell wrote:If they suffer then surely it is inhuman to treat them in this way: it is morally wrong.
Re: Veggies
I agree with you here, but you didn't make this distinction in your original post. Dealing with the consequences of climate change will likely be one of the biggest political challenges of the 21st century, and it sounded like you were dismissing any attempt to discuss it in a political context as axe-grinding (although I certainly agree there are plenty of people on both sides who wilfully misinterpret the science in order to advance their own political agenda).Rosemary Roberts wrote:
As regards climate change, I consider it to be entirely a scientific issue. What exactly is happening and what is causing it (and what not) is not a matter of opinion, and therefore not a political question. What is a political question is what action should be taken by individuals and/or communities
-
- Series 58 Champion
- Posts: 2010
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 2:27 pm
- Location: Cardiff
Re: Veggies
The problem is that you will never truly know what a cow's existence means to the cow yet we, as carnivores, rest on the implicit assumption that we have access to an epistemological impossibility.Charlie Reams wrote: I don't think so. If depriving something of its existence counts as suffering then it would be equally cruel to kill a bacterium as a cow.
- Charlie Reams
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9494
- Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
- Location: Cambridge
- Contact:
Re: Veggies
They sure are tasty though.David O'Donnell wrote:The problem is that you will never truly know what a cow's existence means to the cow yet we, as carnivores, rest on the implicit assumption that we have access to an epistemological impossibility.Charlie Reams wrote: I don't think so. If depriving something of its existence counts as suffering then it would be equally cruel to kill a bacterium as a cow.
Re: Veggies
If a cow had the chance it would kill you and everyone you care about.
-
- Series 58 Champion
- Posts: 2010
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 2:27 pm
- Location: Cardiff
Re: Veggies
A crazy cow has already tried to kill me but that's another story.Jon Corby wrote:If a cow had the chance it would kill you and everyone you care about.
- Derek Hazell
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1535
- Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 10:52 am
- Location: Swindon
- Contact:
Re: Veggies
What a low-key way to finally reveal to the world the real reason for Carol's departure from the show.David O'Donnell wrote:A crazy cow has already tried to kill me but that's another story.
Living life in a gyratory circus kind of way.
- Michael Wallace
- Racoonteur
- Posts: 5458
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:01 am
- Location: London
Re: Veggies
All I can say is that all us vegetarians will be laughing once swine flu wipes out all you pork-eaters
YES I AM FUCKING JOKING
YES I AM FUCKING JOKING
- Rosemary Roberts
- Devotee
- Posts: 555
- Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 5:36 pm
Re: Veggies
I'm afraid that is pretty much what I do dismiss - I don't ever hear any cogent arguments from any sides, only the grinding of axes. So far as I have observed in quite a long life, politics is only ever self-serving. Those few who are genuinely altruistic are either ineffective or misguided. Rarely both, which would be far more tolerable.Paul Howe wrote: and it sounded like you were dismissing any attempt to discuss it in a political context as axe-grinding
Re: Veggies
Fair enough, but being unbiased, effective, and correct in the analysis of an extremely complicated problem is an impossible standard to live up to. If people are making a serious attempt to look beyond their own biases and engage in thoughtful discussion about a problem that could potentially be improved by political action, I don't think that deserves to be labelled as axe grinding.Rosemary Roberts wrote:I'm afraid that is pretty much what I do dismiss - I don't ever hear any cogent arguments from any sides, only the grinding of axes. So far as I have observed in quite a long life, politics is only ever self-serving. Those few who are genuinely altruistic are either ineffective or misguided. Rarely both, which would be far more tolerable.Paul Howe wrote: and it sounded like you were dismissing any attempt to discuss it in a political context as axe-grinding
- Rosemary Roberts
- Devotee
- Posts: 555
- Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 5:36 pm
Re: Veggies
True. But in my experience, they aren't. And I don't believe that "political action" has ever improved anything, certainly not when any government or political party was calling the shots..Paul Howe wrote:If people are making a serious attempt to look beyond their own biases and engage in thoughtful discussion about a problem that could potentially be improved by political action, I don't think that deserves to be labelled as axe grinding.
