People hate vegetarians

.

.

"Life is such sweet sorrow."

{ in response to Joel:-

"Man who cares."

I do. For one. I'm vastly outnumbered I know. There's a heck of an echo in here, but I surely do care - a lot.

"So we eat fuckin animals oh well."

It's the "Oh Well" part that makes me sad.

"If you don't want to then don't. Its never gunna change. NEVER."

I don't want to and I do not (yet). I agree, change doesn't look likely some time soon does it? But "NEVER"? So bold a statement. I bet some used to think we'd all be keeping negros until the sun burnt out.

"We have eaten them from time began."

That we have. We have also been oppressing other civilisations, exploiting, cheating, murdering, raping, thieving and fucking kiddies. All wrong. An excuse to continue doing so? I think not. Why change? Don't care? "oh well." - how sad, we're all doomed.

"As humans we eat it all. Its not gunna change."

As humans we 'can' eat it all, and more people do than don't. Choice is an ajunct of freedom, make sure you learn and consider its gravity for it reaches beyond the mere thoughtless consuption and expotation of other animals. Change - I can guarantee - is one thing that we can always be certain of.

"So fuck. Give it up."

Never while I live and breath will I ever give up trying to do the right thing. Nor will I ever quit discussing and testing my beliefs for 'watertightness' for fear of walking the wrong path and not knowing it - this, I believe, is my duty as a human being and it is also part of the manual for having a brain. Lastly, I will never surrender my right to voice my opinion in the hope that it might influence change for the better or stimulate thought. The odds are deliriously stacked against me, but the apathetic give in a lot sooner than I do.

" lol."

No comment.
}

{In response to Sleepingwraith :-

"yes it is fun, not many people actually have the mind to drive some one else thoroughly through the ground with words."

Sadistic little shit aren't I?

" ok so new start."

Splendid. Let's go!

" now tell me, why do you feel eating plants is any better than eating animals?"

I could retort; Why do you feel that eating animals (of which you are also one, let us not forget) is any better or different to eating other humans? Instead, consider this; We have the almost the full spectrum of living creature right here before us haven't we? From the bean to the being, the humus to the hominid, the artichoke to anthropoid, a veritable alphabet from 'A' through to 'Z'. Assuming we are the 'Z's' can agree that we need to eat and we need to eat something, yes? Of course we can, because our survival as a species is pretty important to us and to all of the living things on our list. Now, given that as humans, we are able to (and as Joel reminds us, have always been able) to eat the whole alphabet, why do we not consume (putting it politely for it is really exploit and torture) the whole alphabet and instead restrict ourselves the Z's as well as the Q's, the W's and the horrendously unthinkable V's? What rule of thumb can easily be applied that will make black and white the boundary between, say, C and D ? Well, it is YOU sleepingwraith that asked the question, and it is you in the driving seat this time, so I will not leave the question seemingly rhetorical and I shall proceed to display the courage of my convictions and actually answer it!

I put it to you and all, that the rule of thumb we should adopt, is the rule of consent.

If a creature can understand intent and consequence and be able to express a preference with a freedom of choice, then it/his/her right to existence should be respected by we 'higher thinkers'. I use the term loosely when refering to our species as a whole. We should fear the crime of hypocrisy. We should do as we would be done to. What of the consequences if ever something higher than us turns up and decides to do us as we've been doing to others? Would we all be so unconcerned of our rights and acceptant of this thing we call the 'food chain' if we were no longer at the top of it?

To put it in more human terms, again, If I were to come at you with a knife and fork you would understand my intent and the consequences I would represent and you would certainly express your 'right' as a living animal to stay as such by giving me a thoughtful kick in the plums. I would venture also, that if you chose to allow me to munch on your thorax then you are my lawful prey. Bit contraversial and not currently legal that one, but I stand by it. Free Armin Meiwes ! I say. (look up his story on the internet). So given that a carrot, bean, nut etc. cannot fully understand intent and consequence nor can it express a power of choice, because it is essentially non-sentient, I feel that I can eat it given that I have to eat something to survive. People often say to me, "Metal Giant" (for 'tis my name) "If we were stuck on a desert island and there was a pig to eat, I bet you'd eat it" (In a scenario of survival I would, they're right!) "but let us not ignore all the facts", I would say, pipe in hand, "There's still you, and the pig might be better company".

That, is why I feel that eating plants (etcetera) is better than eating animals.

"oh and yes the whole michael jackson thing -" "-whatever he did and whatever those kids parents let them have the oppurtunity to do is their bussiness."

Apply my rule of consent and smile at the simplicity of it.

}


Metal Giant

.

.

"Life is such sweet sorrow."

"i just dont see why you think eating plants is any better than animals."

