|
Post by SleepyTemplar on Sept 6, 2003 1:46:57 GMT -5
I'm curious of people's opinions on the matter. Recently, I've become a vegetarian due to moral arguments for it. The one that really convinced me was:
1. If animals can suffer, then it is immoral to cause gratuitious suffering to animals. 2. Animals can suffer. 3. Therefore, it is immoral to cause gratuitious suffering to animals. 4. If humans do not need to eat meat to survive, then eating meat is unnecessary. 5. Humans do not need to eat meat to survive. 6. Therefore, it is immoral to eat meat in most circumstances.
Premise 1 has been denied by Kant, who argued that the categorical imperative applied only to humans, and that animals were means to an end- the end being humans. While Kant did condemn cruelty to animals, it was because he believed it would harden one's dealings towards other humans. A problem with Kant's position lies in that most people possess moral intuitions that suggest there is something inherently immoral about dousing a cat in gasoline and lighting it on fire. While the existence of moral intuitions alone is not a strong case (for our intuitions could be in error), as one of the main aims of morality exists to reduce or remove suffering. If one seeks to restrict this purely to humans, one must provide some distinction that separates humans from animals (claiming that being human in virtue of itself is a distinction begs the question- what makes a human so above animals?). The ability to reason and be ethical are the two qualities we do possess, but we cannot purely rely on them- otherwise, one must be ready to deny humanness to the mentally retarded incapable of the forementioned qualities. If one relies on the human capacity to suffer as a unifying principle for morality amongst mankind, then one is stuck in the dilemma of admitting animals into consideration to avoid gratuitious suffering on their behalf, or provide a unifying distinction that sets humans and animals apart and explain our moral intuitions on the matter (although, the third option of denying those incapable of reasoning or being ethical as non-humans, an extreme position few would take).
Premise 2 is supported through biology showing that the capacity to feel pain derives from our nervous system, and that animals, possessing a nervous system of their own, are capable of feeling pain. This premise is also consistent with similar reactions in animals to stimuli that invokes pain in humans.
Premise 3 follows from 1 and 2 (if 1 and 2 are true) through modus ponens.
Premise 4 seems straightforward and commonsencial- if I don't need meat to survive, then it is not a necessary aspect.
Premise 5 is well-supported through the viability of vegetarian diets of today. While some vitamins and minerals are slightly difficult to obtain in such diets (such as vitamin B12, which occurs only in meat products, iodine, vitamin D, and zinc), with the large supply of fortified foods and supplements one can easily partake of a healthy diet that does not cause harm to animals.
Yet, one can undoubtedly come up with scenarios in which people might concede that eating meat was necessary to survive. The conclusion reflects this. Consider hunting/gathering cultures that were unable to farm or eat a purely vegetable diet. In these situations, because a vegetarian alternative did not exist, eating meat was a necessary action for survival. In these circumstances we can side with a utilitarian principle that the interest of the humans outweighed the interests of the animals. However, these counterexamples do not weaken the conclusion should the premises turn out to be true, which, given my defense of them, I believe to be the case.
There are other arguments for vegetarianism that I find convincing, though not as much as this argument, and I am curious of your opinions of it.
|
|
|
Post by The~Inquisitor on Sept 6, 2003 5:04:52 GMT -5
Vegetarianism, in my OPINION, is silly. 1) People sometimes do it to become healthy, but most of us know that meat is good for you. 2) Some people refuse to eat fish to limit the suffering but it has been proven that fish do not feel pain (When they get a hook through them 3) Humans are able to eat both animals and vegetables because they are what we live on. If "god" didn't want us eating meat, he wouldn't have made us Omnivours. 4) Many animals are killed by pesticides used in crop fields and other ways farmer protect their crops. Let's not forget about the suffering of these animals. 5) It is going to be a lot less painful to be shot with an instant death and then your body used productively than be mangled up in a combine harvester and left to rot (probably eaten by other animals after aswell) 6) "Humans do not need to eat meat to survive." - You're right, we don't NEED meat to survive, but it is good for us. (Meat is good for you, if anyone says otherwise they are an idiot) Personally I would much rather eat meat than eat a load of horrid nuts. 7) "Therefore, it is immoral to eat meat in most circumstances." - Who cares if it is moral or not? Would a tiger think twice about gobbling you up? Don't give me any crap about "We have a choice", we are just predators like most other animals and we have the ability to take on any other creatures. 8) The animals we eat are bred to be killed and grinded up for our dinner. Remember, we are giving them the life in the first place and the animals probably have the time of their lives whilst alive. They get to eat as much as they want (the food they eat of not fit for humans) and be around their own kind. If we didn't put them all together and make them bred, the animals wouldn't have the good time that they do before they are shot. I actually do not have any problem with people who don't eat meat, it's their mistake. However, when these stupid people (a fair few of the vegetarians) protest around companies such as McDonalds or on websites or wherever saying that "Meat is Murder" and all that piddly crap it gets kind of annoying. I mean sure they don't have to eat meat, but they shouldn't try and ruin other peoples diets just because they have a few stupid morals themselves.
