Are vegetarians actually smarter?

Thomas Stewart97 said:Well, I suppose that’s all well and good for your karma.🙂
The debt will come due eventually—whenever that may be.🙂

Look, I guess in your belief system that might be the case—but it certainly isn't in mine. In my faith, eating animals is perfectly acceptable. Are you suggesting—perhaps—that your beliefs are somehow more important or truer than mine?

Thomas Stewart97 said:it isn't🙂

It is—honestly, I believe human life simply carries more weight than that of an animal.

I actually brought this up with Rachel Martinez11 once—though they wouldn't give me a straight answer—so I suppose I'll ask you instead... just imagine you were faced with a choice where either your child or your pet was in immediate danger, and you could only save one of them. Who would you choose?

wearygardener13 said:Look, that might be how it works in your belief system—but it isn't mine. In my faith, eating animals is perfectly fine. Are you honestly suggesting your views hold more weight or truth than mine?

That isn't even about religion—it’s just a fundamental law of creation.
Everything comes full circle; everything has a price.
What goes around, comes around. Or, to put it simply... what you do eventually finds its way back to you.🙂

Rachel Martinez11 said:The life of even the dimmest dog—objectively and subjectively speaking—is worth more than a parasite like George Bush. In fact, I suppose a single cockroach holds more value than 30% of the members of US Congress.

😲 😲 😲

Son, you clearly don't have a clue about life—or what life is actually worth, whether we're talking about humans or animals 👎

Thomas Stewart97 said:that isn't even a religion—it's more like a fundamental law governing creation itself.
Everything comes full circle—everything carries a price.
What goes around, comes around. A.K.A. ... what you do, eventually finds its way back to you.🙂

Yeah... I suppose the concept of karma isn't actually tied to any specific faith.🙄 😛

wearygardener13 said:Yeah, human life is more valuable than animal life.

I asked Rachel Martinez11 about this, and they wouldn't give me an answer—so I'll ask you instead. Imagine you're faced with a choice where both your child and your pet are in danger, and you can only save one. Who are you choosing?

Most people would react purely on instinct—it all comes down to how attached you are to the individual. Honestly, anyone would likely grab their child first; it's just biological programming.
The real dilemma arises if you're choosing between a complete stranger and a pet. Believe it or not, plenty of people would actually prioritize their pet over someone they don't even know.

Personally, I don't believe human life holds more value. Every living being carries the same weight.

wearygardener13 said:There’s one flaw in that analogy—I’m not looking for some deep emotional connection with a pig. I just want to eat it and move on with my life.😕

I highly doubt that unknown was actually seeking any kind of meaningful bond with the workers he ruined along the way. It wasn't about passion; it was just about squeezing them for every cent, cutting them loose, and jumping ship to the next company to repeat the cycle. There's nothing inherently wrong with that specific motivation. The real issue is that this principle works both ways. When you eventually find yourself on the receiving end of that exact same mindset, don't come crying about justice or fairness. Let's try being principled for once, shall we?

wearygardener13 said:Yeah—karma isn't tied to any specific religion, after all.🙄 😛

It’s connected to Hinduism, sure—but there are millions of people who follow Hindu traditions without actually believing in karma or reincarnation, simply because common sense tells them otherwise.
I don't think there's any chance that animals are being slaughtered just because of you without any consequences. Maybe it doesn't seem apparent in this lifetime, but there's plenty of time for things to balance out eventually.

Thomas Stewart97 said:I think anyone would just react on instinct—it really depends on how attached you are to the creature. Most people would probably save their own child first... it's just primal.
The real dilemma is when it’s a complete stranger versus a pet. I suspect quite a few people might actually grab their pet before some random person they don't know at all.

Personally, I believe a human life isn't inherently more valuable—every living thing holds its own importance.

I am not talking about pure instinct here—you actually have time to pause and make a conscious choice about what matters most. So, I mean, I'm not referring to split-second decisions.

See, if I had to choose between my pet and a total stranger, I would pick the human—regardless of how much I love my pet. A human life is worth more—much more.🙂 🙂

wearygardener13 said:😲 😲 😲

Son, you don't have the slightest clue about how life works or what life is actually worth—whether we're talking about human lives or animals.👎

The guy you keep calling "son" for the hundredth time is probably roughly your father's age. Using that kind of condescension just screams that you've got some deep-seated insecurities; it’s clearly your way of trying to prove you're superior to whoever you're arguing with, since you can't manage it any other way. Don't worry, though—that ego will eventually take a hit when you get cheated on for the first time. Though, looking at you, I highly doubt that'll happen anytime soon.

