Quote:
Me:
I eat meat and plants and have no problem at all with either. I do not see eating as a moral issue at all.
You:
Yes you do because no doubt you do not agree with eating and caging humans for such purposes.
Your response makes no sense. I do not agree with caging humans, but I could oppose caging humans and still be opposed to eating animals. Your "because" is nonsense.
Quote:
Me:
I assign a high level of rights to other humans, on the basis that I assume that they have the same level of self-awareness that I do.
You:
I do not understand how a scientist lives on foundations of assumption for such important matters.
You should understand as it is not difficult. There are many questions that cannot be answered that are important in our lives. Whether you are a scientist or not you have to make some kind of assumption and move forward as best you can.
Quote:
Me:
If you want me to assign that level of respect to animals, you will have to prove to me that they also possess that same quality.
You:
But why should no one have to prove to you that fellow humans have the same level of consciousness, evolution suggests we are from the same source.
I said it was an assumption. It is a personal choice. Nothing more profound than that. Evolution suggests that the starting point a billion years ago was the same. It does not say that the endpoint is the same.
Quote:
Me:
In the absence of proof, I have absolutely no interest in your concerns, at all. I will continue to eat meat or plants in whatever proportion I see fit without regard to those concerns.
You:
I don't think we need proof I think evolution points out we are all of the same original nature.
Again, evolution suggests that we started the same. Also, my statement was addressing my personal position. If you want to change my position you will need the proof I mentioned. Whether you need proof or not is not my concern.
Quote:
Me:
If it should come to pass that the animal rights advocates should get enough political power to make eating meat illegal, then I will stop.
You:
I find this strange too, to believe in the powers of law. Is it your countries law that you follow? Aren't many laws against the understandings of science? Regardless your beliefs on the morality of the issue would not change with the law would it?
I did not say anything about "powers of law". I simply stated that I was not willing to give up the benefits of living under the rule of law to preserve the freedom to eat meat.
Quote:
Me:
I am not willing to go to war to preserve my freedom to eat meat, but I will oppose those initiatives politically under all circumstances.
You:
We should be clear war does not bring freedom.
Your comment is nonsense. I am sure that it sounded profound to you, but it sounds childish to me. I spoke of the "freedom to eat meat" which is fairly narrow and I used the term "war" somewhat metaphorically. But we should be clear that war can bring freedom. For example, the American Revolutionary War brought US citizens freedom from taxes imposed from Britain. Right or wrong on a moral scale, the limited freedom attained is undeniable.
Quote:
Me:
No "if" required. Evolution is a fact.
You:
We are in the religious section
I do not care where we are. It is still a fact.
Quote:
Quote:
You also can direct evolution in the way you suggest.
...
In any event, you can direct evolution.
Me:
I appreciate the explanations but I highlighted these two parts, I am pretty sure science accepts that as well. Not sure why its called pokemon. Seems a 10 year would understand all this.
If you are trying to make a point, I have no idea what it is.
Quote:
Me:
To evolve a system as complex as photosynthesis which involves dozens of specific enzymes would take millions of years, just like the millions of years it took to evolve our current energy intake system, ie. a digestive system and a neurological system that allows us to seek out, ingest and digest energy sources.
You:
This does not whatsoever take into account the pace of technology.
Evolution is a term that refers to a largely natural process. The pace of evolution is slow. If we start to bring in other technologies such as genetic engineering, then things change. But that does not address your misuse and very probable misunderstanding of what evolution is and how it works.
Quote:
You:
But nonetheless I don't care that we can make it feasible, it seems clear to me if you follow the 'science' that it shows we have no basis for treating animals as lesser beings in these way, nor do we for plants.
Actually in some sense this is correct. Science does not really provide a basis for making an ethical decision about how to treat animals or plants. It does not remove it either. The entire question of ethics is not a scientific question at all. I suspect you do not really understand evolution or science very well. Perhaps you should try getting some education in those subjects before you plunge into debate about them.
