Say Anything Blog

I’m sure using sarcasm is against Islam as well.

Hey, Rob. Glad to see you smacking leftards in that thread. You the man!

We’re assuming the drooling jihadists can read.

As a non-muslim I find this offensive.  We should promote religious tolerance, not that which we know little about.  You should all learn what the true fundamentals of Islam are at www.onlineblessings.com.  Only then can you comment on this and understand how offensive it is to a large population of muslims.

It’s all about feelings, eh rev?  What about the feelings of all the people jihadists kill?

Hey, Reverend? How about a little truth in advertising. You are a Mullah, just admit it and we can move on to your real agenda.

Funny rev but I found it to promote religious tolerance. Oh and are the tolerant ones the ones rioting or the ones telling their counterparts to stop blowing shit up. Must be the ones rioting because they do not have any stopping the supposed minority from blowing people up.

Hey didn’t God have something to do with humor? Get a clue and ask him for help with your sense of humor.  

Geez, are we now at the point where even pointing gentle fun at Islam raises the hackles of muddle-head liberals?

All the more reason to intentionally insult Islam, if it pisses off the socialists also.

Glad to see you smacking leftards in that thread. You the man!

Why are you assuming that this is a left-right issue? The speakers at the rally in Trafalgar Square were almost uniformally (certainly from an American perspective) left-leaning - e.g. Peter Tatchell, Evan Harris. I have posted here on this issue as well -

http://sayanythingblog.com/2006/02/07/what_does_it_really_mean_to_be_offended/

and I’m sure you would define me as a leftie…

Mark, I believe 2Hotel9 was referring to me responding to some left-leaning readers in another thread last night.

I think that’s what he was referring to, anyway. 

---

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Okay.

Nevertheless Ken said -
Geez, are we now at the point where even pointing gentle fun at Islam raises the hackles of muddle-head liberals?

So I think my point still stands, even if it was directed at the wrong person.

Succinctly, I suppose my objection is an increasing tendency on this blog (not you Rob, others) to use ‘leftie’ or ‘liberal’ as shorthand for any opinion that one might disagree with. We know absolutely nothing about ‘Reverend’, except that he thinks it’s wrong to poke fun at religion, and yet immediately he’s a liberal. I happen to take exactly the opposite view - so what does that make me? A conservative?

There is no logic in operation here. It is nonsensical.

More importantly, this ludicrous name-calling tends to obscure any common ground that ‘lefties’ and conservatives might have - it is therefore needlessly divisive.

Another example of this kind of this silliness was the Buzz Aldrin thread a few days ago. The conspiracy theorist was automatically a ‘lefty’, with no evidence whatsoever, just like ‘Reverend’ in this thread.

I think that’s a fair criticism, Mark.  You exempt me from the criticism, but I’ve caught myself doing it a few times as well.

Too often political labels get in the way of real debate.  We are sometimes to quick to dismiss something simply because it comes from a "liberal" (or a conservative in the case of liberals).  Debates should be focused on ideas and opinions, not the people who espouse the ideas and hold the opinions.

I heard someone (Jon Stewart?) once say something along these lines: Sometimes, in an argument, if you say you’re against the war in Iraq then BOOM, you’re in favor of national health care.  If you say you’re for the war in Iraq then BOOM, you’re in favor of Bush’s perscription drug plan.

This happens to me a lot as I tend not to always fit into the "right winger" mold.  I agree with "right wingers" a lot and I think generally you could apply that label to me, but I always have to laugh when someone responds to one of my posts about abortion by telling me they hate Christian extremists like me.  As though, because I oppose abortion, I am automatically a religious zealot.

It is just plain lazy.  But, admittedly, it is something I’ve been guilty of on occassion too.  Everybody is, It hink.  I think even you did it once too, Mark.  I think I did a post about my opposition to the guest worker plan for illegal immigrants and you pointed out to me that President Bush supports such a plan, and I responded by saying that I don’t always agree with everything President Bush does.  It wasn’t a big deal, just sort of funny.

I think it is human nature to want to categorize things.  We want to put everything in neat little boxes and get uncomfortable when things fall outside of those boxes.  It is a hard impulse to resist 

---

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

This shirt is hilarious and Rev. needs to settle down. I’ll start showing tolerance when Muslims stop wanting to kill me for no other reason than that I’m not Muslim.

I think I did a post about my opposition to the guest worker plan for illegal immigrants and you pointed out to me that President Bush supports such a plan, and I responded by saying that I don’t always agree with everything President Bush does.