|
|
Pat
RPG Townie
Posts: 254
|
Post by Pat on Sept 6, 2003 15:45:58 GMT -5
6) "Humans do not need to eat meat to survive." - You're right, we don't NEED meat to survive, but it is good for us. (Meat is good for you, if anyone says otherwise they are an idiot) My brother was a Vegetarian for about two years then he became a vegan and hes been that for about a year. And he is just as healthy as the next person if not more.
|
|
|
Post by SickAndWretched on Sept 6, 2003 18:14:55 GMT -5
I don't mind vegetarians, 'cause its there choice and I have to repect that. Though I do love to playfully pick on them. hehe the only reason i see to become a vegan or vegetarian is to have that beautifully nature pale skin. I just don't understand vegetarians that don't eat meat to "save the enviroment," because many animals that are eaten harm the eviroment. For example, cows.. Cow flatulence (e.i. farting) destories the ozone layer, so therefore if you don't eat the cows there its your fault that the ozone has a hole. hehe..
I eat meat simply 'cause it tastes good. Now I generally only eat traditional farm animals, since they're only existance is to be grown for food and since they no longer have any natural predators. and I see it as more moral to eat dead animal instead of just letting it decay. Also if we don't eat them, then their population would grow insanely out of balance and thats never a good thing..
As for not eating things 'cause the thing suffers. Now (no offense) but thats silly. I mean you don't think that plants suffer when they're cut from there roots. I know it easier to hurt something that doesn't react, but lack of reaction doesn't mean there's a lack of pain. So in some sense its less moral to kill plants and eat them then it is to kill animals. y'know most animals will stil survive even if we hunt them often. but what chance to plants have.. to quote one vegan saying: "I'm not a vegan because I like animals. I just really hate plants"..
Anyway you look at it. It can be argued that eating anything that isn't entirally man made (exception of babies since they're man made) is extremely immoral, sickening, and completely primal. But since humanity is far from prefect, I say eat up. We gotta show this animal and plant bastards who's boss.
|
|
|
Post by SleepyTemplar on Sept 6, 2003 23:56:39 GMT -5
Ah, our moral relativist/egoist decides to enter the fray.
Actually, studies show that vegetarianism and veganism are better choices than eating meat, showing a reduction in heart disease and cancer risks.
Your claim is also ambigiuous. Meat is good for us in what way? If you mean that meat contains nutrients the body can use, no one denies such. But if you mean to say that meat is something should have for better health, then unfortunately this isn't the case.
1. If an animal has a nervous system, it can feel pain (and therefore suffer). 2. Fish possess a nervous system. 3. Therefore, fish can feel pain. (1, 2 modus ponens).
Unfortunately, you'll have to show a premise wrong rather than simply claim I'm wrong.
A theistic argument against vegetarianism is not likely to work with me, given that I don't accept the existence of any gods. Secondly, the first claim is fallacious. Potentialities does not mean one should actualize them. That humans can eat meat doesn't mean we should anymore than that we can murder mean we should (if my argument is sound, in which to demonstrate it isn't you need to show a premise false).
This is a red herring fallacy, as it has nothing to do on the matter of whether it is moral or immoral to eat meat. However, that bad conditions exist does not mean that they must always. I should also point out that some vegetable and fruit producers grow "organic" crops in which pesticides and herbicides are not used, and that animal activist groups do work to prevent animals from being mistreated.
Now you invoke a false dilemma. These aren't the only two possibilities for an animal's life. Plus, your first option is simply in error. Animals raised for meat aren't just painlessly killed, and la da dee dah meat is gathered- these animals are kept in HORRIBLE living conditions, undergo procedures (such as chickens having their beaks cut off to prevent them from pecking other chickens) without any form of anesthetic, and are not always killed swiftlessly and painlessly.
