Vegetarian or No? - Page 3

quote:

---

Im sure there are ways to feed people without slaughtering countless innocent animals.

---

Probably, but why should we deprive everyone of meat? Or were you simply suggesting that starving people don't rate high enough to deserve meat and we should keep meat as a status symbol?

quote:

---

Meat doesn't feed starving people.

---

Nothing feeds starving people that is why they are starving. I guarantee that if you gave meat to a starving person they would eat it.

the point is not that meat couldn't feed the starving. because obviously it could. the point is that it currently does not. what i was saying is that you can raise a lot more crops on an acre of land than you can cattle. if more land was used for crops instead of cattle, there would be a lot more food to go around.

quote:

---

Probably, but why should we deprive everyone of meat? Or were you simply suggesting that starving people don't rate high enough to deserve meat and we should keep meat as a status symbol?

---

I think it is quite ok to kill for meat if your survival depends on it thus a starving person may be quite apt to eat meat rather than the glutton american society that simply take it all and don't give a fuck what happened to the animal it all came from.
There is huge difference in necessity and respect of animals and careless indifference of the life in which it all comes from.
I just don't understand how some people can be so cruel.

Oh dear. It appears that the last posts of myself and the Awakenedwraith have been deleted. Let me try to sugar-coat and make more paletable by on-topic ideas and contribution to the point of this thread. Perhaps the addition of a shiny new packet and a free Disney toy might make this post more popular? We'll see.

To answer Zato's original, intellegent post I would invite him to observe the following counter-arguments (or lack of) to the question that I shall sanitise and pose, yet again;

Suppose I have the opportunity to commit the perfect crime. This crime will have to include -[self-censorship inserted here for the benefit of the flimsies]- and the victim(s) will be humans. I am a superior being to my victims, their opinions on my intentions will have no bearing on my actions, yours will. I have the desire, the motive, the ability and I stand to obtain mild satisfaction and profit from my deed. Knowing that there is nothing to stop me save a devastating argument, I put it to you, dear omnivore, to devastate me without incursion of your own hipochracy.

It's good to be back (I hope).

MG

if you are a superior being to the humans you kill, then there is no law against it, the only thing that could be expected is that they would fight back. livestock however cannot fight back.

the killing of another living creature for meat is universal law, predators and prey always have and always will exist, as they are biologically designed to do. would you ever expect a lion or a crocodile to stop eating meat? if not why are we any different. your example is different in that you do not appear to want to eat your victim.

to answer previous posts, we could easily provide more food if we used the land we get meat from to produce crops. the thing is rather that we don't need to produce more really. there is surplus already, the problem is not the amounts, it is how it is distributed, if every country gave its surplus to the starving people, there would be no problem. that and many starving people are not incaable of producing their own food, but rather are prevented by war or stupidity (see zimbabwe - mugabe took the land from the white farmers (harsh but they stole it ages ago anyway) then gave it to his croneys who have done nothing with it instead of giving it to the farmers who could have produced food for the whole country). not that this is particularly relevant. meat is a part of our diet, and provides many things that are particularly necessary to us, there are other sources, but meat is by far the most convenient which while harsh on the animals that provide it, that is how nature meant it to be.

Thanks Cynic-Al for taking up the challenge.

"if you are a superior being to the humans you kill, then there is no law against it,"

Well, just to clarify, I am simply another human being not a 'superior being' (like an Alien or anything) I'm just smarter than your average human and therefore superior. Plus, some of my victims are kids and retards, weaker members of society, that sort of thing. I'll get away with it because I'm smart, plus I'm not really going to dirty my hands with any of the actual killing business myself, I've got a cheap hitman to do all that messy stuff, not got the money to employ that guy off Splinter Cell, my guy is armed only with ill intent and a rusty fork.

"the only thing that could be expected is that they would fight back. livestock however cannot fight back."

They would want to fight back and defend themselves wouldn't they? It would be a normal, natural instict to do this. As their superior I will not give them the opportunity to express their natural free will to survive and so they will truly be forked. Just like the livestock that scream when they realise the fate they are to endure. Livestock cannot fight back, no, that would be bad for business.

"the killing of another living creature for meat is universal law, predators and prey always have and always will exist, as they are biologically designed to do."

Indeen they do and are. No arguments from me on that statement. The only suffix I might add is that in this universal law these killings are made for perceived matters of survival on the predators part. I clearly am not abiding by this law am I? Then why do it I ask? (although maybe it should be your place to ask that?)

