Well I got quite the reply from the lady from the other Aussie Farms site. She again is Bold Italics and my replies are not. Out of courtesy her name has not been used, but we'll give her a fake name...Jay.
Peter the fact that you appeal to a "higher authority" means there is no point in discussion.
Oh I wonder why? So even though I never stated what Moral Authority/Creator/Lawgiver/God/Religion I "appeal" to (actually its try to follow & try not to appeal at all) because I believe in a "higher authority" there is no point in the discussion.
Ahh lemme think on this I'm a God follower of unknown type therefore conversation is over.
I'm suspecting she's only keen to talk to atheists wishing to lock onto an animal cult or...no, we better not speculate.
It's a logical fallacy along with the few straw men you threw in, but that figures.
Yes, logical fallacies/straw man argument. This is where one brings in an unrelated argument which is indisputable so as to bolster the argument. Jay was only ever expected to expand on her (and others) Moral Truth Claim. If its Moral, shows us by what standard, what Moral Authority you make the claim. She went onto to mention murder, rape, slavery & thieving. Now these are strawman arguments, because they have no relation to animals. Currently all legal statutes on this crimes have humans as the victims, no animals. OK except maybe bestiality which Peter Singer who she less so follows these days is questioning.
Would I throw in a straw man argument, you bet I try to avoid doing so but sometimes I drop my guard and drop one in. It helps no one generally. Guess if we'd stuck to the original line of questioning "If you make a Moral Truth Claim, please cite the Moral Authority, Moral Standard etc you're using as the standard to determine your judgement please"
If Jay had stuck to that, indeed if I'd held firm and tried to hold Jay to that we'd not see so many rabbit holes and distractions. I'll cop a portion of the blame ;-)
All you have to say is "it's ok with God, it's ok with me" without ever having to demonstrate anything.
Wrong, never said that at all, dunno why it even has quotation marks really.
Reminder Jay, I wasn't making a Moral Truth Claim about animal slaughter, meat processing and meat consumption as being bad, wrong, inherently cruel or evil. Y'know I never mention what religion etc I follow but if I was asked why is it Amoral as I contend and by which stand do I base that claim I can and would. Again, Jay is beginning to be an atheist who opposes any God (as she didn't ask which God I had in mind) and very possibly is Moral Relativist. If that's right there's a moral implosion where she's at.
Convenient. It was also used by those who had slaves to justify human slavery.
Ahh maybe, but if you check the Torah, the Bible, the Koran (just to cover the big three religions) you'll find with proper hermeneutics/interpretation of those "Scriptures" there is nothing to support the African American slave trade. In fact the slavery abolitionists were Christians (not sure about Jewish or Islamic persons) and they used proper reading of the Scriptures to help persuade governments to oppose it, that and throw in a Civil War. I'm still looking but I can only find Moral Relativist Atheists amongst the pro slavery crowd, not the abolitionists. Oops sorry, I got sucked in, I see what you did...bugger you dropped a Strawman argument in there. :-)
What happened back then if God was so successfully used to justify human slavery?
People have been twisting the Scriptures of the Jewish faith, Christianity and Islam for centuries, in the case of the former two, for millennia. This why people should be quick to say and ask "by what standard do you make that claim?" - I'm not sure that it was accepted part of Jewish/Christian/Islam brutally kidnap people and force them into an utterly cruel life of slavery. definitely 2 of the 3 don't support that, not sure even Islam does, (need to do more checking). Oops I got way laid on the Strawman distraction again. It would be a better strawman if the claims Jay attached actually held a modicum of truth historically and the facts were viewed in context.
Was God wrong or were the people who used his name wrong?
Which God do you mean Jay because you've kinda poo-canned any possible God. If you're talking of the "Big 3" well its pretty easy (but you deftly avoided this possibility which is actually the most right "The people, who used his name/word wrongly, were very wrong.
You said: "I don't believe in harm for pleasure that's for sure" - So why do you harm and kill animals?
Firstly I have never deliberately, maliciously or wilfully (3 very important legal angles) harmed any animal.
Secondly, killed? Yes. Why? Well eating meat is Amoral, it is not "moral or immoral". By the way, that's a moral truth claim, which can be backed up by referencing a Moral Authority. I didn't make it up, I didn't cherry pick aspects of various religions to create my own hand picked bowl of ok-ness.
I, and many other vegans, are living proof we have no need to use animals.
Ahh that's fine, good for you. I have always held the view you get to choose how to fuel your body. I would never force anyone to eat meat...nor should anyone see fit to say I shouldn't eat meat because its immoral, inherently cruel, bad and/or evil without citing a moral standard by which I can assess the claim.
The only justification is "I like the taste", "I like wool" etc. Nothing to do with necessity but pleasure.
Sooo necessity is the only Moral Good? At last we see that like many overt vegans who brandish false morals about, you may say that you've left Peter Singer behind a bit, but we genuinely see you haven't. Life is still very morally correct if its utilitarian...kinda.
Necessity means you live a 50 year old fibre home with a tin roof, 2 bedrooms one toilet, harvesting your own water etc. You don't need to be in the metro area, you don't need anything remotely pleasurable it must be, whatever it is necessity based. Lets not be duplicitous now."The only justification is..." sorry, its never been likes but we see here with the surface scratched ever so slightly that "likes" is central to you Jay. You don't like meat for food...therefore it is bad, wrong, immoral and evil. You don't like animal fibres being used...therefore animal fibres are bad, wrong, immoral and evil. Do you like a good free trade soy latte? If you do like such a beverage...its therefore good, right, moral and without fault. Yet again we return to Moral Relativism. Stripped of all the profoundly vague and vaguely profound blah-blah its really "There is no deity, if there is, its me" - Yeah good luck with that...sorry yours is an opinion based on what you like and what you hate. I mean that's ok if you want to go that path but it'd be way more honest to just say that than to falsely cloak up in moral outrage garments from various clashing religions you don't otherwise follow. That approach could actually be used to justify slavery in theory couldn't it. Oops again I went too far exposing the false nature of the strawman you shouldn't have let onto the field. (insert smiley perhaps?)