Meat substitutes exist with an almost identical flavour made from soybeans, wheat gluten, and other such products that are not only better for you health-wise, but allow one to satisfy a desire for the taste of meat without having to cause harm to animals.
Not to mention that vegetarians don't simply eat nuts. Lacto-ovo-vegetarians eat dairy products and eggs in addition to grains, vegetables, fruits, legumes, nuts, and more.
Considering morality is whether actions are moral (and ought to be followed) or immoral (and ought not to be followed) and exists for the purpose of removing or reducing suffering, promote human flourishing, resolve conflicts of interests justly, and maintain the survival of society, whether something is moral or not is quite significant. While this is not a discussion as to why moral relativism is a poor position, suffice to say that if you do want to begin such a debate, I'll gladly provide arguments for moral objectivism.
You're zero and two so far. As a determinist, I don't believe we have "free choice" (which is what I believe you're implying). However, humans have the capacity, unlike tigers, to be ethical. Humans can understand morality, and therefore act morally, whereas a tiger cannot. Secondly, tigers are carnivores, whereas we are omnivores.
Regarding your comment of "we give the animals life in the first place, therefore we can treat them however we like", by your reasoning human parents are completely justified in torturing their children, or even killing them at any period prior to their own independence. As I doubt even your egoist standards would consider it right for your parents to kill you, Inquisitor, I trust you can see the problem with your claim (this is coincidentally, the same horrific reasoning theists use- "god is the author of life, and therefore can treat it however he likes and is still good").
As I stated above, the conditions these animals live in are terrible. Chickens are bunched several in a cage about the square feet of a newspaper page. They are unable to move about, much less spread their wings. Cattle raised for veal are kept in dark stalls that they cannot move in, and are not given iron or roughage (as such would lower the quality of the meat!) to where these cattle will suck at the sides of their stall in order to obtain iron! They even lick their own urine to obtain iron, which is a reason for placing them in small stalls to where they can't turn around or lie down comfortably- so that they cannot lick their urine (which is not done under normal circumstances! Steers are castrated without anesthetic (some places, such as Britain, do require anesthetic except on very young calves)- one slices the scrotum, and rips out the testicles, oft while the animal can feel this, all to improve meat quality.
Unless you've managed to write a brillant refutation to their reasoning, they are quite justified in their actions. Given that you haven't shown my argument to be unsound, this is highly unlikely to be the case. Simply disagreeing with them does not make them unjustified- you must provide a rational reason for disagreement. In my defense of my premises, I outlined what premises could potentially be denied, and the positions that result from them. You, however, have not shown any premise to be false. Granted, I did ask not only for opinions on my argument, but opinions on the matter of vegetarianism in general, yet it is slightly implied that if you're going to take a position, you provide a reason why. I, personally, am rather interested in hearing the logic that makes me "mistaken" and "stupid".
Is a cannibal wrong to eat a human? Why or why not?
Do you also intend to eat your parents when they die? Why or why not?
Could you please tell me why you (in all likeliness) believe it immoral to eat people?
The plant bit is a red herring fallacy, the argument is whether eating *MEAT*, not plants, is immoral. You're supposed to show that eating meat is not immoral, rather than lob an ad hominem tu quoque!
But let's entertain your comment. In my defense of premise 1 and 2, I drew the conclusion based upon the existence of a nervous system in animals, and logically inferred that because animals have a nervous system, they can feel pain (because the nervous system in humans is what causes us to feel pain). Plants do not have a nervous system, and therefore would not feel pain.
Plus, because animals have conscious states, whereas plants do not (reacting to stimuli in plants is not what I refer to). Animals, having a brain, and therefore consciousness, have interests. Humans have an interest in continued existence, and we have a prima facie concern to protect these interests. Because animals can exhibit these interests in continued existence and avoiding pain, we likely have a prima facie concern to protect these interests.
|
|
|
Post by theblakeman on Sept 7, 2003 0:19:49 GMT -5
Vegitarians are a bunch of blood-belchin girl thingys. Pardon my French but it is true.
1. If animals can suffer, then it is immoral to cause gratuitious suffering to animals.
So? If there were an animal bigger than us they would do it as well. Humans enjoy meat. So in a strange, convoluted way (yes I am contradicting myself but I do it to show I couldn't give a d**n) YOU ARE NOT HUMAN.