"would you ever expect a lion or a crocodile to stop eating meat? "

Not at all Al, the crocodile's options are limited to its understanding. It knows no better. It follows its natural instict. Why can't I?

" if not why are we any different."

The answer is 'not', but your question is very valid and still stands. Why are we any different? Why should I not just follow my natural predatorial instincts. Sounds like fun!

"your example is different in that you do not appear to want to eat your victim."

Ooh, good idea. That too then. Now can I do it now that I am following a natural universal law? Am I not an animal too? Am I compelled to follow the same laws? "that is how nature meant it to be." So far it's not looking good for my victims.

Respectfully,

MG

you have me there, but surely there is some biological reason that we do not eat our own kind. probably because as a general rule we want our species to survive, so killing members of our species of for food or whatever reason would be a stupid (in most cases - back to mugabe again). following our natural predatorial instincts is why we eat meat, but our predatorial instincts tell us not to kill our own kind.

if it is part of the crocodiles understanding to eat meat, and it is also part of ours, then does the fact that we also understand that is possible (though not as easy or tasty) to get the same nutrients from other sources mean that we should do so?

just realising some thing i said earlier and after further thought wanting to change it. with the question of whether crops or livestock produce more food for the amount of space. i would ask you this, how much of the crop do you eat in comparisson to the animal. i would say a herd of cattle probably produces the same amount of edible material as the wheat that you can put in the field. each wheat plant only produce about 10 grains of corn at most, and most products dont use the whole grain, just a part of it, whereas a cow produces enough for about 7-8 people on each hind leg, then smaller joints on its front legs, then there is the breast meat, and then the rump. which probably is the equivalent of several hundred wheat plants. though the cow does need feeding, but that can be done on grass.

hope i kept my hipocracy to a bare minimum

Cynic-Al

Cynic-Al,

You're doing great. Asking all the right questions, questioning the things you thought to be true and adjusting your opinions accordingly. You really are bring a tear to my eye.

"surely there is some biological reason that we do not eat our own kind."

If I were to be pedantic I would state that cannibalism is not uncommon in the animal kingdom, but killing in general though also occurs for mating rights and territory, it's chaos out there! But to answer your question with the intent that you asked it, you are right that cannibalism is not a good dietary choice long-term, not healthy or logical either. So lets not say I'm really going to eat my victims then (as long as I can attend a placenta party once in a while?) I could still just kill for other reasons. Final nail in this coffin is that no animal kills for fun or profit or spite or sport, only humans do these things and more.

I think that you will find that laws of nature and the fickle laws of man are actually irrelevant in my scenario and really only personal individual morality can hope to have any influence on the outcome. What people think of as accepted morality holds no water under logical scrutiny and yet people will defend it for fear of making a change in their life or becoming part of a minority group (oh the shame). There is no crime in testing a theory and altering an opinion if truth is your ultimate aim.

"-- then does the fact that we also understand that is possible (though not as easy or tasty) to get the same nutrients from other sources mean that we should do so?"

Put simply, yes. Should I steal or not steal? Should I rape or not? Should I kill or not? Especially if I don't have to, these are not matters of survival, not do or die situations. The benefits of 'not' outweigh the consequences of 'do'.

Respectfully, the well-meaning people in this world who argue for animal rights and animal equality are shooting themselves in the foot at the first hurdle. To claim such things leaves you wide open to dismissive quips and a big fat label of "HIPPY - IGNORE AT ALL COSTS". The truth is, animals are not able to understand and consequently claim any 'rights', animals (including humans) are not equal. We are all simply, different. Difference should be respected (celebrated even) and not abused. Difference occurs amongst our own species and you already know the consequences of discrimination based on difference. 'Rights' are rules/laws that equal parties firstly must understand and then agree to consent and abide by them .You can't play chess with a cow, you couldn't get it to understand the rules, it is not equal to your ability in this regard. You can't play chess with a cow and that's plainly silly and to suggest anything similar discredits your good intentions and makes you a sitting duck for those are looking to take a pot-shot. Besides, if you played chess with a cow you'd win by default, surely that isn't satisfying? A more appropriate and truer argument is that all living things are born of a free will to survive, just like you and I. It makes sense to respect that fact because you ask for the same. Given the necessity to destroy a carrot or a bird or a cow or pig or a human it is logical to choose the option that will do the least damage, pain and suffering. We all share the same space, we all demand the respect and understanding amongst our own species, why not others? Kill to survive in do or die situations, yes, defend yourself and your loved ones against aggressors, but for fuck's sake, stop at that - there really is no need to go beyond there. We should know better!

