- McSpotlight -

You're so predictable, Stuart

Posted by: Mike on September 02, 1998 at 00:45:47:

In Reply to: Examine your dogma posted by Stuart Gort on September 01, 1998 at 01:48:24:

: You proceed to equate slavery and terrorism with meat eating now. Does this thought pattern ever loosen its grip on you Mike? I hope it does, for your sake, because it appears quite habitual with you.

I knew you would write this! Why do you have so much trouble with analogies, Stuart? Your problem is that you just *can't* stand when people mention cruelty to animals in the same breath with cruetly to people. Too bad, because I think that both are wrong, and I see no need to say otherwise. Beating a man because he is another skin color is wrong, just as beating an animal is wrong simply because it's not human. Note, I did not equate the two, but simply said both are wrong., though premised on the same rationale. Can you deal with that concept, Stuart?

: Whatever religious or biblical basis has been supposed by the self-centered for their behavior with respect to slavery or terrorism is wrong. Eating meat (cruelty to animals - as you put it), however, is something assumed as a normal practice by biblical writings. Indeed, the sacrafice of animals was demanded by God for the atonement of sins.

With all due respect, Fuck your bible, Stuart. It condones a lot of shit we no longer take for granted, such as slavery.

: This was to teach us the allegorical relationship between that sacraficial lamb and Jesus Christ. God, in this practice, did not consider the lamb before the lesson. That is a clear deliniation of the importance of men vs. animals to God. Add to that the hundreds of biblical passages dealing with meat as a dietary staple and you see that your position is not represented here. Mine is.

Jesus, being compassionate, would be in the front lines against factory farming.

: Now, I don't go around to people on the street and preach an anti-vegan message with a Bible in my hand. You started this with a moral judgement of the matter. You are not content just to have your preference.

I don't call taking a stand against cruelty to animals a mere lifestyle preference. I will fight against cruetly to animals, even if other people are happy to incorporate it into their lifestyles.

: You feel compelled to judge the action of meat eating to justify your choices. But there is no moral basis for your position. Your charges, whether they be leveled at me personally or at my actions, are offensive. More below.

My moral basis is based on my personal view of what's right and wrong. Cruelty to animals is wrong. Fortunately, this is a widely-held view, and if put into practice, factory farms would shut down now. Is my morality wrong because it doesn't flow from God? How do you know it doesn't? Do you presume to know the mind of God? You can't prove diddly squat with God, Stuart, so leave the Big Unknown out of it.

: Well I'm having a miserable time trying to find the distinction between a judgment of my actions or a judgment of me. Is this how you are going to squirm out of your culpability in using inflated rhetoric and acting in an anti-social manner? In a court of law no such distinction exists Mike. Let's explore this line of reasoning a little further shall we?

Actually, Stuart, there's a tremendous difference in a court of law between words and actions, but leaving that aside, first, try to see if for once you can post a message without using the word "rhetoric;" it's as cheap a way of demeaning your opponent's argument as simply calling it PC, and it can be thrown right back in your face. I do not know how many sins it takes to make a man a bad man -- do you? But let us not debate how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. I do believe that a sin is, by definition, wrong, and I believe that in 1998, eating meat, particularly that derived from factory farmed animals, is wrong.

: If the act of doing is immoral but the person doing is not judged immoral by those actions, what link is there to a man and his actions. None, of course. Does a judge sentence a man to jail for his character?
: No, it's because of his actions.

Wrong again. A judge looks at mens rea, or criminal intent, in sentencing defendants. Did that man mean to kill that other man when he hit him with a brick, or merely to wound him, or was it an accident, or was it in self-defense, or was in done in the heat of passion, or in cold blood, etc.

: Your telling me that what I'm doing is wrong and don't have the guts to make it a personal judgment - that's all! Either I am knowingly participating in an immoral act (which makes me unequivocally immoral) or I am ignorant of a superior morality and continue with an immoral practice oblivious to a better way (Mike's way).

Insults again, coupled with obtuseness.

: I've given you ample room to dance but the music has stopped and you must pick one of these choices. I know what that choice is and I don't buy it. Your version of morality is not backed up by anything except your opinion. My opinion is not demonstrably inferior to yours. My opinion is widely held. My opinion is written law. My opinion is the historical worldview.

Well la di da, because the majority believes it, and because it's always been done that way, how can it be wrong? I won't insult your intelligence by citing all the exceptions to that statement...at least, I hope you can answer that one yourself.

: You really haven't much to say about this because you wish to be right and can't oppose the truth.

Terrible animal suffering is THE truth behind your meat, Stuart. Can you live with that? Visit a slaughterhouse, as I have, and then answer this question.

: Examine your dogma Mike.

Look closely at that piece of flesh on the end of your fork, Stuart, and really think about how it got there.

: : Bottom line, Stuart: I care about animals and think people should treat them with kindness, which includes not killing them for food. You disagree.

: That's about as direct a statement as you have made this whole thread. If you wish to entertain thoughts of superiority or you feel that you are running out front in the evolutionary race of men, go ahead. Just keep it to yourself unless you actually want people to know you are arrogant. Mark Twain says it best, "Better to keep your mouth shut and have people wonder about your intelligence than to open it and remove all doubt".

I must really have gotten under your skin, Stuart, since you're so damned defensive. Maybe there's hope for you yet.

"Man is the only animal who blushes, or needs to." -- Mark Twain

Follow Ups:

The Debating Room Post a Followup