atkinsdietalert.org

"Lyle McDonald" wrote in message
...
OmegaZero2003 wrote:

"Lyle McDonald" wrote in message
...
Dan Ostler wrote:

Sarah - I believe your statement that "meat eating involves
purposeful
killing of an aware being" is incorrect. The animal is not
"self-aware".
Animals live their lives instinctively.

And you know this factually how?

A cow does not wake up in the
morning and "think" that it's time to get some food.

Sure they are - they quite mootivated to find food.


sounds like a lot of humans these days.

One proof of animals
not being self-aware is that they do not recognize themselves in
mirrors.

That is not proof at all! Do you know what a proof consists of?

What is your defintion of self-awareness. Of consciousness? Of self
consciousness?

Learn to properly attribute, retard.

I was not talking to you retard! Do you see where I put my answers? Do you
see my statements right after the person's TO WHOM YOU were replying. DOH!



Lyle

Jonathan wrote
The evolutionary purpose of sex is procreation, it's the way we were
designed to survive. Therefore, contraception is immoral.

Well Jonathan, one good thing about it is that it may just keep someone
like you from reproducing.

--
Wayne Crannell
Atkins+ 10/27/01
Maintenance 10/1/02
250/138

Jonathan wrote:
Proton Soup wrote:

Don't let anyone tell you that killing animals for food is wrong.
When they tell you "meat is murder", turn to them and say "kill and
eat". Do not deny yourself flesh, and do not feel guilty when you
kill. I am a predator, and I am unashamed.

Until relatively recently, cannibalism (for nutritional rather than
ritual purposes) was quite common. They killed and ate. They were
predators and they were unashamed.

It was in a recent Discovery magazine that I read about evidence of
cannibalism. I thought it was in Neanderthal sites. So it is not
clear that evolutionary modern humans did much of it.

[This thread has nothing to do with misc.fitness.weights. I removed
that group from this post's distribution.]


On 5 Dec 2003 02:49:02 -0800, (Jonathan)
wrote:
(Sarah Fox Jahn) wrote in message . ..
On 4 Dec 2003 02:44:54 -0800, (Jonathan)
wrote:
The evolutionary purpose of sex is procreation, it's the way we were
designed to survive. Therefore, contraception is immoral.

Until relatively recently, cannibalism (for nutritional rather than
ritual purposes) was quite common. They killed and ate. They were
predators and they were unashamed.
Not that I'm vegan or vegetarian; it's just that your arguments,
especially the first one, are astonishingly crass.

Interesting, that equating of yours of procreation with morality.

What equation? Where? I think you'll find, if you look a little
closer, that I was being facetious. The argument above is a parallel
to the one used in the post I was responding to. This is a technique
known as "reductio ad absurdum".

OK, first of all, the "therefore" transforms your paragraph into an
argument leading to a conclusion, of "contraception is immoral." The
"therefore" makes an equation.

Second, no, I didn't get the facetiousness. Apparently I was not the
only dense one to not discern your "absurdum." (I'm familiar with the
term and technique, thanks.)

I
don't think evolution gets tangled up in that. From what I've seen,
humans, despite contraception, are having no problem procreating
enough to keep our numbers up. Gooooo team!

This is relevant how?

I would explain but I don't care enough.

And cannibals = somebody eating a burger? It's true, meat-eating
involves purposeful killing of an aware being, but come on. (I was a
vegetarian for 5 years and still, please.)

And despite my disclaimer that I was not a vegetarian (which was meant
to suggest to you that I wasn't trying to defend vegetarianism, just
to expose flawed reasoning), still you manage to read into my post
some kind of equation of meat eating and cannibalism. I was pointing
out that the "justification" for eating meat used in the argument I
responded to was unable to distinguish between killing humans for
food, and killing nonhuman animals for food. It was therefore likely
to be an unsound argument. Your response to my post suggests you agree
with me.

Yeah, it was a crappy argument... granted. Having a vegetarian past, I
am very aware I'm eating "nonhuman animals." I read into your post
what it was arguing, admittedly argued in an absurd way.