Your last point about food efficiency is a simple one really. Although I've never checked this, I've heard it said many times that a common statement of economic acceptance is that an area of land needed to feed one meat eater will feed twenty vegetarians. All your minerals and nutrients needed for animal life (including humans) start in the ground and are at the first level processed by plant, bacterial or fungal life forms. At this level, you can get absolutely everything you need. Yes, there are just a few elements that slip the net if you are not careful (I'm thinking of the ever-famous vitamin B12 as an example off the top of my head) but in modern society you have to be a special kind of muppet to even get a deficiency in them (look at the side of your cereal box next morning for your B12 content). Juxtapose this with deficiencies and aggravations associated with eating animal proteins and it's hippies one, carnivores nil. So, everyone knows that keeping it simple is more efficient, practical, and profitable. When you filter those nutrients through a cow, the cow will use up the majority of those nutrients being a cow (farting, shitting, laying down, getting up, running from butterflies and mooing) so you will have to dissipate more land for the cows growth (not yours), then you have to piss about shipping the cow to location B to get the poor fucker mercilessly murdered, then waste energy getting its corpse munched into little bits and all those little bits shipped to locations D though X to be wrapped up in pretty packages, then it will be hauled over to location Y where you will buy it and get back to location Z - your home. Yes, some of those steps are true of the alternative, but significantly less so as we are missing a 'middle-man'. Killing animals for food when we don't have to is inefficient, illogical, viciously uncaring and cruel and it's the perfect reflection of the economic marketplace and human society. We are supposed to know better.

"hope i kept my hipocracy to a bare minimum"

True hypocrites wont even get this far Al.

MG

For those who argue against sparing pain, suffering, and death of non human animals, it would appear your main arguments consist of...

1. Everyone, or most everyone, does it and always have.

2. That's what those animals exist for.

3. It's the best or only source of needed nutrients etc.

4. It's the law of the jungle.

5. And of course, I just don't care.

The one that doesn't get articulated but comes across as quite evident in such responses such as those which simply decry not eating meat due to it seeming weak, hippy like, against our nature, defaming an earned right as "top of the food chain".

Which is seen as weak, and people can't stand feeling, looking, or being weak.

And since the above listed arguments have either been refuted, balanced, or left alone due to their own stupidity speaking for itself, I wish to touch on the less discussed issue.

And I'll do so by asking...

Is it more weak to give into instinct, tradition, and convenience regardless of obvious flaws, or to challenge them (or simply note that with time comes change and a need to adjust one's behaviors) and attempt to grow and progress in ways which actually think ahead and of others as well as one's self?

Most of your fathers and grandfathers who have had to actually earn their keep tend to be fond of telling you, "Nothing that is worth a damn is easy".

quote:

---

but surely there is some biological reason that we do not eat our own kind. probably because as a general rule we want our species to survive, so killing members of our species of for food or whatever reason would be a stupid, in most cases

---

Hmmm, I don't know, we do so much killing of our own species that perhaps we should look into cannabalism more, shit, we may have to, at the current rate of our mob mentality and acts we won't have any other animals to eat, either because they will cease to exist, or because we will have diluted their stocks to the point of inededibility through bad breeding, unhealthy living conditions, rediculous amounts and types of additives and hormones, gene manipulation, etc.

So untill we get a fancy Star Trek food materializer, this debate will continue.

But be aware, for those who are aguing to keep eating your precious meat, you have already lost.

And no, not because hippys or vegans have outsmarted you, but because the majority of todays meat market is no longer the meat of your fond memories. It is tainted by many factors mentioned above, it has become industrialized.

Mom and pop farms are dying, our apathy towards our abusive corporate capitalistic society of excess and pollution have manifested itself as meat with severe warning labels, forced onto McDonalds walls.

And for you advocates of vegetarianism, don't worry, you have not been left out of the fun. Those farms are dying to. Corporations are genetically mutating and splicing seeds, apparently with things like grasshoppers of all things (but I digress).

