>>693300>>O RLY? Civilization proves otherwise.Civilization is just advanced social interaction, and lots of animals have social interactions. Ants are a good example of this as well.
>>What is your problem with that choice?I never said I had a problem with people choosing to be vegetarians.
>>Why not? What if I chose to apply them? Who are you to tell ME I'm wrong? Mother Nature?We happen to be in such a position that allows us the luxury of applying these illogical concepts with minimal harm, but if we were not in such a comfortable position then those who insisted on being illogical would probably starve to death.
>and we should only apply it in cases where it is useful.Again, who are YOU to tell ME when to be empathic and show compassion?
Me, I'm just a differentAnon telling you that you're being illogical, and in general being illogical causes more harm than good. Of course I am often illogical as well, but that doesn't affect my argument in any way.
>>I'm not a vegetarian but I don't go about how they're "Going against nature" and I don't try to undermine their ideals.My original response was to someone who said that we shouldn't kill innocent animals. I pointed out that "innocent" is a human term that has no meaning to 99.999% of the species out there. I also pointed out that not eating a convenient high energy food source is illogical, and unnatural. It is unnatural because any species that consistently ignored a food source that it could easily eat would get out competed by a species that would.
As for undermining their ideals, well first I would say that I am arguing against their ideals, rather than trying to undermine them.
Secondly I would say that if their ideals have merit then no amount of argument by me could cause them to fail. Ideas that are fragile and easily broken are usually wrong, and those that are tough and hard to break are usually right.