2. Animals can suffer.
So? Would you rather have cows releasing methane gas and depleting the ozone layer? A weak argument, but still, most animals are only born to be eaten, so why stop now?
3. Therefore, it is immoral to cause gratuitious suffering to animals.
Again, I'm sure that if there was a bigger, smarter animal than humans they would do just the same. It's called NATURE.
4. If humans do not need to eat meat to survive, then eating meat is unnecessary.
Meat is tasty and enriches my life. So why not eat it?
5. Humans do not need to eat meat to survive.
We also don't need to drive cars, own TVs, play video games, or make videos erotically involving enemas to survive but we still do it. It gives us pleasure.
6. Therefore, it is immoral to eat meat in most circumstances.
It's also immoral to do a lot of things. Just like you counter religion, it is also a matter of opinion, however, your opinion is irrelevant because most humans enjoy indulging in meat, and I myself even get sexual gratification from it. OH YEAH!
Check and MATE pls.
|
|
|
Post by Perkele on Sept 7, 2003 0:35:34 GMT -5
Yes, animals can feel the pain, so do humans. And what lion or tiger would do if they get a chanse to catch some humans? Ofcourse they eat us! They don't care if we suffer.
|
|
|
Post by Magi on Sept 7, 2003 0:46:03 GMT -5
It's like I say. Humans are only as moral as their ethics. Common ethics by the majority influenced by them consider their ways to be: "right." Most ethics are influenced by reasonable laws as well, so don't pull any: "People murder, so it's moral?" Bullnuts on me.
Tell me, how were you raised? What this all boils down to: Morals go only as far as a person was raised and influenced. Now is the part where I would pull some biblical stuff, but since you have a problem with that on a DEBATE forum, I won't say anything. It's funny to see you contradict yourself. I don't believe any of the evolution crap you say either. After all it is: "A theory" is it not?
|
|
Matkau
RPG Townie
Got an opinion? Thats nice, tell someone who cares
Posts: 494
|
Post by Matkau on Sept 7, 2003 1:09:14 GMT -5
I'm going to be frank. A nice argument, but wait! Whata re you using to bring up this argument? A computer! That uses electricity! That comes from a plant that most liekyl causes some form of pollution. On top of that the computer is made from plastics and metals mad ein more smog factories. Your computer is probbably on a desk, as well. A wooden desk! From a tree! Oh no! WHY GOD WHY DID THAT TREE HAVE TO DIE SO MY COMPUTER COULD HAVE A PLACE TO BE ON? ? Say, do you drive a car? I imagien you would. Use it to go to the store to buy your tofu burgers. But wait, you bastard! For every mile you drive you're killing the atmosphere! All because you wanted to get some non-meat food, you sleeper. And your house, oh dear your house. How many forests died to make your roof? And the fruits and vegetables you're eating might have been cultivated by tractors. GAS-POWERED TRACTORS OH NO. Good job, jackass, you killed the planet. oh wait, no, billions of people do this nuts EVERYDAY. Listen, you're not going to save ANY cows by being a vegetarian/ The onl thing you'll do is give yourself your own self-gratifaction in convincing yourself of the delusion that you're helping the world be a better place. Here's the Nobel f**king Prize, jackass. (ANd I already know you're going to step back on your throne and criticize my reply and maybe, just MAYBE even use some 4-syllable words to insult my intelligence, and chuckle to yourself as you think "Haha, I bet he doesnt even know what that means!". But here's the thing: This is the internet. You are a faceless person. I do not care what you say.)
|
|
|
Post by MaduinB on Sept 7, 2003 1:18:22 GMT -5
On the theory that all creatures with a nervous system have the capacity to feel pain...
Do all creatures that are able to feel pain contain a mental aversion to pain? Or is pain simply a feeling for a few lesser creatures that causes fear, which causes simple running away?
...And what does killing a tree have to do anything? ST is a vegetarian, not a hippie.
And yeah, the only way to be a TRUE vegetarian is to grow your own food, and eat that and only that. Straying from such would be purely hypocritical, because even eating anything at the expense of pain of another creature is, as you say, entirely immoral.
