Page 15 of 28 FirstFirst ... 5131415161725 ... LastLast
Results 141 to 150 of 271

Thread: Nikola Tesla: Oatmeal > Meat page 15

  1. #141
    Kochin's Avatar
    Kochin is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Horsham
    Posts
    918
    Thrive Market
    Quote Originally Posted by j3nn View Post
    I think this is a slippery slope that can be used to justify really horrific acts of aggression towards others. Stealing some food because you're hungry is not in the same league as murdering millions of innocent people because you believe you are doing the right thing. There are universal rights and wrongs and I think that it's a waste of an intelligent species like human beings to not make those distinctions.
    Yet in the mind of every mass murderer or great dictator, the deaths are the lesser evil.
    Stalin thought he was being persecuted by Trotskyists that would destroy Russia. Hitler thought the White race would die out if it weren't isolated. Myra Hindley wanted to be loved by a man she was obsessed with. Mary Bell took childhood experimentation too far. None of them were "evil". Evil isn't real.

    And where would you draw the line? It's like the "pile of sand vs grain of sand" argument. If 100000 grains of sand make a pile, then what about 99999? And 99998? And so on until you're forced to conclude that a single grain makes a pile.
    The degrees vary so minutely that people make sweeping generalizations ("Stalin was evil") without considering that the line needs to be placed somewhere. If there is no line, then you have to conclude that everything is universally evil and, therefore, nothing can be evil. It's better to say "Stalin made decisions that led to actions which I don't believe justified. He made those decisions due to a mental imbalance -- paranoia -- which most people do not suffer to such a degree, explaining why his actions contrast with the morality of the majority." Yes, it's easier to say "Stalin was evil.", but it's also simplistic and naive.
    --
    Perfection is entirely individual. Any philosophy or pursuit that encourages individuality has merit in that it frees people. Any that encourages shackles only has merit in that it shows you how wrong and desperate the human mind can get in its pursuit of truth.

    --
    I get blunter and more narcissistic by the day.
    I'd apologize, but...

  2. #142
    RichMahogany's Avatar
    RichMahogany is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    9,254
    Quote Originally Posted by j3nn View Post
    I define barbarous as cruel and uncivilized, it's literal definition. A philosophy of non-aggression would dictate that taking the life of another who did not threaten you is an act of cruelty and arguably beneath the highly evolved brain; uncivilized. You would have to subscribe to this philosophy to agree. Clearly you do not. I also see the reasoning of how slaughtering animals for food is a primitive act. I can see a time in the future where it is unnecessary and considered obsolete, some have arrived at that conclusion now. At one point human slavery was widely accepted and rationalized; in my opinion I think it's possible that one day humans could extend that compassion to other species.

    I have already admitted my hypocrisy on this issue, but I will not concede that my idealistic principles are flawed. I do not believe I have anymore of a right to life than another just because evolution has equipped me with the capability to dominate and take advantage of lesser creatures. One might argue with these evolutionary advantages that it our moral obligation to protect the ones who are not capable of such reasoning by simply not engaging in unprovoked acts of aggression. That is not my feeling on the matter, but I do understand and admire the philosophy.
    But there's no free lunch. Animals died to get your food on your plate, whether you eat a burger or a soybean. Cows eat grass. Grains eat entire ecosystems. What's the more aggressive act, humanely slaughtering a happy cow to feed your family for a year, or pulling down entire forests to grow grains? Even your clean, precious fruits eat blood and bone. At least eating the cow is honest.

    If you don't like the responsibility that comes with taking your turn, then feed yourself to a lion. I bet he won't feel bad about it for a second.

  3. #143
    j3nn's Avatar
    j3nn is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Manhattan, NY
    Posts
    4,090
    Quote Originally Posted by wiltondeportes View Post
    I actually couldn't care less if you ate meat. I'm more antagonistic against a morslist's view of it. You admitted that there's no logical reason to not eat meat. So why I ask do you see it as bad? Your compassion is naive. One can be compassionate of life while eating it. I hate superficial morals because they make people do stupid things.
    I don't see eating meat as "bad," I see taking the life away from another conscious creature as the moral hurdle. How can compassion be naive when you are deliberately going against the will of that creature that has done nothing to threaten or harm your well-being? But this discussion is moot because I do eat animals, I just dislike the process because it contradicts my personal philosophy towards life.
    | My (food) Blog | Follow me on Facebook | Pinterest | Twitter |

    “It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.” - Samuel Adams

  4. #144
    RichMahogany's Avatar
    RichMahogany is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    9,254
    Quote Originally Posted by j3nn View Post
    I don't see eating meat as "bad," I see taking the life away from another conscious creature as the moral hurdle. How can compassion be naive when you are deliberately going against the will of that creature that has done nothing to threaten or harm your well-being? But this discussion is moot because I do eat animals, I just dislike the process because it contradicts my personal philosophy towards life.
    Then your personal philosophy is a fairy tale or a Disney movie, and you don't understand how the world works.