Last edited by Rosemary Roberts on Fri May 01, 2009 7:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Veggies
My "moral" stance is that humans have human rights, animals don't. If it's not human, we have the right to kill it.
After that, of course, comes animal cruelty which I'm against - it doesn't preclude killing the animal, of course, but it must be done humanely. Though it might be useful to bear in mind that animals in the wild die of (basically) three causes - starvation; disease, exacerbated by starvation; or being eaten (possibly alive) by a non-human carnivore. So whatever we do isn't likely to be much worse; though admittedly, transporting sheep hundreds of miles to a mega-slaughterhouse because all the local ones have been shut, doesn't mean "animal welfare" to me.
After that, of course, comes animal cruelty which I'm against - it doesn't preclude killing the animal, of course, but it must be done humanely. Though it might be useful to bear in mind that animals in the wild die of (basically) three causes - starvation; disease, exacerbated by starvation; or being eaten (possibly alive) by a non-human carnivore. So whatever we do isn't likely to be much worse; though admittedly, transporting sheep hundreds of miles to a mega-slaughterhouse because all the local ones have been shut, doesn't mean "animal welfare" to me.
- Jon O'Neill
- Ginger Ninja
- Posts: 4552
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:45 am
- Location: London, UK
Re: Veggies
Why?David Roe wrote:My "moral" stance is that humans have human rights, animals don't. If it's not human, we have the right to kill it.
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13324
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Veggies
The cow's life doesn't mean anything to the cow once it's dead so a quick painless death would involve no suffering, surely. The same goes for people of course. Is cannibalism in the poll options?David O'Donnell wrote:The problem is that you will never truly know what a cow's existence means to the cow yet we, as carnivores, rest on the implicit assumption that we have access to an epistemological impossibility.Charlie Reams wrote: I don't think so. If depriving something of its existence counts as suffering then it would be equally cruel to kill a bacterium as a cow.
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13324
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Veggies
It's cool to be against wearing fur.Michael Wallace wrote:It's a Friday afternoon, let's start an argument. If you eat meat, you cannot be opposed to hunting for sport, or wearing fur (obviously on the presumption that all animals are treated similarly, so no "oh fur is murder because the industry treats them so terribly", please). Discuss.
- Rosemary Roberts
- Devotee
- Posts: 555
- Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 5:36 pm
Re: Veggies
Particularly in winter.Gavin Chipper wrote:It's cool to be against wearing fur.
- John Bosley
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 380
- Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 3:52 pm
- Location: Huddersfield
Re: Veggies
Why is it that hardly anyone has entered discussion on the cruel life of 'farmed' animals rather than the death. Death is no problem to any of us; it is life that is the problem - if you see what I mean.
- Rosemary Roberts
- Devotee
- Posts: 555
- Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 5:36 pm
Re: Veggies
I agree. I have always thought that anyone who is genuinely upset by the cruel treatment of farm animals should stop eating, not meat, but eggs. I don't much care who or what eats my remains when I am dead, but I should object to being forced to spend my entire life in a shoebox.John Bosley wrote:Why is it that hardly anyone has entered discussion on the cruel life of 'farmed' animals rather than the death. Death is no problem to any of us; it is life that is the problem - if you see what I mean.
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13324
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Veggies
But people can't get their heads round the thought of death. If someone said that the entire Universe would be destroyed instantly tomorrow with no pain or knowledge of dying, then people couldn't help but be shit-scared of it. But would this be a bad thing? How would one argue for it?John Bosley wrote:Why is it that hardly anyone has entered discussion on the cruel life of 'farmed' animals rather than the death. Death is no problem to any of us; it is life that is the problem - if you see what I mean.
