Girl Burned Alive: The Quest for Morality in America

[Metsfanmax]

"A species is often defined as the largest group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring." -Wikipedia

That is often a useful biological (evolutionary) definition, but it should be easy to see why it fails when describing the characteristics of individuals. Is a human still a human if his or her genitals are removed? Or if he or she is born with a genetic abormality that prevents sexual organs from ever developing? Is a human still a human if he or she is in a permanent vegetative state and cannot physically engage in the act of copulation? I certainly think so.

I think that's a concise enough definition. If we also add the first generation offspring regardless of fertility, it would be enough to include all living modern day Homo sapiens. Even if my great-x-a-zillion-grand whatsit was a was a protozoa, it doesn't further my future genetic line. If you ever naturally impregnated an Orangutan, I would admit that they are humans. The same with lost Neadrathals, they might have been human in their time, but the moment their genetic line theoretically diverged enough to to become incapable in interbreeding, I would argue they became a competing species of their own.

I hope it was clear that I was making a distinction between biology and morals. Yes, you could run your experiment back through time and declare that the first organism you could not breed with, is a non-human. Now, this would still be impossible to do, because there would be an intermediate phase where the offspring are fertile but aren't exactly like modern humans, and it would progressively get more difficult as you went back. There would not be a daughter you could have fertile offspring with, while its mother was incapable of it. That is the point I was actually making when I said that the clear species definition is impossible.

But suppose you were successful anyway. Is "this is an organism that I can breed with" a meaningful moral statement? Of course not. Whether or not you can have a child with another human really has nothing to do with whether they deserve rights. That is why the moral concept of human is fuzzy -- any description of a human that actually captures what BBS (say) means by human must revert to biological truisms like "23 chromosome pairs," which raises the question of who the hell cares about the number of chromosome pairs you have. Humans deserve respect if they can feel pain and think, not because they're part of some arbitrary biological category.

[patches70]

Mets, I just don't agree with you. Eating a steak does not make one a murderer. You are not a murderer even though you've eaten meat in the past. You weren't a murderer then, you aren't a murderer now (that I know of). Killing an animal for the express purpose of consuming it is not murder. Eating an animal because one is hungry does not make one an accomplice of murder.

A person who owns a dog or a cat is not a slaver. The family pet is not a slave. The milk cow is not a slave. Even though you refuse to follow where you're proposed path would lead (to massive suffering of not only the once held farm animals, but also human beings), you are entitled to your opinion.

You are entitled to live your life as you see fit as well. You can even keep on with your extreme rhetoric and attempts at coercion on people, but that will only lead to people scoffing and ridiculing you. Which you apparently don't mind and that's fine. By all means, keep up the good fight I guess. I'll just be over here grilling up a nice steak with some salad and potatoes. Mmm, mm, it all smells delicious.

And for breakfast I'll have some fried eggs, bacon, toast, milk and probably an orange. And I won't feel not a twinge of guilt.

[/]

I hope it was clear that I was making a distinction between biology and morals.

Fine, this is what it boils down to then. I seriously doubt that we will ever be able to come to a logical consensus in that case, since I do not believe in morals. I believe that there are logical reasons for things, we do not only avoid murdering because it is "wrong", or because they might be better defended, there are tons of other reasons; maybe it's hard to find a good solid bathtub, perhaps windowless vans get really bad mileage in the forest, at the very least people will probably uninvite you to their New Years party. Even if you're a complete sociopath, you're probably going to have a nicer life if you emulate Bernie Madoff rather than Ted Bundy. The reality is, the cost/risk/inconvenience outweighs the benefits in most cases.

I conform to the rules, traditions, and "morality" because it's convenient, and also because it's pleasurable. I have been psychologically conditioned to react positively to certain "good" stimuli, such as being polite, sharing, helping others, and so on. As well as conditioned to react negatively to the pain of others, crying, angry outbursts and so on. It is to my benefit if all others in my presence, and particularly potential enemies receive compatible training, so I thus promote my ideals and attempt to bond with links of kindness and unity.