In doing so they are actually claiming patents on fucking seeds. And they are also working on creating laws against unpatented seeds, this is already in overdrive in the third worlds that we are raping in other ways, farmers have to buy their seeds from governments like ours to live, they no longer have rights or access to the seeds of the earth.

Think its a joke? I'm not laughing.

Think its healthy? Guess we'll just have to find out, none of us are going to do anything about it to stop it anyway.

Shit, probably won't bother to even educate ourselves to see if I'm full of shit or not.

So, though I feel it is important to "think outside the bun", our time frame for debate on basic humanity is shrinking. There are actually bigger problems coming faster than our de-evolution into the animals that we eat.

I hope such inspirational and intelligent minds as Metal's will take the next step and progress this topic, perhaps in another thread for sake of subject matter, into the deeper meaning he himself has so often alluded to in his debate of the problematic mindset of humanity against being humane.

But till then, toodles.

formally Salinger (I found my way back...)

The reason we supposedly (meaning a lot of people still do it anyway) don't kill/eat one another is because of our culture...the same reason you don't intentionally drive on the left side (if American etc) of the road (unless over taking lol)...the same reason you don't have sexual intercourse with your Mum/Dad (Boy I'am doing a lot of assuming here huh?)..the same reason etc etc..I 'am sure you all get what I mean. It is our culture/ideologies /narratives (ie religion) that determine that we the almighty humans (sarcasim) of the "Western" world (and probably others too) are the higher pecking order.........

Revisiting this thread to see how things were left and I see you all carried on without me! (as you should!)

Leftwood: I, like Decius, appreciate your insightful observation that a some people don't want to not eat meat as it is seen as being ‘weak'. I know for a fact that it is true, and certainly common. Every time, without fail, when I tell a stranger that I try to live like a vegan, they eye me up and down in disbelief (I'm quite a big Metal Giant you know). This tells me they were expecting the pale, gaunt and skinny hippy stereotype.

To be balanced, I have to say that even vegetarians and vegans can be soft-headed and thoughtless when it comes to their diet. Idiots can come in all shapes and sizes and just because someone doesn't eat meat does not mean to say that they are by default sensible eaters.

I once met a woman who told me that she used to be a vegetarian, but, quote: “Everyone kept telling me how bad it was for me and how bad I looked, so I quit. Besides, I love bacon!”. Sigh. I didn't have the heart to tell her that she still looked bad because she was, in essence, born fugly and stupid to boot. My point being that I think it takes strength of mind to eat wisely, more so to eat ethically. It takes special character to be who you are on a daily basis in ordinary life in spite of popular opinion or popular culture. What matters is what is right, and not what is popular, to be true to this is strength indeed.

Decius: “There are no legitimate defenses to eating meat. From the way it affects world agriculture to the simple economics of grains versus meats it is highly inneficient for us as humans to consume meat.”

That is such a good paragraph that it needed re-quoting. But can you believe, that I, of all people, am about to give a defence for eating meat? Yes, I always add the caveat to my regular spouting of “it's morally wrong to kill animals” with an “unless you have to” . It would always be right at the bottom of my list of possible options, but I would kill to survive. And by “survive” I mean in life or death situations not flippantly being able to pay the bills or not. The same applies to my relationship with humans. I'm not one to die at the hands of an aggressor if I am armed or able to defend myself, be it man, bear, shark, snake, dog, cat, goldfish or gnat, if it's me or it, it is going to get a fatal spanking. I'm often asked; “Yeah, but MG, if we were stuck on an Island with no food except a lovely juicy piggy, and we knew we'd die if we didn't eat - you'd kill it then wouldn't you?” , to which my answer would be “Yes, of course, this is a matter of survival” . But in truth, this wouldn't necessarily be my only option. I'm fully aware of what meat actually is and if I thought that the pig would be better company I may well end up slaying my human friend for dinner with Truffles and myself.

Harper Lee: Good to see you again, although it's me who's been away. You say, “The reason we supposedly -(snip)- don't kill/eat one another is because of our culture...” and “It is our culture/ideologies /narratives (ie religion) that determine that we the almighty humans (sarcasim) of the "Western" world (and probably others too) are the higher pecking order.......”

You're very possibly correct on the “Why” we exploit the creatures lower down on ‘our' pecking order. In a way this shouldn't concern us as much as the question of “should we?”. Easy to guess what I think, but what do you think?


