zapatos

Yeah, let's see how they like it for a change.

Never said it did. Never said it was. Didn't take you long to compare my statements to nazis. You've got to be kidding. So what? Who is arguing for economics? Not the same but related. It also makes me full, happy, etc. All I did was answer the question you asked "Why do you eat meat?" Don't read so much into it!. So... I am still sure that there is NO ethical argument for NOT eating meat. Sure you are! And I quote: And...

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap120312.html

Probably something you've already tried but thought I'd mention it anyway. When looking for alternatives for your son, did you search by the food attributes he already likes? For example, high fat and crunchy. I know there are what are essentially potato chips, but they are shaped like french fries. Didn't know if that might be close enough.

Yes, thanks for pointing out that the theory of evolution is a theory. I would like to also point out that it is about evolution. What is your point?

I am not going to go through them one by one for you. It's unnecessarily tedious. Do it yourself, and let me know where I'm wrong. Sorry, that was my smart ass way of saying that it is very frustrating when someone makes a claim then tells you to prove them wrong. No offense intended.

Where have I suggested that there is a key fundamental difference that makes killing the one right while not the other? I've mentioned several times in this thread that there are times that it is considered right to kill humans. You on the other hand most certainly did propose a fundamental difference that makes killing one type of life right while not the other. The reason it is considered ethical to kill cows is because people have decided that it is. Ethics are not something that we find etched in stone on the mount. They are what people decide they are. Just like you are doing above. You find it ethical to kill vegetables but not animals based on sentience. That dividing line is your choice but it is no more valid than saying that you can only eat what you do not have to kill; that life is the dividing line. Nope. Your link proves you are wrong.

Can you support that claim with evidence?

To show how we can consider them different I'll quote a very wise man. To which I conclude that human babies can be considered differently than cows. Here is another good argument: And even if they are somewhat similar, I can draw the line anywhere I wish, because: Or, It seems to me that you are not being very consistent...

I'm sure Phi will respond, but I need to jump in here. This is true to you because you are equating cows and humans. I don't think anyone else is going to agree with you on that notion.

Ok, so correct me if I am wrong, but it sounds like you just said, you know how to be objective but are instead going to put your wishes first. Is that right? Sort of like what the baby-eating alien is doing? Isn't it just a bit convenient that the person deciding which wishes to enforce chooses his own wishes over that of the other? For reasons associated with survival, calories, nutrition, value, ease, social/family, evolution, economic, gratification, etc. Oh, and taste!! You can say sentience is the key, which means you can draw the line by this statement where you want. But I'd like to remind you that sentience is not the key to the whole argument. It is your way of justifying why your line is correct and my line is incorrect.

1. I agree, there must be a line. 2. I agree that animals are more human-like than plants. I agree this is natural. But it is still random. I can just as easily say: 1. There must be a line because saying there is no line means you can kill everything 2: Including primates because they are more human-like than cows seems random, but is in fact natural. We are more concerned about our family than some stranger. We are more interested in the wellbeing of our local comrades than the comrades of the comrades of the comrade. [/size] By this logic it means things that are more like us and more in our action-space are more important than others. We have a well defined ranking by this, which might be not perfect, but useful for this. And of course a primate has measurably more in common with us than a cow.

A request. It looks like you and changing font regularly. Don't know if it is you or the sytem, but if it is you I would appreciate it if you did not do so. When I respond I see the coding that makes that happen and it makes it difficult to to break up your post to respond to different parts separately. Thanks! From the bolded points you made it sounds as if you believe: a. Ethics come in to play when you have a choice. b. My wishes are not more important than the cow's wishes (and presumably the wishes of other living things) c. It is ok to kill if necessary for survival. d. Some killing cannot be avoided while other killing can be avoided. Just trying to understand your overall position better. If my wishes are not more important than the wishes of others, why is it ok to kill lettuce? How do you reconcile 'my wishes are not more important than lettuce', and 'but it is ok to kill for survival'? Why is my survival more important than the survival of the lettuce? You said in point b. that my wishes are not more important than yours. How do you justify driving a car if you know bugs will be killed on the windshield? How do you justify killing any living thing on purpose, such as lettuce and mosquitos? How do you justify doing anything at all knowing that just by staying alive, other forms of life are going to die? Can you kill if convenient? If required for quality of life? If required to survive? If there is some justification for killing, does it apply to bacteria? plants? Animals? People? Is it ok to kill sentient and non-sentient beings? If either, why not the other? The whole point of the questions is to find out from you, Where is your line between ethical and not ethical? I get that you say killing a cow is crossing the line, but how did you arrive at that location? what were the factors? No, it doesn't mean that. That was a pretty big leap. I didn't say you'd have to prove we need meat to be absolutely functional, I said you have to prove the logical jump from "'we don't need it' to 'therefore we shouldn't get it'."

