R/E/P Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9]   Go Down

Author Topic: The irony of meat-eating Animal rights activists  (Read 14336 times)

mgod

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4020
Re: The irony of meat-eating Animal rights activists
« Reply #120 on: December 28, 2007, 11:23:38 am »

Ashermusic wrote on Fri, 28 December 2007 08:09


In specific situations when fighting  is the only thing that can succeed, to be pacifistic is immoral. Fighting should always b e the last resort but sometimes it is necessary.

Obviously I am using pacifism with a capital P here.

But you're blurring the line all over the place. If some wars are necessary, as I think pretty much the world agrees WWII was, then what of many other wars? Is it sufficient to simply be a soldier in uniform in an unnecessary immoral war to say that its not terrorism that is being practiced on the innocent non-uniformed people in an invaded country?

And if BushCo is right that the US has "only" killed somewhat over 100,000 civilian Iraqis, is this somehow better than your definition of terrorism, simply because thy weren't specifically targeted? Our smart bombs in the first Iraq war were stupid - we knew well by the time of "Shock and Awe™" that we would kill civilians. And we killed away, willingly, for our strategeristic purposes. And this isn't terrorism? Weren't the people of Baghdad terrorized by our uniformed soldiers?

How is that a nation can define itself as exempt from terrorism? Just so we can sleep at night, knowing we've paid for it?

Your concept of moral equivalence is I think very shaky, and morally dubious. It can easily be made to serve what's easy for the perpetrators of violence and death-dealing. Which in this case, in Iraq, is us.

Some Saudis used planes to kill 3000 innocent Americans. In response we invaded a sovereign nation not involved in that act and killed between 100,000 and 655,000 innocents - and not coincidentally, now about 4000 of our own. Somehow, you find a way to justify that response as legitimate and NOT terrorism. The message to the world is "Don't fuck with us! Did you see what we did to those asshole Iraqis who didn't attack us? Just imagine what we'll do to you if you do - unless you're Saudi."

Its beyond me.

DS
Logged
"There IS no Coolometer." - Larry Janus

Ashermusic

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 684
Re: The irony of meat-eating Animal rights activists
« Reply #121 on: December 28, 2007, 01:24:46 pm »

mgod wrote on Fri, 28 December 2007 16:23

[.


1.  Is it sufficient to simply be a soldier in uniform in an unnecessary immoral war to say that its not terrorism that is being practiced on the innocent non-uniformed people in an invaded country?

2., is this somehow better than your definition of terrorism, simply because thy weren't specifically targeted?

3. Your concept of moral equivalence is I think very shaky, and morally dubious. It can easily be made to serve what's easy for the perpetrators of violence and death-dealing. Which in this case, in Iraq, is us.

4. Some Saudis used planes to kill 3000 innocent Americans. In response we invaded a sovereign nation not involved in that act and killed between 100,000 and 655,000 innocents - and not coincidentally, now about 4000 of our own. Somehow, you find a way to justify that response as legitimate and NOT terrorism. The message to the world is "Don't fuck with us! Did you see what we did to those asshole Iraqis who didn't attack us? Just imagine what we'll do to you if you do - unless you're Saudi."

5. Its beyond me.

DS[/quote]


1. Yes, it is sufficient. We don't consider Nazi soldiers terrorists, do we?

2. Yes, there is a huge moral difference in my mind when the targeting of innocents is the PRIMARY goal.

3. Any concept of morality can be twisted.

4. The last line should be, "Don't fuck with us! If you attack our innocent civilians on our own soil and you allow the perpetrators to come and go and train in your country, arm them and support them we are coming after you." And yes, it should have applied to the Saudis as well.

5. Clearly  Laughing  
Logged
Composer, Logic Pro Certified Trainer, Level 2
Author of "Going Pro with Logic Pro 8"

www.jayasher.com

PaulyD

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 867
Re: The irony of meat-eating Animal rights activists
« Reply #122 on: December 28, 2007, 01:28:49 pm »

Nick, I get your original point.

I used to work with a young woman who was very much against medical researchers using rats or rhesus monkeys, yet she had no problem regularly dashing out for lunch and returning with various fast-food burgers, chicken nuggets, milkshakes, etc. Like the suffering of rats and small primates for medical research was a horrible thing, but the suffering of cows, pigs and chickens for food is okay. That is ironic.

Paul

danickstr

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3641
Re: The irony of meat-eating Animal rights activists
« Reply #123 on: December 28, 2007, 02:14:34 pm »

that was the only point I was trying to make, but now we have a weed thread that is going for orbit...
Logged
Nick Dellos - MCPE  

Food for thought for the future:              http://http://www.kurzweilai.net/" target="_blank">http://www.kurzweilai.net/www.physorg.com

mgod

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4020
Re: The irony of meat-eating Animal rights activists
« Reply #124 on: December 29, 2007, 12:05:29 pm »

Ashermusic wrote on Fri, 28 December 2007 10:24


2. Yes, there is a huge moral difference in my mind when the targeting of innocents is the PRIMARY goal.

This is where we part. The Pentagon has plenty of experience with its own methods and tools. The term collateral damage came about during the Viet Nam war as a way of describing what the men running "our" side of this war had determined for themselves to be acceptable civilian death. Acceptable to them of course, sitting in Virginia.

Its irrelevant what the PRIMARY goal is when both sides know going in that they are causing civilian death. The terrorists intend it as their means, the war machine includes it and calls it "acceptable."

It seems to me that there is something considerably more honorable about suicide bombers taking their own lives while intentionally killing civilians, than fat old mean sitting half a world away sending in young men to kill what they might term "legitimate" targets, with full knowledge that they will also acceptably be taking civilian lives. And as has been repeatedly pointed out to you, likely 100 to 200 times more civilian deaths.