-Maduin Branford
P.S. - Do bugs count? They have neurology, and if you want your crops to live, you're going to need some form of repellant that'll starve any bugs attempting to eat your crop, and something to get any parasites out of the dirt.
|
|
|
Post by SickAndWretched on Sept 7, 2003 1:18:25 GMT -5
Not at all.. humans are animals, we're no different from other living being.. Therefore if a cannibal wants to eat, then let it eat. Though human meat is to stringy and hard to be enjoying, and humans (for the most part) have weak spirits therefor there isn't much of gain from them. But then again.. Most don't realize that you can gain alot more then vitamins and such from what you eat.. as long as its living it has a spirit and since animals and plants are less physically concious then humans, they have stronger spirits. Stronger spirits can be benefical to ones life and spirit. If you don't believe in spiritual energy, then hold you hands out infront of you, and put them close together without touching.. after awhile you'll fill like your hands are touching.. thats you spirit.. anyway back to the topic at hand.. that statement is moot due the fact that I never said it wasn't immoral to eat people. Morality is to much of an abstract enity to even be mildly realized by humanity at all. Prehaps if we reach a higher level of awareness maybe.. but humanity is to confused to realize whats truely right and whats truely wrong. Thereby making any opinion, view, belief, preception, consciousness, or any other point of view completely blind. no matter what truth you think anything holds its still all basically false.. Human existance is to be simple hide behind different fascades and seek to question every thing.. or in other words. Humanity is Cynical, and exsist to be so. OK.. so I strayed.. this time I'll stay on topic.. or well I'll actaully try.. Now as for Suffering.. Anything suffers.. but everything has a choice to acknowledge this suffering.. animals (for the most part) do not. especially farm animals. Mostly because they were raised there.. so its natural for them. Its like.. A family that came over to the US on the may flower, compared to a family that move here now. The older family would be more intune with the way things are in place. While the 2nd second would fine everything strange and different.. its the same for animals. If they're caught and put on a farm they then they would suffer alot more, but since they're born there. Its inheranted.. probably on a genectic level. And to say plants are unaware is strikely a statement spawned of ignorance.. plants are way more aware then humanity will ever by.. but speaking in spiritual trems.. physically they are not, but if you're gonna play the moral card then you should take all accounts of conscious. OH and... ..I don't fully agree with what theblakeman says. ..Its the weight of your words not the size or "intellect level" ..people often disagree if the can understand quite what something means.. ..beliefs are theories worded differently. ..all living things are at least parasitic in some way. (I forgot what its called when something lives off both the dead and the living...) all just for the record.. Now I believe that Vegarianism will increase when we start exploring space on longer trems. but thats for particality not morality. "the time you froce human being to despise themselves, is what I call hell" I just thought the saying fits this topic.. (note:.. I was writing this and 3 other's posted)
|
|
|
Post by SleepyTemplar on Sept 7, 2003 3:44:33 GMT -5
Apparently I should begin a debate over moral relativism and objectivism. This seems to be a topic we're dancing around, and giving that much of the defense of the position involves an objective morality, we probably should enter that part.
Anyhow:
MAGIKOOPA:
I do agree that our moral intuitions are the product of our conditioning. However, most people have moral intuitions in agreement with each other that reflect what the very concept of morality stands for.
Please note, MK, that I don't object to biblical verses per se. I object to someone posting claims without SUPPORT. If you intend to quote the Bible and provide some arguments for people to consider, great! If you're simply going to quote the Bible and expect that to demonstrate your point, then I'm afraid you contradict yourself in undermining the very purpose of a debate.
The difference between myself rejecting Christianity and yourself rejecting evolution is that for my non-belief in Christianity I not only attack theistic evidences and point out why they are unsound, but I also provide arguments for my position. Granted, it has been a significant time since the thread that briefly touched on the matter (that I believe you're referring to), but unless my memory is quote foggy, I do not recall you doing such in regards to evolutionary theory. That you consider evolution crap does not make it so- it's the arguments given that matter, and these arguments are the focal point of debate.
On a final matter, a theory in science does not mean the same thing as in common language. A theory in science refers to a hypothesis well-supported by evidence. The process of evolution is a fact- the change in allele frequency in populations over time is a verifiable and documented fact. The mechanisms that drive evolution, however, are still hypotheses. In regards to the origin of life, the field of abiogenesis is both independent of evolutionary theory, and is still in progress.
But I digress. Begin an evolution debate if you want to pursue the matter.
PERKELE:
As I stated in my previous post, humans, unlike tigers, have the capacity to be ethical. Humans are capable to understanding the concept of morality, and therefore are able to be aware of the consequences of their actions.
MATKAU:
Thank you for making me smile! Geez, and I thought I was a pessimist and cynic!
