Will you eat meat tomorrow

Akrasia · 06-03-2014 01:07PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Yes it can. We're arguing it right now. You're factually incorrect!

Arguing isn't the same as 'an argumnent' An argument can just be a verbal disagreement, but formally an argument is defined as a set of reasons given to support an idea or theory.

To put forward a valid argument stating that fish are not made of meat then you need at least one premise and a conclusion that follows logically from these premises

I Heart Internet · 06-03-2014 01:07PM

Akrasia wrote: »

This isn't always a bad thing, we all act irrationally all of the time. But we should at least recognise when we are acting this way so that we don't fall into the trap of being vocal hypocrites.

What is irrational about a person who is made happy by doing something, doing it???

If abstaining from something on a given day happens to make you happy or satisfie sa desire for you, it is entirely logical that you would desire to that.

Benny_Cake · 06-03-2014 01:12PM

Jeremias Tender Cheese wrote: »

It's fish, a thing in itself!

A lot of Vegetarians eat fish for instance as it's not meat (can't believe I used vegetarians to help me prove a point).

Someone who eats fish but doesn't eat meat is a pescetarian, not a vegetarian. The idea that eating fish is consistent is a misconception, though I don't blame people from holding it as some people who prepare restaurant menus seem to think the same way.

Cunny-Funt · 06-03-2014 01:15PM

Melissa Mammoth Trademark wrote: »

Well you seem just as entrenched in something you have no proof of as you are accusing those with religious beliefs of being. You obviously just refuse to believe that there are people whose religious convictions are so strong and deep that they are quietly and peacefully following them without shouting from the rooftops about it. I suspect they're a lot calmer and more content than some of the angry and belligerent people who refuse to tolerate the fact that some people have a deep spiritual belief that is central to their lives.

To each their own.:)

Show me one person that follows every single catholic rule to the letter, one.

The vast bulk of people not eating meat yesterday wouldn't even really consider themselves religious, they just do it cause its been the thing to do. Then there are those who DO consider themselves religious who pick and choose what rule to follow and what rule not to follow. This is common knowledge Bella. Sit down and have a conversation with one of these people you think have such strong convictions and it really won't take long to find a hole of hypocrisy.

I really don't think your that naive.

And fyi its generally is the backwards religious types shouting from the roof tops against any progress this country tries to make, and keeping us in the dark ages. Divorce , gay marriage , abortion. Don';t act like people its the innocent religious people minding their own business and not bothering people.

Benny_Cake · 06-03-2014 01:15PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

What is irrational about a person who is made happy by doing something, doing it???

If abstaining from something on a given day happens to make you happy or satisfie sa desire for you, it is entirely logical that you would desire to that.

I think the difference is if someone argues that you are a bad person for eating meat on Ash Wednesday, yet the same person completely ignores Catholic teaching in other areas. That's hypocrisy, and deserves to be called out.

If a person simply abstains from meat as something that is meaningful for them, while acknowledging that they don't follow church teaching in other areas, best of luck to them as far as I'm concerned.

Akrasia · 06-03-2014 01:20PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

What is irrational about a person who is made happy by doing something, doing it???

It depends on the reasons why he/she is doing it. If I am a vegetarian and I don't eat meat because I object to animal exploitation, but I eat fish because I don't consider fish to be meat. Then this is irrational unless I can provide a good defence for why fish aren't meat.

If I say I am a vegetarian because I don't like the taste of meat but I do like the taste of fish, then the reason for my behaviour is because of personal taste, so doing eating fish but not beef just because I like it is perfectly rational.

If abstaining from something on a given day happens to make you happy or satisfie sa desire for you, it is entirely logical that you would desire to that.

Of course If this is your reason for doing it.

However, if you're abstaining from meat because you're obeying a religious instruction and have been told to sacrifice and not eat meat, but then you go and eat a lovely Smoked Haddock and Chips from the chipper... This is irrational. (and a bit dishonest, but your only fooling yourself

)

Cunny-Funt · 06-03-2014 01:24PM

@ Akrasia,

Cheers for those posts. Really not arsed explaining to someone what logic is over and over again.

