Hallucinogenic drugs advice

[Audie]

Audie: Isnt it time to outgrow bsrbarities of the paleolithic?

WHAT barbarities? A hungry omnivore, a bear, his body is designed to eat both meat and vegetarian sources of nutrition. He runs out of berries, he kills whatever protein source he desires, that he has the opportunity to kill - chickens, eggs, young deer, fish, young coyotes or wolves. A bear merely lives as he is so designed. Is that barbaric? I could plug a man into the same equation, excepting that if he were to kill another human for food, that would be barbaric and sick. But if that man kills whatever animal for food, as long as the kill is quick, and the specie is not endangered - how is that in any way barbaric? If we are all a hierarchy of lifeforms preying upon other species, then what do you define as barbaric? If a man harvests a plant - which is a life form - why is that any different from him eating a fish or killing a deer for its meat? Why would it be wrong to kill a deer but not a plant or fish? What should any Darwinist call a successful predator? An animal skilled in furthering it's opportunities for living longer and producing more offspring, that's what!

That you refer to bears kind of illustrates my point.

Humans eating animals is in the most part inhumane and unnecessary.

Im sure it is uncomfortable to confront that directly.

[RickD]

How is eating a dead animal, inhumane?

The animal is dead. Dead animals don't suffer when being eaten.

[Philip]

Audie: That you refer to bears kind of illustrates my point.

Humans eating animals is in the most part inhumane and unnecessary.

Im sure it is uncomfortable to confront that directly.

Audie, that makes no sense at all. What is all this "unnecessary" stuff? I am an omnivore. I am designed to also eat meat. I like chicken, the occasional steak. Why can an omnivore or carnivore do this - far more brutally, I might add - and it is just fine? But humans shouldn't - that is illogical. Feel those canine teeth you have - they are there for a reason. It almost sounds like you are making a moral distinction between differing lifeforms, that you otherwise insist all evolved from the same roots, as to how they consume food. And consistent with pure naturalism beliefs (no God involved), there is no right or wrong in what is eaten, only successful outcomes for those most successful at hunting and killing. With unguided evolution/no God, there is no moral distinction between a tree and me. Kill a man, eat a banana - Darwinism sees no ultimate distinction, other than to assert that MOST men agree that killing or eating a man is a grave evil (but, clearly, not all). Some men would see killing other men, for whatever purposes, as merely a means to dominating them - spreading their seed instead of those they kill. Darwinism makes no moral judgements, merely because there is no ONE judge who sets the standard - or enforces their consequences.

Moreover, Audie, do you wear leather belts or shoes? I thought so!

[Audie]

Well Phil, now that it is down to me being by implication without a moral compass, and an assumed hypocrite, I think it best to drop this.

Prrhaps you will think it through, and perhaps you wont. Concentrating instead on misrepresenting science and on such shortcomings as I prrsonally may or may not have is a distraction from
something only you and your conscience can work out with yourself.

I hope you will make the effort, you've a longer way to go than I feel the energy
to try to drag you.

[Audie]

How is eating a dead animal, inhumane?

The animal is dead. Dead animals don't suffer when being eaten.

Road kill? Go for it. Wasting food is immoral.

So is the use of drugs, which I think was more the topic of this thread.

[Philip]

Audie: Well Phil, now that it is down to me being by implication without a moral compass, and an assumed hypocrite, I think it best to drop this.

Audie, for once, why don't you try to respond to my question - which is, how can it be wrong for humans to kill and eat animals? And my only reference to science is that, when it comes to killing and eating - as to interpreting it as a personal attack. Which making it about some supposed attack on you was not only inaccurate, but dodging my real question.

Audie: Prrhaps you will think it through, and perhaps you wont. Concentrating instead on misrepresenting science and on such shortcomings as I prrsonally may or may not have is a distraction from something only you and your conscience can work out with yourself.

Now, I COULD take YOUR words (in bold) as a personal attack - but I won't/don't. As for what I assert about science is absolutely true - that science, particularly those viewing evolution as a natural and totally unguided process, makes no MORAL assessments about what is killed and eaten, by whatever other life form. It simply sees these as one lifeform is successful at exploiting another one, for its own purposes. But as for you, Audie, you have asserted that there is something about man killing and eating animals that is "barbaric" - which would suggest that those of us who eat the meat of animals are engaging in a barbaric practice - which could reasonably be taken as a rather serious attack upon one's personal ethics and conduct. But I am uninterested in such trivialities of my own personal over-sensitivity. I am far more interested upon what basis that you, a staunch evolutionist, make the claim that humans killing and eating animals is somehow "barbaric." But instead of defending or explaining your reasoning for your surprising position on consuming animals for food, you go to your default position of "they're attacking poor little me" - while also totally dodging a very reasonable question - one that is in no way meant to be offensive, but is meant to understand the basis for what you have asserted.

