(June 2, 2014 at 11:21 am)alpha male Wrote: No, you wrote stuff. You didn't answer it.Then take issue with what I wrote. Don't disingenuously claim I dodged the question.
Quote:Arguably? You can argue anything, I suppose, but the fact is that people don't need to eat meat.Which gets into a complex issue of human dietary requirements. Is a vegetarian or vegan lifestyle really sufficient? Some biologists belief the very reason we evolved our superior brains and therefore can have this discussion at all is because we started eating fish.
Quote:No, I would find that to be immoral, because I think kittens are cute.Non Sequitur. The reason you offer is not related to morality.
Quote:Sure. [it's OK to treat self-aware robots as disposable]Thank you for discontinuing your waffling on this issue and revealing yourself as amoral.
Quote:And by yours, if someone finds kittens tasty, meh, fuck 'em - people need to eat."Gratuitous violence", remember that distinction?
Killing for food =/= killing for fun (or torture for fun)
And you dodged the question by changing the subject to what I believe.
Quote:And there's no legitimate reason that the line needs to be drawn at brain activitySure there is. Only self-aware beings experience pain, fear, desire respect for their rights to choice, etc. Therefore, questions of morality, which deal with how our actions might inflict pain, cause fear or curtail the freedoms of others, directly relate to whether or not a being is self-aware. I can't make it any more simple than that for you.
Quote:OK, why stop at any brain activity. Could the line be drawn at higher functioning? Why not allow infanticide? Why not allow, or require, execution of those below a certain IQ? Or maybe enslavement?Again, you dodge the question by changing the subject. "Oh yeah, well what about your beliefs? Huh? Huh?" First, answer the questions about your beliefs then ask me about mine. Your dodge helps to underscore just how arbitrary and amoral your beliefs about morality are.
And I've already answered these questions. See above.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist