Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Unseen on May 16, 2012 at 1:22pm

It may at first appear ironic and may at first appear to favor those who want to feed the hungry, that starving people are more fertile than people who are not food-deprived. It is just nature's way of making up for a higher death rate. Of course, there comes a death rate that even increased fertility can't keep up with, and if we can't get people to voluntarily stop having children, what's left but letting the situation get out of hand?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Arcus on May 16, 2012 at 11:52am

In a world where obesity soon affects more people than starvation (if not already), it is safe to say that the problem isn't production, but allocation.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Unseen on May 16, 2012 at 1:18pm

Either way, a smaller population would solve many of our problems.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dogly on May 15, 2012 at 10:04am

Heather, THIS post is about ethics.  It is you who follow members to any place the word animal or vegan is mentioned. Then you jump in to discourage any compassion.  You act as a troll acts.    

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on May 15, 2012 at 10:09am

Well, actually it was about where Atheists get their ethics - asked by someone who believes in a god.  I didn't jump in on the vegan issue until you had posted over 2 pages worth of vegan diatribe.  Just because it is about ethics, doesn't mean it needs to be hijacked by your evangelizing.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Major on May 15, 2012 at 3:03pm

Your hostility is expected. This study amply demonstrated the overreaction of meat eaters to vegetarians, and the 'knee-jerk' reaction when faced by a minority moral view. It's interesting that slavery abolitionists were called zealots of mistaken compassion in their day.

Thinkers from Mahatma Gandhi to Schopenhauer to Mark Twain have observed that new ideas go through several phases: First they provoke laughter, then anger, and finally they are accepted as common sense.  

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on May 15, 2012 at 3:15pm

And again you resort to appeal to authority - although this time you create a strawman by suggesting a balanced diet is akin to slavery.  You are still avoiding the issue at hand - as an Atheist, what do you consider the basis of your morality?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Major on May 15, 2012 at 3:25pm

Reporting on the observations is hardly an appeal to authority. I consider the basis of my morality to be the promtion of well being and the avoiding causing unnecessary harm and suffering.

You haven't explained why people starving is a moral issue for you? Is it because, as you said in another post, they will not feel secure?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on May 15, 2012 at 3:35pm

I guess you missed my reply.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Major on May 15, 2012 at 3:53pm

Yes

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on May 15, 2012 at 4:00pm

Then I'll let you dig through all these pages to find it an reply to it directly rather than starting here where you've already misstated my position.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Major on May 18, 2012 at 1:36pm

I think it was you who posted the video that showed how educated people could be stupid. Well done for that.

Don't try to trivialise a valid and important argument by dumbing it down. You know, but pretend otherwise, that no one is equating slavery with choosing a balanced diet.

The issue is the ethics of inflicting immense suffering on sentient beings and justifying it on a genetic difference I.e. species. The argument is that discrimination on the basis of species is arbitrary, LIKE (although NOT the same) discriminating on the basis of skin colour.

To represent the argument as you have reflects badly on you and serves only to hide the fact that you have no consistent, intelligible ethical philosophy yet expressed.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 63
• 64
• 65
• 66
• 67
• …
• 87
• Next ›
• Page