I have never said that it is better to eat plants than animals, I have always stipulated that we ought not to eat living things that can think, understand, reason, react and feel i.e. sentient creatures. I said at the start of my last post that "we have to eat something", we can agree on that (?). I also explained that there must also be a scale of capability from the basic (plant life) to the complex (us) with the use of my 'alphabet analogy'. This Alphabet represents the whole range of "living organism(s)" on our planet. All living things 'live' by definition, but again, I explain that "we have to eat something". So, do we eat all or just some? And if we eat some, how must we differentiate? Currently, the human species will eat a cow, a pig, a sheep, a fish and their children, but repell from consuming a rat, a spider, a worm, another human being (in general) etcetera. There is no consistancy, there is no logical, ethical or moral rule that even attempts do define right from wrong, consequently there is hypocracy, ignorance and appathy. Maybe my rule of consent, my line of sentience that I draw in my Alphabet paradigm that I deem as "that side wrong, that side right" has faults? Maybe it needs refining? But know this; I am happy to discuss and refine it. One of my points is that I, at the very least, actually have a logical, moral and ethical line and care enough to create one and share it. We are using the subject of food to express this need to define right and wrong but this need runs far deeper than mere dietary requirements.

"and other than beeing green and leavy they are just living organsims like the rest of us and have just as much right to be eatin as they do to eat. no more no less!"

And so from your last statement can I then logically deduce that if it lives by the definition of being a "living organism" it has an equal 'right' eat as it has to be eaten ? No more no less?



...




Metal Giant.

can we at least entertain this idea, if not only for a moment - as humans, we do not/should not/ can not eat our own species, because as a species our primary goal is self preservation --> the spread of our own kind. eating our own species hinders this and is therefore wrong.

if its deep thought that you are basing your reasoning on which life forms to eat, fish are definately on the eatable list.

"I am Akba-Atatdia"

"can we at least entertain this idea, if not only for a moment - "

We can entertain and accept the idea of self preservation as 'a' reason not to eat ourselves, yes.

However, I am trying to illustrate the point of intellect and sentience in terms that are easilly understood by your average human. We do not share this planet with a species of equal intellect to use as an example hence my use of the subject of cannibalism. If you would prefer to continue the debate with the use of a different analogy, then let me suggest an alien invasion by a superior species? It would be very likely that these aliens are higher thinking sentient and intellegent beings to cross the infinite void of space to get to us. Suppose their first task is to enslave, torture and harvest the human race for their own exploitation. They have heard, quite rightly, that it is what we do to the lesser beings that we share our planet with. They would be forgiven for thinking that we would all throw up our hands and say "Hey ho! that's life we guess" and we'd all submit without resistance? Those that would resist would be stupid to because we are all living organisms and therefore have just as much right to eat as they have to be eaten, right? (wrong)

Can you see? I am not questioning your rights as as a human (actually I am further defining them), I'm questioning the extent of our rights as living, thinking, feeling sentient creatures. By cannibalism or alien invasion it seems like there is one rule for us and another for the others, in short hypocrisy.

"-> the spread of our own kind. eating our own species hinders this and is therefore wrong."

I want to discuss this opinion also, but I wish to stay on track for now and so I'm going to move on.

"if its deep thought that you are basing your reasoning on which life forms to eat"

No. It is not what I am basing my reasoning upon which lifeforms to eat. Let me quote myself: "we ought not to eat living things that can think, understand, reason, react and feel i.e. sentient creatures". 'Deep thought' on its own does not describe the whole of sentient life.

", fish are definately on the eatable list."

Er, no. See above.

Metal Giant

ah, i did not even begin to think of the alien invasion scenario... touche MG.

plants do indeed react. fish do not reason.

"I am Akba-Atatdia"

I can see that I have a need to clarify what I mean by my useage of the word 'sentient' as it is so fundamental to my arguments. Hence, I went to an online dictionary (www.m-w.com) and asked for a definative meaning; it said:-

Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin sentient-, sentiens, present participle of sentire to perceive, feel
1 : responsive to or conscious of sense impressions
2 : aware
3 : finely sensitive in perception or feeling

Very well, I am inclined to agree that a fish can't reason, but I believe a fish is capable of all of the above.

So, with that cleared up, and understood is it now clear why I believe we ought not exploit and consume other sentient beings?

MG

.

.

"Life is such sweet sorrow."

"yes i understand your point of veiw a bit better now. "

Great !!

"i dont agree but i understand it."

Oh dear. Which part?

"but repell from consuming a rat, a spider, a worm, another human being (in general) etcetera." - "that all depends on where you go as cultural do's and dont's change."

Every culture will eat something that another would repel from, but no culture has any real reason to differentiate once they have decided to exploit other sentient creatures (let's agree to leave religion out of this?). I say to all humanity either eat everything and don't cry when someone does to you what you do to others, or draw a line, and stand righteous.

"other than eating another human there really isnt any moral reason i have for not wanting to eat something."