MG

Just popped my head around the corner to see if the wounded beast/giant was still snarling and spitting teeth…
(They say hell hath no wrath as a woman scorned, but I think this beastie proves the cliché is too sexist, as he is severely smarting underneath his metal armor).

Now I see he has been asked to wear a choke-chain (or has he been darted?) and he feels quite accomplished as a result, even admiring himself (probably thinking it makes him all the more scary!

Snarl though you may (poor beastie). This gorging yourself on raw meat all the time will eventually make you grow fat and ill (if that is not already the case hidden underneath that very large suit of metal armor?)

And by the way the ferocious ‘ripping-up of old car tyres' in your own backyard does not reveal the ‘superior intelligence' to which you clearly aspire.

But then perhaps I have misunderstood you?

And therefore feel obliged to (gently) remind you that the casting for the role of Hannibal Lector in Silence of the Lambs has long since closed. Although I am quite sure you might have been considered for a small part in spite of all that metal, so don't feel too discouraged.

But now to the learning of new tricks: Could you perhaps put your prodigious talents to the carrying of a flask around your neck for troops somewhere in Iran? Or you could sniff for mine fields?
Or maybe just join a circus to wow the crowds?

But in the mean time here's a little something to challenge your superior intellect: see if you can work out how to do the quote thing properly.

Chiron "But then perhaps I have misunderstood you?"

I'm almost certain you have. Can you be more specific about the things I have said that have irked you so? I have never claimed a 'superior intellect', not once, perhaps in metaphor but never in actuality. I'm here to learn and pick up new tricks and I'm open to anyone who can rationally teach them to me. Be warned, I'm not an obedient student, I do ask questions and take nothing for granted (as it should be).

So please, Chiron, teach me a new trick, show me the error of my ways, I really do welcome it.

quote:

---

see if you can work out how to do the quote thing properly.

---

Piece of piss. I can work it out, yes, I just don't choose to use it as I know I tend to write reams and reams of text and the spacing makes it seem longer. I've really only been trying to make my points as readable as possible.

In anticipation,

MG

Despite the fact that I'm pushing a year late for a reply, I still want to question decius on one point. You talk about world agriculture and economics, keeping animals is actually an economically and agriculturally viable prospect. You cannot grow the same crops year in year out on the same piece of land because the ground becomes less fertile and won't support the crop, this means that every fourth year (or so) the field has to be left empty, grass grows quite easily at this point, so the best thing to do is put animals in the field, as they happily eat the grass (so no feeding costs) and they also naturally re fertilise the fields they inhabit. In short not having animals would increase the farmers costs, and mean that a quarter of his land was wasted every year, instead they keep animals and sell the meat (and milk and wool).

With animals like chickens, then space is needed, and some of the crop is used to feed them, but the eggs can be sold and so can the meat. Their keeping is economically viable because their meat and eggs fetch a higher price than the grain they eat.

I'm not talking morality just thinking on the purely capitalist business sense.

I would agree with you that in its current state the third world has little reason to keep meat as a food source, as it is a waste of what little they have trying to keep an animal alive and well enough fed to make it worth eating in the end. Though if we wander into the realms of morality and humans not being higher up the pecking order I think my next paragraph would highlight a potential flaw in that statement.

The other idea for you to consider is what would happen to those species if humans stopped eating them. Correct me if I'm wrong but I see a high likelihood of their becoming extinct as they are almost unknown as wild animals, and any land they could possibly inhabit would be cultivated for crops instead of left open for animals that we aren't going to eat, their only chance of survival would be being kept in "fur" farms for wool or leather, an idea that is surely more objectionable to you than their being eaten.

I remain a meat eater and have no intention of changing that unless I develop an allergy, or meat ceases to be readily available. I still see biological design as enough reason to remain an omnivore, and see little real room for the "relative morality" of being an omnivore.

Hi Cynic-Al, has it really been a year since we spoke here? How time flies! Good to see you still lurking though. I know you pointed your question at Decius, I hope he reads and answers it, but I'd like to address your observations if I may?

At the end of your last post, you say; "In short not having animals would increase the farmers costs, and mean that a quarter of his land was wasted every year" and I'd like to address this first.

