:: Well, here's hoping we never get attacked while we chat over coffee. I find it odd that it's misguided in your mind for someone to struggle to prevent the exploitation and destruction of the entire planet.
If you don't believe in God and He really does exist, your efforts to
save His creation in spite of prophetic admissions that it will come to
an abrupt end are misguided. God, who created this universe by
the power of His will, wishes to have a personal relationship with you.
To work to save His creation without acknowledging Him distracts you
from this relationship. If you were to first acknowledge God and submit
to Him, only then could I perceive your efforts to be good stewardship.
::Misguided to me is someone who actively seeks to justify said destruction. More misguided still is someone who actively seeks to justify said destruction while at the same time DENYING that said destruction occurs.
That mischaracterizes my position and you know it. You want to call
meat consumption destructive with no qualifying caviats and I
don't accept that. You could use your definition of destruction to
argue against almost any human proliferating venture.
:: Internal social problems, eh? Nike, Coke, McDonalds, Pepsi, Con-Agra, Excel... remind me where these multi-nationals originated again. And who supports these companies with their earnings? The poverty and environmental problems in third world nations are completely uninfluenced by these massive corporations, right? Oh, I'm sure you'll find a way to deny it (sans references, no doubt.)
Let's not forget what we are arguing about Kevin. You want me to feel
guilty about a farmer being put off his farm because of my desire for a
hamburger - right? If not, let me know. The internal social problem I
refer to is the lack of expeditious transformation of these societies
to the inevitable capitalistic economy. The influence companies like
McDonalds exert on poverty in third world countries is overstated if it
exists at all. It is argued that these companies are facilitating that
transformation to capitalism and that they may be perceived one day to
be the precursors to prosperity for these people. That farmer cannot be
guaranteed the security of the status quo. He cannot be guaranteed to
make a living for his family in the way of his own choosing. You seem,
therefore, to be advocating a world that doesn't change.
:: You asked me to define suffering, and I forgot earlier. Well, I've led a pretty comfortable life, but I've learned one thing: suffering is relative. When it's happening to you, it's about the worst thing in the world. I will not try to construct a hierarchy of suffering, it always sucks. Suffering doesn't stop just because people are unaware of it, nor does it go away when people deny that it happens.
Suffering is hard but suffering is necessary. Health is improved
through the suffering of exercise. An oak is strengthened by the stress
of the wind. Character is improved through difficulties. If these
things are true then perhaps this premise applies universally. I don't
deny third world suffering at all. I deny it is caused by McDonalds.
I also deny that the animal suffering you attempt to document is real.
:: Finally, you made a comment about having suspicions about "the green movement", questioning their motives. Well, the best I can come up with is this: environmentalists and animal-rights advocates (and probably most socialists, pro-union people, feminists, communists...) are secretly trying to ruin the lives of meat-eating capitalist north americans, especially the racist, mysogynist ones. You're lucky, you have a little while yet, since I know you don't qualify for those last two.
It only take a minute for you investigate this Kevin. Just look
around this site for the strangely coincidental links between those who
advocate green issues and veganism and those who oppose capitalism and
support redistributionist philosophies.
:: (My real answer: what possible goal COULD we have, except trying to prevent "bad things from happening"? What would I personally stand to gain (except a boosted ego) if suddenly you were to become a vegetarian? The flip-side is, what do you stand to gain by debating me till I admit my moral and logical inferiority?
I'm not going to debate this anymore due the the repetition. If you
choose to respond you'll have the last word. I never suggested your
moral inferiority though. I only argued against Mike's assertion of
moral superiority. Meat eating is not an issue of right and wrong. If
there is any moral component to this issue it is that Mike has
attempted to use morality to justify a lifestyle choice by denouncing
his opponents as immoral. Perhaps that in itself is immoral.
:: You must really have something you're worried of losing (..cough..clear conscience..cough..)
My conscience is clear enough. The only thing I fear losing is the
freedom to choose my own diet if people like you and Mike ever develop
into anything beyond the fringe group that you are now.
McSpotlight: Anything Else room, please, folks