certainly
but when a vast majority of people who make the choice to eat meat are not in such dire environmental straits as Inuits maintaining traditional lifestyles, it smells like a bad excuse
Is eating meat morally wrong
- Thread starter Theoryofrelativity
- Start date
but when a vast majority of people who make the choice to eat meat are not in such dire environmental straits as Inuits maintaining traditional lifestyles, it smells like a bad excuse
What he's doing is flouting your authority to apply your dietary morals to others (and, presumably, your preposterously serious and condescending tone).
P.S. Meat is delicious.
I heart you nowWanna go out for a steak sometime?
Yeah, but only if we can mistreat the cow before it's slaughtered.
I have a nail gun, and some baseball bats! MMMM tender
I always find it interesting that some meat eaters can't discuss this topic without this kind of defensiveness.
You cant seem to discuss this topic without parading your moral "superiority" over us, oh and insulting us as well.
In the specific instance I quoted, you were making an assertion, not an argument. "You're dumb and your diet is immoral" is not an argument.
However, I did have a counter-assertion. Which was that you lack the authority to have your assessments of the morality of the diets of others be taken seriously by anyone other than yourself. Unlike the assertion that prompted it, mine has the virture of being true.
Beyond that, what's there to say that hasn't already been said (in this very thread, by Tiassa, 100 times)? Except maybe to point out that anyone who's spent more than 10 minutes at college knows better than to take proseletyzing vegetarians seriously, particularly the judgemental kind. The only thing that's surprising is that you haven't learned not to behave this way; most of the vegetarians I've known figured it out about 10 minutes after everyone stopped taking their sermons seriously.
Sort of like how nobody is forcing you to eat meat? Anyway, it's more fulfilling to bait you into further bad behavior, thereby undermining the position of authority that you so clearly covet (and so richly do not deserve).
Ah, the assertions about what others know; this rounds out the list of signature James R fallacies/defense mechanisms. In truth, the "meat is delicious" comment served three relevant purposes: a demonstration of the main point of the post, a reference to what I consider to be a particularly salient portion of Tiassa's arguments, and a nice piece of James-bait to boot.
Look at the topic question: Is eating meat morally wrong?
Now, either it is, or it isn't, or it depends.
If it is morally wrong, then people who do not eat meat are morally superior, like it or not.
If it is not morally wrong, then it doesn't matter if you eat meat or not, and nobody is morally superior (unless you want to argue that it is morally wrong NOT to eat meat).
If it depends on circumstances, then moral superiority will be circumstantial too.
It is telling that you feel insulted just by somebody questioning your unconsidered assumption that meat eating is just fine. I understand why you feel insulted. Nobody likes having their morals, or lack of morals, put on public display.
But lashing out just makes it all the more obvious. Instead of hiding behind bravado, why not think about the issue and see if you can morally justify your own actions. If you can, great. If you can't, then what?
I always find it interesting that you either confuse provocation for defensiveness, or at least think that calling people "defensive" is going to somehow impress them. Maybe if the person is actually insecure about their position and truly being defensive, it would work, but that's hardly the case here (or any of the other times I've seen you employ this tactic).
You, on the other hand, behave extremely defensively pretty much all the time. Even your preemptive application of the term "defensiveness" is itself defensive.
quadraphonics:
Go back and read the entire thread. I have spent considerable time and effort setting out my argument.
You, I note again, have made no argument at all.
You prefer to have a penis waving competition about authority than to actually discuss the issue at hand. Figures.
Just because you can't think of anything doesn't mean there's nothing to add.
Careful! Your true views are showing: an unthinking bias against vegetarians.
You can be dismissed with the same ease as a creationist can be dismissed in a debate about evolution.
Go back and read the entire thread. I have spent considerable time and effort setting out my argument.
You, I note again, have made no argument at all.
You prefer to have a penis waving competition about authority than to actually discuss the issue at hand. Figures.
Just because you can't think of anything doesn't mean there's nothing to add.
Careful! Your true views are showing: an unthinking bias against vegetarians.
You can be dismissed with the same ease as a creationist can be dismissed in a debate about evolution.
Do you think I'm trying to impress you?
Ooh, quadraphonics, you're so big! Please like me.