I support animal rights because it causes me personal displeasure to see a living being suffer, but I do not see any logical reason that shows animals have any solid moral worth. That is the only link that is missing in your arguments, you can conclude that x-amount of gain isn't worth y-amount of suffering, but that only matters if animal suffering has any logical worth to humankind to begin with.

[mrswdk]

I have decided that now is the appropriate time to share these images taken from a Japanese TV show in which a group of schoolchildren were encouraged to raise and nurture a person named Ayana before killing and eating her on national TV.

[BigBallinStalin]

Is this what people like PS were talking about when they said that legalizing gay marriage would lead to legalizing bestiality?

Consensual sex among persons is totally acceptable, so yes, mrswdk. As humans, we can objectively determine that a Metsian non-human person prefers pleasure over pain, and since sex is pleasurable--assuming one knows how to turn on a pig, then humans sexing pigs is totes fine.

Of course, humans can hardly reveal the preferences of non-humans, so we just need an arbitrary moral axiom and enough posting that ignores problems in order to get the conclusion we want.

If you disagree, you're a Nazi racist.

[BigBallinStalin]

I like food that was gained from some animel, it's just my personal taste. You may call me an ass-hole, but I really don't care about animal cruelty whatsoever. A speciesist in its purest forum, I guess.

I support Mets in his struggle to get a good point across, though. It seems that some people just don't wanna hear an anti-voice against their habituary behaviour of eating meat. To those people defending themselves I'd like to say: 'Eat your meat, enjoy it while it's still here. I do too.' - signed: an extreme majority of people around the world

It's hard to argue with someone who arbitrarily ignores the implications of their moral stance and then when finally cornered, they equate your argument with Nazism and/or racism. According to Mets, your preference for animal flesh is indistinguishable for a preference to destroy all Jews or hate/kill black people, so enjoy giving that kind of guy support.

[BigBallinStalin]

I have decided that now is the appropriate time to share these images taken from a Japanese TV show in which a group of schoolchildren were encouraged to raise and nurture a person named Ayana before killing and eating her on national TV.

Lesson learned? Reap benefits from the division of labor! Onward, comrades! As Mao once said, "Bacon for the masses!"

[Metsfanmax]

Mets, I just don't agree with you. Eating a steak does not make one a murderer. You are not a murderer even though you've eaten meat in the past. You weren't a murderer then, you aren't a murderer now (that I know of). Killing an animal for the express purpose of consuming it is not murder. Eating an animal because one is hungry does not make one an accomplice of murder.

Well if you're just going to say "you're wrong" and provide no reasoning, then there's not much further we can go.

A person who owns a dog or a cat is not a slaver. The family pet is not a slave. The milk cow is not a slave. Even though you refuse to follow where you're proposed path would lead (to massive suffering of not only the once held farm animals, but also human beings), you are entitled to your opinion.

I do not refuse to follow it. I engaged in some speculation of where this might lead us, in an earlier post -- go back and find it. My conclusion is that the future would contain much less suffering than the present, which is enough to justify the action. You (and BBS) have as yet failed to argue how the future "massive suffering" can possibly be worse than the ten billion animals we kill every year for food.

BTW: I don't believe that having a companion animal in your home is slavery. I do believe that you don't own the pet, because you cannot own a person; it is more like a situation of legal guardianship. Similar to having children.

You are entitled to live your life as you see fit as well. You can even keep on with your extreme rhetoric and attempts at coercion on people, but that will only lead to people scoffing and ridiculing you. Which you apparently don't mind and that's fine. By all means, keep up the good fight I guess.

Well, of course I mind. But I see the fight as necessary, even if that means people will personally dislike me.

[Metsfanmax]

Consensual sex among persons is totally acceptable, so yes, mrswdk. As humans, we can objectively determine that a Metsian non-human person prefers pleasure over pain, and since sex is pleasurable--assuming one knows how to turn on a pig, then humans sexing pigs is totes fine.

