Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Meat Morality and Human/Animal/Alien Rights
greyseal
Member (Idle past 3861 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 136 of 173 (550723)
03-17-2010 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by Blue Jay
03-17-2010 10:57 AM


Re: Going back to the OP . . .
Hi bluejay,
I wasn't condoning capital punishment for amoral beings, and I think I'm generally against it philosophically.
Not a point I intended to discuss, really, and I may have missed the point of your message. If so I appologize, but it's a good question - are we to believe it possible for intelligent self-aware creatures to be amoral? Can that include ourselves? Could we rightfully apply our apparent morals to another species when we can't even universally agree on our own moral code?
Killing is wrong, that's why people are put to death. Stealing is wrong, that's why people who do have their stuff confiscated...
My basic position is that morality is the obligation to prevent suffering. To clarify, I'm not sure this really is my philosophical position: but, in this discussion, this is the stance I'm taking.
The alternative position is that morality is the obligation to avoid causing suffering.
I think I could sort-of agree to either of those two things, but with a few caveats; I definitely agree we should avoid causing it, and should seek to prevent it where our actions may or do cause it, but we should not interfere with those who "cannot know any better" (i.e. "wild animals", non-sentients) - I don't see how we could dictate to the lion that he needs to become a vegetarian or how to make it so, nor how to tell the antelope that because the hyenas, lions, tigers, vultures, wolves, etc, are now vegetarians (magically, through the might of the deus ex machina) that he (and she) needs to limit their birth so to avoid over-population...in short, it's an impossible task and would be a neverending problem, and for what purpose other than stroking or own egos?
Well-meaning but dumb tree-huggers in Britain wanted hunting of deer banned at one point, and the bloody creatures bred so well and so successfully that they kept getting hit by cars and causing accidents, because there were no natural predators, us Brits having killed off the wolf and the bear.
I think it's within our power to change ourselves, and at some point we should - but to just euthanize the national herd of dairycows because we don't want to kill them anymore? Is that the "right" thing to do?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Blue Jay, posted 03-17-2010 10:57 AM Blue Jay has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by Taq, posted 03-17-2010 4:24 PM greyseal has not replied

  
greyseal
Member (Idle past 3861 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 137 of 173 (550725)
03-17-2010 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by Apothecus
03-17-2010 2:12 PM