  5. #145
    Kochin's Avatar
    Kochin is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Horsham
    Posts
    918
    Quote Originally Posted by j3nn View Post
    I don't see eating meat as "bad," I see taking the life away from another conscious creature as the moral hurdle. How can compassion be naive when you are deliberately going against the will of that creature that has done nothing to threaten or harm your well-being? But this discussion is moot because I do eat animals, I just dislike the process because it contradicts my personal philosophy towards life.
    Think about it this way: everything is energy. If you need meat, then you're transferring that energy from the animal into yourself. In existing and living while you are deprived, the animal would be hurting you indirectly. Its death is good because your life is good. Of course it wants to live, but so do you, right?
    Something doesn't have to attack you directly to hurt you. A man who cuts the water off to your town isn't attacking you, but sure as hell is hurting you. An animal that fights to live is fighting to deprive you also. It's saying "my life is more important than you, I need the energy within me more than you do". And, in consuming meat, you're saying "I disagree".
    --
    Perfection is entirely individual. Any philosophy or pursuit that encourages individuality has merit in that it frees people. Any that encourages shackles only has merit in that it shows you how wrong and desperate the human mind can get in its pursuit of truth.

    --
    I get blunter and more narcissistic by the day.
    I'd apologize, but...

  6. #146
    eKatherine's Avatar
    eKatherine is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Portland
    Posts
    5,426
    This has been a fascinating discussion to read upon rising, especially in the way that one who is truly passionate on a topic (who knew people were passionate in that way about Nikola Tesla?) can get sucked down into the rabbit hole, revealing more about their own motivations than may have been intended. Thanks for making it "real", J3nn.

  7. #147
    j3nn's Avatar
    j3nn is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Manhattan, NY
    Posts
    4,090
    Quote Originally Posted by RichMahogany View Post
    Then your personal philosophy is a fairy tale or a Disney movie, and you don't understand how the world works.
    Not at all. I believe in striving for a smarter world that doesn't rely on primitive tactics to get by. It's not a fairy tale, it's inevitable if you believe the human population is capable of evolving to higher grounds of technology--if it can happen before we destroy ourselves. Obviously the means we have now are limited and inefficient. I know we can do better than this, and hopefully some day we will.
    Last edited by j3nn; 06-17-2013 at 07:10 AM.
    | My (food) Blog | Follow me on Facebook | Pinterest | Twitter |

    “It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.” - Samuel Adams

  8. #148
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    75
    Quote Originally Posted by RichMahogany View Post
    Then your personal philosophy is a fairy tale or a Disney movie, and you don't understand how the world works.
    I disagree.

    With her moral philosophy in mind, people who recognize that a diet consisting of meat is required for optimal function will be compelled to find ways to benefit from that without harming animals, developing artificial meat for instance. This has already been done [1] and more research and development is happening now [2]

    If society accepted that non-aggression is nothing more than a fairy tale, there would be no reason to research such things.

    You can eat meat and feel bad about it, there is nothing wrong with that. If it causes society to ultimately make it unnecessary to kill animals in order to benefit from meat, that is a positive gain for all living things.
    Last edited by DamienMaddox; 06-17-2013 at 07:14 AM.

  9. #149
    RichMahogany's Avatar
    RichMahogany is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    9,254
    Quote Originally Posted by j3nn View Post
    Not at all. I believe in striving for a smarter world that doesn't rely on primitive tactics to get by.
    Do you believe you can make people out of pixie dust and rainbows? If not, animals and plants die to feed us, even if we don't eat the animals directly.

    Quote Originally Posted by j3nn View Post
    It's not a fairy tale, it's inevitable if you believe the human population is capable of evolving to higher grounds of technology--if it can happen before we destroy ourselves. Obviously the means we have now are limited and inefficient. I know we can do better than this, and hopefully some day we will.
    I think you missed my point. Tell me what you can eat that doesn't result in animal death.

  10. #150
    j3nn's Avatar
    j3nn is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Manhattan, NY
    Posts
    4,090
    Primal Blueprint Expert Certification
    Quote Originally Posted by RichMahogany View Post
    Do you believe you can make people out of pixie dust and rainbows? If not, animals and plants die to feed us, even if we don't eat the animals directly.

    I think you missed my point. Tell me what you can eat that doesn't result in animal death.
    I never denied that many forms of life die to feed us, please do not act like I haven't heard of the myths of vegetarianism and yada yada. I only take issue with the deliberate planning and act of it because I have compassion for all life. We don't intentionally slaughter billions of mice and insects and gophers and dolphins when we farm or fish; it happens unintentionally without planning. I imagine those unintentional kills can actually be quite problematic in many areas whereas deliberate kills are only beneficial to those who profit from and consume them.
    Last edited by j3nn; 06-17-2013 at 07:38 AM.
    | My (food) Blog | Follow me on Facebook | Pinterest | Twitter |

    “It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.” - Samuel Adams

Page 15 of 28 FirstFirst ... 5131415161725 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •