|
Vegie or Non Vegie (pg. 10)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| English Rachel |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
Rachel, i respect your position on this but i have to admit that nothing beats a good bbqd steak!
:D
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!!!! |
|
|
| English Rachel |
| 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 :whip: |
|
|
| Xavier Moriarty |
| quote: | Originally posted by English Rachel
Edit: You're a prick :whip: |
lol.
hey, do you eat fish?? |
|
|
| English Rachel |
| quote: | Originally posted by Xavier Moriarty
lol.
hey, do you eat fish?? |
No - stop looking for a fight!
Us hippies make love, not war... |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| 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. |
|
|
| 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 |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Xavier Moriarty
"well fish is not a meat per se" |
Only to catholics. |
|
|
| Skipper |
| 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. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| 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. |
|
|
| English Rachel |
| 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 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 , 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. |
|
|
| English Rachel |
| 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..... |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| 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. |
|
|
|
|