Ok, I think I'm getting a better idea of where you are coming from. Something that is still confusing me though is your use of the word ethics. Ethics is really about the concept of right and wrong. When you talk about a cow's life being ethically maxed I'm not sure what that means. It sounds as if you might be saying that from a cow's perspective (or the perspective of any living thing), living the longest life consistent with "quality" (I was going to say happiness, but I'm not sure cows can be happy) would be the best thing from the cow's perspective. Is this correct? If so, I can certainly agree with that. Right, I should have said "it appears as if you are saying...". Which it did to me. Again, I think some of the confusion comes from originally saying cows had rights, or to seemingly apply ethics to cows rather than people. So, if I can try to summarize what I think you are saying... Given that it is in the best interest of cows (and by extension, all living things) to live as long as possible consistent with a "quality" life, how do we reconcile the competing interests of the cow's maximized life with the maximized life of humans? Am I on track with what you are saying? No, I'd have to disagree here. Assuming the aliens have the concept of ethics, they may very well be acting ethically. If they believe it is right to eat little kids, then they are acting ethically. Of course I'm screwed, but that does not mean they did anything wrong. Getting back to the hawk and the rabbit, do you thing the hawk is acting unethically by eating the rabbit? Am I unethical for shooting the intruder who is threatening my family? The act of killing is not inherently unethical. Which is exactly what we are doing! We are considering what we are doing and determining if it is ethical. But let's not just jump from 'we don't need it' to 'therefore we shouldn't get it'. You'll have to prove that point. Absolutely not. I kill everyday, and so do you. Whether it is bacteria, mosquitos, lettuce, or cows (indirectly). You're going to have to work much harder than just a "suggestion" to get me on board with that proposition!

To me this is the problem. You have decided that in an ideal world everything would live as long as possible. You are not defending that position, you are making that statement as if it is true and accepted by all. Clearly it is not accepted by all. What most people are doing is telling you why they don't support that position, from logical, ethical, and practical perspectives. No one is attacking you, they are attacking that premise. I think it is time for you to make an argument stating why we should accept the premise that in an ideal world everything would live as long as possible. And when you do, please address the issues that Phi, Moon and I have raised. Everyone is saying this. The difference is that to you, maxing out the ethics means cows more or less die of old age, and for many of us it means they are not mistreated up to the point that we decide to put a bullet in their head and eat them.

Yes, thanks for the clarification. My comments didn't really stay in line with the question in the OP.

Perhaps then you should not have said "Interpret the question as you would like, share your thoughts."

One sheet of plywood is made up of multiple plys, or veneers, layered at right angles, usually an odd number of plys. So yes, a sheet of plywood is strong in all directions. Sorry, but I can't help you with all types of laminates. I know more about wood than most other materials.

Well, that would depend on whose ideal world we are talking about. In a cow's ideal world, the killing of cows hinders their IORs. In an ideal world for me I would have steaks produced in my back yard. The problem is that cows don't get to participate in these discussions. So from my perspective what we are really talking about is an ideal world for people. In our ideal world do we want cows to live a long and fruitful life or do we want them turned into veal? Do we treat them well or do we maximize profit regardless of the effect on the cow? I think what most people are saying in this thread is that we want our hamburgers, but we don't want to cause unnecessary suffering of cows to get them. To me this is a very reasonable position. Crows eat meat, lions eat meat, people eat meat. We are all the same in that regard. We did not choose to be this way, nature chose it for us. The difference is that people can, and often do, treat their dinner with a little more consideration. We don't have to stop being who we are, but since we have empathy, we can minimize the suffering of those we eat.

Plywood gets its desirable properties by aligning the wood grain of alternate plys at right angles to each other. AFAIK plywood does not use any other material (except glue of course).

Are you always this insulting?

Well, I wouldn't say any action at any distance can influence the game. And there is a big difference between 'can influence' and 'will influence'. If I roll over in bed five thousand files away from the game, in my closed room in which no one has any information about what is going on inside that room, I would say that action at that distance could not influence the game. And for something that could influence the game theoretically, such as me calling my mother on the phone, it seems unlikely the influence will make it to the game in time to impact it. I tend to count things. Not that anyone would notice, but I probably have some traits found in OCD. Anyway, one of the things I tend to count is steps I am walking up or down. If there are 13 steps I usually count my next step on flat ground just so I don't have to stop at 13. I don't think 13 is unlucky, but there I am counting to 14. Maybe because of all those childhood superstitions.

That may be the position he's moving toward, but I feel like he has been asking for much more than that. And since I don't think I've said it yet I'll say so now; I am all for the ethical treatment of animals. I do however feel that position is miles away from "every living being has a right to live".

Have I been so unreasonable that you feel the need to warn me about treating you fairly? Generally speaking the person making the claim needs to support their position. You've made several claims about rights posessed by animals and other living things, as well as ethics that you claim are obvious. I've questioned those claims, including a whole slew of questions in the last post that you did not address. Instead, you asked me to show why you are wrong. It would help if you would also answer the questions put to you. As far as me explaining why I have a problem with your statement that "every living being has a right to live", you could read my previous posts. I've raised a number of issues that make me question your statement. If you think I'm wrong, just refute them, and provide evidence and argument. However, my position on "every living being has a right to live" can be summed up as follows: 'Rights' is a concept created by man. There are no rights unless they are granted, such as by a king to his subjects, a group of people to themselves, or possibly by a God. Rights are generally written down, often in forms such as constitutions. Everyone does not have the same rights. In the US even people can have their right to life taken away from them. Rights are for the most part meaningless unless there is something in place to enforce the rights, such as a government. In the US, the right to free speech wouldn't mean much if it couldn't be enforced by the police, courts, and laws. Animals do not have rights. People can enforce ethical treatment of animals (which I guess could be considered animal rights) and do so regularly. If animals had the right to life then there would be some type of laws or enforcement in place. Since dogs and cats are regularly euthenized, mosquitos are sprayed, and pigs and cows are turned into sausages, I think that makes it pretty clear that, at least in the parts of the world I am familiar with, animals do not have the right to life. Most certainly, a rabbit who has been eaten by a hawk has not had his rights violated. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/973633/posts Given all of the above, it is my position that it is not true that "every living being has a right to live".