Sarah Palin and Holy War in Iraq?

Originally posted by LemonJello
Well, that is because you debate irresponsibly.

In YOUR opinion...

Originally posted by bbarr
Suppose, hypothetically, you come across a child viciously beating a dog in the street. Would you take this a sufficient reason to intervene? Would you take this as evidence that the child is cruel?

Yes, Yes.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Yeah I know you take it to be sufficient. But, in fact, it is not sufficient to demonstrate what you take it to demonstrate.

In YOUR opinion...

Originally posted by Nemesio
What about people who don't like blacks?

They are giving an equally valid argument for their discrimination as you are giving for your
discrimination of animals.

The fact that you show little interest in discussing it strikes me as a tacit confession that you
actually acknowledge your position as an inferior one.

Among other things, Jesus command ...[text shortened]... rist-centered excuse
for your active disdain for pursuing this line of questioning?

Nemesio

My feelings towards animals no doubt stem from childhood traumas that are of no one's concern but mine. I don't like animals. I won't run down a dog in the street, but I won't work particularly hard to avoid it in heavy traffic either. You guys need to find something more interesting than my dislike of animals to discuss. It's really quite boring.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
So it seems like you acknowledge that Jesus gave moral consideration to the experiences of animals.

If you take Jesus to be your role model for behaving morally, how can you so flippantly dismiss the same sorts of moral considerations that you presume Jesus found to be important?

First, I am not perfect---Jesus is.

Second, I don't beat animals; my indifference to them has been addressed thoroughly.

Third, Jesus, as far as I know, never said anything about kindness to animals--only to people (the weak, the infirmed, those in prison, the thirsty, the poor...)

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
I just don't like them. How's that for a reason?

Yes, yes, I know you don't like them. And you don't have to divulge to me or anyone else here why you "don't like" them (although I seriously doubt you have any good grounds for such a blanket attitude toward all "lower" animals, regardless of what traumatic experience you suffered).

But that's not the point. The point is just because you "don't like" X, that doesn't justify your carrying on as though X warrants no moral consideration. My question was if you have any good reasons for affording no consideration to the suffering of animals; and, sorry, but just because you "just don't like them" doesn't qualify as a good reason.

Originally posted by PinkFloyd


Third, Jesus, as far as I know, never said anything about kindness to animals--only to people (the weak, the infirmed, those in prison, the thirsty, the poor...)

Well what reason do you have then to support your belief that Jesus would not condone drowning cats for fun or throwing rocks at sheep for sport?

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
My feelings towards animals no doubt stem from childhood traumas that are of no one's concern but mine. I don't like animals. I won't run down a dog in the street, but I won't work particularly hard to avoid it in heavy traffic either. You guys need to find something more interesting than my dislike of animals to discuss. It's really quite boring.

You guys need to find something more interesting than my dislike of animals to discuss. It's really quite boring.

You're right, your dislike of animals is a bit boring. I think it's also a bit pathetic. But your dislike of animals is not the central topic of discussion. I was under the impression that we were actually discussing the move from generally not liking animals to generally affording them no moral consideration.

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
Yes, Yes.

So you would intervene? How is that consistent with your earlier claim that consideration for animals -- their suffering and treatment, etc. -- occupies 0% of your time.

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
My feelings towards animals no doubt stem from childhood traumas that are of no one's concern but mine. I don't like animals. I won't run down a dog in the street, but I won't work particularly hard to avoid it in heavy traffic either. You guys need to find something more interesting than my dislike of animals to discuss. It's really quite boring.

It's not your dislike that concerns me. It's that you afford them 0% of your time to consider
their rights. If I were beaten by a black man when I was a child, should I afford all black men
0% of my time? Your 'reasoning' is deeply troubling.

Here's the thing, though: Jesus was constantly challenging people to revisit even well-established
world views. Why is it that, given that you know you have an obvious bias, are you unwilling to
challenge that. Especially given that you think that Jesus would not condone your attitude?

Nemesio

Originally posted by LemonJello
So you would intervene? How is that consistent with your earlier claim that consideration for animals -- their suffering and treatment, etc. -- occupies 0% of your time.

Because like a lot of other Christians on this forum, they don't write what they mean and, for
whatever reason, seem disinclined to say something like 'I misspoke,' or 'I was being hasty when
I said that,' or 'Gee, you're right. That's a lousy world view.'

Nemesio

Originally posted by LemonJello
Yes, yes, I know you don't like them. And you don't have to divulge to me or anyone else here why you "don't like" them (although I seriously doubt you have any good grounds for such a blanket attitude toward all "lower" animals, regardless of what traumatic experience you suffered).

But that's not the point. The point is just because you "don't li ...[text shortened]... y, but just because you "just don't like them" doesn't qualify as a good reason.

After consideration, I believe you are correct; it isn't a reason. And I really can't think of a reason why I don't consider the rights of animals to be of much import. I simply don't.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Well what reason do you have then to support your belief that Jesus would not condone drowning cats for fun or throwing rocks at sheep for sport?

Because both of them seem mindlessly violent.

Originally posted by LemonJello
So you would intervene? How is that consistent with your earlier claim that consideration for animals -- their suffering and treatment, etc. -- occupies 0% of your time.

I would say the difference is that when somerhing is in your face--the elephant is in the living room so to speak--one can't help but let it occupy your time, especially while it's happening. After intervention, I would revert back to thinking about the important matters in life.

Originally posted by Nemesio
It's not your dislike that concerns me. It's that you afford them 0% of your time to consider
their rights. If I were beaten by a black man when I was a child, should I afford all black men
0% of my time? Your 'reasoning' is deeply troubling.

Here's the thing, though: Jesus was constantly challenging people to revisit even well-established
world v ...[text shortened]... at. Especially given that you think that Jesus would not condone your attitude?

Nemesio

I don't hurt or torture animals. The fact that I don't afford them any "rights" does not effectively make me evil at all. As long as I don't harm 'em, I don't think Jesus will hold my disdain for them against me. For me that's what it boils down to: acts are what matters; my "feelings" toward anything is irrelevant.