I was thinking more of emotional abuse than actual physical abuse. Like dangling some sweet cow food in front of them, then snatching it away and flushing it down a toilet in front of them. But, hey, whatever floats your boat...
Well, not JUST me. But, yes, it's been clear for some time that your personality requires constant reassurances of authority and respect. Which is why it's so much fun to mess with you.
Ooh, quadraphonics, you're so big! Please like me.
There actually was a time when I did halfway like (and even respect) you.
I did read the entire thread. You degenerated into repetition about 5 pages into it, and then into condescending assertions of superiority (intellectual, moral and otherwise) about 5 pages back. The latter behavior I judged to be more worthy of response and, like I just said, your exchange with Tiassa pretty much said it all. And so here we are.
I know that you find cheap tactics like telling people to read the thread irresistable, but, come on, I JUST made multiple explicit references to previous portions of the thread. The only thing worse than an arrogant ass is a lazy arrogant ass.
Congratulations. That would be a very piercing retort if it didn't come in response to an explanation of why no argument would be forthcoming.
This would also be the place to point out that you aren't making any arguments either. Not a very sturdy foundation for an attack based on on-topic relevance.
The issue at hand is your preference for penis waving over substantiative discussion. It's you who created a thread with the manifest purpose of advertizing your supposed superiority. I'm simply happy to oblige, secure in the knowledge that my penis dwarfs yours.
Maybe when you're finished recycling stock internet debate retorts you can take a minute to think of something interesting to say.
Just because you embed an insult in a cute sophomorism doesn't mean I'll care.
No, just the proselityzing kind. I could care less what other people eat. It's people that spend their time lecturing others on what they eat that bug me. But, hey, call me whatever you want; it's not going to get to me. I thought I'd already made it clear that I don't respect you. And I'm not at all worried about any third parties whom I might respect concurring with your charges, for they're transparently baseless.
If you say so. Your efforts to dismiss me so far seem to have failed rather badly.
And the implication that creationists necessarily arrived at that position without any thought strikes me as, well, biased.
There's no point in employing sarcasm unless you're going to take it far enough for to be funny. Otherwise, it just makes you look insecure and pompous.
My primary contribution is to thwart your attempts to define the discourse in this thread. You can thank me later.
quadraphonics:
Then how could you have missed my careful explanation of concepts such as inherent value and the principle of equal consideration?
Probably you just didn't understand those parts, so you skipped.
Exactly. Hence, you can't comprehend that there may be a moral issue worthy of discussion.
Having missed the entire point of this thread, you instead choose to make character snipes. Those appear to be something you indeed "care less" about.
So, we chalk up your substantive contribution to this thread to be a big zero, and you go on your merry way. Bye!
Then how could you have missed my careful explanation of concepts such as inherent value and the principle of equal consideration?
Probably you just didn't understand those parts, so you skipped.
Exactly. Hence, you can't comprehend that there may be a moral issue worthy of discussion.
Having missed the entire point of this thread, you instead choose to make character snipes. Those appear to be something you indeed "care less" about.
So, we chalk up your substantive contribution to this thread to be a big zero, and you go on your merry way. Bye!
What makes you think I missed those? For that matter, what makes you think I hadn't already heard all about them long before reading this thread? This might be relevant if I'd said you never maid any arguments in this thread. But I didn't. What I pointed out was that you'd long since lapsed into attack mode.
Ah, yes, more flamebait. Did you miss where I just told you that I don't care what you think of me, nor am I concerned that others will put creedence in your assessment of me? Because those are prerequisites for ad-hominem flamebait to work.
More unfounded intellectual aspersions. What is it that makes you need to convince yourself that your detractors are somehow intellectually inferior? is it really impossible that I came to a reasoned conclusion that the diets of others are not of any real importance to me? Must anyone who disagrees with you be stupid, evil or lazy?
Oh, I saw the point very clearly. That's why I decided to counteract your character swipes with some of my own. Seems you can't take it the way you can dish it out, eh?
What's this "we?" It's up to each individual reader to decide for themselves what my contributions count for. Do you really think that any third party is going to rate your responses to me as a worthwhile contribution?
And it's up to me to decide when I go on my way. Unless you feel like banning me. Which, of course, will only substantiate my points.