Re: Meat Morality and Human/Animal/Alien Rights
Hi Apothecus,
...we look after cows rather well. They get food, shelter, water, don't really suffer from diseases that would be crippling in the wild, are protected from predators and generally lead a good life for a being with very little wants ("grass!" "water!" "sex!") and their death is supposedly painless and quick.
Yes, but isn't this subjective? A cow's relative well-being depends wholly upon the conditions in which it is kept.
I think we need to minimize the suffering where we can't eliminate it - it's certainly possible to treat animals like meat, and that's wrong. They think and they feel, they should be allowed to think and feel things that are good more than bad. That's why I would like to see the fate of the dairy cow dealt with at some point - but right now that's not possible with any good outcome (there's a reason we both call PETA whacko).
I can't afford to keep a cow, nor could I keep one happy. I can't afford grass-fed cows that have hoof manicures every Tuesday, but I *can* do my best to make sure that the conditions - shitty as they may seem to a human with a human IQ and intellect - that a cow isn't lacking in what it wants - other cows, food, shelter and hopefully exercise, weather permitting.
It could be argued that a cow shitting on itself and its neighbors because of the close, fetid, disgusting proximity to other shitting cows is the definition of inhumane treatment. It could be argued that the only acceptible way in which any moral human could possibly eat meat would be from grass-fed beef which have lived a relatively happier life (again, subjective). Personally, I see no moral dilemma. But as a whacko PETA activist and I would have a 180 degree difference in our views, there are an infinite number of subjective views of humanity between the two extremes where the treatment of eatable livestock is concerned.
As you say, cows aren't human - but should be treated humanely. As our ability to do so increases, our fulfillment of that definition should increase.
[qs]When considering the mass feedlots, I think where the disconnect lies is that we consign artificial emotions or desires to what we think cattle should prefer as to their "lot" in life. Anthropomorphism, if you like. Cattle would be "happier" relaxing in idyllic pastures, whiling the days away until getting the inevitable bolt in the head, yes?[qs] yes, and IMHO eventually that's what needs to happen if we continue to eat cows. I see morality as something from within, so I can only speak for myself and say that causing suffering, even in a creature to dumb to fully understand it's own existence, is wrong.
Can a cow comprehend the depravity of its conditions without a frame of reference, assuming a cow was able to comprehend anything except eat/sleep/shit/sex? Humans are not a cows, and vice versa...
To an extent, yes - without anthropomorphising, we can see stress hormones in cows, we can see flight-or-fight responses and we can tell that the animal is reacting with negative emotions to a situation. Whether the cow understands that or not is a moot point, WE do - but other than that, no. Since it's our actions creating the situation, WE bear the responsibility to say "meh, don't care" or "this is wrong".
Now although I would argue that, from a personal health standpoint, eating grass-fed vs. mass feedlot beef can't help but be a better choice, I've eaten both and can see no difference in my health (or lack thereof ). But as another distinction, I've eaten both and enjoyed them both, but for some reason feedlot beef just taste better than their natural, grassfed counterparts. But I don't know why this is. Genetics? Tasty growth hormones?
we had the BSE scare in the UK (and despite what you may think it's rife in the US too), so UK beef doesn't have all those tasty growth hormones, but that aside, I would say if the animal is healthier, it will taste better. Feedlot beef probably gets better nutrients than grass - and it's only tree-hugging ignorance that demands otherwise. If that's not true, or we don't know, we should find out - even if it's purely to say "this beef is better quality because the animal was healthier".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Apothecus, posted 03-17-2010 2:12 PM Apothecus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Apothecus, posted 03-24-2010 1:29 PM greyseal has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 138 of 173 (550726)
03-17-2010 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by greyseal
03-17-2010 3:59 PM


Re: Going back to the OP . . .
Could we rightfully apply our apparent morals to another species when we can't even universally agree on our own moral code?
I think there is a universal moral code, or at least a common human moral code. Problems arise when we try to apply these morals to complex issues. It's kind of like our understanding of gravity. We understand gravity quite well in a general sense, but we still have trouble modeling gravity in systems with multiple bodies, variable velocities, etc. This doesn't mean that our understanding of gravity is subjective or wrong, only that the complexity of a system makes it difficult to apply. I believe morals are the same.
Killing is wrong, that's why people are put to death.
Murder is wrong. People are not put to death for killing in self defense, nor are soldiers put to death for killing enemy combatants on the field of battle. One could argue that there is no difference, but we do treat them differently in today's society.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by greyseal, posted 03-17-2010 3:59 PM greyseal has not replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 139 of 173 (551011)
03-20-2010 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by Taq
03-16-2010 10:25 AM


Re: Going back to the OP . . .
I also see another possibility, one that can be seen in our own species. As our technology advances it allows us to separate our decisions from the outcome of those decisions. Bill Maher was publically chastised a few years ago for bringing this to light. He said that the hijackers on 9/11 were braver than a kid who launches cruise missle on a Navy destroyer by pushing a button. While this is certainly a tasteless comment it does hold a kernel of truth.
What a stupid simplification of a complex process. There is more to launching a cruise missle than just pushing a button by some 'kid'. Bill Maher, doesn't know what he is talking about here.
Being religiously brainwashed to fly an airplane into a building in order to attain a golden ticket to paradise in the afterlife is only brave in the most literal dictionary meaning of the word but by most human beings this is not morally brave or courageous. If you consider these dillusional people 'brave' than so to would you have to consider mass murderers and criminals 'brave' as well, which is asanine and wrong-headed.
In fact I would consider the 9-11 terrorist's (or any religious or political fanatics) acts to be the epitome of cowardice as they willingly allowed someone else to brainwash them and take away there critical thinking skills and ability to make rational
decisions.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection
"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Taq, posted 03-16-2010 10:25 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Taq, posted 03-22-2010 1:48 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 140 of 173 (551363)
03-22-2010 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by DevilsAdvocate
03-20-2010 9:44 AM