Then, respectfully sir, I am suggesting that your morals are flawed, let me explain the logic:-

I will start off by making a big assumption to your answer to a question, if your answer is not as I assume, then you have my full appologies in advance, however, (and yet again I make the same point) If I (or the Aliens) were to enter into your home and kidnap you, torture you then kill and eat you, am I to assume that you would not protest? Shall I assume that your opinion that everything that lives has a right to eat and an equal right to be eated will mollify you to accept your hideuos fate? Or would you, as I assume you would, fight tooth and nail to defend yourself and your 'human rights'?

If my assuption of your reaction to such abuse is correct, then morally you have no right to inflict this helpless anguish and unnecessary pain on another sentient creature that is aware of what is happening to it. If your lunch etc. were given the opportunity to express their consent they would do so, a fish does not like being out of the water and impaled by the mouth on a barbed hook and if it had the power of speech it would tell you so with some choice aquatic expletives. A fish cannot talk but its feelings are obvious - it would attempt escape. The poor pigs you eat (that are easily as smart as a pet dog) scream with fear when they see their friends and familly being murdered. The list goes on if you'd only dare to go there, if you'd only dare to care.

Applogies once again in advance for the further assuptions if in error, but tomorrow you will look at your lunch and you will eat it because it pleases you. Tomorrow, you will buy the new leather shoes because they are smart and comfy and that pleases you. Tomorrow, you will wash your hair in that shampoo that was dripped into a rabbits' eyes so the company that was selling it wouldn't get sued by greedy fuckwits even though they knew that the stuff is halmless to humans beforehand, you do this because it makes your hair shine, because 'you are worth it' , because it makes you feel fresh and that pleases you. You are all slaves to your own pleasure principles and because of this tomorrow you will not change, and that makes me sad.

What would Joel say at this conjuncture? "Oh well".

With remorse,

Metal Giant

.

.

"Life is such sweet sorrow."

.

.

"Life is such sweet sorrow."

Oh well.

"Aint flashed a smile in a long while...."

"lol yes yes yes "

Stop it with the "lol's" I know you are just doing that to wind me up!

"thats all true."

I'm rubbing my eye's right now, that's never happened before.

"and we can bitch and moan about it or we can get over it."

Two options, yes, I propose a third, actually doing something about it, but go on..

"the only thing that still seems to me that is flawed with your morals are as follows: "

This is great, really. It's great because I would love an excuse to tuck back into a bacon sandwich. I'm all ears!

"you care more for a pig than a plant,"

I respect and care for them both, but I use my power of choice to make a decision between the two based upon a logical ethos which means that the piggie is the winner, yes, but I say again, I care for both. If I could flourish by simply eating rocks or just breathing air then I would spare the plant too, but I cannot and so I choose the lesser of the two evils so that I may advance my morailty and ethics as a civilized higher thinker.

" if you draw the line at that place then what upsets you about where i have drawn my line:"

Becuase your line is inconsistant and hypocritical and upsetting because your 'choice' creates unnecessary victims and represents a larger problem for humanity as a whole. In addition, when shown that this morality is flawed, change is rejected and denial takes its place. Your victims are endlessly abused, seemingly infinite and powerless to defend themselves. Your line has no empathy for the third party it effects. We are not discussing wether you have the right to smoke or not, you can do to yourself whatever you desire to consent to, on that we can agree(?). Because you would get very upset and care a lot if I abused you, it creates a hole in your ethos that you care not to address and choose to ignore. It is frustrating and upsetting and agonising to know that you are also a majority and majority rules, rightly or wrongly, but in this case, wrongly. It's gauling to be force-fed advertisements aimed at your ilk selling products that profit on the back of animal cruelty. It is angering to see how they divert this egregiousness with groovy music, lifestyle affiliations/manipulations and free Disney/Pixar toys. It's a constant reminder of how fucked we are as a species and incidently is what I call being "in your face" (If you're still reading, Wanderingnobody?). Most vegans and vegetarians (and remember I'm not either) take your advice and "get over it", but I will not ignore an injustice like that as I would not drive past a car accident. I can't say that it's nothing personal because it is, but I don't mean any malice, really.

"you seem to have misunderstood my meaning of "everything that lives has a right to eat and an equal right to be eated"

I sense a modification?( Which is a good thing)

"if you can kill it then it has that right to be eaten and you have the right to eat it"

Well, before I begin to discuss this rule that governs your eating habits against the one that governs mine, I am inclined to point out that I fear that when I show you it is in error, it will not make a blind bit of difference to you or your eating habits. That is in and of itself part of the bigger problem to which I have refered to in my other posts. So far, when presented with undeniable facts that illustrate a need or motivation for change the response is (not exclusively with you Sleepingwraith, to be fair) "get over it", "never going to change", or "oh well" and other Joelisms. Which would beg the question, "What is the point?" and I will fearlessly address that later.

