cwbe coordinatez:
101
7763757
63577
64106
6590463

ABSOLUT
KYBERIA
permissions
you: r,
system: public
net: yes

neurons

stats|by_visit|by_K
source
tiamat
K|my_K|given_K
last
commanders
polls

total descendants::15
total children::4
7 ❤️


show[ 2 | 3] flat


- zaujimava aktivita casopisu The New York Times

Calling All Carnivores
Tell Us Why It’s Ethical to Eat Meat: A Contest

....In response, those who love meat have had surprisingly little to say. They say, of course, that, well, they love meat or that meat is deeply ingrained in our habit or culture or cuisine or that it’s nutritious or that it’s just part of the natural order. Some of the more conscientious carnivores have devoted themselves to enhancing the lives of livestock, by improving what those animals eat, how they live and how they are killed. But few have tried to answer the fundamental ethical issue: Whether it is right to eat animals in the first place, at least when human survival is not at stake.

So today we announce a nationwide contest for the omnivorous readers of The New York Times. We invite you to make the strongest possible case for this most basic of daily practices.

We have assembled a veritable murderer’s row of judges — some of the most influential thinkers to question or condemn the eating of meat: Peter Singer, Michael Pollan, Mark Bittman, Jonathan Safran Foer and Andrew Light. If you can make it past them, we’ll put your name in lights (or at least in print). So get thinking. And get writing. You have two weeks and 600 words in which to make sense of our species’ entire dietary history. Bon appétit!.....

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/magazine/tell-us-why-its-ethical-to-eat-meat-a-contest.html?_r=1




000001010776375700063577000641060659046306592446
Tomáš, to sa vie
 Tomáš, to sa vie      08.04.2012 - 14:09:58 (modif: 08.04.2012 - 14:10:34) [4K] , level: 1, UP   NEW !!CONTENT CHANGED!!
Some people wrote me to ask if I would enter.

I will not. In order to argue that it is OK to eat meat from an ethical standpoint, you must establish philosophically that animals do not possess the right not to be eaten by humans. In 600 words. And to a panel of judges that is biased to say the least. This is a philosophical and ethical question, the judges should be experts in those areas. Instead, you have Michael Pollan, who is a journalist, Jonathan Safran Foer, who is primarily a fiction author who wrote a popular non-fiction book about meat called Eating Animals that is anti-meat, Mark Bittman, who is a cookbook author who has branched out into frequently ill-informed food policy blogging. Mark Bittman eats meat, but it's clear he hates himself for it. Peter Singer IS a philosopher, but only represents utilitarianism, and certainly already has his mind made up about meat since he has been outspoken about this issue for many decades at this point. Andrew Light is of the pragmatist school from what I gather and seems ambivalent on the issue. He is a pescatarian.

So you not only have a few totally unqualified people, but mainly people who already are biased on the issue. And those that are qualified do not represent the full spectrum of philosophical schools involved in this debate. So you have to convince mainly people who are already convinced...in 600 words.
http://huntgatherlove.com/content/it-ethical-eat-meat-contest

000001010776375700063577000641060659046306591494
who fuckin
 who fuckin' cares      07.04.2012 - 15:05:18 , level: 1, UP   NEW
The American Heart Association recommends eating fish (particularly fatty fish) at least two times (two servings) a week.

00000101077637570006357700064106065904630659149406591522
escaline[Locked_OUT][Locked_OUT]
 escaline[Locked_OUT][Locked_OUT]      07.04.2012 - 15:32:21 , level: 2, UP   NEW
...a tiez odporucali, prestat s tradicou zrat jak prasa! :D

0000010107763757000635770006410606590463065914940659152206600294
losmonos
 losmonos      12.04.2012 - 22:19:50 , level: 3, UP   NEW
presne to je absolutne jediny problem v tom co jest.

000001010776375700063577000641060659046306591444
benedict glasscock
 benedict glasscock      07.04.2012 - 14:18:42 , level: 1, UP   NEW
niektore perlia:

Because there isn't enough fertilizer and agricultural land in the world for all of us to be vegans/vegetarians and meet our nutritional needs....

Because animals (especially sheep & goats) excel at eating and digesting the scrubby vegetation that covers much of the earth and converting it into usable protein for us.....

