Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Jānis Ķimsis on April 20, 2010 at 7:07pm

I don't find cannibalism objectionable as long as the one getting eaten has agreed to it. Why would I or anyone else for that matter?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Daley on April 15, 2010 at 11:43am

There is a big difference in needed and desired "Freedoms" and not liking or being offended by other people's actions. Just because something offends you does not mean there should be a law to keep people from doing what they want. The simple solution is to remove yourself from the situation, don't shop at the specific place, don't hang out there and don't associate with people that offend you. Trying to mandate the world to your particular specifications is wrong and ridiculous. Live your life, don't buy meat, don't stand near a smoker and don't go to bars if the environment bothers you, don't go to parks where people play loud music, don't purchase chemicals, don't peek in someone's window and be offended they are nude when you are the one peeking, etc. Get over it. Move along and live. Most of these things are not important at all. Being offended doesn't give anyone the right to dictate the life of another. Take control of your own life and remove yourself from your irritations or just adapt.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jesse Mathewson on April 15, 2010 at 11:48am

Exactly, I brought this up at a rally I recently organized - "If I as a free individual wished to sunbath naked in MY backyard, and smoke a bowl how is that any better or worse than those who would go shooting for pleasure and than drink a beer when they are done?"

Amazing responses...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Atheist Exile on April 20, 2010 at 3:33am

I agree. Religion is a fixation away.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michael R on April 15, 2010 at 11:44am

Jesse, I would expect people to be unsupportive of things they cannot agree with. It is human nature. Even a definition of self-defense can get a number of different responses. It seems to me that religious groups seem to think that "freedoms" take away from "real truth and freedom" and they can't have that...even at the expense of everyone else. I mean, its for our own good right?

BTW, I am a gun owning, meat eating atheist. There are some thing in the Libertarian playbook that I agree with: legalize drugs, a military draft is slavery; but others that I do not: unregulated business.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jesse Mathewson on April 15, 2010 at 11:46am

Nicely put Michael and correct in many areas- however, what is worse having a government ran by self involved regulators or business's that can fail on their own or thrive on their own (as long as they do not break the law by harming others why not allow unregulated business's as well?)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Atheist Exile on April 20, 2010 at 3:35am

Democracy is supposed to be protected from the tyranny of the majority.

Well, the majority are meat-eaters. Do we insist that everybody must eat meat? Of course not. It would be every bit as wrong to insist that NOBODY eat meat.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kris Feenstra on April 15, 2010 at 12:52pm

Er, I can see your point on gun-toting (largely based on the 2nd Amendment if we're talking within US borders), but how often does someone try to remove you of your right to eat meat? I doubt it's that common of an occurrence. Criticize you for it? Quite possible, but where has your freedom been challenged on this issue? (not a pointed question, to be clear)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jesse Mathewson on April 15, 2010 at 1:05pm

Not a large occurrence however, since we should all have our individual rights when someone lobbies to remove that right in any way (even with overt criticism) it is a double standard. Basically the idea here is too present too those of us freethinkers who have weathered storms in this country (as a former Anti-War, Anti Bush and now Anti Obama protester I tend to get a bit of "reviling" occurring which is funny seeing as how my views have not changed which is why I can easily be against both! ;)

Using items that are near and dear too us, i.e. food etc. allows people to make it more personal and sometimes allows them too see that in small things and large things it is important to allow for the various choices that occur!

As long as (among humans) we do no harm unless in self defense, I cannot understand the reasoning for attempting to stifle anyone's views.

Just a thought of course!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Misty: Baytheist Living! on April 15, 2010 at 1:46pm

Jesse-
"when someone lobbies to remove that right in any way (even with overt criticism) it is a double standard."
-Bullshit.
Where would that leave the whole Freedom of Speech thing?
Further,
"As long as (among humans) we do no harm unless in self defense, I cannot understand the reasoning for attempting to stifle anyone's views."
Actually supports said freedom of speech. You can't have it both ways. Either people can use overt criticism to express their views, or those views are being stifled. You can't have it both ways.
You don't have to respect the messenger or message...just respect the right for them to exist.
If you are an anti-anything protester, then you should know this better than most. YOU are providing power for lobbyists ever time you are out there! What the hell makes your anti-Obama protests any better or worse than their anti-meat protests?

Katie-
"But I would also say that since both atheism and veganism were for me a result of the same thinking process, I'm surprised that there aren't more vegan atheists."
Maybe that's self explanatory.
If you are in the minority, perhaps that conclusion was based on a faulty process.
I'd be interested to know your process, if you don't mind.
I've never found a vegan that didn't use circular reasoning to justify their stance. To make this quick, there are a few atheist-fundamentals I'd like to know if you agree with, please?
1) As an atheist, you don't believe in the sanctity of a PARTICULAR life form, correct? (As in, there was no god to give us a breath of life making OUR existence more important than animals, ect)
2) We are animals that have evolved through natural selection to eat meat.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jesse Mathewson on April 15, 2010 at 1:55pm

Interesting and a bit harsh in approach but interesting.

My protesting is against the larger government process as a whole, but than this would mean I am Libertarian...lol - which means I may not agree with a current administration, and in this case I do not - I will make sure to word that better for those of you who are so "strong" in your stance. Of course than again, I may actually just continue as I am without apologizing for your misunderstanding of what is being written.

Logical, rational debate should never begin with phrasing that leads one to feel attacked.

Thanks for the interesting comment, honey, flies, etc.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kris Feenstra on April 15, 2010 at 2:12pm

My protesting is against the larger government process as a whole, but than this would mean I am Libertarian...lol

I guess where I'm lost is that you haven't explained what, specifically, you are against, in the larger government process or any process for that matter.

What specific affront to your rights, particularly on the consumption of meat, have there actually been? Or have actually been proposed?

I'd like to consider your stance and address it rationally, but it seems too vague. Personally, I don't really see where meat-eaters have that much grounds for complaint in North America.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• …
• 7
• Next ›
• Page