Guilty as charged.

I always have to laugh when someone responds to one of my posts about abortion by telling me they hate Christian extremists like me.

I’ve seen people throw that charge at you on other topics as well - it’s fun when you respond and they, well, look a little stupid.

if you say you’re against the war in Iraq then BOOM, you’re in favor of national health care

That was the case with the political quiz you posted about recently, where one of the questions was ‘For the war against Iraq?’ - Agree (CONSERVATIVE!) or Disagree (LIBERAL!). I posted disagree, but the question was so black and white I was pretty reluctant to do so.

You can buy the shirt here:

http://www.tshirthell.com/hell.shtml

I also recommend the one that says "Sorry boys...I eat pussy."

The ‘Reverend’ comes in here bleating for tolerance and understanding - liberal hallmark number one - and berates everyone here for a supposd lack of ‘understanding’ of Islam, which he the enlightened one posseses - liberal hallmark number two, and then projects his feelings at being insulted onto millions of muslims, a group he is not even a member of - yet another liberal hallmark.

Gotta say, this guy is looking, walking and talking like a duck.

I wasn’t even addressing the Reverend per se when I said that liberal muddleheads (plural) can’t take criticisms of Islam - liberals worked overtime during the Danish Cartoon Jihad to make sure the West knows who is really at fault - us, all of us!  For exactly the reason that the Reverend cited, basically we are all ignorant hicks who don’t know a thing about Islam and insult it by accident.

Well I am a little tired of tip-toeing around delicate Muslim sensibilities, and I am a little tired of the grassroots army of Jihadist useful idiots cropping up as well.

So Reverend, if you aren’t a liberal, bless your little heart, but I wouldn’t bet on it.  

The ‘Reverend’ comes in here bleating for tolerance and understanding - liberal hallmark number one

I have a hard time believing that conservatives are against "understanding."

‘Understanding’ in the hands of a liberal is often a loaded term - closer to emotional sympathizing than real logical knowledge on a subject.

I love his shirt. I hope he doesn’t get killed…

"Understanding" is leftie code for "advocating".  If you don’t advocate something(gay marriage, illegal immigration, jihadist intolerance), you don’t "understand" it.  The implication being that if you "understood" it, you would be doing it yourself.  Lefties are so emotionally insecure that they require lockstep agreement to feel OK.  Thus the killings of their own citizens by Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao, just to name a few examples.

 

 I want a shirt that states: WWMD

 

(What would Muhammad do?)

T-shirt Hell also sells a shirt that reads: WWJDFAKB

What woukd Jesus do for a Klondike Bar? 

davey, I understand Islam and the Quran far better than you, or most occidentals, do. I have been reading it since 1974. And applying it to Geo-Politics since’75. You need to get a clue, little boy. You are exactly what they want to stone to death. I am what stands between you and that. No thanks asked for, none expected.b Fuck you.

2Hotel...I really like Dave. I think you could possibly be wrong about Dave???? Honest… ?

ZZ, you are talking about dave, comment at 1:05PM? davey the fucking braindead moron?

2hotel...HA!...I know you might think that Dave is a kook? BUT, he is not as bad as you think he is… IF you ask me.???? Of course no one asked me. But! Dave is smarter than the average bear. I would bet! AND, he makes us think… Listen and think about what and how Dave comments??? BUT! Without Your points it wouldn’t be the same either… Dave is no moron!

Okay, 2hotel9, I take it back. Conservatives--especially you--ARE against "understanding." Happy?

Not yet!… HA.

2 hotel 9 wrote:

davey the fucking braindead moron

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me, you boner-biting dick-fart fuckface.

Yeah but the guy has to stand his ground right?

Keep swingin’ Dave, I think its expected here.

Dave, you contradicted yourself

Without wishing to come over all patronising, all I can to say that is

“Well, duh.”

His comment was deliberately contradictory, in an attempt at what humans call ‘humour’. Sheesh…

return his insult so vehemently.

If the most vehement insult I ever receive is ‘you boner-biting dick-fart!’, I think I’ll die happy.

Wow! I thought my language was bad? AND, the combination of words? When Puzzlefoot sees this. Ieeeyiyi! I hope he doesn’t think I instigated this? I think Rob should have a bad language collection jar. It really helps me watch my language knowing I have to pay a fine!…

Ok now I got all kinds of naughty thoughts now that I know Zsa has a potty mouth.

2h9 is ten of the stupidest people I have ever come across, dude do you really believe all that drivel about standing between us and the oppressors? Sounds a lot like tiny dick syndrome to me. 