I believe in Ahimsa (do no harm) and most religions have a very similar Golden Rule (do unto others...).
Ahhh...hahahaha "Ahimsa" - no if that's what you believe in you must be...
a) Hindu (which has a number of differing sects)
b) Buddhist (which has a number of differing sects)
c) Jainism follower (which has a number of differing sects)
d) An atheist who's cherry picked a number of aspects of various religions which conform to your self appointed requirements in life (bits you "like") and disposed ignored bits you don't "like"
So far if were to lodge a bet, it'd be a dead cert on d)
You know the Jain diet can in some sects also exclude root vegetables so if you're c) you need to get them out too. Jains like the Buddhist & Hindus have a central reincarnation belief at its core. If you're planning to claim someone famous from the past as one of your previously lives, you need to get in fast before all the good ones are gone. Reincarnation has the maths don't work problem, there's more people alive today than any other period in time and many many times more than say 200BC. So new folk have been coming from somewhere. OOps.
Hindu of course is very much to blame for the caste system in India which is a grotesque form of socio-economic form of slavery. Hindus often grapple terribly with the non violence approach then burn daughters alive for choosing partners from lower castes.
You really got to be a Richard Gere type Buddhist. Go through the motions and stick with the bits you "like" and try to ignore and hide the bits you don't "like"
Oops, the extremely false imploding strawman got me again ;-)
Now whilst on the topic of Hindu/Buddhism/Jainism and how Ahisma is a part of those three...so too is Asceticism characterized by abstinence from worldly pleasures, often pursuing spiritual goals. Ahisma and Ascerticism get separated and although its found in a number of other religions, "A & A" are usually co-joined twins...until you get to folk who like to create their own worldview.
Duplicitous is a word that fits well, very well. Its a part of Moral Relativism and another good pointer why it not only implodes, it goes sinkhole. Morally Incoherent is what some philosophers suggest. I call it that and far worse.
By "being" I mean a sentient being so that means both human and non-human animals.
Again it should come as no surprise that "sentient" being is something some philosophy
leaders" have cherry picked from eastern religions...namely Hindu, Buddhism & Jainism. They deftly left out the other parts and rather than formulate ideas, they co-opted appealing aspects that suited their purpose.
Saying you adhere to "Ahimsa" is kinda like saying "Oh I believe and follow the Proverbs from the Bible...but nothing else in the Bible, I'm not Jewish"
Or, "Oh I believe in and follow Revelation, but that's it from the New Testament for me, I'm not a Christian"
Now how funny is it Jay pointed to "and most religions have a very similar Golden Rule (do unto others...)." - is that cherry picking all completely laid open and bare for all to see. "do unto others..." comes from the Bible, same book of faith declaring itself the ONLY WORD OF GOD, of the ONLY GOD and that there is NO OTHER God. So if you point to the Bible, how do you escape being dodgey if you only choose the bit that suits you and your position which you then say is MORAL and then attack Judeo/Christian scripture as being false and without validation.
Odd yeah...unless you're a Moral Relativist who can say what they like is good and what they don't is wrong, then you're ok...but even then as long as you don't apply any scrutiny because then its gunna fall flat straight away. You need to hide, come out and throw logic hand grenades and then go hide again in a deep hole. Yes eventually you'll realise you've pulled the pin and thrown it at logic and run back into the protected cave with the grenade. It is gunna go off, but only you will see it, you intended victim outside will know you've self detonated but not seen it and as we all know "Pictures or it didn't happen"
Oh on the topic of eradicating non native species, or rather exterminating introduced species that are declared pests, apparently that hit a nerve too & I was asked about the dispatching of all non native species (I added that are declared pests but never mind) I was then asked "Are you aboriginal?"I guess the barrel has a bottom but yet that's no barrier to those searching for more $3.00 notes
Peter you might be interested in this man http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Linzey
Why? You contend that Christianity is worthless, is without sense or reason, supports slavery, contributed to it. Now you find one point to support your view its ok to use.
Duplicitous...AGAIN :-)
You know Linzey is highly regarded for his work on the theology of creation?
OK, you threw me another logical fallacy, straw man...no wait, you're cherry picking again.
Just because someone is of the clothe, doesn't make them a good pastor. If they're not a good pastor (and you'll find the Bible is actually pretty specific about that, very prescriptive) then we don't have to listen to them on any matters pertaining to theology and his work with Regan skirts conflict with Scripture. But you knew that right Jay?
Oh that's right, he's a professor, a theologian...not a pastor. He can say anything he "likes"
Handy that.
Now on the topic of my Aboriginality/Non-Aboriginality...indigenous Australians are a proud people of an ancient culture and if I am or ain't sure as hell ain't relevant to anything.
Always someone dragging race, Nazis, the Holocaust, Stalin, Pol Pot into unrelated topics to bolster a failing argument.
Don't be fooled folks, stop, take a deep breath and look at what matters.
Don't be fooled by people running into caves with live grenades that are about to go off.
Whilst Jay made the point of looking at Andrew Linzey's work, please balance it out and read this http://www.theologicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/animals_vantassel.pdf
Its important, more so if you're Jewish, Messianic Jewish or Christian
Your Scriptures will show you that you have "dominion responsibilities"
Unlike the uber fab cherry picking set ;-)
No comments:
Post a Comment