Sorry: what does this line of argument have to do with slaughtering animals cruelly or humanely?
The wider implications of saying no
- Thread starter Michael
- Start date
Sorry: what does this line of argument have to do with slaughtering animals cruelly or humanely?
Some do some do not.
Is Slavery moral or immoral? It seems to me that ALL people, regardless of culture, have come to the conclusion it is immoral.
Think of it this way. You have sacrificed animals for research. You filled out an ethical agreement to do so with minimal harm to the animal. Unless you're a hypocrite, I must assume you did agree with the form you signed your name to and did think to treat the animals ethically and with as much concern for their care as possible minimizing their pain and discomfort while meeting the aims of your research.
Yet, you'll turn right around and choose a harmful ritualistic animal sacrifice that has no concern for the animal's well-being - just to appease a Bronze Age God that more than likely only exists in your head.
- Sure 2000 years ago Slavery and slaughtering animals by cutting their throats were normal and moral.
- 2000 years before that thumping someone over a head with a rock and taking their shinny sea shell on a string was moral.
Well, your 2000 year old ancestors moved past thumping people in the head with a rock! Why can't you move past your Bronze Age superstition of ritualistic blood-sacrifice? OH, because God demands "live meat" be sacrificed to it. Well, good thing for your lab mice your God didn't demand all animals sacrificed had to have their throat cut and bled out!
It should be noted that the religious books didn't come first. Society first progressed to the point where thumping someone in the head and taking their shinny sea shell was immoral and THEN someone wrote this down - usually a King. The thing is, the King died and people went back to thumping heads with rocks. So, someone else got the bright idea of saying the "Gods" didn't like it when people thumped other people in the heads with rocks - and Gods don't die, so it's always wrong. This probably worked well because it was perfectly normal to modify this stuff along the way ad hoc back then, lots of Gods and Goddesses, lots of room to move socially. And then came the Perfect Bible and Perfect Qur'an and the One God. Oh, no more change to morality. It will stay as it is in the Bronze Age forever. Now take a look at Europe until relatively recently and take a look at the Middle East. That's called the Bronze Age SAM.
Can you imagine, people in THIS day and age are calling out prayers to a God while slitting an animals throat to bleed out? *shakes head*
Last edited:
Have they? Is that why we have borders and "illegal" immigrants and outsourcing? Have you noticed the recent wars of aggression on defenseless societies recently? What do you think slavery is? Who conducts these wars and why? What does your lifestyle depend on? Oh wait, it all depends on how your society defines it for you.
You mean all the work that was sent to China? I think that was market driven for short term gain. As for boarders, I have thought before the world WILL be better when we don't have boarders.
I agree, the attack against those innocent defenseless people on 911 was horrendous. Who drives planes into buildings packed with innocent people? Who wires schools of children to explode?
Thank Xenu the USA is doing something about that!
Being owned.
People.
Mainly my work.
You just can't accept that slaughtering animals while chanting incantations to a Bronze Age god during a blood ritual is relatively immoral and less ethical than using modern methods can you?
Did you read the ethics statements you signed for your research?
I've never known a perfect person - do you know of one SAM?
Last edited:
So here you now adopt a fixed moral standpoint? Or is your argument that culture informs behavior not one of justification regarding animal slaughter, but of the explanation of why it goes on?
What is superstitious about being excited by speed? It's got nothing to do with beliefs or otherwise. weird comment.
I was not justifying it at all. I was just making the point that there are different resion’s for a person buying a sports car.
? No idea what point you are making hear.
Even if you have fleas and lice you will fit right into a community of people infested with fleas and lice.
Like vagrant street dwellers sleeping in cardboard boxes and living on charity and the edible contents of garbage bins, they are acceptable to each other.
All Praise The Ancient of Days
Did you know that Iranians, according to bronze age religious law, consider stoning people to death moral.
Are there any other people in the world who still kill people by burying them up to their neck in sand and allowing a crowd of agitated women-hating men to punish a woman (whom they probably secretly hate and think is a bitch) by throwing stones at her face until she's dead!!? These very same men demand animals are blood sacrificed (according to bronze age religious ritual/law) alive.
While it may be the case that my culture has taugth me to think stoning women to death is immoral. Yet, get this, it seems almost ALL cultures the world over seems to have come to the same conclusion as me?! The only people that still stone women to death, justify not progressing socially (along with the rest of humanity) by quoting some archaic bronze age mythology where some long forgotten god requires animals to have their necks slit alive (while someone recites the magic books' magical incantations/spells/prayers to appease the tribes' god) and force adulterer women to be buried up to their neck alive their face bashed in by stones (while someone recites the magic books' magical incantations/spells/prayers to appease the tribes' god).
