posted on Jan, 26 2014 @ 09:40 AM
All animal life on this planet must consume other life in order to perpetuate their own. Because of this most animals (humans included) have a
decided preference toward making decisions that favor their own species. Again, in part because of the biological paradigm of the former, this can be
at the cost of other species. For human beings, this often falls into those categories that we determine moral or not. In the end, it is subjective,
and often little more than a justification. Which leads me too...
But at all of these dinners they serve meat! I'm a vegan, so I discuss this with her and it's usually the same answer: Animals don't have
All I see here are is one person trying to out holier-than-thou the other. In short, Preachy, meet Preachier.
These social activists have every right to call themselves anti-abortion. But being pro-life without going vegetarian (let alone the capital
punishment argument) doesn't compute in my universe of semantics and reality.
edit on 26-1-2014 by Aleister because: (no reason given)
Arguments built upon semantics alone are weak ones, and easily discarded. Language is not reality, it is simply an abstraction that is an attempt to
communicate an understanding of reality.
However, if you were to simply define which stance is "more moral" at the end of the day taking a stance that all life is sacred is more moral.
Ironically, if you take a moral stance to its inevitable conclusion you will always run the risk of taking actions as a result of it that are
Leave your friend to her moral determinations and keep your own.
Personally, I disagree with both of you, because of the inherent risk of taking a rigid moral stance. Those kind of blinders make for cruelty that is
not even aware of itself.
edit on 26-1-2014 by redhorse because: (no reason given)
edit on 26-1-2014 by redhorse because:
(no reason given)