Richard...I have gotten better lately, since I decided I would have to pay Rob every time I cussed at someone. Don Meyers has been a real struggle for me. He is such a woops! I almost did it again. Hugh K is another special person…

Personally I do not get all of the langauge stuff, actually I do not get the I am offended thing. However I wish you success with you endeavor not to call people stupid fuckers.......ooooops, sorry. 

Thanks, Richard! BUT, sometimes there is nothing like saying those two little words.

I’m with ZZ, I think Dave is smarter than his posts indicate.  But for whatever reason he can’t seem to find enough entertainment in the real world so he comes on by and drop bombs to cause verbal hate and dissent.

I still say he’s a capital-L Liberal.

And can this discussion get back on topic?  Why does the West have to resort to humor to point out the lunacy of the radical Islam wing?  They were cartoons for Pete’s sake. 

I still say he’s a capital-L Liberal.

I’m not Canadian.

 

Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) was the best man to walk on Earth and established the most ethical and moral society in the midst of the most corrupted and ignorant desert Arabs.

Every Muslim wishes to follow his every step and emulate his very lifestyle.

Learn about him, the way he lived his life, and the things he said and emphasized to all humanity. After this, you may think twice about what you think about Islam, Muslims, and the toleration (in this case, respect) one should have for other people’s beliefs and wishes that go along with them.

Peace and thanks for reading this.

So where did hijacking planes come in for Mr. M.

If this so true when are the rock throwers going to learn to live in peace with others that are different from themselves.

Zainab: Where does strapping bombs on children and then sending them out to kill themselves and other civilians fit into your “most ethical and moral society”?  Just answer that one, please.

Mohammed was a pedophile; Aiysha was six years old when Mohammed married her and nine years old when he consumated the marriage. Mohammed also stated that, while on his “night voyage” that most of the inhabitants of Hell were women.

And “Every Muslim wishes to follow his every step and emulate his very lifestyle.”

I already know all I need to know about the perverted evil that was Mohammed and the cult he spawned. Pedophiles and murderers like him are not deserving of my respect.

Peace to you, too.

Peace would be nice! So would tolerance and respect for other people and what they believe! From what has been demonstrated by Alqaeda and the Hezbollah’s of the world. Peace and tolerance doesn’t seem to be the rule in the Mideast muslim world???

Mohammed was a pedophile

Even worse, he was an omnivore! Hardly “ethical and moral”, Zain!

He killed a heck of a lot more people than animals Dave.

Dave: Only you would try to make an equivalence between pedophilia and eating a natural human diet.  You maintain that eating the natural human omnivorous diet is “immoral and unethical”.  What moral code and ethical code is violated by eating a natural human diet?  Please give us the scriptures and writings upon which the morality and ethics you assert is based.  Or is this merely your personal view?

Only you would try to make an equivalence between pedophilia and eating a natural human diet.

I’m not making an equivalence at all. I plainly stated that omnivorism is far worse than pedophilia, not “equivalent” to it. Try to keep up.

What moral code and ethical code is violated by eating a natural human diet?

The “code” that it is wrong to intentionally inflict suffering on others.

Please give us the scriptures

I’m not religious, but the Golden Rule suffices. We don’t want others to slaughter us, therefore, we shouldn’t slaughter others. The Buddha really knew what he was talkin’ ‘bout.

“I plainly stated that omnivorism is far worse than pedophilia, not “equivalent” to it.”

Sick.

The “code” that it is wrong to intentionally inflict suffering on others.

I just talk my prey to death.

I’m not religious, but the Golden Rule suffices. We don’t want others to slaughter us, therefore, we shouldn’t slaughter others. The Buddha really knew what he was talkin’ ‘bout.

As soon as nature quits trying to eat me I’ll quit eating meat.

Dave: There are times when you amaze even me with your thinking. How do you square your “code” with taking the lives of innocent vegetables?  You rip them up by the roots, amputate their leaves, tear off their ripened ovaries, and then savagely chew them up and swallow them for your own selfish purposes.  Does your “code” conveniently allow that savage behavior?  Shame on you!

BTW, put yourself in close proximity with a hungry lion, and he will slaughter you whether you eat meat or not.  Your thinking is nonsensical, as usual.

How do you square your “code” with taking the lives of innocent vegetables?

Vegetables don’t feel pain--they don’t suffer. Crack open a 9th grade science book when you have a chance. (I should point out that you’re in some lofty company with your “vegetables feel pain!” worldview--L. Ron Hubbard agrees with you. Bravua!)