[RickD]

Audie,

You got me thinking. I'll ponder all this while eating the chicken I just grilled.

[Storyteller]

I love chicken, and fish.
I raised chooks for eggs and meat, I fish. I have killed to eat. If I can give an animal a good life, a free life, and the price is to feed me, then I can live with that.


Eat a chook raised in hirrific conditions, foie gras, no.

God gave me meat, I owe it the animsls to respect that.

So yes, I enjoy chicken

[RickD]

I love chicken, and fish.
I raised chooks for eggs and meat, I fish. I have killed to eat. If I can give an animal a good life, a free life, and the price is to feed me, then I can live with that.


Eat a chook raised in hirrific conditions, foie gras, no.

God gave me meat, I owe it the animsls to respect that.

So yes, I enjoy chicken

You had me at "hello" "I have killed to eat".

[Storyteller]

Be afraid.

[Audie]

Audie: Well Phil, now that it is down to me being by implication without a moral compass, and an assumed hypocrite, I think it best to drop this.

Audie, for once, why don't you try to respond to my question - which is, how can it be wrong for humans to kill and eat animals? And my only reference to science is that, when it comes to killing and eating - as to interpreting it as a personal attack. Which making it about some supposed attack on you was not only inaccurate, but dodging my real question.

Audie: Prrhaps you will think it through, and perhaps you wont. Concentrating instead on misrepresenting science and on such shortcomings as I prrsonally may or may not have is a distraction from something only you and your conscience can work out with yourself.

Now, I COULD take YOUR words (in bold) as a personal attack - but I won't/don't. As for what I assert about science is absolutely true - that science, particularly those viewing evolution as a natural and totally unguided process, makes no MORAL assessments about what is killed and eaten, by whatever other life form. It simply sees these as one lifeform is successful at exploiting another one, for its own purposes. But as for you, Audie, you have asserted that there is something about man killing and eating animals that is "barbaric" - which would suggest that those of us who eat the meat of animals are engaging in a barbaric practice - which could reasonably be taken as a rather serious attack upon one's personal ethics and conduct. But I am uninterested in such trivialities of my own personal over-sensitivity. I am far more interested upon what basis that you, a staunch evolutionist, make the claim that humans killing and eating animals is somehow "barbaric." But instead of defending or explaining your reasoning for your surprising position on consuming animals for food, you go to your default position of "they're attacking poor little me" - while also totally dodging a very reasonable question - one that is in no way meant to be offensive, but is meant to understand the basis for what you have asserted.

I need to sit with an actual keyboard for a proper reply. Im not dodging or playing poor me.

[Philip]

Audie: I need to sit with an actual keyboard for a proper reply. Im not dodging or playing poor me.

Great! Because I sincerely am curious and want to understand.

[Audie]

Audie: I need to sit with an actual keyboard for a proper reply. Im not dodging or playing poor me.

Great! Because I sincerely am curious and want to understand.

Start in two directions: drop some of the nonsense about me personally,
and, see if you think eating an animal is ever immoral under any circumstances.

If no to both then sincerity wont get you there.

[RickD]

Audie: I need to sit with an actual keyboard for a proper reply. Im not dodging or playing poor me.

Great! Because I sincerely am curious and want to understand.

Start in two directions: drop some of the nonsense about me personally,
and, see if you think eating an animal is ever immoral under any circumstances.

If no to both then sincerity wont get you there.

Audie,

Before that question could be answered, when you use the term 'animals', do humans fit into that?

[Audie]

Audie: I need to sit with an actual keyboard for a proper reply. Im not dodging or playing poor me.

Great! Because I sincerely am curious and want to understand.

Start in two directions: drop some of the nonsense about me personally,
and, see if you think eating an animal is ever immoral under any circumstances.

If no to both then sincerity wont get you there.

Audie,

Before that question could be answered, when you use the term 'animals', do humans fit into that?

Dont be tiresome.