Thomas Stewart97 said:It’s tied to Hinduism, but honestly—millions of people who have even a tiny connection to Hinduism don't actually believe in karma or reincarnation... mostly because common sense tells them otherwise.
I really don't think animals are being slaughtered just because of you—and no one is paying for it. Maybe it's an illusion in this life, but I guess there's always time for a reaction later.

But hold on—my religion clearly states that it's perfectly fine to kill animals for food, and frankly, that makes way more sense to me than having to survive on nothing but vegetables. Just because something seems illogical to you doesn't mean it applies to everyone... logic is a pretty tricky thing, isn't it?

wearygardener13 said:I am not talking about split-second impulses—you have plenty of time to reflect and make a conscious choice about what matters most. So, I am not referring to immediate, knee-jerk reactions.

Look, if it came down to it, I would choose a human being over my pet every single time—regardless of how much I love my animal. A human life carries more weight, significantly more 🙂 🙂

I would save the child first—and then I would go back for my pet, no matter what it took.
Every single life holds equal value—to suggest otherwise is just arrogant and distorted.

Rachel Martinez11 said:This guy you keep calling "son"—for the hundredth time now—is probably about your dad's age. I guess by talking like that, you're just showing everyone how insecure you are—trying to prove you're superior to people you're arguing with because you can't do it any other way. Don't worry, though; I'm sure that attitude will change once you actually find a partner—though, honestly, I doubt that'll happen anytime soon.

Wow—that was an incredibly pathetic attempt at a low blow. Is it your go-to move to accuse someone of being single every single time you lose an argument?🙂

wearygardener13 said:But hold on—my religion clearly states that killing animals for food is perfectly fine. To me, that's much more logical than being forced to survive on nothing but vegetables. Just because it doesn't make sense to you doesn't mean it applies to everyone. Logic is a tricky thing.

Your religion, among other things, has historically advocated for crusades and witch trials.
It stands to reason that a person should live their life without having to take the life of another creature.

wearygardener13 said:Wow, what an incredibly pathetic attempt at a comeback. Is this your go-to move whenever you lose an argument? Just accusing everyone else of being a jerk?🙂

That isn't an accusation. It’s just a plain observation. And it isn't because I'm losing the debate; it's simply an assessment of my opponent's psychological profile. After all, we are technically on the "psychology" subforum, aren't we? Besides, if someone chooses to rely on condescending "listen here, kid" logic, they shouldn't act shocked when they get shut down. My advice? Don't jump into discussions you aren't equipped for, or maybe try putting in a little effort to make a coherent point once in a while. Otherwise, you—much like every other troll out there—will just end up shouting into the void.

Thomas Stewart97 said:I would save the child—and then I’d go back for my pet, no matter what it took.

That isn't really an option—you only get one shot at this, which means you save just one of them and that's that. So, I guess you've basically proven that a human life is more valuable than an animal's, anyway.👋

Rachel Martinez11 said:That isn't an accusation—it’s just a plain observation. And honestly, it isn't because of some low rating in the discussion, but rather just an observation of my conversational partner's psychological profile. After all, we are on the "psychology" subforum, aren't we?

Wrong. Honestly, you're the only one here with an inferiority complex—and a massive one at that. You're actually a textbook case—you want to grab a juicy steak, but you can't because you'd end up trampling everything you claim to defend, so instead, you just deal with those complexes on internet forums.🤣 🤣 🤣

Thomas Stewart97 said:your religion—among other things—has championed crusades and witch hunts.

Religious doctrine is one thing—but actual practice is quite another. I mean, is burning women alongside their husbands in India really considered some sort of great civilizational achievement? 🤮

wearygardener13 said:That isn't an option. You have exactly one choice—save just one of them and be done with it. There—you've effectively proven that human life is more valuable than animal life. 👋

That doesn't prove anything—reactions in those kinds of split-second scenarios are purely instinctive.
If we were talking about someone else's child or an adult, plenty of people would still instinctively jump to save their pet first. So, your theory completely falls apart.

Every life has equal value.🙂

sad but true said:Religious doctrine is one thing—actual practice is quite another. As if burning women alongside their husbands in India is some kind of grand achievement for civilization? 🤮

That’s exactly why I rely on logic—rather than religion or fairy tales.
Karma eventually catches up with everyone.🙂