Of course, humans can hardly reveal the preferences of non-humans, so we just need an arbitrary moral axiom and enough posting that ignores problems in order to get the conclusion we want.

The preferences of human babies cannot be revealed; I remain puzzled why you haven't yet signed off on eating them for dinner.

Also, it is amusing that you think that the preferences of humans can objectively be determined, given how often humans lie, and the immense array of circumstances that can change what a person desires. But sure, you go on thinking you know what people want -- BBS knows what's best.

If you want to argue with all of the many scientists who have shown that non-human animals feel pain, because you know better than they do -- be my guest. At least we'll know about your intellectual honesty. Now, I don't think you're doing that. Your argument is that we cannot know their preferences because we cannot communicate with them. The problem is that you have taken this information and made the worst possible decision with it: that is, to do the one thing that we know they wouldn't want (pain constantly inflicted on them). As with small children, we may not be able to correctly guess their preferences all the time; but that doesn't mean we are justified in inflicting whatever cruelty we want on them.

[BigBallinStalin]

Mets, I just don't agree with you. Eating a steak does not make one a murderer. You are not a murderer even though you've eaten meat in the past. You weren't a murderer then, you aren't a murderer now (that I know of). Killing an animal for the express purpose of consuming it is not murder. Eating an animal because one is hungry does not make one an accomplice of murder.

Well if you're just going to say "you're wrong" and provide no reasoning, then there's not much further we can go.

A person who owns a dog or a cat is not a slaver. The family pet is not a slave. The milk cow is not a slave. Even though you refuse to follow where you're proposed path would lead (to massive suffering of not only the once held farm animals, but also human beings), you are entitled to your opinion.

I do not refuse to follow it. I engaged in some speculation of where this might lead us, in an earlier post -- go back and find it. My conclusion is that the future would contain much less suffering than the present, which is enough to justify the action. You (and BBS) have as yet failed to argue how the future "massive suffering" can possibly be worse than the ten billion animals we kill every year for food.

I've already outlined those implications of your moral stance. See "100% veganism." Understand the implications of your stance and how it devalues the lives of millions of animals (they're no longer useful commodities, etc. etc.). Your rebuttal largely consisted of "my position isn't 100% veganism" to which I stated before you, "you may disagree with the definition, blah blah blah, let's call it 'Metsianism.'" That's when you started scaling down your argument, but then reassert the bailey, "Metsian animals are people!" (this is why you consistently ignore the implications of your incoherent stance). Amazingly, you even tried to make your moral position "universalizable."

Then we get into interpersonal comparisons of utility and the inability to record revealed preference without market prices and without exchanges. Animals don't exchange, although some engage in a form of reciprocity. Metsian Translators will 'reveal' nonhuman preferences through anthropomorphic personification. "You're being a racist Nazi!" Et cetera, et cetera.

Here I am again, reminding you of the problems with your stance which you magically ignore.

This is ridiculous.

[BigBallinStalin]

Consensual sex among persons is totally acceptable, so yes, mrswdk. As humans, we can objectively determine that a Metsian non-human person prefers pleasure over pain, and since sex is pleasurable--assuming one knows how to turn on a pig, then humans sexing pigs is totes fine.

Of course, humans can hardly reveal the preferences of non-humans, so we just need an arbitrary moral axiom and enough posting that ignores problems in order to get the conclusion we want.

The preferences of human babies cannot be revealed; I remain puzzled why you haven't yet signed off on eating them for dinner.

Oh, wow, the specieist yet again continues to ignore human institutions which delineate the decision-makers for human babies. Gee, why omit an understanding of institutions when you can glibly (yet incorrectly) make stupid comebacks?

But hey, let's ignore the preference revelation problem and ignore reductio ad aburdums of Mestianism by retreating to the motte ("baby eater!"). lol.

Also, it is amusing that you think that the preferences of humans can objectively be determined, given how often humans lie, and the immense array of circumstances that can change what a person desires. But sure, you go on thinking you know what people want -- BBS knows what's best.