Re: Going back to the OP . . .
What a stupid simplification of a complex process. There is more to launching a cruise missle than just pushing a button by some 'kid'. Bill Maher, doesn't know what the fuck he is talking about here. I cannot go into the details but believe me, when we are conducting honest-to-god live firing of weapons on a Naval ship, adrenaline and the stress level are maxed out. There are also years of training both by individuals and at the team level that occur before this happens. We are very well aware of the consequences of these actions.
Are you as aware as a person who actually sees the damage they inflict? That is the question here. Death from a distance vs. Death in front of your face. Do we really understand the consequences of our actions if we don't actually see the consequences of our actions? Are the commanders at the Pentagon affected in the same way by the orders they give as the way in which troops are affected by seeing death firsthand? I have not heard of rearguard commanders suffering from PTSD the same way that front line troops are suffering.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 03-20-2010 9:44 AM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 03-23-2010 10:51 PM Taq has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 141 of 173 (551497)
03-22-2010 11:25 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by Taq
03-17-2010 11:05 AM


Depraved indifference
Hi, Taq.
Sorry it's taken so long: I was at a family wedding this weekend.
Taq writes:
Bluejay writes:
No fair! You didn't quote my whole sentence...
Sorry if you feel misquoted. I was trying to show that I disagreed with the premise of your argument, the "if" part.
Oh. Then, in that case, I retract my outrage.
-----
Taq writes:
But does this [depraved indifference] extend to the rest of the animal kingdom? I would say no. I think this is tied in with the Naturalistic fallacy. The fallacy is that if something is natural it is good. That is wrong.
I think I'm confused most by why there are "right" and "wrong" for our actions, but not for other organisms' actions. I understand that we shouldn't expect sub-sentient organisms to grasp the concept of morality and adjust their behaviors accordingly, but that's not the point.
The standards can be different for different beings for one of two reasons: (1) morality is subjective, as are the criteria for determining what is and isn't to be considered a moral agent; (2) morality is objective, and an amoral entity is one that is not expected to act morally due to some logical, objective criterion (e.g. sentience or competence).
We're obviously not talking about the first situation here, and, if we were, this whole discussion would be pointless.
So, let's focus on the second situation. In this case, the actions of amoral beings are still right or wrong, but are simply excused or forgiven because there is no expectation of morality from them. But, they are still objectively right or wrong. And, since we are expected to act morally, aren't we also expected to stop something "wrong" from happening if we have the means?

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Taq, posted 03-17-2010 11:05 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by AZPaul3, posted 03-22-2010 11:42 PM Blue Jay has replied
 Message 144 by Taq, posted 03-23-2010 10:34 AM Blue Jay has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 142 of 173 (551505)
03-22-2010 11:42 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by Blue Jay
03-22-2010 11:25 PM


Re: Depraved indifference
We're obviously not talking about the first situation here, and, if we were, this whole discussion would be pointless.
Are you asserting that morality is objective?
If so, by what criteria?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Blue Jay, posted 03-22-2010 11:25 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Blue Jay, posted 03-23-2010 12:13 AM AZPaul3 has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 143 of 173 (551517)
03-23-2010 12:13 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by AZPaul3
03-22-2010 11:42 PM


Re: Depraved indifference
Hi, AZPaul3.
AZPaul3 writes:
Are you asserting that morality is objective?
That was the assumption, as I understood it, that Taq proposed in Message 111.
I don't know how we could have a meaningful conversation about the morality of carnivory if we began with the premise the morality is subjective.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by AZPaul3, posted 03-22-2010 11:42 PM AZPaul3 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by Taq, posted 03-23-2010 10:36 AM Blue Jay has seen this message but not replied
 Message 173 by Straggler, posted 03-30-2010 12:36 PM Blue Jay has seen this message but not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 144 of 173 (551604)
03-23-2010 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by Blue Jay
03-22-2010 11:25 PM


