h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Ok, that seems reasonable enough an explanation. I'm not entirely sure that we mean the same things when we speak of "animal rights" and suchlike, anyway. I do think that raising animals and slaughtering them for food, clothing, etc *is* wanton cruelty. And I don't consider human life to be necessarily on a higher par than any other animal life. For example- in an emergency situation, I'd save my cat before my downstairs neighbor. And I'd hazard a guess that his life is as important to him as hers is to her. Plus, humans put other animals in situations that only humans can save them from.

'Nuff on that topic, though. I'd like to get back to the proselytizing relatives, since I'll have to endure their company at a tacky wedding in three weeks.

How do you answer when you've let them know that you're not bothered about god(s) because of the reasons in your examples? I mean, if they want to pray for me behind my back, what I don't know can't hurt me. But I sure as hell am getting tired of having someone follow me around reading Bible verses at me and then demanding that I participate as well. Etc.

Eek! Downstairs neighbour, *every* time!

OK - so I don't have a cat. Even so - I hate my next-door neighbour. But I'd still save her!

Maybe me, too, once I'd made sure that anyone (and anything) that matters to *me* was taken care of, which includes the pet I've assumed responsibility for.

Maybe a bad example, though- I'm not likely to risk my own life dragging a complete stranger out of a burning building, when we've got people who are highly trained and well-paid to do just that.

I just won't give humans an elevated status over other animals.

OK - an ethical thought experiment.

Two humans and a dog are adrift at sea. May:
- the humans kill and eat the dog?
- one human kill the other to feed him and the dog?

OK, setting aside the ideal situation (no one eats anyone else) as impossible under the circumstances, and without getting into "relationships" (i.e., are the two people closely related or mere acquaintances; is the dog a pet or not, etc)... either option is as ethical/unethical as the other. IMO, of course.

*But*, some lives are more valuable to certain individuals, are they not? Your family comes first before total strangers, no? I have to take care of my own needs and my dependents before I can take care of anyone else, no?

If I were stranded at sea with you and a strange dog, then I'd opt for eating the dog. Though I'm sure you're delicious.

The difference is that where factory farming in concerned there is no need for people to eat meat- there is no ethical dilemma. It'd be cheaper, and would generate much more food, to devote that acreage to growing grains and soybeans (and feed a hell of a lot more people to boot- worldwide). Sure, if it's down to you or the cat, eat the cat. But it's not down to that.

I swore two years ago I was never going to engage in another internet debate. You're a bad influence.

Oh, I'm delicious. One part in particular.

Well...I have to say that I don't even think I could justify keeping beloved Fido alive, even if the food source was George W Bush.

The issue of feeding the world is rather different, though. That's down to inequality. I'm with you on that one - especially given the recent talk of food shortage. We shouldn't be using soybeans to grow burgers or corn to drive automobiles. And, yes, while there are perfectly acceptable alternatives to mistreating animals, it seems callous to do so.



I finished the Hitchens on Saturday. My one disappointment is that he doesn't tackle the well-meaning fluffies. Nobody really does that. I'd like to see a disection opf religion at its best. Maybe that's the book I'm going to have to write.

One last aside before I get back to your last point- I do think that using corn for automobiles is a better alternative than using non-renewable fossil fuels. At least corn grows back. Especially in Illinois. I don't ever want to eat the stuff again, after this weekend.

I'm with you in regards to someone taking on the fluffies. With the exception of my mother and the freak show church she went to, most of the religious folk I've dealt with in the last several years (including the flaky New Agey ones who seem to gravitate toward me for some reason) have been of the fluffier, seemingly-harmless variety. IMO, they're the ones who do the most harm, because it's so insidious.

It's not so much the flakes I mean. Some of them are simply vacuous. I'd really like a good discussion with somebody intelligent who could make the case for religion. Someone like this guy, with whom Dawkins has debated:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Holloway

When I was a kid they had a guest speaker used to come who seemed to be one of those intelligent religious types you speak of. He wasn't all just smoke in mirrors or bluster or wishy-washy stuff; he really seemed to "know" his theology in and out. Though he confused me by being part of an organization called Jews For Jesus.

The problem I see (and I admit that how I see things might be a bit skewed) is that while a lot of quite intelligent people know their theology, I don't think they make that great a case for religion in general. I'd be keen to spectate at that sort of debate!

That's a great point! If they make a case for some of it, they have to accept that they're making a case for all of it. As I'm currently saying elsewhere, we can't distinguish between Good Religion and Bad Religion on religious grounds; that comes down to a matter of opinion. We (and they) apply a secular test; Does it treat people decently?

A not-so-objective review of a different book we've both already read: http://ronaldandcob.com/richarddawkins_thegoddelusion.html