Re: No challenge in religion
 

If one of the reasons why we eat animals is because of lesser intelligence, to the extent that a smarter cow would be spared from the grill, then by the same logic we should consider eating retarded people.

Re: No challenge in religion
 

[ QUOTE ]
more interesting questions than regligion

[/ QUOTE ]

Hardly. How are we going to get NotReady pissed off with questions like this?

Re: No challenge in religion
 

[ QUOTE ]
If one of the reasons why we eat animals is because of lesser intelligence, to the extent that a smarter cow would be spared from the grill, then by the same logic we should consider eating retarded people.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well put. This brings me to something I have been thinking about for a while. I am a special olympics volunteer and have been for years so I have had opportunity to deal with all sorts of retarded and disabled people. A small number of them are high functioning and can live pretty normal day to day lives. A greater number have been and will be a burden to society until they die.

Why do we insist on slapping evolution in the face? We divert resources from bettering society to taking care of those who cannot care for themselves. I feel that ultimately this holds the human race back.

Re: No challenge in religion
 

"Why do we insist on slapping evolution in the face? We divert resources from bettering society to taking care of those who cannot care for themselves. I feel that ultimately this holds the human race back."

It's not so much that we are slapping evolution in the face, but rather that we value all human lives, regardless of their contribution to our species. If we were to hold some mass genocide of mentally and physically challenged people, then it would raise a series of questions. First of all, where would we stop? At an IQ of 70? 80? Why not just take out the bottom half every 100 years?

It would bring up another issue. Why stop at those lacking of intelligence? Personally, I'd rather take out the a-holes before the stupid. And then where do we draw the line? People who talk in movie theaters? Bad drivers? Bad beat storytellers?

The fact remains that like it or not, all people, regardless of all of their faults, have a right to pursue a rich and happy life, and are not obligated in any way to give back to the species.

One final thought. It is incorrect to say that they can't give back. I mean, I know a certain wheelchair bound astrophysicist to whom we owe credit for much of what we currently know about our universe.
And of course, that's an extreme example, but...
there is also something that those less capable than us can offer. And I'm sure, Blackize, that you are aware of it. You benefit greatly from working with the Special Olympics. It's because it raises your level of compassion, sympathy, and understanding of those different from you. It has made you a more caring person, more tolerant and patient with people in your life, and more appreciative for what you have. These are qualities that in my opinion are greatly lacking right now in our species as a whole, and in my opinion are what is TRULY holding us back from evolving, not physically but spiritually, which I believe will be the next step of evolution for our species.


Spending a lot of money on those who will not be able to enjoy life in the same ways or for the same duration as us is not a waste. The quality of a life is not measured by how long it lasted, but rather if we connected with and appreciated the individual for the brief time that they were here. After all, we're all here for a quick blink anyhow.

(And I know you weren't suggesting in any way something so terrible as a mass suicide of retarded people. I was saying it to make a point)

Re: No challenge in religion
 

[ QUOTE ]
If one of the reasons why we eat animals is because of lesser intelligence, to the extent that a smarter cow would be spared from the grill, then by the same logic we should consider eating retarded people.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because most of us feel compassion for retarded people and not for cattle.

Re: No challenge in religion
 

[ QUOTE ]
The fact remains that like it or not, all people, regardless of all of their faults, have a right to pursue a rich and happy life, and are not obligated in any way to give back to the species.


[/ QUOTE ]

So the basis for moral obligation is that they are in our species and not intelligence? Most retarded people give nothing back to society and are only a burden (you mentioned Stephen Hawking who is wheelchair-bound but not mentally handicapped - big difference).

What is the difference between retarded people (or babies, vegetables, etc) and animals? A modern philosopher, I can't remember his name, said if we think it's okay to slaughter animals, it follows that it's equally okay to slaughter invalid human beings. The common denominator being that they lack intelligence. He meant of course to save animals, not kill humans.

In your statement above, how do you differentiate animals from unintelligent humans?

Re: No challenge in religion
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The fact remains that like it or not, all people, regardless of all of their faults, have a right to pursue a rich and happy life, and are not obligated in any way to give back to the species.


[/ QUOTE ]

So the basis for moral obligation is that they are in our species and not intelligence? Most retarded people give nothing back to society and are only a burden (you mentioned Stephen Hawking who is wheelchair-bound but not mentally handicapped - big difference).

What is the difference between retarded people (or babies, vegetables, etc) and animals? A modern philosopher, I can't remember his name, said if we think it's okay to slaughter animals, it follows that it's equally okay to slaughter invalid human beings. The common denominator being that they lack intelligence. He meant of course to save animals, not kill humans.

In your statement above, how do you differentiate animals from unintelligent humans?

[/ QUOTE ]
I think its Peter Singer.

chez

Re: No challenge in religion
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think its Peter Singer.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's it. AKA Dr. Death

Re: No challenge in religion
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think its Peter Singer.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's it. AKA Dr. Death

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, same guy that thinks killing an infant up to ten days old is OK. Yet he is a tenured professor at Princeton and chairs their ethics dept. What a sickening disgrace...

Re: No challenge in religion
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If one of the reasons why we eat animals is because of lesser intelligence, to the extent that a smarter cow would be spared from the grill, then by the same logic we should consider eating retarded people.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because most of us feel compassion for retarded people and not for cattle.

[/ QUOTE ]
Plus there's food chain arguments. Eating vegetarians would be better.

chez