Re: Veggies
Well, why not? It's a perfectly normal animal credo. In fact, many animals don't even jib at killing their own kind, so that puts us definitely a cut above.Jon O'Neill wrote:Why?David Roe wrote:My "moral" stance is that humans have human rights, animals don't. If it's not human, we have the right to kill it.
- John Bosley
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 380
- Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 3:52 pm
- Location: Huddersfield
Re: Veggies
We are not a cut above if we keep them in disgusting conditions.
As for swine flu, here is a bit of an email I got today from Avaaz. Why not sign their petition, eh? You can carry on eating happy pork
>> No-one yet knows whether swine flu will become a global pandemic, but it is becoming clear where it came from – most likely a giant pig factory farm run by an American multinational corporation in Veracruz, Mexico.(1)
These factory farms are disgusting and dangerous, and they're rapidly multiplying. Thousands of pigs are brutally crammed into dirty warehouses and sprayed with a cocktail of drugs -- posing a health risk to more than just our food -- they are the perfect conditions to breed dangerous new viruses like swine flu. The World Health Organization (WHO) must investigate and develop regulations for these farms to protect global health.
Big agrobusiness will try to obstruct and scuttle any attempts at reform, so we need a massive outcry that health authorities can't ignore. Sign the petition below for investigation and regulation of factory farms and we will deliver it with a herd of cardboard pigs to the WHO. For every 100 petition signatures we will add a pig to the herd, sign below and forward this email to friends and family:
http://www.avaaz.org/en/swine_flu
As for swine flu, here is a bit of an email I got today from Avaaz. Why not sign their petition, eh? You can carry on eating happy pork
>> No-one yet knows whether swine flu will become a global pandemic, but it is becoming clear where it came from – most likely a giant pig factory farm run by an American multinational corporation in Veracruz, Mexico.(1)
These factory farms are disgusting and dangerous, and they're rapidly multiplying. Thousands of pigs are brutally crammed into dirty warehouses and sprayed with a cocktail of drugs -- posing a health risk to more than just our food -- they are the perfect conditions to breed dangerous new viruses like swine flu. The World Health Organization (WHO) must investigate and develop regulations for these farms to protect global health.
Big agrobusiness will try to obstruct and scuttle any attempts at reform, so we need a massive outcry that health authorities can't ignore. Sign the petition below for investigation and regulation of factory farms and we will deliver it with a herd of cardboard pigs to the WHO. For every 100 petition signatures we will add a pig to the herd, sign below and forward this email to friends and family:
http://www.avaaz.org/en/swine_flu
Re: Veggies
If cardboard pigs don't make a difference, I don't know what will.
- Matthew Green
- Devotee
- Posts: 716
- Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2008 12:28 pm
Re: Veggies
Theres an easier way, stop shopping at convenient supermarkets and go to local butchers, grocers etc.John Bosley wrote:We are not a cut above if we keep them in disgusting conditions.
As for swine flu, here is a bit of an email I got today from Avaaz. Why not sign their petition, eh? You can carry on eating happy pork
>> No-one yet knows whether swine flu will become a global pandemic, but it is becoming clear where it came from – most likely a giant pig factory farm run by an American multinational corporation in Veracruz, Mexico.(1)
These factory farms are disgusting and dangerous, and they're rapidly multiplying. Thousands of pigs are brutally crammed into dirty warehouses and sprayed with a cocktail of drugs -- posing a health risk to more than just our food -- they are the perfect conditions to breed dangerous new viruses like swine flu. The World Health Organization (WHO) must investigate and develop regulations for these farms to protect global health.
Big agrobusiness will try to obstruct and scuttle any attempts at reform, so we need a massive outcry that health authorities can't ignore. Sign the petition below for investigation and regulation of factory farms and we will deliver it with a herd of cardboard pigs to the WHO. For every 100 petition signatures we will add a pig to the herd, sign below and forward this email to friends and family:
http://www.avaaz.org/en/swine_flu
Wont ever happen though, people are too lazy.
