Pressure Points In Neck To Fall Asleep

vegetarianism and moral superiority

purpose of entertainment I was reading under http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=grill Maddox's fine polemic about the morality of conviction vegetarians. I think I need to say something:

I can think of two of arguments, responding that vegetarians (or vegans to differentiate not like here) to pointing out that they live even kill plants by themselves, which either incompatible with the demand for a right to life for each creature is.
The first argument I hear is that a total of less vegetarians cause suffering, since they have to die only plants, while meat eaters are responsible for the death of plants and animals.
The second argument focuses on the Incomparability of plants with people from, for example "Plants can not feel pain because they have no central nervous system (CNS).

Well, the hypocrisy of the first point is easy to debunk: According to this argument, we are all terrible killer just vegetarians have less because they are less death on their conscience. Every person to whom this line of argument is fallen prey can be drawn to the other which does not cause fewer deaths, the city-vegetarian, which goes perhaps a car can be the, the bus goes to the model so take until we arrived at the forest hermits . Just that these days even life itself kills to live. In order to "kill" is no longer man has to kill himself. That would be the ultimate consequence.
evidence that you will at least do something, and it therefore "better" I would be dismissed with the remark that these selfish Selbstschmeichelei brings nothing to anyone except his own ego.

The second argument is the more interesting, but even it lays claim to a supposed scientific and offenbahrt it but the fundamental anthropocentrism and lack of empathy of vegetarians. It is therefore verlautbahrt that still have life, not all creatures equally entitled to, plants, since they might even feel any pain. They can not feel pain because it lacks a central nervous system (Such as humans and animals) have. Far away from the fact that it is established that plants respond to a trimming , and nothing else is pain: A reaction damn whether using a CNS or not, shows this argument which in fact is the benchmark, after which defines what is eaten can and can not, something similar to what extent the people.
So: Has something of a central nervous system, red blood, facial expressions and gestures is to communicate it to be able by sound, we can see the essence of human emotions, it must not be eaten. Other way: the man is somewhat dissimilar, the more likely it may be eaten. This hierarchy can
observed in many people, such as cannibalism is outlawed throughout the world, the first of what a vegetarian is avoided red meat, then chicken, many vegetarians eat fish, then dispense general information on animal products, then on plants harvested "violently" then we are Aryans Fruit ...

vegetarians take for themselves to be objective and scientific as they are only one claim: human. They are people who feel so much compassion for other creatures who resemble them, that they do want other people to protect these beings.
want to acknowledge this truth very few of them, they still claim to universality the vegetarian doctrine undermined. But it has exposed the vegetarians, it is clear now that behind all the ideological facade but is only a man who complains that life is so cruel. Here again I recommend Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morals, "he indian simple very well with the psychology of these deals minds.

Direct Tv Dvd Recorder

The battle for "personal freedom"

In the end, we live in, shoot the fighters for all sorts of "personal freedoms" such as homosexuality, marijuana, or even computer games only way out of the ground. The exponents of these movements see themselves as brave freedom fighters. These movements will now "the law" or the "public Opinion change ", so that it can find all the human toll when two Gayboyz smooch in the town or a punk public 'nen Joint infectious.

There are people who talk about things, and there are those who do these things. In fact, it is seen live has always been a problem in Germany or the United States as too gay promiskös One can also easily smoke pot or take other drugs, the secret is simple:... Vice-up and sent to stop your face

The people that talk about these things, they hang from the rooftops, encounter other people who have a different opinion on the head. Moralisierenderweise the roar then a "pervert" or "junkie" the other drivel about the "intolerance" of the opposite side. The question I ask myself is whether this approach is practical and what is the true motivation of the freedom fighters.

to Practice: The problem persists as long as current as the struggle for its solution. During this time the public (and executive) attention is increasingly turned to the certain topic. Now times win the reformers. The problem disappears from the public short-term memory. At some point somebody is thinking of times and again that the problem is not solved yet and is launching an initiative, all turn to look the other way. Same positions, new distribution of forces. The bottom line is always blabber all shit and nothing happens.
The upper one is deliberately very general, but everyone will recognize some truth in it.

The motivation of our freedom fighters is not the freedom itself, which is absolutely necessary in practical terms, who wants to can fuck people of the same sex and when I block I make 2 phone calls and my room is full of grass and hashish.
Some of these freedom fighters tell me that they want not only that their goal is achieved, they also want public opinion (deine!) to mean change that you find good, what they are fighting. Gays do not want being gay as "good" is like his hetero-and pothead that smoking pot as "good" is like alcohol. The no more and no less, that is, as freedom fighters, those who argue, are nothing but opinion Nazis, shitty fucker, want to restrict freedom. And for what?

Anyone who is in need to smoke a joint in his knowledge that it is accepted by society is a poor sausage. Anyone who needs something makes itself totally dependent on "public opinion" and is absolutely not free. Like flags in the wind, the desire to control which way the wind blows. As if it would interest anyone, what you do. Keep your face and everything is cool. There will always be people who have different opinions, but that one must not interested yet. I do not give a damn who thinks what about me.

is the best that this feeling of Akzeptiertseins what you want to achieve our freedom Kämp Ferchen nothing else than just that: a feeling. And emotions are something one experiences subjectively. Akzeptiertsein ... an idea, a better hallucination that you want to indulge in only when the substance was removed from the favorite BtmSG. Man sets himself an arbitrary target and is pleased to have reached it ... you excited yet so of life. What is interested in any law books but no one ...


Nothing is certain, there is no total control. Nothing is forbidden and anything goes. Do what you want is the whole of the law. And the law is in the heart. One must only accept it.