Sarah Jahn

"Lyle McDonald" wrote in message
...
Lexin wrote:

Jonathan wrote
The evolutionary purpose of sex is procreation, it's the way we were
designed to survive. Therefore, contraception is immoral.

That's a logical fallacy if ever I saw one, since when as
'evolutionary method of surival' been equivalent to morality?

Jonathan is making a standard fallacy, that what occurs in nature is
morally right.

Well actually he was commenting on someone else who did exactly that. The
example above were clearly an attempt to show how ridiculous the original
argument was (I am designed to eat meat, being a vegan is immoral)


By that logic, killing creatures weaker/inferior than you is also moral
since that is what most animals will do. This was the logic Hitler used
by the way.

Rape is quite common in many species, by Jon's logic, it is therefore
morally correct.

In some bird species, the child born first will frequently dump the egg
of its brothers out of the nest so that it can hoard the resources. By
Jon's logic, fratricide is moral.

You are making his point for him. This is a good reason to read what people
are responding to before you put too much in their statements.

/Jacob

(Lexin) wrote in message . com...
Jonathan wrote
The evolutionary purpose of sex is procreation, it's the way we were
designed to survive. Therefore, contraception is immoral.

That's a logical fallacy if ever I saw one,

Exactly! A logical fallacy! You see, guys, sometimes an effective way
to show the fallacious reasoning of one argument can be to show the
absurd conclusions that analogous reasoning can produce.

Of course, when used in a pithy, rhetorical fashion, this device
unfortunately presupposes too advanced a grasp of irony for most
people.

Jonathan

On 6 Dec 2003 03:26:40 -0800, (Jonathan)
wrote:

(Lexin) wrote in message . com...
Jonathan wrote
The evolutionary purpose of sex is procreation, it's the way we were
designed to survive. Therefore, contraception is immoral.

That's a logical fallacy if ever I saw one,

Exactly! A logical fallacy! You see, guys, sometimes an effective way
to show the fallacious reasoning of one argument can be to show the
absurd conclusions that analogous reasoning can produce.

Of course, when used in a pithy, rhetorical fashion, this device
unfortunately presupposes too advanced a grasp of irony for most
people.


"One of the major difficulties Trillian experienced in her
relationship with Zaphod was learning to distinguish between him
pretending to be stupid just to get people off their guard, pretending
to be stupid because he couldn't be bothered to think and wanted
someone else to do it for him, pretending to be outrageously stupid to
hide the fact that he didn't actually understand what was going on,
and really being genuinely stupid."
-Douglas Adams

Jacob Andersen wrote:

"Lyle McDonald" wrote in message

By that logic, killing creatures weaker/inferior than you is also moral
since that is what most animals will do. This was the logic Hitler used
by the way.

Rape is quite common in many species, by Jon's logic, it is therefore
morally correct.

In some bird species, the child born first will frequently dump the egg
of its brothers out of the nest so that it can hoard the resources. By
Jon's logic, fratricide is moral.

You are making his point for him. This is a good reason to read what people
are responding to before you put too much in their statements.

Too much effort and for all I know he was being serious.

Lyle

On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 09:16:34 -0500, Robert Dorf wrote:

On 6 Dec 2003 03:26:40 -0800, (Jonathan)
wrote:

(Lexin) wrote in message . com...
Jonathan wrote
The evolutionary purpose of sex is procreation, it's the way we were
designed to survive. Therefore, contraception is immoral.

That's a logical fallacy if ever I saw one,

Exactly! A logical fallacy! You see, guys, sometimes an effective way
to show the fallacious reasoning of one argument can be to show the
absurd conclusions that analogous reasoning can produce.

Of course, when used in a pithy, rhetorical fashion, this device
unfortunately presupposes too advanced a grasp of irony for most
people.


"One of the major difficulties Trillian experienced in her
relationship with Zaphod was learning to distinguish between him
pretending to be stupid just to get people off their guard, pretending
to be stupid because he couldn't be bothered to think and wanted
someone else to do it for him, pretending to be outrageously stupid to
hide the fact that he didn't actually understand what was going on,
and really being genuinely stupid."
-Douglas Adams

Perhaps it's his attempt at Vogon poetry.