07-13-2012, 01:17 PM
(07-13-2012, 08:38 AM)ShinAr Wrote: Let's say we are walking down the road and suddenly we see a little boy playing with his cat in the middle of the street and there is a large truck bearing down on them.
Is there any doubt which one you would try to pull out of the way if you only had enough time to save one?
I have always liked Captain Kirk's take on the Kobayashi Maru test: he cheated because he did not believe in a no-win scenario. I do not think there is only one possibility for the outcome of the above scenario (save one or the other). I would save both.
You are right in one sense. Humans are of a kind, and we have something called solidarity. Because of this, a human will save the human first. This is not, however, proof that humans are more valued in this universe.
(07-13-2012, 08:38 AM)ShinAr Wrote: All we can do is what we think is the right thing to do in the moment.
I agree.
(07-13-2012, 08:38 AM)ShinAr Wrote: But to try to burn the restaurant down because they have steak on the menu will not serve to benefit your ideal, it will only serve to enrage the innocent people that you have abused by acting in extremity. Your cause will not be what is made known, and instead the fame will be in that you would be branded as an extremist and a danger to human life.
This is a bizarre statement. You have apparently misread, misinterpreted, and misaligned those who care for animals and the vegetarian members here at B4.
(07-13-2012, 08:38 AM)ShinAr Wrote: If we choose 2d over 3d to be our only focus, and excuse that as an honor and responsibility, we are simply slapping the food out of the mouths of our neighbors simply because we choose to believe that we are somehow better than they.
Choosing 2D over 3D? Where did that come from? I think all life is sacred, all things important; humans are not the most important (to me). Are you saying that it is more important for humans to enjoy the taste of meat than it is to consider the lives of 2D animals being tortured and terrified? It has been pointed out many times that the world would be better off not eating animals; that human starvation is linked to animal farming.
Most crops grown to feed meat animals - highly inefficient - we could end starvation by feeding people instead of farm animals, + kill fewer plants too!
post: #2026
You Tube video: 87% of all agricultural land in the US is used to feed farm animals; plus success at raw vegan clinic with major illnesses
post #237
If every American gave up meat for 1 day a week . . . quirky facts
post: #253
(07-13-2012, 08:38 AM)ShinAr Wrote: If one has a desire to make an aspect of this world better, and chooses to embark upon activism to achieve that honorable goal, then do so with the readiness that compromise will have to be made on certain levels, or one steps from activist into the path of extremism and fundamentalism which leads to uncompromising disharmony.
But this only works with issues and entities outside of humanity? If children were being tortured and slaughtered, would you compromise?
My dear Shin'Ar, I see the fundamental difference between your point of view and mine as what we deem important. I cannot single out humanity as being "the most important." An example would be the planet Earth, our home. Without her, Our Great Mother, we would not even exist (physically), so how can we humans be more important than her?