Religious beliefs by their vary nature are illogical and its a pointless discussion talking about this and is going off topic totally.

Nobody debates the logic of them not even religous debaters. its just pointless.

c68zapdsm5i1ru · 06-03-2014 01:33PM

Cunny-Funt wrote: »

Show me one person that follows every single catholic rule to the letter, one.

The vast bulk of people not eating meat yesterday wouldn't even really consider themselves religious, they just do it cause its been the thing to do. Then there are those who DO consider themselves religious who pick and choose what rule to follow and what rule not to follow. This is common knowledge Bella. Sit down and have a conversation with one of these people you think have such strong convictions and it really won't take long to find a hole of hypocrisy.

I really don't think your that naive.

And fyi its generally is the backwards religious types shouting from the roof tops against any progress this country tries to make, and keeping us in the dark ages. Divorce , gay marriage , abortion. Don';t act like people its the innocent religious people minding their own business and not bothering people.

I know several. And re your last paragraph, there are lots and lots of religious people who are not backward or shouting stuff from the rooftops or forcing people to adhere to their own religious beliefs. It's easy to take a group of extremists and use them to make an argument. You can do that with any group of people you like.
It's also easy to make an argument by just posting sweeping statements and assumptions as if they're fact and then building your argument from there.

c68zapdsm5i1ru · 06-03-2014 01:35PM

Benny_Cake wrote: »

I think the difference is if someone argues that you are a bad person for eating meat on Ash Wednesday, yet the same person completely ignores Catholic teaching in other areas. That's hypocrisy, and deserves to be called out.

If a person simply abstains from meat as something that is meaningful for them, while acknowledging that they don't follow church teaching in other areas, best of luck to them as far as I'm concerned.

Yes, of course it is. I don't personally know anyone who does that but would have no respect for them if they did.

Akrasia · 06-03-2014 02:12PM

Cunny-Funt wrote: »

@ Akrasia,

Cheers for those posts. Really not arsed explaining to someone what logic is over and over again.

Religious beliefs by their vary nature are illogical and its a pointless discussion talking about this and is going off topic totally.

Nobody debates the logic of them not even religous debaters. its just pointless.

Softly softly catchy monkey

It takes time and repetition to learn any skill and critical thinking skills are not something that are thought as standard through our education system or through normal public discourse.

It can take years for someone to change how they think and learn how to properly critically assess claims that are put before them and even if you consider yourself to be an accomplished sceptic, you still need to constantly challenge your own beliefs for biases and defective thinking.

mrsbyrne · 06-03-2014 03:05PM

efb wrote: »

Would that it were. Separate Church and State

What if anything did the Catholic Church prevent you from doing today? or yesterday? or anyday of your life so far for that matter?

Akrasia · 06-03-2014 03:18PM

mrsbyrne wrote: »

What if anything did the Catholic Church prevent you from doing today? or yesterday? or anyday of your life so far for that matter?

Well, I wouldn't ask a Gay person that for a start

And I know people who were forced to give up their babies for adoption because of the sinful nature of having a child outside of wedlock. There are probably very few things you can do to a woman that is worse than making her give away her baby.

mrsbyrne · 06-03-2014 03:23PM

Cunny-Funt wrote: »

@ Akrasia,

Cheers for those posts. Really not arsed explaining to someone what logic is over and over again.

Religious beliefs by their vary nature are illogical and its a pointless discussion talking about this and is going off topic totally.

Nobody debates the logic of them not even religous debaters. its just pointless.

cunny-funt and akrasia if we are being completely honest here, would you agree that religous people cause you such feelings of frustrated superiority and almost hatred, that you feel that practising religion should be against the law?

mrsbyrne · 06-03-2014 03:24PM

Akrasia wrote: »

Well, I wouldn't ask a Gay person that for a start

And I know people who were forced to give up their babies for adoption because of the sinful nature of having a child outside of wedlock. There are probably very few things you can do to a woman that is worse than making her give away her baby.