There's lies, and then there's willingness-to-pay (google it. Obviously, my explaining anything to you will be countered with a fallacy, so have it). There's exchanges, and then there's made up shit by Mets. Weak point, Mets.

If you want to argue with all of the many scientists who have shown that non-human animals feel pain, because you know better than they do -- be my guest. At least we'll know about your intellectual honesty. Now, I don't think you're doing that. Your argument is that we cannot know their preferences because we cannot communicate with them. The problem is that you have taken this information and made the worst possible decision with it: that is, to do the one thing that we know they wouldn't want (pain constantly inflicted on them). As with small children, we may not be able to correctly guess their preferences all the time; but that doesn't mean we are justified in inflicting whatever cruelty we want on them.

Why would I bother correcting you again when I know you're gonna f*ck it up later? It's pointless with you, Mets.

[BigBallinStalin]

BTW: I don't believe that having a companion animal in your home is slavery. I do believe that you don't own the pet, because you cannot own a person; it is more like a situation of legal guardianship. Similar to having children.

Sure, you can. It's called "slavery." The owner of an animal/slave controls nearly 100% of the bundle of property rights over a pet. We could talk about the differences between the outright buying and selling of pets and humans compared to adoption, but that would require stepping into matters of institutions and consent. We've already explored the nonsensical path of Metsianism into that territory, so it'd be an unprofitable journey.


Should I demonstrate how your pleasure-pain principle applauds animal slavery? The pets enjoy their lives owned at home, rather than being in a shelter, or never having been produced at all (existence in a happy home is preferable to non-existence). Metsianism would support keeping the demand for animal slavery positive. Shall we carry your lovely whitewashing of nonhuman slavery into an analogy of human slavery? You'll reject it anyway, and then re-assert that the opposition to Metsianism are essentially racist Nazis who have no problem with humans eating baby humans. Good job, Mets.

[BigBallinStalin]

All Metsian animals are people. It is not right to kill a Metsian for food. Bears kill fish for food. Bears are murderers. This Metsian on Metsian violence must be stopped! All carnivores must be stopped! The genocide must end, but the means for ending the genocide will likely result in a famine for carnivores, so the Metsians become genocidal themselves. This can be averted by stuffing plant matter down the throats of all Metsian murderers, who should be caged for their crimes (you people will foot the bill; animals don't really pay taxes). These rehabilitated victims would prefer to live by being force-fed plant matter because as a Metsian Translator, I know these things. Trust me. The Metsian Morality is almost "universalizable."

[Metsfanmax]

Sure, you can. It's called "slavery." The owner of an animal/slave controls 100% of the bundle of property rights over a pet. We could talk about the differences between the outright buying and selling of pets and humans compared to adoption, but that would require stepping into matters of institutions and consent. We've already explored the nonsensical path of Metsianism into that territory, so it'd be an unprofitable journey.

What I meant is that you ought not be able to own a person. I recognize that a particular legal jurisdiction could legalize such slavery, but I am speaking of what is morally justified. If you have guardianship over a non-human animal in your home, I do not consider that you own that pet. You may very well be forcing it to live there against its will, in which case it would be slavery; but nothing about the situation dictates that you own the pet. The reason this distinction is important is because if the animal is your property, you cannot mistreat it, and there would no basis for laws against cruelty to the animal (which I think there ought to be).

Should I demonstrate how your pleasure-pain principle applauds animal slavery? The pets enjoy their lives owned at home, rather than being in a shelter,

That is true. That is why I have a companion animal in my home -- it was so that she could avoid going to a shelter, which would have been a dicey bet for her.

or never having been produced at all (existence in a happy home is preferable to non-existence).

I disagree. I don't think we can make moral claims about whether existence in a happy home is preferable to non-existence, nor whether existence in a miserable situation is preferable to non-existence. What we can do is work with the animals that are currently alive, to provide the best situation for them. I don't believe in a pure "maximize numerical amounts of utility" version of utilitarianism, so I don't believe in that statement. Otherwise, well-off humans would essentially be obligated to make tons of babies, by that standard.