BTW: When you say things like this, r108, it makes me question how seriously I should take you when you talk about global warming and creationism.

put yourself in close proximity with a hungry lion, and he will slaughter you whether you eat meat or not.

What’s your point? That because lions eat meat, we should? Praying mantes eat their lovers after copulation. Why should we follow the ethics of less rational beings?

Do you even think when you write, r108, or does it just come out in spurts?

Your thinking is nonsensical, as usual.

But the person who makes ethical decisions based on the reasoning power of lions...now that’s a smart guy!

Dave: I have never spoken on “creationism”, but that doesn’t stop you from making it up, I see.  Vegetables are a different species, as are cows, pigs, chickens, and all the other species normal humans consume as food.  Your artificial distinction is just ass-covering, as far as I’m concerned.  You attempt to hijack the Buddha to serve your elitist foodie agenda, which is almost as bad as regarding eating a burger as being worse than sexually violating a child.  Shame on you!

As far as the lion example, Dave, I really didn’t expect you to get it, but I was replying to a specific statement you made:  “We don’t want others to slaughter us, therefore, we shouldn’t slaughter others...”

You make a general statement, then make a specific exception to your own statement, so you refute yourself.  If you want to make a distinction between an animal and a human being, that is my statement to you at all times:  Animals are food!!
Animals and humans aren’t equal.  Glad you agree with me.

Vegetables are a different species, as are cows, pigs, chickens, and all the other species normal humans consume as food. Your artificial distinction is just ass-covering, as far as I’m concerned.

You’d be wrong. (This is not surprising.) You asked what “code” I follow in making ethical choices and I replied by noting that it was the code whereby “it is wrong to intentionally inflict suffering on others.”

Do you see the word “suffering” in that short sentence? It’s right between “inflict” and “on.” Therefore, the ability to experience suffering must be a pretty important criterion...it’s the key to that sentence! I’ll write it again, placing the key word in boldface:

“(I)t is wrong to intentionally inflict suffering on others.”

Now, in order to follow that precept, wouldn’t you say it’d be very important--and not an “artificial distinction"--to differentiate between things that experience suffering and things that do not? Because if we are to stop doing those things that cause suffering, we’d better know what they are! For example, if hydrogen atoms suffered when I drank
water, I’d have to stop drinking water. (Fortunately, they don’t.) If plants suffered when I ate them, I’d have to stop eating plants. (Fortunately, they don’t.) If animals suffered when I ate them, I’d have to stop eating animals. Animals, if you didn’t know, DO suffer when they’re eaten; thus, I stopped eating them. I examined the evidence to make a distinction between things that do suffer and things that do NOT suffer so I could avoid inflicting any additional suffering. This is not “artificial.”

As far as the lion example, Dave, I really didn’t expect you to get it, but I was replying to a specific statement you made: “We don’t want others to slaughter us, therefore, we shouldn’t slaughter others...”

And, what, you think your example refutes that? In order for your example to function as a refutation, YOU would have to WANT the LION to eat you. Because…

Pardon the interruption here. I’m starting to understand why you’re so confused: You do not know what the Golden Rule is. That’s understandable; it’s merely the most important and fundamental moral precept in the entire world. The Golden Rule is, (and we’ll quote JC Himself on this one, from the Gospel of Luke): ”Do to others as you would have them do to you.”

So, unless you’re suicidal or a masochist, you do not want another animal to eat you. Thus, if you’re to follow Jesus (an admittedly dicey prospect, from what I’ve seen of you), you would have to not eat animals yourself.

Animals and humans aren’t equal.

Neither are men and women. That doesn’t make women “food,” however.

Once again, you are an omnivore. Place your fingers to either side of your upper and lower lateral incisors, and you will find cuspid, or “canine” teeth, designed for holding, ripping and tearing flesh. Your eyes, like that of all predators, are located on the front of your head, rather than on the sides, as herbivores are. This facilitates finding and keeping prey in your eyesight. Your body is adept at digesting meat-based protein.

You are, by nature, designed to consume flesh. Why deny evolution?

Gang, stop flicking cigarettes at the monkey and it will stop tossing turds through the bars. Since that is all it has to toss do we really want to encourage it?