But im not asking a gay person. Im asking the poster. Unless the poster is gay. Or was forced into an illegal adoption.I dont know. What did the Catholic Church do to prevent you from going about your lawful business today akrasia, cos your awful angry?

jimgoose · 06-03-2014 03:29PM

Akrasia wrote: »

...If I am a vegetarian and I don't eat meat because I object to animal exploitation, but I eat fish because I don't consider fish to be meat. Then this is irrational unless I can provide a good defence for why fish aren't meat...

In this case whether or not fish are "meat" is irrelevant. You'll be wanting to explain why and how fish aren't animals.

c68zapdsm5i1ru · 06-03-2014 03:47PM

Akrasia wrote: »

Well, I wouldn't ask a Gay person that for a start

And I know people who were forced to give up their babies for adoption because of the sinful nature of having a child outside of wedlock. There are probably very few things you can do to a woman that is worse than making her give away her baby.

Homosexuality was against the law until relatively recently in many countries, not just Catholic ones. And unmarried women were forced to give up their babies in many countries, not just Catholic ones. It was society that made these things unacceptable and which now accepts them. The Catholic church would still advocate that these behaviours are against Catholic teaching, but they certainly don't demand that gay people or unmarried mothers be thrown into prison or forced to give away their babies or ostracised. They don't have that power even if they wanted it.
I can understand people being angry at some of the things that the Church allowed or condoned years ago. But why still so angry with Catholics who now form part of a more enlightened and tolerant church, with religious leaders who are not as dogmatic and lacking in compassion as their pre-decessors. It's a bit like hating all teachers because years ago they caned pupils, or hating all Germans because years ago they slaughtered Jews.

papu · 06-03-2014 03:55PM

Melissa Mammoth Trademark wrote: »

Homosexuality was against the law until relatively recently in many countries, not just Catholic ones. And unmarried women were forced to give up their babies in many countries, not just Catholic ones. It was society that made these things unacceptable and which now accepts them. The Catholic church would still advocate that these behaviours are against Catholic teaching, but they certainly don't demand that gay people or unmarried mothers be thrown into prison or forced to give away their babies or ostracised. They don't have that power even if they wanted it.
I can understand people being angry at some of the things that the Church allowed or condoned years ago. But why still so angry with Catholics who now form part of a more enlightened and tolerant church, with religious leaders who are not as dogmatic and lacking in compassion as their pre-decessors. It's a bit like hating all teachers because years ago they caned pupils, or hating all Germans because years ago they slaughtered Jews.

Doesn't make it justified . You can't argue , it's ok we weren't the only ones doing it.
They don't demand they be thrown into prison but they actively protest and lobby against them having equal rights.

Wow.Just Wow.... you need to take a step back.

c68zapdsm5i1ru · 06-03-2014 04:01PM

papu wrote: »

Doesn't make it justified . You can't argue , it's ok we weren't the only ones doing it.
They don't demand they be thrown into prison but they actively protest and lobby against them having equal rights.

Wow.Just Wow.... you need to take a step back.

I'm not saying it was justified or that it's ok we weren't the only ones doing it. I'm saying it wasn't solely down to the Catholic Church that these things happened, it was a societal norm at the time so to blame it all on the Catholic Church is inaccurate and unfair.
All steps to change aspects of the constitution are attended by various stakeholders stating their case. There are other groups also opposed to same sex marriage for myriad reasons, not all religious ones, who are voicing their case and their concerns. It's called being a democracy. The Catholic Church are just one of many groups voicing their opinions. There are equally many groups lobbying to change the law.

You really need to read posts calmly and properly before jumping in with an overexcited 'wow oh wow' reaction.

