TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Canada - Toronto & Southern Ont.
-- Vegie or Non Vegie
Pages (7): « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 »

quote:

Originally posted by Cosmic Fur And why doesn't anyone criticise me for going to Guv and blowing close to $100 in one night when that money could have just as easily been better allocated by sending it to some poor shmuck in Africa?

LOL I made a similar agrument on monday to someone else on a different matter when I was being called selfish for a different reason.

My retort was, How is wasting your 'excess' money not needed for basic survival on a night at Guv not selfish too when that money could be better used to really help others who are suffering! You dont NEED to go to Guv!

There are ALL KINDS of different degrees of selfishness, and if you wanna get preachy or technical with me, buying yourself a 30th pair of shoes or T-shirt is definitely selfish in the face of giving that $100 to someone who is starving on the street or in Africa that could use it procure food for themselves.

quote:

Originally posted by lopi

..psssst.. what goes good with steak????! ..

quote:

Originally posted by EvilSmurfette ..psssst.. what goes good with steak????! ..

Steak goes good with steak

quote:

Originally posted by lopi Steak goes good with steak

w/ sauteed onions and mushroom...

plus a cold fosters or guinness

*drool*

quote:

Originally posted by EvilTree w/ sauteed onions and mushroom... plus a cold fosters or guinness *drool*

no.
Just steak.

quote:

Originally posted by lopi no. Just steak.

Barbarian

I could even eat a baby deer
La la la la la la la laaa lala�
Who's that baby deer on the lawn there?...

edit - you hippies are totally noncool people lol

mmmm....baby deer

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 Rachel, i respect your position on this but i have to admit that nothing beats a good bbqd steak! I dont mind vegetarians because if thats what they believe than good for them. I think wed all be healthier if we eat less meat. However i know this one vegetarian who is ridiculously preachy. Everytime anyone eats meat she goes on and on about it. Shes not invited out for many meals thats for sure! LOL

I wouldn't want to dine with her either!!!!

quote:

Originally posted by Xavier Moriarty I could even eat a baby deer La la la la la la la laaa lala� Who's that baby deer on the lawn there?... edit - you hippies are totally noncool people lol

Edit: You're a prick

quote:

Originally posted by English Rachel Edit: You're a prick

lol.

hey, do you eat fish??

quote:

Originally posted by Xavier Moriarty lol. hey, do you eat fish??

No - stop looking for a fight!

Us hippies make love, not war...

quote:

Originally posted by Skipper because we pity them and feel something should be done, this puts pressure on governments and the larger and more influential organizations of the world to help these people - and they do. Pity, sorrow, outrage at the injustices of the world are not entirely useless.

You pity them because you feel bad about doing nothing of consequence. Pressuring governments is a token attempt to help and ultimately does nothing and without question NGOs are so ineffectual and self serving they have largely become laughable. Outrage is only useful if it moves one to meaningful action, your outrage is not such that it has moved you to meaningful action. If it were you'd be living a subsistance life and giving all you could to help these people, however, you are not therefore your token gestures are clearly meant only to alieviate your guilt. While this may help you feel better about yourself it does nothing but prolong the suffering of those you seek to assist. I on the otherhand subscribe to a belief that if enacted would end the suffering once and for all. Sometimes you have to thin the heard for the benefit of all.

You say they are dieing so we should help them, I believe the best way to help them is to let them die.

hey i was just kidding about that hippie comment. im sick like a dog, im not looking for a fight.

about fish, i had a conversation with a vegetarian girl who eats fish, and she told me "well fish is not a meat per se". go figure

quote:

Originally posted by Xavier Moriarty "well fish is not a meat per se"

Only to catholics.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard You say they are dieing so we should help them, I believe the best way to help them is to let them die.

This completely blows my mind.
The utilitarian theory cannot be applied to everything.

quote:

Originally posted by Skipper This completely blows my mind. The utilitarian theory cannot be applied to everything.

While I am a fan of John Stuart Mill my thinking in this regard is more in line with Nitzsche... "let all that is falling also be pushed!" See, the problem we have with people starving in certain areas is due to the fact that those people insist on living in an area that cannot support them. The easy and only effective solution is to let nature take it's course. If an environment cannot support a population that population must either move to a more appropriate location or stay and be reduced to a size that the environment can support. Natural selection will take care of the necessary population reduction, however, if we really want to end the suffering then we'd be well served to help mother nature along. I hesitate to propose such a thing because it is rather unsavory to most peoples' morality but it is nontheless the most compassionate solution. Regardless, giving them enough asssistance to keep them alive but not improve their lot in life simply does not work nor is it a humanitarian solution.

