I read posts here that call different things, "harmful to humanity." Others call something, "good" or "bad" or "evil."
A very simple question, who gets to decide the definition of "harmful to humanity" and what is there critieria? The same for "good," "bad," and "evil?" These are not material terms. If everything is material isn't there just "is" and not these moral declarations if one is being thoroughly atheist?
Help me understand your position so I am fair and honest about the views. Thanks.
You say also, "Don't want to eat meat? Cool, more for me." How about this corollary, "Don't want to torture dogs for fun? Cool, more for me." It sounds like the same thing to me. "Don't want to own slaves?, Cool, more for me."
@ Dogly - It is not the same because when animals are killed so we can eat them, it does not mean they were treated badly. I whole heartedly support causes that will reduce animal suffering but it stops there. What about insects? They need to be controlled. Do you give killing insects a pass? If so, I would like to know why.
Mabel, I judge each individual insect by the quality of his character. :-)
@Dogly - At no point did I suggest vegans are trying to force their opinions on me or anyone else. I simply made the comparison between vegans and xians (as they both have a "dogma", as it were).
Yes, I did mean sadistic. And yes, I think it is NOT okay to torture animals for pleasure.
You can try to make a corollary between eating meat and torturing animals, however if you think the two are equal, you are a disturbed individual. There is a huge difference between choosing your own diet and being expected to be allowed to torture for pleasure. That is a leap worthy of a religiot. Torture, slavery, these are concepts that support the suffrage of other beings. THAT, in case you can't tell, is where the line is drawn. I do not support the unethical treatment of animals, even those I eat. It is as simple as that.
You are the one trying to complicate it, whether simply for the sake of creating aggression and arguments or just out of raw stupidity, I don't think I'll entertain any more of your posts until you actually come up with something rational and reasonable, rather than unjustly accusing people of jumping to conclusions that you, yourself fabricate.
I may be, as you say, "a disturbed individual" and a ?religiot (?). But, Keith , what makes you think that torture and slavery are concepts that support getting the vote for other beings?
You've received more serious consideration than you give. You have enjoyed more respect than you've earned. You've enjoyed more tolerance here than you'd ever find on a believer website.
You should quit while you're ahead.
I have a better idea Wretched - help us to "understand YOUR position," so WE are "fair and honest about the views."
Assuming you have morality, as an admitted theist, where do YOU get it? You seem very good at asking questions, let's see how you are about answering a few.
Wait, I thought I just saw him say he's an atheist!?! Maybe I misread it. Will have to find it again and delete my reply to that one. :-)
Shabaka, you, for some reason, make the point that dog fighting was not a felony in all 50 states, when Vick was arrested. First, why make that point? We are talking about morals, not law. Second dog fighting was illegal in all 50 states. Do you really think that dog fighting is more moral where it is a misdemeanor, and less moral where it is a felony? Huh?
I think you chose to overlook my personal position on dogs.. as for Vick and the felony charge, that was alluding to the harshness of his sentence that a respondent agree with..
I told you what I think about dogs..I also told you IMO anything that destroys Nature is immoral.
Yo Dog..(i thought that was cool) I have a question for you.. Do you think it immoral that some Asian cultures eat dog, that it's a delicacy?