I'm not sure I agree with your assumption that you have to graze animals on arable land once every four years. I take your good word for it that this happens, but not out of necessity, I'd suppose, but out of opportunity. If one is already keeping the animals in the first place it would be quite astute to capitalise on the fact. I just question it is the best way of managing arable land? Surely it would be an unnecessary excess and not the only way of doing such a task? I'd continue to argue that there must surely be even better ways, simpler and more efficient ways, of making the land fertile without the use of any animals at all? I've lived where I live all my life and there's arable land near me (growing oil-seed rape) and in my life I've never seen a grazing animal on it ever. So in that particular case, I can testify that it isn't necessary.

"Their keeping is economically viable because their meat and eggs fetch a higher price than the grain they eat. I'm not talking morality just thinking on the purely capitalist business sense."

I agree with your business reasoning from this particular perspective, and what you describe illustrates the way the economy functions at presenty. I'll question the efficiency of keeping animals in the first place later but to make a separate point right now; In my fanciful world where my heartfelt and sincere opinion is a majority one, then demand for such products would not exist in the first place and farmers would have to work around these issues, which I believe they would do, easily. Such is the free-flowing market economy of supply and demand.

" Though if we wander into the realms of morality and humans not being higher up the pecking order --"

No, that's good, that's an important place to go, honestly, go there. Elaborate, please.

"The other idea for you to consider is what would happen to those species if humans stopped eating them"

This defence is often made to me whenever I debate this subject and I find it a very curious bit of reasoning. I can safely say that cows, pigs, etc. would not go extinct if we stopped farming them, but to favour the intent of your argument I will freely admit that we would go from billions of captive creatures to just thousands at least. Yet I find it odd that people who are responsible for billions of animal deaths annually suddenly become so caring for their artificial existence when the suggestion is made that the practice should cease and the numbers vanish? Very odd indeed. I'm also almost certain that this is not the reason omnivores take pleasure in animal flesh and animal products anyway, I doubt that most even think about it. I am very fortunate to be in such good company among omnivores that do and are thinking about it.

Let's just suppose for a second that these creatures would indeed be extinct if we did stop farming them. It would truly be a sad day I agree, but as you so rightly observe, these creatures are not wild creatures anymore anyway. If we patted them between the horns, apologised and put them back into the wild I doubt they'd even survive? Those that did would probably cause unpredictable effects to the existing wildlife and that's not fair on them. So maybe extinction would be for the best in the bigger picture? I wouldn't like it, I would (and do) feel responsible for my fellow man's crimes and I'd repay those crimes in some microscopic way by taking an animal in and nurturing it to the end ensuring a happy life as my way of saying sorry. Big softie aren't I? (I hope Chiron reads this!)

"I would agree with you that in its current state the third world has little reason to keep meat as a food source, as it is a waste of what little they have trying to keep an animal alive and well enough fed to make it worth eating in the end."

Now here, you see, if you agree with this statement I feel compelled to point out the obvious step in logic; If it is uneconomic to filter your resources via an animal before it is 'worth' eating then why not cut out the 'middle man' and take your nutrients at the source anyway? When you need to get from A to B, why bother traversing C,D & E? This is one of the other less publicised rationales of veganism.

" --and any land they could possibly inhabit would be cultivated for crops instead"

Turning the land we currently use to keep animals alive on into arable land would be a more efficient use of that land. Fact. Approximately twelve vegetarians or twenty vegans can live off the same area of land it took to feed one single omnivore (I've recently researched and updated this statistic) This surely sheds new light on how daft things are now just from the economical perspective.

"I remain a meat eater and have no intention of changing that unless I develop an allergy, or meat ceases to be readily available."

Is that really true? These are the only set of circumstances that would change you? You wouldn't change even if some miracle occurred and you agreed with my logical points? Even then you would still continue to eat meet and use animal products? I doubt it and doubt that you're really that close-minded and credit you with much more smarts than that.

"I still see biological design as enough reason to remain an omnivore, and see little real room for the "relative morality" of being an omnivore. "

I'm fine with that, I have to be. Heck, I'm lying, I suppose I'm not really fine with that, but I'll pretend to be out of respect for you. But this statement leaves you open to an obvious argument; If your biological design is enough reason to stay omnivore then what of your biological design to forcibly spread your seed and your biological design to violently protect your territory (I could go on!)? Why is one acceptable and the others not? Stimulating I think you'll agree, but will it all be worth it if the logic takes you to a place that might ask a little change of you?

The debate so far is very fulfilling for me, I thank you for it!

MG