Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Al Gore vs George Bush: the moderate's perspective -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DAVID C. DeANGELIS who wrote (1586)	10/8/2000 2:55:29 PM
From: cosmicforce	Respond to of 10042

Hi David, I came to being a vegetarian for two reasons: a) health benefits of eating mostly vegetables, b) objections to animal husbandry. I gave up hunting and fishing due to similar questions I asked myself regarding the ethical aspects of these activities. Causing harm for enjoyment seems to be a weakly defensible position. You bring up interesting questions. I've posted on this and other topics elsewhere in SI so I'm reluctant to rehash my philosophical discourses that may not be interesting to a large percentage of people here. The fact is that most people don't ask the hard questions. If a fetus has the neural development of a shrimp, then why do we give less respect to the shrimp? Do I mourn the lost of a mindless appendix which was taken from me when I was 13 merely because it is made of human flesh? No. But to even pose the question will raise the ire of some. The most surprising aspect of this philosophy is that people who value shrimplike fetuses, are completely intolerant of fully grown adults. They have no compassion for sentient adults but are bubbling over with compassion for the fetus, which IMO, is a lower lifeform. Frequently they will deride Buddhist, Hindu or others that question the ethical aspects of eating anything animal. Inconsistency doesn't matter. Opinion is everything and if their opinion is illogical or inconsistent, they just get angry if you point it out. Any unquestioned belief is dangerous. If one is intelligent and starts asking what is the basis for our decisions and whether should we exercise more compassion, then one is frequently labeled and derided for showing this intelligence. Those that are sure they are right, but lack a philosophical basis for their beliefs, are kidding themselves. They are clueless because they have never exercised a critical thought. IMO, the right-to-lifers have a stronger philosophical argument in the abstract but it is the inconsistency of their practices, as demonstrated by the rest of their lives, that throws me. They will hold an absolute view of the rights of fetus, yet they are against providing sustaining efforts for the full term result. Oh yes, and generally against the prevention of the fetus in the first place. These widely varied and inconsistent opinions arise when one doesn't take the time to analyze positions logically and insist upon coherence. It is much easier to believe what you pick up from those who are telling you what you want to hear. Never mind that data and rhetoric are at odds.

To: DAVID C. DeANGELIS who wrote (1586)	10/8/2000 10:44:51 PM
From: long-gone	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10042

<<if an animal bothers us kill it without regard because we are superior brained beings who need not consider those creatures who are inferior or the macro consequences of our actions.>> In this world, much of the animal kingdom is either prey or predator - nothing more. When we allow the other great predators of the world no longer to regard us as another (VERY)dangerous predator Via reduction of hunting pressure, we drop down the food chain into the class of "prey". No rational same person would dare support abuse of these (often rare)natural resources, but we must not not allow the other predator's understanding of our position with-in the food chain(and that of our young) to fall to the point of "resource" for them.