People in India aren't starving because they refuse to eat cattle. That's like saying people in poor regions of Appalachia are starving because they refuse to eat stray dogs. People in India are starving because the British colonized the subcontinent, used economic force to make farmers grow cash crops that the British could profit off of, and then additionally sold Indians rice at a rate for profit that they couldn't all afford.

I love animals. Always have. All I used to play with as a kid were little plastic animal figurines. Even now, I read books on zoology constantly.

I also love meat. I crave it if I go without it too long. Oh, and guess what? I prefer to slaughter my own meat. I've slaughtered two year-old calves and countless chickens and rabbits. All with my own knives or just my hands. Oh, and I eat bugs sometimes, too. Does that count as meat? Grasshoppers are the best. Real big ones.

Am I a hypocrite? I don't think so. If I'm going to eat I feel the most responsible way to do so is to raise animals in a loving environment and come to terms with what I'm going to use them for. It's always a somber moment when I slaughter something, but it's part of life.

I've got a four-year-old son. Never spanked him once. Taught him how to use words and that was as much work as I had to put into discipline. We have conversations about unacceptable behavior, and it's made him an incredible critical thinker who doesn't take shit from anyone who tries to treat him with any less respect than he deserves.

Any punishment that would anger or embarrass an adult does the same for a child. Kids aren't as clueless as parents would often like to think. It was the tradition in the Western world for the last couple thousand years for a husband to physically discipline his wife for pissing him off. Our society has grown out of spousal abuse for the most part and it's considered cowardly and unacceptable. Unfortunately, parents can still get away with mildly abusing their children simply because they want to be traditional and are rarely prepared to expend the amount of time necessary to raise a child. And for whatever reason, it's not okay to hit a child on the face or in the groin, yet hitting a kid on the ass is acceptable. Just because it doesn't do as much physical harm? A body is a body and any violent infliction to the physical body of a conscious being is an emotional detriment. Spanking does nothing but condition children. Discipline is meant to instill values and ethics.

I definitely get pissed off at racists, but they should have every right to express what they believe in the appropriate spaces.

Most racism is implicit in the hegemonic matrix of society. That's where a country like the U.S. needs to direct its energies -- not at individuals who hold racist ideologies but at the actual social structures that leave people underprivileged on the basis of race, class, sex, orientation, spirituality, physical ability, age, etc. We're all supporting a system that oppresses certain groups within society, and we don't treat this as enough of an issue when it comes to elections or endorsement of legislation.

I think the big difference between whatever aesthetic value a peacock finds in another peacock and what a human finds in something like a sunset is that there is a sexual aspect to the relationship between one attractive peacock and another, whereas whatever beauty we find in a sunset is perceived without a sexual impetus... unless you've got a really, uh, unique fetish. That considered, you've gotta ask what evolutionary advantage humans have by being able to find a sunset beautiful, if any advantage exists at all. Maybe our propensity for aesthetic appreciation is merely a consequence of another evolutionary development. And like I said, we just haven't been able to prove beyond a doubt that animals have a consciousness comparable to a human's. Maybe animals are able to perceive more aesthetic value in their surroundings than we can and simply don't need to be as outwardly creative because they have some kind of contentment with just being. Maybe they're superior in that sense. I don't know. I am supporting the view that animals could develop or already have developed human-like consciousness. I'm also saying that when considering the question, humans should be wary not to fall into the trap of thinking that they are superior to other life forms simply because we have more advanced intellectual abilities. I honestly believe that the only thing that truly separates us from animals is our linguistic ability and the consequent abilities that stem from it.

I've never done much research into animals that paint. I've heard of them but never pursued more insight on the phenomenon. That's cool, though, that their keepers feel inspiration prompts them to paint what they do.

Yeah, I'm not saying your post should be logical at all. Perhaps I should have included an emoticon to try to convey the intended tone of voice that would accompany that comment.

Many of them are taken aback. Some reciprocate, though, and we'll refuse to do any favors for one another if the person asking says 'please'.

Being a genius does not mean that you have come up with the same creative solutions as anyone else. And it doesn't mean your experiences have led you to make the same meaning out of life as another person. And it doesn't mean you have talents in the same areas where others have talents. Being a genius really makes you a genius, nothing more. If you're rude to people and never develop normal, fulfilling relationships what's being a genius gonna do for you?

I think your example falls short logically, but in an anecdotal sense, I totally agree -- not that genius status gives you the leeway to be rude, but on the 'please' and 'thank you' thing. I actually demand that my friends never say 'please' to me for anything.

What, exactly, comprises human-like consciousness? A lot of you seem to go straight to human-like intelligence. What about aesthetic appreciation? For all we know, that's a quality specific to humans. No other creature is known to stop to watch a sunset and let it inspire them in their creative work. No other creature, as far as we know, passes allegorical myths to successive generations to help them make meaning of their life experience. And no other creature uses language. (There is animal communication, but it's not language. For an explanation as to why, consult the book Adam's Tongue by Derek Bickerton.)