I prefered your first rule, sounds conspicuously like you have shifted the focus of justification for all creatures to follow to one that only some can follow? Keywords missing from your revision:- "everything" and "equal" replaced with "you" in a singular sense? And to gain my gold star for being pedantic, I could use your rule against you to kill and eat you (but around and around we would go again).

I would more sensibly argue that in this case, we are not refering to 'rights', but observable laws of nature. A 'right' is a construct of a 'higher thinker' and so supposedly respected and honoured by such (humans and aliens alike). Your new rule is similar to the same rule observable in nature called "Survival of the fittest" ? This observable rule dictates that instinctively a superior creature will kill and consume an inferior one in the interests of survival. Guess what? I agree with this rule, and under the same circumstances I will also abide by them. If faced with matters of survival I will kill an inferior, superior or equal if I had no choice to. But we higher thinkers have a massively reduced 'need' to kill anymore to survive yet we do anyway on a grand scale (if it were killing alone that we were guilty of) .It wouldn't be quite so bad if we did actually kill, prepare and consume our own food on an individual basis, but we do not, we are three and four times removed from this distasteful act - yet more hypocracy! What is so ironic is that we have a choice and we choose to ignore.

"if an alien is powerful enough to enslave me, torture me, kill me and eat me"

Yes?

"after i fight tooth and nail for my place in existence"

Fight to 'survive', yes?

"then i abviously deserved to die and be eaten."

Ah yes, the keyword 'deserve', which by the evidence of your other discussion thread you offered as reference does indeed back up the fact that you do actually believe that you do not deserve anything, and unnervingly in this instance, you do not 'deserve' life itself. I feel lucky to be even talking to you, you might have the courage of your convictions and actually fulfill your beliefs before I get to conclude! Now do I address this anomaly here or on your other thread? I like it here, I feel like I'm among friends.

Well, first of all it is not obvious to me that you 'deserve' to die under non-survival circumstances. Cold comfort I know, but I would argue your 'rights' to another sentient higher thinker before even attempting to go at it tooth and nail in your defense. One advantage with being a higher thinker is that you can talk to us, er, we don't bite (!) Pointing out the in's and out's of the observable rules of 'survival of the fittest', ethics and morality are wasted on hungry sharks or attacking rhinos. This is my point. Me, you and the aliens, have an ability that mere animals of instinct do not. We able to think, reason, have ideas, analyse them, express them to others, modify and abide by them as a whole, as a 'civilisation'. In doing so we transend the instictive observable rules of nature and become 'civilized'. I fam guessing you understand me on this when you say things like "all things we do in this "world" are becuase of what we think is real." As humans, as a higher thinkers, we all accumulatively agree (want it or not) that your life 'deserves' respect, this is one of the features of being 'civilized'. Your life is yours to do with what you want, this doesn't have to be your opinion, but as a civilisation we all deem it to be your 'right' as a higher thinker like the rest of us. To say that you do not 'deserve' your 'rights' as a 'civilized' human being is to become uncivilized by proxy. Like it or not, to go backwards now is not what is in our best interests of survival as a species.

"The temporary constructs of a feeble human intellect trying desperately to justify an existence that is without meaning or purpose."

"Temporary construct", yes, I agree on that one. "Feeble human intellect", speak for yourself (joke), I think it is a wonder, like an Easter Lilly, or a sleek Lambourghini. "Trying desperately to justify an existence that is without meaning or purpose." - states an opinion that can only be confirmed by a third person and is easily undoable by the statement in the first person "My life has purpose because I choose to believe it".

'The Matrix' teaches as well as entertains.

"you can keep justifying yourself and your morals but in the end it doesnt really matter."

Then you need not respond to these posts anymore for to truly believe that then you'd take that opinion to its ultimate conclusion and top yourself. I sense you don't really believe that because you will respond and you won't commit suicide. So if you are still with me then surely something matters? I believe so, this is why I do keep justifying myself and my morals. I believe that I have an opinion that will advance 'civil' species even further and I want to share it. What's that Joel? Why bother? Why did I stop slandering you, Sleepingwraith and offer you an "olive branch" in our very first posts? Why did you take my offer of a clean slate? What would be the point if in the end it doesn't really matter? I say because you know full well that it does you cheeky chipmunk you. Morality matters, you deserve your rights, animals deserve theirs,we ought to be more civilized, we should move towards truth, we should question everything and we should all see The Matrix one more time. Because if the opposite were true...? Yes, we may as well all top ourselves.

" your just as sick and filthy as the rest of the human race and just as beautiful as an easter lily."

At least I try to be the latter.
(Sheesh, that's the nicest thing anyone's ever said to me!)

Metal Giant

.

.

"Life is such sweet sorrow."