16 Mar 18
https://www.livekindly.co/richard-dawkins-ethics-eating-meat/
Dawkins said;
“I would like to be a vegetarian. I would like everybody to be a vegetarian.” He continued: “In 100 or 200 years time, we may look back on the way we treated animals today as something like we today look back on the way our forefathers treated slaves.”
How can you go from that quote to seriously saying we should be cannibals?
Answer; you cannot. It was a joke.
16 Mar 18
Originally posted by @humyHe does that because he is frothing at the mouth anti atheists and will use anything even vaguely like what he wants to foist on us. Same with his so-called 'politics'.
https://www.livekindly.co/richard-dawkins-ethics-eating-meat/
Dawkins said;
“I would like to be a vegetarian. I would like everybody to be a vegetarian.” He continued: “In 100 or 200 years time, we may look back on the way we treated animals today as something like we today look back on the way our forefathers treated slaves.”
How can you go from that quote to seriously saying we should be cannibals?
Answer; you cannot. It was a joke.
17 Mar 18
Originally posted by @whodeyWork is going on to cultivate meat which will change the way we live. Nobody is trying to make human flesh that way and it is only your anti Dawkin stance that causes you to bring the subject up.
Would you eat human flesh?
For one thing, if say, beef were grown in a vat, that would be a lot more compassionate way to grow food, stop slaughtering millions of cattle, billions of chickens, millions of tons of fish.
But of course that is not your agenda, you could care less about the quality of life of animals, all you want is shock jock bullshyte about atheists. ANYTHING you come across in your frothing at the mouth hatred will be used. Here is the thing, we are ALL smart here. We see through your desperate agendae. You would do better attracting listeners if you were on a soap box in Hyde park, you might even attract an audience.
18 Mar 18
2 edits
Originally posted by @sonhouseI get it;
it is only your anti Dawkin stance that causes you to bring the subject up. .
Cannot attack scientific facts that don't like so attack the character of a person that believe those scientific facts.
But, obviously, the persons character who believes something has nothing to do with whether that belief is true.
He also believes the Earth isn't flat but round so, if he is wrong about evolution because he promotes catabolism (which he doesn't) then, by the same 'logic', he must be wrong about the Earth being round and not flat because he promotes catabolism.
18 Mar 18
1 edit
Originally posted by @humySorry; misspellings;
I get it;
Cannot attack scientific facts that don't like so attack the character of a person that believe those scientific facts.
But, obviously, the persons character who believes something has nothing to do with whether that belief is true.
He also believes the Earth isn't flat but round so, if he is wrong about evolution because he promotes catabolism (w ...[text shortened]... ogic', he must be wrong about the Earth being round and not flat because he promotes catabolism.
I meant "cannibalism", not "catabolism", which has nothing to do with it.
Spell corrector not good.
21 Mar 18
1 edit
Originally posted by @sonhouseSo let me get this straight, Richard Dawkins goes on and on about possibly replicating human flesh to eat and me posting about it means I care nothing about animals and want to kill Bambi and eat him.
Work is going on to cultivate meat which will change the way we live. Nobody is trying to make human flesh that way and it is only your anti Dawkin stance that causes you to bring the subject up.
For one thing, if say, beef were grown in a vat, that would be a lot more compassionate way to grow food, stop slaughtering millions of cattle, billions of ch ...[text shortened]... attracting listeners if you were on a soap box in Hyde park, you might even attract an audience.
I'm not sure I can even count the number of logical fallacies in your retort.
Nice talking with you as always. 😵
21 Mar 18
Originally posted by @sonhouseEveryone should spend time at an egg farm or a beef plant. I have, and this is one reason that I hate people.
Work is going on to cultivate meat which will change the way we live. ...
For one thing, if say, beef were grown in a vat, that would be a lot more compassionate way to grow food, stop slaughtering millions of cattle, billions of chickens, millions of tons of fish.
...
21 Mar 18
1 edit
The op article states that '... as human flesh contains infectious proteins that can cause a chain reaction of diseases and result in death; it also carries the risk of contraction of blood borne diseases.'
We all know the meat from other animals do not carry this risk. How do I roll my eyes here.