You'll reject it anyway, and then re-assert that the opposition to Metsianism are essentially racist Nazis who have no problem with humans eating baby humans. Good job, Mets.

Are you having fun going on about that? I have been courteous to you throughout this entire discussion, and the last couple pages have seen nothing but you bombarding me with insults like this. I don't see why it's necessary.

[Metsfanmax]

All Metsian animals are people. It is not right to kill a Metsian for food. Bears kill fish for food. Bears are murderers. This Metsian on Metsian violence must be stopped! All carnivores must be stopped! The genocide must end, but the means for ending the genocide will likely result in a famine for carnivores, so the Metsians become genocidal themselves. This can be averted by stuffing plant matter down the throats of all Metsian murderers, who should be caged for their crimes (you people will foot the bill; animals don't really pay taxes). These rehabilitated victims would prefer to live by being force-fed plant matter because as a Metsian Translator, I know these things. Trust me. The Metsian Morality is almost "universalizable."

Bears are not murderers -- they do not have the capacity to know right from wrong. That is a prerequisite for being guilty of murder. This is true for humans too, so I do not know why you should make such an outlandish claim.

[mrswdk]

I have a companion animal in my home

lol, nice choice of words. You sure you don't you mean 'roommate'?

[patches70]

Are you having fun going on about that? I have been courteous to you throughout this entire discussion, and the last couple pages have seen nothing but you bombarding me with insults like this. I don't see why it's necessary.

You are the one that made the comparison that people who eat meat are no better than racists and nazis! An absurd statement to say the least. You shouldn't have made that argument to begin with, so deal with it. It's necessary because it highlights your coercive and exaggerated rhetoric.

[Metsfanmax]

Are you having fun going on about that? I have been courteous to you throughout this entire discussion, and the last couple pages have seen nothing but you bombarding me with insults like this. I don't see why it's necessary.

You are the one that made the comparison that people who eat meat are no better than racists and nazis! An absurd statement to say the least. You shouldn't have made that argument to begin with, so deal with it. It's necessary because it highlights your coercive and exaggerated rhetoric.

No, I made the argument that people who eat meat are using the same reasoning as racists and Nazis. People who aren't racists and who aren't Nazis are clearly better than people who are, but one should still be ashamed of using the same reasoning.

[BigBallinStalin]

Mets, did you try applying your "Nazi, racist, baby-eater" analogies to any Martin Luther King Jr. speeches? Isn't it odd how the implication of your argument leads you to conclude that MLK Jr. was essentially using racist arguments? (Where did your argument go wrong?)

How about applying it to some feminist speeches? Given your primary tactics ITT, you'd compare them to Nazis in order to advance your argument. How does that strengthen your case for Metsianism?

[Metsfanmax]

Mets, did you try applying your "Nazi, racist, baby-eater" analogies to any Martin Luther King Jr. speeches? Isn't it odd how the implication of your argument leads you to conclude that MLK Jr. was essentially using racist arguments? (Where did your argument go wrong?)

No, it does not lead me to conclude that he was using racist arguments. MLK Jr. rejected racism, and argued for expanding our circle of compassion to all humans. I am merely going one step further and arguing for expanding our circle of compassion to all beings that are sentient. I strongly suspect that if he were alive today he would agree with this, though I can't be completely certain.

How about applying it to some feminist speeches? Given your primary tactics ITT, you'd compare them to Nazis in order to advance your argument. How does that strengthen your case for Metsianism?

It is similarly not clear why you would make this claim. "Feminist speeches" are presumably calling out the fact that people make arbitrary distinctions based on gender, just as I call out the fact that people make arbitrary distinctions based on species. I believe that the fight for animal rights is best served when it is viewed intersectionally with the fight against racism and sexism. These people are my allies, not my enemies.