BTW, Utilitarianism is a universal theory thus it can (and if you subscribe to it) should apply to everything.

quote:

Originally posted by Xavier Moriarty hey i was just kidding about that hippie comment. im sick like a dog, im not looking for a fight. about fish, i had a conversation with a vegetarian girl who eats fish, and she told me "well fish is not a meat per se". go figure

I know you were, otherwise I would have ripped the shit out of you as opposed to just calling you a prick *hug*

Sorry to hear you're sick, perhaps it is BSE...

Fish is so very good for you, Omega oils, protein, iron, vitamins, everything really... I may, read may, feed my child fish as I believe it to be necessary but I stopped eating fish when I stopped eating meat. Which was when I realized what it was. I wasn't even 2.

Conversation went something like this...

Rachel: "Mummy, is this lamb chop the same as the baa lamb in my book"
Mummy: [Silent, oh shit, how the eff do I answer this?]
Rachel: (Impatiently) "MUMMY!!!! I aks you a quistin!!! Is this lamb chop the same as the baa lamb in my book"
Mummy: (Defeatedly) "Yes my darling, it is"
Rachel: "Mummy, I don't want to eat a baa lamb, so I won't. I will eat this colli instead and me carrots good girl"

hahahahaha

This immediately ruled out lamb, chicken, fish as they were all the same words as the animals themselves but I continued to eat other things until I was about 3-4. I would say that I fully realized everything when I was about 5.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard While I am a fan of John Stuart Mill my thinking in this regard is more in line with Nitzsche... "let all that is falling also be pushed!" See, the problem we have with people starving in certain areas is due to the fact that those people insist on living in an area that cannot support them. The easy and only effective solution is to let nature take it's course. If an environment cannot support a population that population must either move to a more appropriate location or stay and be reduced to a size that the environment can support. Natural selection will take care of the necessary population reduction, however, if we really want to end the suffering then we'd be well served to help mother nature along. I hesitate to propose such a thing because it is rather unsavory to most peoples' morality but it is nontheless the most compassionate solution. Regardless, giving them enough asssistance to keep them alive but not improve their lot in life simply does not work nor is it a humanitarian solution.

I am STILL right in the middle of Moral and Skipper.....

quote:

Originally posted by English Rachel I am STILL right in the middle of Moral and Skipper.....

I'm curious as to what you mean by in the middle.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Sometimes you have to thin the heard for the benefit of all.

That is nature's intended way, anyways, for sure.

I agree that without compassion and care for others, this world would self destruct quicker than it already is.

I believe every human should have the best chance to live possible.

I give money to charity to appease my conscience but also in the hope that it will save someone who in turn will do something to save many more people from starvation or HIV.

I also agree that suffering is worse than death in lots of cases.

I know that people refuse to move to more sustainable areas.

I understand that education against the spread of HIV is desperately needed but even in areas it is provided, people are ignoring it.

In short, I understand and agree with a lot of what you are both saying. Which makes me in the middle.

Meat. It does my body good.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard BTW, Utilitarianism is a universal theory thus it can (and if you subscribe to it) should apply to everything.

I know what utilitarianism is.

My point is that the problem with the theory is that it cannot measure "harm" and "good" objectively. If there are so many opportunities for debate within the scope of the theory, how could it possibly be applied universally?

While you could apply it to everyTHING, you must also be able to apply it to everyONE. and not everyone or even most people could universally agree on what constitutes harm and what constitutes good.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard While I am a fan of John Stuart Mill my thinking in this regard is more in line with Nitzsche... "let all that is falling also be pushed!" See, the problem we have with people starving in certain areas is due to the fact that those people insist on living in an area that cannot support them. The easy and only effective solution is to let nature take it's course. If an environment cannot support a population that population must either move to a more appropriate location or stay and be reduced to a size that the environment can support. Natural selection will take care of the necessary population reduction, however, if we really want to end the suffering then we'd be well served to help mother nature along. I hesitate to propose such a thing because it is rather unsavory to most peoples' morality but it is nontheless the most compassionate solution. Regardless, giving them enough asssistance to keep them alive but not improve their lot in life simply does not work nor is it a humanitarian solution. BTW, Utilitarianism is a universal theory thus it can (and if you subscribe to it) should apply to everything.

How does man made conditions, such as corrupt govt starving their citizens fit into 'natural selection'?

If we fail to at least feel bad for suffering of other humans, what hope does humanity have of survival?

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.