Not sure why you bolded the bit about Germans. Are you implying they're still lobbying and discriminating against Jews??

mrsbyrne · 06-03-2014 04:06PM

Lots of people protest against lots of things. its called living in the free world. Also not all of the people who are protesting are Catholics. Lots are not even Christians.
When you say in that dramatic horrified "your a monster" tone "Wow just wow you need to take a step back" your actually telling bellabella and I to STFU.
You are allowed freedom of opinion and free speech but we are not.
Because we dont have the same opinion as you.
Wait, does that not make you a bigot!?

Akrasia · 06-03-2014 04:08PM

mrsbyrne wrote: »

cunny-funt and akrasia if we are being completely honest here, would you agree that religous people cause you such feelings of frustrated superiority and almost hatred, that you feel that practising religion should be against the law?

Of course not. I don't hate religious people and I certainly am not a totalitarian who thinks all religious practise should be illegal.

I do think certain religious practises should be illegal (like Female Genital Mutilation and exorcisms, especially those performed on children, for example)

I think it's silly that we are still superstitious given all that we have learned in the past 100 years about science and technology and cosmology. I am an enthusiastic proponent of the public understanding of science and I am a proponent of critical thinking across the board.

On a co-incidental note, I was browsing through Coursera today and I noticed that Dan Ariely is teaching a course called A Beginner's Guide to Irrational Behavior which I just signed up to.

I think Dan is great and if you're interested in exploring this area with one of the most respected experts in this field you you should think about signing up too.
It's free it will be a lot of fun.

https://www.coursera.org/course/behavioralecon

Akrasia · 06-03-2014 04:10PM

mrsbyrne wrote: »

But im not asking a gay person. Im asking the poster. Unless the poster is gay. Or was forced into an illegal adoption.I dont know. What did the Catholic Church do to prevent you from going about your lawful business today akrasia, cos your awful angry?

I'm not angry. You must be reading my posts in the wrong tone of internal monologue

Maybe I should use more smilies

Akrasia · 06-03-2014 04:15PM

Melissa Mammoth Trademark wrote: »

Homosexuality was against the law until relatively recently in many countries, not just Catholic ones. And unmarried women were forced to give up their babies in many countries, not just Catholic ones. It was society that made these things unacceptable and which now accepts them. The Catholic church would still advocate that these behaviours are against Catholic teaching, but they certainly don't demand that gay people or unmarried mothers be thrown into prison or forced to give away their babies or ostracised. They don't have that power even if they wanted it.
I can understand people being angry at some of the things that the Church allowed or condoned years ago. But why still so angry with Catholics who now form part of a more enlightened and tolerant church, with religious leaders who are not as dogmatic and lacking in compassion as their pre-decessors. It's a bit like hating all teachers because years ago they caned pupils, or hating all Germans because years ago they slaughtered Jews.

It seems that we are in agreement about how great it is that the Catholic church is not as powerful as it once was in Ireland.

The RC church is not more enlightened in Ireland, it is just less powerful. The church is just as opposed to condoms and homosexuality and sex outside marriage etc as it always has been. It's just that nobody listens to them anymore.

Tasden · 06-03-2014 04:15PM

mrsbyrne wrote: »

But im not asking a gay person. Im asking the poster. Unless the poster is gay. Or was forced into an illegal adoption.I dont know. What did the Catholic Church do to prevent you from going about your lawful business today akrasia, cos your awful angry?