Why are you posting in the debates section then? Debate exists as a medium between parties in the exchange of ideas and their justification for such.
MADUIN:
A pure vegetarian doesn't eat animal products, period. There's no hypocrisy in purchasing non-animal products to eat. Suppose I have my next door neighbor grow tomatoes, and offers me one for a dime. Have I lost the label of "true vegetarian" in a situation that didn't harm an animal?
Unless you are an "organic" farmer.
However, did you happen to notice I argue against GRATUITIOUS SUFFERING, not simply suffering? Just as we have a prima facie concern for the life and freedom of others (hopefully), so do we have the same in regards to causing harm to animals. If Jones breaks the law, it is not immoral to curtail his freedom and life. Similiarly, if to protect oneself or others one must cause harm to an animal, then in that situation it is justified to do so. If one is a utilitarian, this is quite simple to believe (even a deontologist could formulate a similar belief in regards to justifiable situations of harming animals).
BLAKEMAN:
So glad to know you thing such of me!
Let's suppose a super race of aliens land on Earth (superior in all respects to humans), enslave the planet, and decide to raise humans to be eaten. That this can be done by force does not negate the question of whether such is moral or not (unless you're a relativist). Most people's moral intuitions are going to say that in this scenario it is morally wrong to have ourselves be eaten- yet this scenario highlights that the degree of differ beyond a unifying factor in animals cannot be a distinction to cause unnecessary harm to them- otherwise, one must also believe it is morally justifiable to kill mentally retarded people.
Actually, a much better argument againt the cattle farming would be that rain forests are being destroyed to provide land for cattle. If we don't stop this, our rain forests will disappear, which will have much more profound impact on our environment.
Unfortunately, to show premise 3 (a sub-conclusion) wrong you need to show that premise 1 or 2 is false.
|
|
|
Post by SickAndWretched on Sept 7, 2003 5:03:55 GMT -5
hehe... I can only laugh to that.. and you can if you want.. though I rather potatos or carrots.. haha.. "sick and wretched stew".. hehe, *mouth waters*. alright now that I got that out of my system.
Naw.. I'm more into desensifing yourself to the point where there's nothing blocking your eye and you can see truth. Though I could explain my spiritual realization, but it would be long-winded and off topic. Though it still has so relavance, since its non-tangible it would have a lackluster impacted.
No.. I'm saying that when something is raised a certain way for generations it gets use to it, hence evolution. And things that are done for 1000's of years are very hard to get rid of. I mean modern farming has only been around a short period of time, therefore hasn't had as much impact.
Not in the least.. What I mean by "reaching a new level of awareness.. well it has alot to do with the race evolution to the next level.. and most think that it would be in an intellect evolution.. and thats what I'm refering to.. in a sense..
please explain that in more detail.. 'cause as far I see (hahaha irony) reasoning is a point of view. so in would fit with the other synonyms. Since people have all different ones, then they are all wrong or.. well more like grey.. but again that is off topic.
An entity is a thing.. a thing is a noun.. a noun is a person, place, idea, or object.. a concept is an idea.. so a concept is still an entity.. especial since the "more correct" defination of an entity would be " a thing with distinct and independent existence." the same can be said for a concept.. but whatever. No reason to agrue over a meaning of a word. especially since I use very loose intepretion of a word's meaning.
hehe Thank you..
anyway.. It seems to me that you're using us to practice your point-conterpoint skills.. I have no problem with that.. You're either practice for and on a high school debate team, or in college prehaps taking law or soceity classes. I'm surprised you didn't quote the other things I said.
|
|
|
Post by TranceRolin on Sept 7, 2003 11:31:57 GMT -5
Is it just me, or does noone in the world enjoy chickpeas? I mean, seriously, have you ever had falafel? It's great if you take out the chickpeas, hell, it's just pita bread.
|
|
|
Post by Magi on Sept 7, 2003 12:01:13 GMT -5
Theory- n pl: A speculative idea or plan as to how something might be done. A theory is a theory either way. You can't deny that.
I wouldn't dream of starting another Evolution Vs. Creation thread because it will no doubt get messy. Names will be called, fingers will be pointed and it'll be intense... Perhaps too intense. Nah, I'm just saying this cause I don't feel in a debatable mood too often. Especially one where you really have to watch what you say.
Now back on topic. Farmer John says: Meat is good for you kids! *takes a bite out of a chicken wing*
|
|