Dave: I know you have this problem with correct logic, but here goes again.  The Golden Rule is made by humans, for humans.  Animals, you will notice, don’t follow it at all.  Whether or not I want an animal to eat me, it will, if it’s hungry enough and if I let it happen.  No “code” will prevent this.  As far as I know, there is no evidence that Jesus Christ was a vegetarian(loaves and fishes, for one example).
As far as your specialized and agendized definition of “suffering” is concerned, what evidence do you have on that?  It doesn’t matter to me, because I eat a normal human diet, but your “code” absolutely requires that you prove your premises beyond a reasonable doubt, and you have not done that.  You are certainly welcome to follow your own “code”, but it isn’t based on anything other than your personal beliefs and predjudices, as far as I can see.  BTW, my “code” doesn’t permit the sexual violation of children or their killing for birth control purposes.

You are, by nature, designed to consume flesh.

That I can do evil does not mean I should do evil.

Why deny evolution?

Out of love.

For example, I could increase the odds of the “Dave gene” by impregnating as many women as possible--we see this in nature quite frequently. I choose not to because monogamous relationships provide me with a greater amount of happiness.

Plus, I am indebted to point out that the supreme example of humans actively altering their own natural selection occurred in 1943 at Dachau.

Dave: As usual, your logic is flawed.  You equate consuming flesh(a normal human activity since the creation of our species) with doing evil. What is your proof that this normal activity is evil?  Not just your personal beliefs, but something that applies to the entire human race.

The Golden Rule is made by humans, for humans. Animals, you will notice, don’t follow it at all.

A) Humans are animals. Retaking that high school biology class can do you a world of good.

B) Criminals also don’t follow the Golden Rule. Was Jesus confused? Why should we have to follow ethical precepts if others don’t? That’s no fair!

Whether or not I want an animal to eat me, it will, if it’s hungry enough and if I let it happen. No “code” will prevent this.

And a serial killer will murder you. The fact that not everyone follows an ethical statement does not mean it is wrong.

Also, since only human animals suffer, you wouldn’t mind if I kicked your dog or cut off your cat’s tail, right? Or, better yet...why don’t you do it? You can put it on the internets!

Dave: Nice equivalence of the Holocaust with natural selection.  That was wrong, but the normal human omnivorous diet is the end result of several hundred thousands of years of natural selection.

What is your proof that this normal activity is evil?

A) Up until the mid-19th century, slavery was “normal,” as it had been practiced in almost every single society.

B) It is immoral (or “evil") to increase another’s suffering. If you disagree with this, shoot pedestrians with a shotgun tomorrow.

"B) Criminals also don’t follow the Golden Rule. Was Jesus confused? Why should we have to follow ethical precepts if others don’t? That’s no fair!”

Typical leftie thinking.  That is the terrorists’ argument, as well.  Congratulations on the intellectual company you keep.

If you want to experience real suffering, just violate the privacy of my home.

BTW, I never said that only humans suffer, I just don’t agree with your personal belief system about the equality and relevance of animal suffering.  I have said that many times to you.  Get it yet?

If your argument is purely biological, then lecture those lions to stop causing their prey to suffer.  We are all the same, right?

Dave: You just can’t seem to do simple logic.  The slaves were also omnivorous.  That is about the only analogy here that holds water, and it refutes you.

As far as your flawed “suffering” meme is concerned, it depends on how you define “another’s”.  If it’s a tasty animal, no, it’s not evil, it just makes sense.  If it’s a drooling terrorist, no, as well.  If it’s a human close to me, definitely yes, but if it’s a human who has harmed me or someone close to me, or who has threatened my country, then no.
In general, I want those who make mistakes to suffer, so they can evolve.

Typical leftie thinking. That is the terrorists’ argument, as well. Congratulations on the intellectual company you keep.

OMG! Are you really so dense as to not understand that I was rephrasing YOUR argument? That when you write

“put yourself in close proximity with a hungry lion, and he will slaughter you whether you eat meat or not”

you’re saying, “If lions don’t follow the Golden Rule in dealing with me, why should I follow it in dealing with them”?

(And if that wasn’t your point in writing your “lion argument”, pray tell, what was it?)

If your argument is purely biological, then lecture those lions to stop causing their prey to suffer. We are all the same, right?

For the 10,000th time, NO!!! Humans and lions are not the same!!! How did you attain an education with such reprehensible reading comprehension skills?

Only humans are rational enough to develop ethical systems. Not lions. And if that means we can eat lions, may I advise you to not attend the next Special Olympics.

R108:

You just can’t seem to do simple logic. The slaves were also omnivorous. That is about the only analogy here that holds water, and it refutes you.