Welcome to Bronze Age 2010.
“Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion.”
- Steven Weinberg
Film Raises Awareness About Stoning
Are there any other people in the world who still kill people by burying them up to their neck in sand and allowing a crowd of agitated women-hating men to punish a woman (whom they probably secretly hate and think is a bitch) by throwing stones at her face until she's dead!!? These very same men demand animals are blood sacrificed (according to bronze age religious ritual/law) alive.
While it may be the case that my culture has taugth me to think stoning women to death is immoral. Yet, get this, it seems almost ALL cultures the world over seems to have come to the same conclusion as me?! The only people that still stone women to death, justify not progressing socially (along with the rest of humanity) by quoting some archaic bronze age mythology where some long forgotten god requires animals to have their necks slit alive (while someone recites the magic books' magical incantations/spells/prayers to appease the tribes' god) and force adulterer women to be buried up to their neck alive their face bashed in by stones (while someone recites the magic books' magical incantations/spells/prayers to appease the tribes' god).
Welcome to Bronze Age 2010.
“Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion.”
- Steven Weinberg
Film Raises Awareness About Stoning
Last edited:
It's not altogether superstitious nonsense, some of it is really quite scientifically amazing:
http://www.edge.org/documents/archive/edge307.html#tc (just below the video)
Well, I tend to think that believing that speed can make you happy is a superstition.
If the true nature of speeding would be happiness or satisfaction, then the faster one went, the happier one would get; or that driving fast once would satisfy the desire and one would never have to speed again. Yet, clearly, neither is the case IRL.
I am not saying that there is not a modicum of happiness in speeding; just that the true nature of speeding does not seem to be happiness or satisfaction.
I was wondering whether we have needs, the satisfaction of which truly brings happiness or satisfaction.
I am not so sure notions like acceptability of a person enters their minds ...
I am familiar with such things. I myself appear to have a Candida infestation that makes me crave sugar.
But my point stands: There is no real satisfaction in such things such as speeding or eating lots of sugary stuffs.
There is no real satisfaction in such things such as speeding or eating lots of sugary stuffs.
No matter how much one speeds, or how much sugary stuff one eats, there is no real satisfaction in that.
Perhaps the toxoplasma or the candida have satisfaction, but the human host certainly does not.
No matter how much one speeds, or how much sugary stuff one eats, there is no real satisfaction in that.
Perhaps the toxoplasma or the candida have satisfaction, but the human host certainly does not.
Some things are only enjoyable transiently. Riding rollercoasters full tilt is fun, the first couple of times. It's more fun the first time. That can bring short term happy It's even more fun when someone else is also doing it for the first time, that shared experience is fun and those are happy memories Probably back in the day the experience of hunting something dangerous or exploring some unknown place was similar?
It's even more fun when someone else is also doing it for the first time, that shared experience is fun and those are happy memories Probably back in the day the experience of hunting something dangerous or exploring some unknown place was similar?See post no. 29.
It is somewhat interesting, not really that novel of an observation. "When in Rome do as the Roman's" was a expression that reflected this idea that different cultures do things differently. I think the more interesting question is why are some cultures able to progress and other stagnate and remain mired in the Bronze Age?
Why are some societies presently being stunted in their development and the people who make up those societies not able to actualize self-evident points of morality? One of the reasons IS due to their Bronze Age superstitious fears and beliefs. IMO.
Take tossing sacrificial girls into a volcano to appease a Bronze Age god. No one does this anymore. But, people did. It wasn't just moral - hell, it was an honor! You do agree that this is immoral don't you? What about raising children to think it's moral to be killed? If people still practiced this, we could easily trace their reluctance to "progress past sacrificial murder" to their Bronze Age superstitions. You will be tossed into the volcano to appease Allah the magical Volcano God. Sound ridiculous until you see otherwise moral people demanding animals have their throats slit alive, not 1 second dead, that women be buried up to their necks in sand and stoned in the face. It sounds ridiculous until we remember that a whole school of girls were burned alive in KSA rather than offend the hair God Allah who might smite the village if he saw their uncovered heads.
Like I said, 4000 years ago thumping someone in the head with a rock and taking her shiny little sea shell was "moral". 2000 years ago burying women up to their necks in sand and a bunch of men spitting on her, kicking her in the face while calling her a prostitute and smashing her face in with hundreds of rocks was moral. Now in the modern world we don't act like this. It's called social progress and normally all societies make it.
Last edited: