6 ms·

I downvoted because that's a bad analogy. Here's why: Animal rights aside (because that has nothing to do with the restriction of pork), only the person eating

I downvoted because that's a bad analogy. Here's why: Animal rights aside (because that has nothing to do with the restriction of pork), only the person eating pork is harmed. When Americans consume pork, it doesn't harm the Afghans who don't consume pork. Meaning, everyone eating pork is freely volunteering to do so. No one involved in eating of pork is involved against their will. Whatever the punishment might be in the afterlife, it only involves those who consume pork. In a sense, it's a victimless crime. Again, putting animal rights aside. However, having sex with young boys involves the unwilling young boy. There is a victim that needs protection here.

inDigiNeous 11y ago
How can you say this when you very well know, eating pork means killing innocent animals, keeping them locked down, in the same way these people are holding small children locked down and abusing them. Eating pork is as much abuse as is abusing little children, or even more, as the animal is brutally killed, a thinking, living being. You cannot just put animal rights aside like that, this is probably along the lines people who abuse children are thinking, that it is their right to abuse children, like the western world thinks "It is our right to kill, slaughter and eat animals". Maybe if we wouldn't think that we can just raise, kill and eat other living, conscious, thinking, feeling beings, just like we are, all the time, then we would have less abuse of ourselves too? Compassion goes a long way. If we cannot have compassion to other living beings inhabiting this planet, how can we have compassion to other people inhabiting this planet. Can you see the analogy ? And if you're making the comparison to intelligence as being the factor that limits what we should eat and kill, then I can remind that it has been studied that pigs are as intelligent or even more intelligent than dogs even. Now, what do you think such intelligent beings are thinking when they are being held captive and tortured in their poor living conditions, just to be force fed, force breeded and then violently killed just to fill our bellies ?
- cm2187 11y ago
  Islam doesn't ban eating pork to protect the life of these innocent creatures.
  - erikb 11y ago
    But saving animals is another, third, moral point of view in which eating another living, breathing being is just as bad or worse than raping one. Just as with Islam you can say "no, my moral codex is more important" or you can try to accept it.
- yardie 11y ago
  This is literally the stupidest thing I've read on HN in a very long time. Bravo intrepid commenter for declaring the consumption of meat to be worse than the sexual abuse of small children. You've done a disservice to vegans and vegetarians, everywhere.
  - MichaelApproved 11y ago
    Don't be rude.
    - jacquesm 11y ago
      He's not rude, at a guess that's quite restrained (compared to what my version of that comment would be anyway).
      - MichaelApproved 11y ago
        From the guidelines > When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. E.g. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - erikb 11y ago
    That's not what I did. You read it incorrectly. But I have to say I aimed to achieve that misinterpretation. Now either you just ignore everything and think all the world is a simple happy place, or you get a step closer to that "aha" effect, realising there are people that really have that point of view and that it is as valid as yours. While for your personal life it might never matter, it certainly matters for cooperation on an international level.
  - inDigiNeous 11y ago
    That's your view. My view is that all life is equally important. Why is abusing a child worse than killing another living being ? Can you elaborate ? I know and realize this is a stupid argument to have, especially on Hacker News, but if people are ready to make arguments about the subject that animals have no right, on a certain level we are ready to make the argument that maybe foreigners or "lower level people" as many tend to think don't have the same right to live. You see the connection I'm trying to make ?
erikb 11y ago
Thanks for giving the reasoning for your downvote. But your argument is exactly the point of view that I already responded to in my initial comment. Not a single line shows that you try to accept that other people follow another moral codex. You say "No, because in my moral codex that's a really bad thing, therefore I can't be tolerant." and that is exactly what Muslims argue if we talk about eating pork, dressing of women, joking about religion, etc. And that's why it's actually a good analogy. Or let me put it that way: The analogy is bad if you apply your moral codex. The analogy is good if you consider it a statement that is as bad as the headline in our moral codex, but from their point of view. This is the thinking step you should apply. And that's where the analogy comes from.
- simonh 11y ago
  First of all this practice has nothing whatever to do with Islam> This has been pointed out to you several times already and your persistent linking of this practice with that religion is at this point a pretty obviously deliberate slur. Please stop. Secondly, considering whether a practice has unwilling victims is a perfectly reasonable objective measure to apply when evaluating a practice. As a matter of fact, the kinds of abuse we are discussing are illegal in Afghanistan and are widely considered illegal and immoral abuse in the Muslim world, so your argument lacks merit because it is based on several false premises.
  - vixen99 11y ago
    'Has nothing to do with Islam' and the proven numerous cases of Catholic (among others) priests having sex with boys have nothing to do with Christianity either? I'm on the fence on that one though we can agree it's not ordained in either faith. The injunctions for illegality and immorality you cite for the Muslim world apply equally to those for Christianity of course. Reading https://info.publicintelligence.net/HTT-PashtunSexuality.pdf https://info.publicintelligence.net/HTT-PashtunSexuality.pdf there seems to be a problem for men not being allowed to see the face of potential mates; is this custom associated with Islam or not? Catholic priests are not allowed to marry. What are they supposed to do with their sexual impulses. We know the unconvincing answer.

inDigiNeous 11y ago

How can you say this when you very well know, eating pork means killing innocent animals, keeping them locked down, in the same way these people are holding small children locked down and abusing them. Eating pork is as much abuse as is abusing little children, or even more, as the animal is brutally killed, a thinking, living being. You cannot just put animal rights aside like that, this is probably along the lines people who abuse children are thinking, that it is their right to abuse children, like the western world thinks "It is our right to kill, slaughter and eat animals". Maybe if we wouldn't think that we can just raise, kill and eat other living, conscious, thinking, feeling beings, just like we are, all the time, then we would have less abuse of ourselves too? Compassion goes a long way. If we cannot have compassion to other living beings inhabiting this planet, how can we have compassion to other people inhabiting this planet. Can you see the analogy ? And if you're making the comparison to intelligence as being the factor that limits what we should eat and kill, then I can remind that it has been studied that pigs are as intelligent or even more intelligent than dogs even. Now, what do you think such intelligent beings are thinking when they are being held captive and tortured in their poor living conditions, just to be force fed, force breeded and then violently killed just to fill our bellies ?

cm2187 11y ago
Islam doesn't ban eating pork to protect the life of these innocent creatures.
- erikb 11y ago
  But saving animals is another, third, moral point of view in which eating another living, breathing being is just as bad or worse than raping one. Just as with Islam you can say "no, my moral codex is more important" or you can try to accept it.
yardie 11y ago
This is literally the stupidest thing I've read on HN in a very long time. Bravo intrepid commenter for declaring the consumption of meat to be worse than the sexual abuse of small children. You've done a disservice to vegans and vegetarians, everywhere.
- MichaelApproved 11y ago
  Don't be rude.
  - jacquesm 11y ago
    He's not rude, at a guess that's quite restrained (compared to what my version of that comment would be anyway).
    - MichaelApproved 11y ago
      From the guidelines > When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. E.g. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- erikb 11y ago
  That's not what I did. You read it incorrectly. But I have to say I aimed to achieve that misinterpretation. Now either you just ignore everything and think all the world is a simple happy place, or you get a step closer to that "aha" effect, realising there are people that really have that point of view and that it is as valid as yours. While for your personal life it might never matter, it certainly matters for cooperation on an international level.
- inDigiNeous 11y ago
  That's your view. My view is that all life is equally important. Why is abusing a child worse than killing another living being ? Can you elaborate ? I know and realize this is a stupid argument to have, especially on Hacker News, but if people are ready to make arguments about the subject that animals have no right, on a certain level we are ready to make the argument that maybe foreigners or "lower level people" as many tend to think don't have the same right to live. You see the connection I'm trying to make ?

erikb 11y ago

Thanks for giving the reasoning for your downvote. But your argument is exactly the point of view that I already responded to in my initial comment. Not a single line shows that you try to accept that other people follow another moral codex. You say "No, because in my moral codex that's a really bad thing, therefore I can't be tolerant." and that is exactly what Muslims argue if we talk about eating pork, dressing of women, joking about religion, etc. And that's why it's actually a good analogy. Or let me put it that way: The analogy is bad if you apply your moral codex. The analogy is good if you consider it a statement that is as bad as the headline in our moral codex, but from their point of view. This is the thinking step you should apply. And that's where the analogy comes from.

simonh 11y ago
First of all this practice has nothing whatever to do with Islam> This has been pointed out to you several times already and your persistent linking of this practice with that religion is at this point a pretty obviously deliberate slur. Please stop. Secondly, considering whether a practice has unwilling victims is a perfectly reasonable objective measure to apply when evaluating a practice. As a matter of fact, the kinds of abuse we are discussing are illegal in Afghanistan and are widely considered illegal and immoral abuse in the Muslim world, so your argument lacks merit because it is based on several false premises.
- vixen99 11y ago
  'Has nothing to do with Islam' and the proven numerous cases of Catholic (among others) priests having sex with boys have nothing to do with Christianity either? I'm on the fence on that one though we can agree it's not ordained in either faith. The injunctions for illegality and immorality you cite for the Muslim world apply equally to those for Christianity of course. Reading https://info.publicintelligence.net/HTT-PashtunSexuality.pdf https://info.publicintelligence.net/HTT-PashtunSexuality.pdf there seems to be a problem for men not being allowed to see the face of potential mates; is this custom associated with Islam or not? Catholic priests are not allowed to marry. What are they supposed to do with their sexual impulses. We know the unconvincing answer.