No - we don't call the Nazi soldiers terrorists. But tell me how they're different.  Their primary purpose was to terrorize and kill civilians.  As was the Allies, in firebombing Dresden.

Even BushCo didn't try very hard to push the lie that Al Qaeda was training in Iraq. Why are you?

DS
Logged
"There IS no Coolometer." - Larry Janus

Ashermusic

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 684
Re: The irony of meat-eating Animal rights activists
« Reply #125 on: December 29, 2007, 08:02:13 pm »

mgod wrote on Sat, 29 December 2007 17:05

Ashermusic wrote on Fri, 28 December 2007 10:24


2. Yes, there is a huge moral difference in my mind when the targeting of innocents is the PRIMARY goal.

This is where we part. The Pentagon has plenty of experience with its own methods and tools. The term collateral damage came about during the Viet Nam war as a way of describing what the men running "our" side of this war had determined for themselves to be acceptable civilian death. Acceptable to them of course, sitting in Virginia.

Its irrelevant what the PRIMARY goal is when both sides know going in that they are causing civilian death. The terrorists intend it as their means, the war machine includes it and calls it "acceptable."

It seems to me that there is something considerably more honorable about suicide bombers taking their own lives while intentionally killing civilians, than fat old mean sitting half a world away sending in young men to kill what they might term "legitimate" targets, with full knowledge that they will also acceptably be taking civilian lives. And as has been repeatedly pointed out to you, likely 100 to 200 times more civilian deaths.

No - we don't call the Nazi soldiers terrorists. But tell me how they're different.  Their primary purpose was to terrorize and kill civilians.  As was the Allies, in firebombing Dresden.

Even BushCo didn't try very hard to push the lie that Al Qaeda was training in Iraq. Why are you?

DS



We can endlessly rebut each other here and change no one's mind. I weigh intent as a bigger factor than you do so at this point we shall simply have to agree to disagree and cast our votes accordingly.
Logged
Composer, Logic Pro Certified Trainer, Level 2
Author of "Going Pro with Logic Pro 8"

www.jayasher.com

danickstr

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3641
Re: The irony of meat-eating Animal rights activists
« Reply #126 on: December 29, 2007, 11:54:50 pm »

well if you two are calling it quits, then how will I ever get my masters in forum debate?
Logged
Nick Dellos - MCPE  

Food for thought for the future:              http://http://www.kurzweilai.net/" target="_blank">http://www.kurzweilai.net/www.physorg.com

mgod

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4020
Re: The irony of meat-eating Animal rights activists
« Reply #127 on: December 30, 2007, 10:44:53 am »

I've been thinking this morning about the Blackwater "guards", uniformed mercenaries paid by every US taxpayer, who assassinated 16 innocents in a village a few months ago.

What to call them?

DS
Logged
"There IS no Coolometer." - Larry Janus

phantom309

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2855
Re: The irony of meat-eating Animal rights activists
« Reply #128 on: December 30, 2007, 11:10:31 am »

mgod wrote on Sun, 30 December 2007 08:44

I've been thinking this morning about the Blackwater "guards", uniformed mercenaries paid by every US taxpayer, who assassinated 16 innocents in a village a few months ago.

What to call them?

DS


Mercenaries.
Logged
Those that can't get carried away, should be.
http://www.audities.org
http://www.mellotron.com
http://www.myspace.com/auditiesrecording
David T. Kean

maxim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5828
Re: The irony of meat-eating Animal rights activists
« Reply #129 on: December 30, 2007, 06:24:17 pm »

crack troops?... waffen ss?... murderers?...
Logged

mgod

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4020
Re: The irony of meat-eating Animal rights activists
« Reply #130 on: December 31, 2007, 12:37:17 pm »

maxim wrote on Sun, 30 December 2007 15:24

crack troops?... waffen ss?... murderers?...

Terrorists?

DS
Logged
"There IS no Coolometer." - Larry Janus

RSettee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6796
Re: The irony of meat-eating Animal rights activists
« Reply #131 on: January 02, 2008, 01:32:14 pm »

maxim wrote on Tue, 11 December 2007 21:03

index.php/fa/6937/0/

 http://fiendfolio.blogspot.com/2007/05/hand-wound-monday-cro codile-attack.html


I have to hand it to that croc--he is one baaad mofo. Geez man, that's ROUGH.
Logged

mgod

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4020
Logged
"There IS no Coolometer." - Larry Janus

danickstr

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3641
Re: The irony of meat-eating Animal rights activists
« Reply #133 on: January 13, 2008, 08:18:15 pm »

IT was a video like that one that finally convinced me to forgo meat products.  

The one i saw was called "meet your meat".

I thought it was a porno and it turned out to be a veggie promo.jk
Logged
Nick Dellos - MCPE  

Food for thought for the future:              http://http://www.kurzweilai.net/" target="_blank">http://www.kurzweilai.net/www.physorg.com

Tomas Danko

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4733
Re: The irony of meat-eating Animal rights activists
« Reply #134 on: January 14, 2008, 08:00:24 am »

danickstr wrote on Mon, 14 January 2008 01:18

IT was a video like that one that finally convinced me to forgo meat products.  

The one i saw was called "meet your meat".

I thought it was a porno and it turned out to be a veggie promo.jk


Stellar.

I never knew the desire to masturbate could turn someone into a vegetarian!
Logged
http://www.danko.se/site-design/dankologo4s.gif
"T(Z)= (n1+n2*Z^-1+n2*Z^-2)/(1+d1*z^-1+d2*z^-2)" - Mr. Dan Lavry
"Shaw baa laa raaw, sidle' yaa doot in dee splaa" . Mr Shooby Taylor
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9]   Go Up