If I suddenly have a squirming baby on my lap it probably means that I should start paying it some attention and stop wasting my time messing around on a Countdown forum
- Rosemary Roberts
- Devotee
- Posts: 555
- Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 5:36 pm
Re: Veggies
IAWTPJon Corby wrote:If cardboard pigs don't make a difference, I don't know what will.
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13324
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Veggies
You might as well have just said:David Roe wrote:Well, why not? It's a perfectly normal animal credo. In fact, many animals don't even jib at killing their own kind, so that puts us definitely a cut above.Jon O'Neill wrote:Why?David Roe wrote:My "moral" stance is that humans have human rights, animals don't. If it's not human, we have the right to kill it.
Jon Corby wrote:If a cow had the chance it would kill you and everyone you care about.
-
- Series 58 Champion
- Posts: 2010
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 2:27 pm
- Location: Cardiff
Re: Veggies
Ha ha, you're an idiot!Gavin Chipper wrote:The cow's life doesn't mean anything to the cow once it's dead so a quick painless death would involve no suffering, surely. The same goes for people of course. Is cannibalism in the poll options?David O'Donnell wrote:The problem is that you will never truly know what a cow's existence means to the cow yet we, as carnivores, rest on the implicit assumption that we have access to an epistemological impossibility.Charlie Reams wrote: I don't think so. If depriving something of its existence counts as suffering then it would be equally cruel to kill a bacterium as a cow.
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13324
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Veggies
Good argument.David O'Donnell wrote:Ha ha, you're an idiot!
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13324
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Veggies
Just to clarify then, you still need to explain why depriving an animal of its existence might cause it suffering if the death is quick and painless. The ball is very much in your court on this one. (And don't be a twat about it.)Gavin Chipper wrote:Good argument.David O'Donnell wrote:Ha ha, you're an idiot!
- George Jenkins
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 337
- Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2009 10:55 am
Re: Veggies
A bit before my time, human animals would hunt other animals for the sole purpose of not dying of starvation, and was quite a normal practice of nature. The scenes of hunting and killing are depicted in cave drawings. I suppose that organised farming, producing cereal crops did not exist in those times.Gavin Chipper wrote:Just to clarify then, you still need to explain why depriving an animal of its existence might cause it suffering if the death is quick and painless. The ball is very much in your court on this one. (And don't be a twat about it.)Gavin Chipper wrote:Good argument.David O'Donnell wrote:Ha ha, you're an idiot!
I suppose also, that increasing population necessitated the farming of animals to ensure food for the masses. Cereal farming also increased, and skeletons examined from that period showed skulls full of rotted or missing teeth, which was put down as due to changes of diet.
Personally, I like my meat and two veg or whatever. I don't trust the packaged stuff that is available, complete with additives with coded numbers indicating stabilisers and preservatives etc.
As for cruelty to animals involved in the killing, I have no answer to that. It seems to be part of the modern World that we live in.
- Charlie Reams
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9494
- Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
- Location: Cambridge
- Contact:
Re: Veggies
First this and now:
The evidence mounts...George Jenkins wrote:Personally, I like my meat and two veg
- George Jenkins
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 337
- Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2009 10:55 am
Re: Veggies
Global warming has been happening since the ice age as the ice gradually melts back from the equator. Warming will accelerate in relation to how much ice is left to act as a coolant.Rosemary Roberts wrote:Charlie Reams wrote: your territory?Stuart Arnott wrote: p.s. Our territory.Of course this is your territory, Charlie, and ours, Stuart, I wasn't intending to claim any exclusive rights. I was mainly thinking of other forums and contexts where people like to claim possession of the moral high ground.Paul Howe wrote:what exactly makes the off-topic forum your territory? I don't agree with a lot of what Stuart said but he has every right to make his point on here.
Paul Howe wrote:It's always a bit hairy labelling something a moral issue due to the impossibility of agreeing on a set of moral imperatives, but I'm stunned you don't think climate change has political implications.I think it is stupid to fuck up the planet, not morally wrong. As a matter of fact I think there are absolutely no issues where anybody at all has the right to tell me what is or is not moral. Note that I don't dispute that some things may be less moral than others: I dispute that anybody has the right to pontificate about it.Stuart Arnott wrote:I think it's morally wrong to fuck up the planet.