Well I know you weren't addressing me, but specifically today, my child- who is in no position to understand religion let alone decide whether to believe it or not- had to sit and colour during her school day rather than actually learn something while her friends were being indoctrinated, she will then have to be given an activity by myself for homework because the rest of her class are sent home with religion homework on Thursdays and as a result she has none. Not as big a deal as having my daughter being taken away or being hated for who I love obviously, but it affects my day and my child's education for at least one day a week every week when it has no place in our life. That's a pretty valid reason to be pissed tbh. And the local educate together was not a good school compared to the National school, so it was either she gets a lower standard of education all round or she puts up with the church imposing itself on her education, lesser of two evils but annoys a lot of people in this country.

papu · 06-03-2014 04:16PM

mrsbyrne wrote: »

Lots of people protest against lots of things. its called living in the free world. Also not all of the people who are protesting are Catholics. Lots are not even Christians.
When you say in that dramatic horrified "your a monster" tone "Wow just wow you need to take a step back" your actually telling bellabella and I to STFU.
You are allowed freedom of opinion and free speech but we are not.
Because we dont have the same opinion as you.
Wait, does that not make you a bigot!?

Does that make you liable?

All things aside , I don't know how this went from eating meat to mass genocide :rolleyes:

BobbyPropane · 06-03-2014 04:20PM

I don't understand this thread. Nobody is forcing anyone else to not eat meat as far as I'm aware so why is there hate for Catholics?

You might as well start creating threads at the start of Ramadam asking everyone Muslim or not will they be fasting and then proclaiming that you won't because you are not Muslim.

Honestly you could have just created a poll and asked people instead of trying to fuel hate against an organisation.

Akrasia · 06-03-2014 04:21PM

mrsbyrne wrote: »

Lots of people protest against lots of things. its called living in the free world. Also not all of the people who are protesting are Catholics. Lots are not even Christians.

Yeah, Muslims oppose equal rights for gay people too

I haven't come across anyone who has campaigned against equal rights for Gay people who hasn't been arguing primarily from a religious perspective.

bodice ripper · 06-03-2014 04:22PM

not content with sticking it to the catholic church yesterday by eating meat, I also made it a point to eat another woman's pussy. good day

c68zapdsm5i1ru · 06-03-2014 04:23PM

Akrasia wrote: »

It seems that we are in agreement about how great it is that the Catholic church is not as powerful as it once was in Ireland.

The RC church is not more enlightened in Ireland, it is just less powerful. The church is just as opposed to condoms and homosexuality and sex outside marriage etc as it always has been. It's just that nobody listens to them anymore.

By enlightened I meant that they don't treat people in these situations with a black and white cruelty, as they used to. Sex outside marriage and using contraception are against Catholic beliefs in accordance with how they interpret the bible. In the same way that certain actions are against the beliefs of other religions. That's not about being unenlightened. How you practice tolerance, acceptance of others outside your faith and forgiveness and support for those struggling with some aspects of their faith but still wanting to practice it are really how you show genuine christianity and enlightenment in my view. Chopping and changing the fundamental doctine of your religion to fit in with what society wants would be hypocritical. Accepting that there is a large section of that society who do not follow your faith and that those who try to follow it and fall are not 'bad' people is a different matter.

mrsbyrne · 06-03-2014 04:23PM

Akrasia wrote: »

It seems that we are in agreement about how great it is that the Catholic church is not as powerful as it once was in Ireland.

The RC church is not more enlightened in Ireland, it is just less powerful. The church is just as opposed to condoms and homosexuality and sex outside marriage etc as it always has been. It's just that nobody listens to them anymore.

Millions and millions of people "listen" to them. Where on earth did you get the idea that nobody listens to them "anymore"? If you dont listen to them, thats your absolute perogative, but its quite clear that many many millions are listening.

Akrasia · 06-03-2014 04:24PM

BobbyPropane wrote: »

I don't understand this thread. Nobody is forcing anyone else to not eat meat as far as I'm aware so why is there hate for Catholics?

You might as well start creating threads at the start of Ramadam asking everyone Muslim or not will they be fasting and then proclaiming that you won't because you are not Muslim.

Honestly you could have just created a poll and asked people instead of trying to fuel hate against an organisation.

I would love to see such a thread if it was full of ex muslims talking about how they no longer feel compelled to follow muslim traditions

If only apostasy wasn't a crime punishable by death in Islam

Will you eat meat tomorrow

Comments