Re: Depraved indifference
So, let's focus on the second situation. In this case, the actions of amoral beings are still right or wrong, but are simply excused or forgiven because there is no expectation of morality from them.
I am arguing that the actions of an amoral being are just actions. Period. I am viewing this through the lens of Hume's Is/Ought problem and the naturalistic fallacy. Moral agents are different in that they go beyond what is, they look beyond the natural state. They can picture how they WISH the world to be. That wishing is morality. An amoral being just is. A moral agent separates what is from what ought to be. Therefore, only the actions of a moral agent can be "right or wrong" in that only they can knowingly go against what ought and ought not to be.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Blue Jay, posted 03-22-2010 11:25 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by Blue Jay, posted 03-23-2010 12:56 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 145 of 173 (551605)
03-23-2010 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by Blue Jay
03-23-2010 12:13 AM


Re: Depraved indifference
That was the assumption, as I understood it, that Taq proposed in Message 111.
For the purposes of this discussion I am assuming that morality is objective. We can certainly debate the objectivity of morality separately, but in this trollip through the philosophical tulips I am assuming morality to be objective.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Blue Jay, posted 03-23-2010 12:13 AM Blue Jay has seen this message but not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 146 of 173 (551628)
03-23-2010 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by Taq
03-23-2010 10:34 AM


That which ought not be
Hi, Taq.
Taq writes:
Therefore, only the actions of a moral agent can be "right or wrong" in that only they can knowingly go against what ought and ought not to be.
I agree that an amoral being shouldn't be held responsible for actions that ought not be done.
But, those actions still ought not be done, right? Isn't that the implication of objective morality: that "wrong" is not determined by the perpetrator's awareness or acceptance of its "wrongness"?
Doesn't it fall on a moral agent to see that what ought not be does not come to pass?

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Taq, posted 03-23-2010 10:34 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by Taq, posted 03-23-2010 1:29 PM Blue Jay has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 147 of 173 (551634)
03-23-2010 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by Blue Jay
03-23-2010 12:56 PM


Re: That which ought not be
But, those actions still ought not be done, right? Isn't that the implication of objective morality: that "wrong" is not determined by the perpetrator's awareness or acceptance of its "wrongness"?
Doesn't it fall on a moral agent to see that what ought not be does not come to pass?
More to the point, what ought to be the way that nature acts. For example, should amoral predators be allowed to kill and eat amoral herbivores. Since I have already eliminated "what is" from "what ought to be" I can not claim that predation should be allowed on those ground alone. IOW, I can't have the Is/Ought problem on one hand and go with the Naturalistic Fallacy on the other. So where does that leave me?
Well, how do we want nature to be? What is our wish for nature? It seems to me that our current wishes as a species is to leave very little human imprint on nature, to let nature proceed as it has for the 3.5+ billion years that life has been on this planet. We can not justify this by claiming "natural is good", but we do see an inherent good in letting things advance without interference. It is a subtle difference, but I think it is a difference nonetheless.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Blue Jay, posted 03-23-2010 12:56 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by Blue Jay, posted 03-25-2010 10:02 AM Taq has not replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 148 of 173 (551721)
03-23-2010 10:51 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by Taq
03-22-2010 1:48 PM