There is nothing truly radical in what I am arguing for: I am taking the arguments against slavery, and racism and sexism, and applying them one more time to beings that are arbitrarily discriminated against on a morally irrelevant characteristic. It might have fundamental consequences on the way we live, since we are so used to thinking of non-human animals as our property. But they are beings with their own interests. Just as no human ought to be the property of another human, no self-conscious animal ought to be the property of another self-conscious animal*. It will take some getting used to, to figure out the right way to coexist; but the first step, not treating them as slaves, is straightforward.

*I have other beliefs for animals that are sentient but most likely not self-conscious in any way, like fish or amphibians. We don't need to get to those until later.

[Phatscotty]

Replace "cute girl" with "homeless person" and the end result is the same, the work of monsters.

I agree with this. That's how the major news media works. They report only what they want to, while other stories (just as tragic) are cut out of the spotlight. The major news media picks and chooses which stories to report or even in some instances "create" or accentuate.

A good example of what you are talking about happened about 13 or 15 years ago in Phoenix, AZ. A homeless woman was beaten, gang raped, and then thrown into a dumpster and set ablaze. A small story was written on it in the local newspaper on some obscure page, but the rest of the country never caught wind that this type of thing happened. But yet in Connecticut, a doctor's family (wife, 17 year old daughter, and 11 year old daughter) get raped and then burned alive and the whole country wants justice for a prestigious family and their cute little white girls.

I'm not trying to say what happened to these girls and Jessica Chambers wasn't horrible, because it is; but the major news media chooses who we get all worked up about. Our news media and society tend to put differing values on differing human lives, those values are based on a sense of worth. Who is more worthy of life? Some haggard meth addict getting raped in a shadowy part of Phoenix or some young 19 year old cute blonde that innocently went to the store to get gas and some munchies? If given the choice to save only one of these girls, which one would it be? The choice is even harder for Batman.



The choice seemed much easier for the cop handing over his cell phone

My son asks me if monsters are real, and I tell them, yes, they are. They're us.

You have now created a paranoid misanthrope.

Dang Mac, 'monsters are real'? certainly some people are monsters, and depending on how old he is I can se that freaking out a young kid. And as we lose our ability to say what is right/wrong more each day, as we pull 'thou shall not kill' from the minds of more and more young people who would likely benefit from seeing it somewhere every single day as a reminder, as we teach 'there are only shades of grey, and justification rests more on potential perception', we can expect to see more and monsters as time goes on.

And yes, lack of religion/spirituality or all-seeing secularism does rob humanity to having purpose and encourages empitness/lost souls

[Phatscotty]

When I think of how many Americans could literally boil a lobster alive and then eat it, and think that there's absolutely nothing wrong with this, sometimes it doesn't make sense to me either. But the world still has a lot of horrible things left in it, and we should keep on striving to make it better. We do this by always standing on the side of justice, and not being silent when awful things happen.

Its an insect for fucks sake. A delicious one I might add.

Lobsters are crustaceans, which while being arthropods are certainly not insects and belong to a completely different subphylum.

But the important part is not what you call them -- it is whether they can feel pain. And there is lots of evidence that lobsters may feel pain in a way similar to how humans do. It is certainly not settled science, it's an active area of research. But if there's even a 10% chance that lobsters feel pain, we are all monsters if we're eating tens of millions of them each year. It would mean that there's a Holocaust happening all around us, all the time.

I know they are crustaceans, and yes they probably feel pain, like most living creatures. So what is your solution? Should we not eat? Perhaps we should only eat plants? Does a carrot feel pain while being boiled alive?

Switzerland has actually declared plants rights in their constitution

Tool sang about the holocaust of the carrots

[Phatscotty]

Is this what people like PS were talking about when they said that legalizing gay marriage would lead to legalizing bestiality?

Show me where I said that please, anything you may find I am sure was a response to the marriage redefiners always bringing it up. To me that's always been a circle jerk argument for simpletons to confirm they are right and the others are crazy and get a pass from volitionally choosing to think inbetween extremes. I do lay claim to making the incest argument, which has already copied the gay marriage argument in numerous American courts, and has already been defined as Progress indeed. But we've been over that

[Phatscotty]

No doubt it's all because of the few non-believers who think they are so much smarter than everybody else; who try to mock others and their 'sky daddy' which is so much more important to them than that last piece of external authority that a great many people do need most of the time. And all of the people need it at some point in their life.

