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.
0 comments:
Post a Comment