Re: Going back to the OP . . .
Are you as aware as a person who actually sees the damage they inflict? That is the question here.
Ah, but young padawan, often we can see the damage we inflict.
I agree though that firing a Tomahawk missile (an offensive weapon which travels hundreds of miles to its target) is not going to give you the same fear factor as being shot at with an AK-47 while trying to fire off your rounds to stay alive. But if the shit hits the fan and we are being attacked on a Naval ship with small arms, mines, or short-range missiles there is not a whole lot of difference between that and what ground forces feal when being fired at.
Death from a distance vs. Death in front of your face.
Death is death whether it is from a distance or in your face. When a soldier is firing his weapon to protect himself do you really think he is concerned with the welfare of the person he is shooting at?
Experiencing firing both offensive and defensive weapons on a ship there is always a surge of adrenaline, fear, and shock factor when doing it for 'real' even when firing long-range missiles like tomahawks.
Do we really understand the consequences of our actions if we don't actually see the consequences of our actions? Are the commanders at the Pentagon affected in the same way by the orders they give as the way in which troops are affected by seeing death firsthand?
But the question was not whether you understood the consequences of your actions, it was, are the people who fire missiles from a ship less brave than terrorists.
Again on that not I would 100% emphatically disagree.
I have not heard of rearguard commanders suffering from PTSD the same way that front line troops are suffering.
What does this have to do with bravery? PTSD can be occur in soldiers who are or are not brave, perform well or poorly under fire. PTSD has to do with shock value of experiencing death first hand.
Again the question is about bravery not PTSD.

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection
"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Taq, posted 03-22-2010 1:48 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by Taq, posted 03-23-2010 11:25 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 149 of 173 (551726)
03-23-2010 11:25 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by DevilsAdvocate
03-23-2010 10:51 PM


Re: Going back to the OP . . .
Ah, but young padawan, often we can see the damage we inflict.
I agree though that firing a Tomahawk missile (an offensive weapon which travels hundreds of miles to its target) is not going to give you the same fear factor as being shot at with an AK-47 while trying to fire off your rounds to stay alive. But if the shit hits the fan and we are being attacked on a Naval ship with small arms, mines, or short-range missiles there is not a whole lot of difference between that and what ground forces feal when being fired at.
First off, I will gladly bow to your expertise and experience as to the experience of war. Perhaps the Maher comment was farther off base than I intended. The question I was trying to get at was this:
"This technology would also allow the alien species to distant themselves from ethical considerations in the same way that pushing a button to launch a cruise missle distances the Navy ensign from seeing people blown apart."
If launching cruise missiles is a poor example we can replace it with other examples that fit better. What I was trying to get at was that technology allows us to distance ourselves from the visual and physical consequences of our actions. Does technology deaden our empathic response? Is the old saw "out of sight, out of mind" in play?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 03-23-2010 10:51 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 03-23-2010 11:46 PM Taq has replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 150 of 173 (551729)
03-23-2010 11:46 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by Taq
03-23-2010 11:25 PM


Re: Going back to the OP . . .
If launching cruise missiles is a poor example we can replace it with other examples that fit better. What I was trying to get at was that technology allows us to distance ourselves from the visual and physical consequences of our actions. Does technology deaden our empathic response? Is the old saw "out of sight, out of mind" in play?
When you are attacking and defending yourself against someone shooting at you are you really going to be empathetic to that combatant anyways?
War by its very nature, whether it be from short or long-range will lend itself to a "kill or be killed" attititude. This a direct offshoot of our evolutionary survival of the fittest and flight or fight instincts. In these cases, individual survival trumps altruism shown to the advesary.
Now what I think you ,may be getting at is the effect of long range planning and execution of combat and its affect on collateral damage to innocent bystanders/civilians. In this case, close combat may give a better edge at reducing collateral damage to innocent bystanders and civilians, though not always. This is especially true given the use of UAVs and author automated killing devices in which people thousands of miles away sit at x-box like devices and fire missiles and other destructive means at would-be terrorist hide-outs and gatherings from Terminator like aerial or ground robot killing machines.
By experiencing combat up-close we can also hopefully reduce the number of My Lai type attrocities from happening if morally rigid people are in the right place at the right time.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection
"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Taq, posted 03-23-2010 11:25 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by Taq, posted 03-24-2010 9:37 AM DevilsAdvocate has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024