No, not all of us feel the need to submit our will to some higher authority. Some of us want to be free. The ironic thing is that you go on and on about how those liberals are trying to take away our freedom, when you are just giving it up from the start for the feeling of being protected.

You are young yet Mets, and I have an odd suspicion your are in for a lot of misery and emptiness, bitterness negativity and envy. I guarantee you at some point you will find yourself talking to spaghetti monster, because for many things you don't know yet, and answer does not exist anywhere else.

Turning to religion in moments of crisis, unbearable loss, life-changing confusion is not the same thing as submitting our will at all times in all ways. Yes Mets, some want to be free, unfortunately you are the last person I would ever believe would say that, so let's change that as well to 'Mets wants to be free from the spaghetti monster that doesn't exist, but spends the rest of the time trying to force others to work half of everyday in the lives for everyone else, and attacks anyone who wants to freedom to keep the fruits of their own labor as greedy and uncompassionate baby killers'

No, I don't believe Liberals are trying to take away our Freedom. Sometimes in some cases, I think some are tricked into taking others Freedom based on something that is important to them, in many cases by spending the future generations opportunity, in ways some probably don't even comprehend yes they are robbing the Freedom of the future, so are some Conservatives on some things. just as the same is true of some Conservatives who want a military draft or want to send someone elses kid somewhere to war but not their own, or have their own things they want to spend the futures money on so they can have something now.

It's the Progressives I worry about the most, most not even realizing their Progress is away from Freedom, as they don't want Freedom of speech, they want Freedom from speech, meaning nobody else is free to speak. Then of course, they don't want Freedom of religion, they want Freedom from religion, meaning they better not see a religious symbol anywhere on their way to work and spend a lot of time removing crosses from areas that are now public, not to mention getting religious places and practices like marriage to be linked to the state by forcing them to get permits now to do things they didn't need yesterday, THEN OH! you signed your name on the permit to run an orphanage right? Well then you Catholic orphanage caring for 60 children and feeding them and sheltering them and educating them, you cannot deny a satanist, and if you do we will 'pull your permit!' you are not free to turn a Muslim away who wants your crosses removed from wherever they see one, you must participate in that gay pride parade.

[Phatscotty]

All Metsian animals are people. It is not right to kill a Metsian for food. Bears kill fish for food. Bears are murderers. This Metsian on Metsian violence must be stopped! All carnivores must be stopped! The genocide must end, but the means for ending the genocide will likely result in a famine for carnivores, so the Metsians become genocidal themselves. This can be averted by stuffing plant matter down the throats of all Metsian murderers, who should be caged for their crimes (you people will foot the bill; animals don't really pay taxes). These rehabilitated victims would prefer to live by being force-fed plant matter because as a Metsian Translator, I know these things. Trust me. The Metsian Morality is almost "universalizable."

Bears are not murderers -- they do not have the capacity to know right from wrong. That is a prerequisite for being guilty of murder. This is true for humans too, so I do not know why you should make such an outlandish claim.

Hence the story about Adam and Eve, taking a bite of the apple....oh wait, I'm guessing you never studied the deeper implications of the story based on nobody was actually there to record it, right? I think this may be a big reason for your literal insanity on this issue. And I also see how this leads into feeling guilt for every little thing, and that into the dark and empty charybdis that makes for an empty soul and any purpose in life seem elusive and mystical, but you won't actually do anything about the only thing you have total control over, so you focus your efforts on forcing everyone else into misery, and Misery loves company as you may know, or not know yet. Just remember one thing about Phatso, besides killing babies for fun.... He's the one that told you and then showed you that your life is what you make it, and even if you don't understand now that you get out what you put in, you will at some point. The sooner the better