Because without humans to shelter them, domestic livestock would live very brief and severe lives....Evolving to dying out completely. (Arguing here for small-scale, grass-fed, affection-laden living situations).

Because livestock enables people/families in marginal situations to create income that contributes to other advantages such as more/better education.

Because veganism, especially, is disrespectful of living systems and earth history.

00000101077637570006357700064106065904630659144406592471
escaline[Locked_OUT][Locked_OUT]
 escaline[Locked_OUT][Locked_OUT]      08.04.2012 - 14:24:58 , level: 2, UP   NEW
tak hej, ale boli tam aj ovela inteligentnejsie nazory.

0000010107763757000635770006410606590463065914440659247106592495
benedict glasscock
 benedict glasscock      08.04.2012 - 14:44:25 , level: 3, UP   NEW
mno ja napr. nevidim na tom nič inteligentne podporovať genocidu zvierat v takej forme ako sa teraz realizuje...
to je v podstate všetko čo by som k tomu povedal
ale nie je to utok na teba, len pomimo reagujem

000001010776375700063577000641060659046306591444065924710659249506592527
escaline[Locked_OUT][Locked_OUT]
 escaline[Locked_OUT][Locked_OUT]      08.04.2012 - 15:06:10 , level: 4, UP   NEW
tak tie rozumne argumenty boli o inom, ako o podpore "genocidy zvierat".

00000101077637570006357700064106065904630659144406592471065924950659252706592535
benedict glasscock
 benedict glasscock      08.04.2012 - 15:12:05 , level: 5, UP   NEW
to je take všeobecne, čo robi tu vec vlastne naozaj nemoralnu

0000010107763757000635770006410606590463065914440659247106592495065925270659253506592680
escaline[Locked_OUT][Locked_OUT]
 escaline[Locked_OUT][Locked_OUT]      08.04.2012 - 17:06:33 , level: 6, UP   NEW
tak toto som nepochopil, kam mieris.

000001010776375700063577000641060659046306591444065924710659249506592527065925350659268006592683
benedict glasscock
 benedict glasscock      08.04.2012 - 17:08:20 , level: 7, UP   NEW
hovorím, že to myslím ako najvšeobecnejší argument proti zabíjaniu zvierat - je samotné zabíjanie a spôsob jeho realizácie, tam nie sú žiadne ale.

000001010776375700063577000641060659046306591178
ulkas
 ulkas      07.04.2012 - 10:54:35 [3K] , level: 1, UP   NEW
toto tu je iba prasproste zavadzajuco nastavena otazka, na ktoru existuje iba jedna akoze "spravna" odpoved a vsetci, co sa snazia akoze obhajovat (hoci nechapem, co na tom treba vobec obhajovat) to, ze jedia maso, su uz vopred zatrateni.


alebo inak sa spytam:
vyzyvam vsetky baby - povedzte mi, preco je spravne kazdodenne rozpravat o druhych a ohovarat ich.


proste umyselne umelo nadsadena otazka, ktora v sebe skryva podmienku (why is it ethical), ktoru samozrejme ta cinnost porusuje - preco je eticke sa po preslape neosravedlnit? preco je spravne kradnut? preco je nemoralne byt mily?

00000101077637570006357700064106065904630659117806591219
escaline[Locked_OUT][Locked_OUT]
 escaline[Locked_OUT][Locked_OUT]      07.04.2012 - 11:39:26 , level: 2, UP   NEW
suhlasim, ze ta otazka je nadstavena nejak. co nicmenej pre mna stale nemeni nic na mojom presvedceni, ze nejset maso je lepsie :) slovku "eticke" sa tu vyhybam umyselne.

0000010107763757000635770006410606590463065911780659121906592784
cyberpunker
 cyberpunker      08.04.2012 - 18:53:54 , level: 3, UP   NEW
To že nevidíme rastliny plakať neznamená že tiež netrpia:)

000001010776375700063577000641060659046306591178065912190659278406592883
escaline[Locked_OUT][Locked_OUT]
 escaline[Locked_OUT][Locked_OUT]      08.04.2012 - 20:08:10 , level: 4, UP   NEW
plac sem, plac tam, ide hlavne o udrzatelnost ekosystemov :)