You suggest that omnivorism is ethical because it is normal. (You write:  You equate consuming flesh(a normal human activity since the creation of our species) with doing evil. What is your proof that this normal activity is evil? )

Clearly, the slavery analogy demonstrates that the popularity of a specific action in no way corresponds to its morality. That a lot of humans supported slavery--considered it “normal"--does not make it right, in the same way that the fact that a lot of humans consider factory farming “normal” doesn’t make it right.

Dave: For the last time.  “You suggest that omnivorism is ethical because it is normal.”

I don’t suggest anything; I assert it, and have done so many times with you.
Here’s the deal: the “slavery analogy” is flawed; it doesn’t work.  We raise animals to eat them; a few of us captured slaves from those who originally enslaved them to perform work.  We didn’t enslave them to eat them.  There is no parallel here; you are way off the mark.  Slavery may have once, before recorded history, have been considered “normal” by some, but being omnivorous has always been human; in fact, it has probably always been primate behavior.  There is no functional relationship between the two.  Normal isn’t about popularity, so that’s wrong, too. Once again, you purposely try to confuse the issue with trying to make a parallel between the normal and natural human diet and the method by which some animals are raised.  Wrong again.

Dave: You just get sillier and sillier.  You wrote:

“A) Humans are animals. Retaking that high school biology class can do you a world of good.” Later, you wrote: “For the 10,000th time, NO!!! Humans and lions are not the same!!!” So, you did indicate that, for the purposes of the first argument, humans and animals are equal.  Now, you want to deny that, and make some snarky comments about me.  Are you serious?  Is your short term memory that bad?  It might be a symptom of long term B12 deficiency, due to your extreme diet.

Now, you, like the blind squirrel, find a nut of truth.  “Only humans are rational enough to develop ethical systems.” My point exactly.  It’s not “fair"(leftie argument) because humans and animals are not equal, and ethical systems between the two are not equivalent in any way, so ethical arguments don’t apply here.  You may choose to abstain from eating animals; that is your right.  It is also my right to eat tasty animals, and you have nothing to say about it.  If you’re such a “libertarian”, why are you trying to impose your personal “code” on the rest of us?

So, you did indicate that, for the purposes of the first argument, humans and animals are equal.

No. They are in the same category. The Brothers Karamazov and Green Eggs and Ham are both books; this does not mean they are equal. Similarly, as any 4th grader can tell you, humans and lions are both members of the animal kingdom--we are both animals. This does not mean that we are equal in every way. (This is pretty complicated stuff--if you’re retarded.)

Now, you, like the blind squirrel, find a nut of truth. “Only humans are rational enough to develop ethical systems.” My point exactly. It’s not “fair"(leftie argument) because humans and animals are not equal, and ethical systems between the two are not equivalent in any way, so ethical arguments don’t apply here.

Fetuses and humans who suffer from Down’s Syndrome also, like lions, are not rational enough to develop ethical systems, yet I believe many people would find it repulsive to believe that ethical arguments didn’t apply to them. But you said it.

Out of curisoity, how much rationality must a being possess in order for you to make ethical considerations about it? And why is a being’s rationality a better characteristic to use when deciding whether to consider a being’s interest than that being’s ability to experience happiness or suffering?

It is also my right to eat tasty animals, and you have nothing to say about it.

Of course I do. One of the benefits of living in a free society is that individuals are allowed to speak without interference from the State.

If you’re such a “libertarian”, why are you trying to impose your personal “code” on the rest of us?

Because this is how free societies work. I want people to consider the interests of non-human animals, Dennis Prager wants us to stop aborting fetuses. We communicate our ideas to other people because we believe they are right, and that the alternatives are immoral.

I’m taking personal responsibility in changing people’s minds. Were I not a libertarian, I would just ask the government to do it for me.

Dave: After many exchanges with you, I conclude that you are not rational enough to make a logical argument, nor to make a meaningful analogy.  By your “ethical standards”, then, I should be able to kill you.  Those are not my values, but yours.  Human status is not dependent on rationality, it is genetic.  That is the point you always miss, which is why I suspect your ability to be rational.
I have no problem telling you that you are an extremist diet freak, but I don’t think for a moment that it is relevant to any discussion on this blog.  In the same manner, I have no interest at all in your emotion-based value system about diet.  It’s just silly.  The harder you try, the less you impress me.

r108! Stop flicking cigarette butts at the monkey!

I don’t know if being immature and ignorant is really going to be a succesful way of getting your point across. What is your point anyways?

I am sure it is very similar to yours Caitlin, nothing. Now go get a big persons name.

And don’t flick cigarette butts at the monkey!

The harder you try, the less you impress me.

Can you get me a tissue?