That being said, we simply haven't been able to find the evidence to suggest that another animal is like us. But we don't even know what really makes us human. Is it our intellectual ability? Creative abilities? Perhaps each species has some alternative consciousness that suits it just as well as our human consciousness suits us, just in different contexts given that every life form fills its own niche.

Yeah, I guess I feel I only have the authority to speculate in regards to the U.S. I do think other nations could abide by such a legal system in a way that is pragmatically effective, but I don't think any legal system based on the above statement would actually be supporting the people. I think most of the efficacy of such a legal system would stem from the public's understanding that the consequences of their actions are somehow more concrete, more permanent. The idea of doing time for stealing (or any other crime) or the idea of a fine is a little more abstract, and I think when people have a lapse in judgment our legal system (my legal system? I'm assuming you're American) may not do as much to actually sway their final decision since they may not have a true awareness of what they're getting themselves into. But as effective as an "eye for an eye" legal system may be, I see it as something that relies primarily on fear rather than on the understanding that certain actions are considered criminal because they are a detriment to society. I'm not saying our system is much better as it allows most people to pay their way out of trouble without helping them make a real paradigm shift.

And you bring up a good point about the penalty for stealing in Saudi Arabia. Neither of us see it as a fair punishment, but fair is culturally relative. I'm all for the humane treatment of criminals, but perhaps most of the populace of Saudi Arabia sees this as humane enough. If that's so, it's difficult to say whether anyone should try to change their customs. That gets into an ethical debate which has many sides to it, and I'm not sure where I fall.

What if you cause a car accident and don't kill someone but permanently injure them? Should the person at fault be permanently injured in turn? Through the use of a vehicle? What if it was truly an accident that was beyond anyone's control?

Accidents, faults, crimes are all too complex for there to be a one-to-one correspondence between them and reconciliatory legal action.

Well, considering the adage comes from the Hebrew Bible, I would say no. The cultural values reflected in the phrase are no longer applicable in this day and age. It'd be just like supporting any kind of religious law in this country; it's not compatible with our Constitution or theories of social psychology. I think any legal system based on such a statement would propagate more dissidence than we already have.

The same sentiment is the basis for Hammurabi's code in ancient Babylon. But under his code, the penalty for stealing was the removal of the criminal's hand. That's not even really logical. The removal of a hand should be the punishment for removing another person's hand. So then what's the punishment for theft? Seizure of property from the thief? How effectively would that work? It'd be tyrannical.

Would the "world-standard set" language be decreed by something like international law or function more like a de facto lingua franca? Either way, I can't see it as being ultimately beneficial. English is already the de facto language for most international affairs, and as much as linguists have tried to preserve peoples' native languages, there is such an incentive to learn English that languages are dying faster than they can be catalogued. I see this as a huge problem. The widespread use of one language carries with it a dominant culture that bears more legitimacy in the minds of people. It's bringing us closer and closer to a monoculture that lacks the diverse cultural values that have been propagated in a multitude of minority languages for thousands of years. This takes us further and further from a world in which we will actually have available data to explore to full range of human nature.

Would a world-standard set language be good for business and trade. No doubt about that. But at some point we have to consider what is more valuable: continual globalization or a world that accommodates human creativity, spirituality, community, etc.

And as far as international communication and understanding go, I think we'd gain more from learning other languages rather than expect everyone to speak one tongue.

Well, I'm glad you're now doubting that I'm actually a monkey because -- I'll be truthful with you -- I'm not. Bit of a buzzkill, I know. You can't blame me, though. I actually never claimed to be a monkey in the first place. I don't know why you just whimsically assume everyone is like you!

I'll cut straight to the point for you. Science has already gathered sufficient evidence to support the stance that homosexuality is the result of processes beyond an individual's control (in a very logical, rationale, methodical manner, mind you), whether they be genetic or environmental. Just because I use the term 'emotionality' does not mean that my stance on the matter is based on my own emotions. I don't think you understand that sexuality is an aspect of personality and is part of the nature of people. By denying rights and acceptance to anyone other than full-blown heterosexuals, our society denies human nature. There is enough statistical evidence for us to be practical at this point in history and accept that the majority of our species exists somewhere on the spectrum between homosexual and heterosexual. And it is all normal human behavior.

I hope that as you come to the realization that I am not, in reality, a monkey, you also begin to consider that the world is not always as you (dare I say, choose to?) believe.

'Belief' by definition entails no element of choice. If I choose to punch a brick wall, I won't, under most circumstances, believe that my fist will go through it. As a result of my belief that my fist will not go through any brick wall I punch. I will choose to not go around punching brick walls. It is true that there may be a brick wall in the world I could punch through, but as of yet I have not punched that brick wall and no matter how hard I try, I cannot make myself believe that I can punch through a brick wall.