As regards climate change, I consider it to be entirely a scientific issue. What exactly is happening and what is causing it (and what not) is not a matter of opinion, and therefore not a political question. What is a political question is what action should be taken by individuals and/or communities, and this is where the moral high ground tends to be dragged in: "If you restrict industry some people will starve"; "If you don't restrict industry some people will drown". This is going to be a question of "you pays your money and you takes your choice": the rich countries will decide what they choose to do and the poor countries will starve or drown. I don't think there is anything that any individual can do to change this, all we can do is reduce our own footprint as far as possible and stay out of the fight.
It annoys me when our glorious and brains of britain members of parliament (those of the dodgy but legal expense accounts) blame me for global warming if I use a 100W bulb, but ignore London, ablaze with light all night, even though most of London is shut down. To protect my back I must state that, that was how it used to be, and I assume that things have not changed.
- George Jenkins
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 337
- Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2009 10:55 am
Re: Veggies
PISCATOLOGY----the study of fishes.Kieran Child wrote:^ That's curious. I got the word from Vegsoc, so it's in pretty wide usage now. I have no clue where it emerged or even that it was such a modern word.
A term I heard recently and quite liked was "fish and chip-ocrite"
PISCATOR--------an Angler, fisherman.
PISCIVOROUS-----fish eating.
Re: Veggies
Why is it not a matter of opinion? I don't think scientists have all the answers. You (presumably) do. Surely that's opinion?Rosemary Roberts wrote:As regards climate change, I consider it to be entirely a scientific issue. What exactly is happening and what is causing it (and what not) is not a matter of opinion, and therefore not a political question.
- Rosemary Roberts
- Devotee
- Posts: 555
- Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 5:36 pm
Re: Veggies
I didn't say that anybody has all the answers. But if anybody does ever get all the answers it will be a scientist and not somebody who takes their "facts" from the popular media and internet polemicists.David Roe wrote:Why is it not a matter of opinion? I don't think scientists have all the answers. You (presumably) do. Surely that's opinion?Rosemary Roberts wrote:As regards climate change, I consider it to be entirely a scientific issue. What exactly is happening and what is causing it (and what not) is not a matter of opinion, and therefore not a political question.
-
- Series 58 Champion
- Posts: 2010
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 2:27 pm
- Location: Cardiff
Re: Veggies
Your argument is facile and you've either deliberately missed my point or just simply missed it. Either way I don't see why I should engage with someone whose mind is only as open as a trap.Gavin Chipper wrote:Just to clarify then, you still need to explain why depriving an animal of its existence might cause it suffering if the death is quick and painless. The ball is very much in your court on this one. (And don't be a twat about it.)Gavin Chipper wrote:Good argument.David O'Donnell wrote:Ha ha, you're an idiot!
-
- Series 58 Champion
- Posts: 2010
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 2:27 pm
- Location: Cardiff
Re: Veggies
Gavin Chipper wrote:Just to clarify then, you still need to explain why depriving an animal of its existence might cause it suffering if the death is quick and painless. The ball is very much in your court on this one. (And don't be a twat about it.)Gavin Chipper wrote:Good argument.David O'Donnell wrote:Ha ha, you're an idiot!
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13324
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Veggies
Maybe I did miss your point but if I did then I think it's because your point was unclear. I can't see any problem wih the argument I made against what I perceived to be your point.David O'Donnell wrote:Your argument is facile and you've either deliberately missed my point or just simply missed it.
You can of course argue that simply depriving a being of life is morally wrong (especially if the being wants to live) but that is a separate argument from suffering.
Edit:
No-one has suggested you debate with yourself. What does that even mean anyway?Either way I don't see why I should engage with someone whose mind is only as open as a trap.