Political Crossfire Forums

[Demonic Spoon]

If you are not a vegetarian, do not answer the poll above.


Hypothetical question:

A guy brings you a deer, an axe, and one billion dollars. You have two options.

1) Kill the deer, and take the $1 billion. Keep in mind that investing this $1 billion into animal rights causes will end up saving more animals.

2) Do not kill the deer. The deer is set free into the wild.

Which one would you pick?

[ubikk]

Demonic Spoon wrote: If you are not a vegetarian, do not answer the poll above.


The way to do that in a poll is to include the option: "I am not a vegetarian" as one of the response options in the poll.

[Kindred]

Here's a question for you:

If you do not believe in human rights, do not answer the question.

Hypothetical question:

A guy brings you a human being with the same capacity to feel, think and suffer as a common deer, an axe, and one billion dollars. You have two options.

1) Kill the human being, and take the $1 billion. Keep in mind that investing this $1 billion into human rights causes will end up saving more humans.

2) Do not kill the human. The human is released.

Which one would you pick?

[Josh]

I'd set the deer free

and kill the human.

where's my billion, b****?

[black noise]

If we aren't supposed to eat humans then why are they made of meat?

Anyway, I don't see any logic in your question. What would the results mean? That some vegetarians have different moral standards than others? Some are uber-pacifists and some aren't? I fail to see the relevance.

[Demonic Spoon]

Kindred wrote: Here's a question for you:

If you do not believe in human rights, do not answer the question.

Hypothetical question:

A guy brings you a human being with the same capacity to feel, think and suffer as a common deer, an axe, and one billion dollars. You have two options.

1) Kill the human being, and take the $1 billion. Keep in mind that investing this $1 billion into human rights causes will end up saving more humans.

2) Do not kill the human. The human is released.

Which one would you pick?

Kill the human.


Quote: If we aren't supposed to eat humans then why are they made of meat?


Because "meat" is made up of proteins, muscles, etc... similar to how we function. As such, it is nutritious and a good meal, not because we're "supposed to" or not "supposed to"


Quote: Anyway, I don't see any logic in your question. What would the results mean? That some vegetarians have different moral standards than others? Some are uber-pacifists and some aren't? I fail to see the relevance.

It would satisfy my curiosity.

[ubikk]

Demonic Spoon wrote:

Because "meat" is made up of proteins, muscles, etc... similar to how we function. As such, it is nutritious and a good meal, not because we're "supposed to" or not "supposed to"



Actually, the kind of meat people prefer to eat is muscle meat, and it is not really that nutritious. It has protein and a little iron and maybe a couple of B vitamins but that's about it. All of the nutrition in animals is in the internal organs. Most true carnivores prefer to eat internal organs. In nature, scavengers end up eating a lot of the muscle meat.

If you analyze the digestive tract of humans, we most closely resemble omnivorous creatures that eat fruits and arthropods. Arthropods include most of the insects, shrimp, lobster, crabs, and things like that.

[black noise]

I was just mocking that anti-vegetarian comment: "if we aren't supposed to eat animals then why are they made of meat?" because obviously we are meat too. It wasn't really directed towards anyone.

[Kindred]

Demonic Spoon wrote: Kindred wrote: Here's a question for you:

If you do not believe in human rights, do not answer the question.

Hypothetical question:

A guy brings you a human being with the same capacity to feel, think and suffer as a common deer, an axe, and one billion dollars. You have two options.

1) Kill the human being, and take the $1 billion. Keep in mind that investing this $1 billion into human rights causes will end up saving more humans.

2) Do not kill the human. The human is released.

Which one would you pick?

Kill the human.



I thought humans had 'rights'?

[Demonic Spoon]

Quote:
I thought humans had 'rights'?

Rights come from the capacity to reason, and since a human with the mentality of a deer isn't going to think, he has no rights.

[Kindred]

Demonic Spoon wrote: Quote:
I thought humans had 'rights'?

Rights come from the capacity to reason, and since a human with the mentality of a deer isn't going to think, he has no rights.

So an infant also has no rights?

[MplsBison]

Kindred wrote:

So an infant also has no rights?

It's more than reasonable to suspect that it will in the future.

It's not reasonable to suspect that of a dog in the future.

[perdidochas]

black noise wrote: If we aren't supposed to eat humans then why are they made of meat?

We aren't supposed to eat humans because of the greater chance of getting diseases from human meat. That is why most (not all) animals don't scavenge their own kind. The closer an animal's tissue is to yours, the greater the chance that you can get a foodborne illness from them. That is why, for example, pork is more dangerous than beef. Pig parasites/diseases are more likely to be transmitted to humans than are cow parasites/diseases. (pig tissue is much like our own, that's why pig heart tissue is sometimes used in humans.

[perdidochas]

Demonic Spoon wrote: Quote:
I thought humans had 'rights'?

Rights come from the capacity to reason, and since a human with the mentality of a deer isn't going to think, he has no rights.

So you're saying that retarded people have no rights?

[Enoch]

Demonic Spoon wrote: If you are not a vegetarian, do not answer the poll above.


Hypothetical question:

A guy brings you a deer, an axe, and one billion dollars. You have two options.

1) Kill the deer, and take the $1 billion. Keep in mind that investing this $1 billion into animal rights causes will end up saving more animals.

2) Do not kill the deer. The deer is set free into the wild.

Which one would you pick? Oh, for god's sake...is the "butsecks" option really necessary? If you are trying to get an honest response from people, putting pointless options like that in a poll severely undermines your intent.

[MplsBison]

perdidochas wrote:

So you're saying that retarded people have no rights?

Even retarded people have much more capacity to reason than a dog.

[Demonic Spoon]

Quote:
Oh, for god's sake...is the "butsecks" option really necessary? If you are trying to get an honest response from people, putting pointless options like that in a poll severely undermines your intent.

how does it undermine my intent? Gives people who aren't vegetarians/don't want to comment an option to vote for so they don't dilute the poll results.


Quote: Even retarded people have much more capacity to reason than a dog.

Quote:
It's more than reasonable to suspect that it will in the future.

It's not reasonable to suspect that of a dog in the future.

Good posts.

[The Grandmaster]

Kindred wrote: Here's a question for you:

If you do not believe in human rights, do not answer the question.

Hypothetical question:

A guy brings you a human being with the same capacity to feel, think and suffer as a common deer, an axe, and one billion dollars. You have two options.

1) Kill the human being, and take the $1 billion. Keep in mind that investing this $1 billion into human rights causes will end up saving more humans.

2) Do not kill the human. The human is released.

Which one would you pick?
The two aren't related properly as even you can, and I think before have admitted, the animal cannot value it's life, as much as the human can, or would. In short it is my belief these animals have no aspirations or hopes, dreams or values in their life aside of eating and sleeping. Basically while they are alive, I don't believe they have as much to live for, by even a comparable margin, to a human. This is also somewhat parallel to our other thread.

And Kindred, you didn’t answer his question. What is your answer?

[agentkgb]

tman_ndsu08 wrote: Kindred wrote:

So an infant also has no rights?

It's more than reasonable to suspect that it will in the future.

It's not reasonable to suspect that of a dog in the future.
Out of curiosity, are you against abortion then?

[MplsBison]

agentkgb wrote:
Out of curiosity, are you against abortion then?

There's a difference between a baby that has been born and a baby still inside the mother.