So if heterosexuality is a choice, this means that our government is effectively denying citizens the fundamental right to choose. So this also gives the government the right to deny minority religions the right to practice, as most of those who have taken your stance seem to have confused the meaning of 'choice' and 'belief'.

Montesquieu wrote that any punishment that does not arise from absolute necessity is tyrannical and gives citizens the right to rise up against the government. He was one of the most influential philosophers on the men who wrote the Constitution. What, exactly, is the necessity of the lawful persecution of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of homosexuals since the dawn of this country? Even if homosexuality was a choice on par with a belief, the simple existence of a possible choice is not sufficient enough a threat for the government to punish alleged perpetrators.

PrayerFails, based on what you've posted so far, I'm beginning to doubt that you are actually human, as you seem to have virtually no understanding of human emotionality. On the basis that you are not human, I hereby denounce your opinion as invalid and faulty.

Dictionary.com actually defines 'preference' as "the act of preferring."

Dictionary.com gives "choose rather than" as a definition for 'prefer'.

If anything, I would say that this is far from equating choice and preference. It may be true that the semantic fields of both words overlap, but all you're doing is ignoring reality and bringing yourself into a rhetorical argument. The fact that the English language uses similar words for distinct phenomena does not mean the actual concepts conveyed by the words are one and the same. In Chinese I can use the same word to describe an object as black, blue, or green. This linguistic convention does not abolish the reality that three different objects colored black, blue, and green are three different colors. If you believe what you're arguing, you'd better find some valid evidence quick, because what you're saying would not stand up to any logical analysis.

And also, you can't just pick and choose different dictionaries to build a logical chain of semantic relations.

So all choices are a product of a perceived reward that "ways out [sic]" a perceived risk? Well good thing Christianity is a system of BELIEFS and not a system of CHOICES, otherwise those poor Iranian Christian truly would be suffering for no reason.

If I told you I could fly (independently of any apparatus), would you believe me? What if I held a knife to your throat and told you I could fly? Would you choose to believe me then, no matter how ridiculous the notion seemed?

Choosing and believing are two separate actions, bud.

This doesn't make sense. Maybe it is free will that allows homosexuals to act on their feelings, but the actual feelings that are a part of their being as a person are not a choice. Go give a dude oral and tell me whether you chose to be aroused or not.

Take the 'homo-' out of 'homosexuality'. A more pertinent question would be: What is sexuality? Choice or genetic? Homosexuality is one type of sexuality. Do you choose to look at whomever you're sexually attracted to and be turned on? Not to say sexual orientation is entirely genetic; perhaps environmental factors and psychological processes play a role in one's ultimate orientation. But this is a ridiculous question that should not even be disputed in today's society. Now, is it a choice to come out of the closet? Yes... a choice based on genuine feelings people have.

Now, how do we measure equal? Are we intellectually superior? Intrinsically more valuable? More powerful?

As far as I can reason, the only criteria for measuring equality would have to be based on the intrinsic value of different beings. Yeah, humans kind of conquered the planet, but only by the grace of evolutionary happenstance. For all we know, dolphins could be as intellectually capable as humans but without the physical ability to develop the kinds of technologies that have allowed us to rise to the top of the food chain.

Here's a question: If aliens arrived on earth and had technology far beyond anything we were capable of, or even if they were so intellectually advanced that they had conscious awareness to a degree we could never fathom (effectively making them gods in comparison to us), would that reality detract from the intrinsic value of our humanity? Is the value of our humanity dependent on reality? Because the reality we experience is not necessarily an objective, true reality. So if these aliens already exist and we just don't know about them, does that make us less valuable by default?

And what if said aliens proclaimed that humans were, in fact, inferior -- worthless even? What then? They're smarter, so does that make it so? Would we accept a fate as slaves to alien master or some bio-resource to be exploited? Or would we fight for our progeny and recognize that the aliens are no better than us and our perceived worthlessness is just circumstantial?

Given these things to consider, I don't think we can definitively say that we are in any value-sense 'above' another species, especially considering that we wouldn't be able to sustain ourselves if we weren't part of an extremely complex ecological network. That network doesn't only include other life, but even physical landforms and forces of nature.

And to deter anyone from pegging me as a 'hippie', which seems to be the go-to term everyone on this site uses to denote anyone who is vaguely liberally minded, I love eating meat. So much so that I've slaughtered yearling calves, chickens, and rabbits to harvest the stuff. And I'm all for violence in appropriate situations. And I will fully indulge in my privileges as a human being while I'm here.

Did Cee-Lo effectively change the meaning of the iconic song by changing the lyrics? Yes.

Should the incident be a media sensation? No.

Should America spend more time addressing issues that actually matter, such as our widespread apathy towards social justice or a natural environment that is being decimated by delusional capitalists who think our economy can infinitely expand despite our limited resources? Yes.

Will it matter in a month? No.