User Controls
We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
-
2018-03-04 at 4:14 AM UTC
-
2018-03-04 at 4:17 AM UTC
Originally posted by Speedy Parker No, I said that while they are used interchangeably it is incorrect to do so dumbass.
See: regardless, irregardless
Ok, so did the way I used the term fail to satisfy the dictionary definition (which I also posted for you) or am I expected to take your babbling as the higher authority over the OED? -
2018-03-04 at 4:32 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny Yeah, pretty much. There's an argument to be had over whether there's any ethical way to raise an animal in order to kill it for meat (like if we raised a human being and took really good care of it and gave it a good life and then killed it for meat when it was middle aged, would that have been OK? I'm not committed to an answer one way or the other) but at very least if we could raise farm animals in some semblance of their natural environment we'd have made a step in the right direction.
the jist of the situation is...the animal is made out of meat which is a nutritional requirement for a human being. regardless of wild animal predators showing zero regard for their prey items' feelings when capturing, incapacitating, then consuming it while quite alive.
as long as a farm animal is raised and harvested in a manner that isnt wholly perverted and sadistic, regardless of the nitpicky degrees of perspective on those terms, there is no reason to deny the nutritional content.
this includes fois gras and veal
most importantly...fuck PITA right in the ass with an erect horses cock. -
2018-03-04 at 4:52 AM UTC
Originally posted by infinityshock the jist of the situation is…the animal is made out of meat which is a nutritional requirement for a human being.
There's really no argument to be had at this point over whether or not it's possible to have a nutritionally sufficient vegetarian diet, it is. So I assume what you're saying here is "eating meat can satisfy human dietary requirements" which is of course correct but then so can eating babies, that doesn't make it morally acceptable.regardless of wild animal predators showing zero regard for their prey items' feelings when capturing, incapacitating, then consuming it while quite alive.
Some wild animals will fling their shit at each other too. That doesn't make it an acceptable thing to do in a civilized society. -
2018-03-04 at 5:23 AM UTCBefore the Great Flood, all humans ate only vegetation and fruit. Humans began eating animals because all the plant life had been washed away.
-
2018-03-04 at 8:10 AM UTC
-
2018-03-04 at 8:18 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny So you would agree with the statement "there is no moral issue with adopting a large number of dogs and cats in order to torture them"? I'm not saying you have to say no, I just want to make sure you're comfortable with this pretty natural conclusion of capacity for reason implies agency implies rights framework.
I will say no there is no moral issue there, no matter how personally objectionable i may find the act. -
2018-03-04 at 9:11 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny Ok, so did the way I used the term fail to satisfy the dictionary definition (which I also posted for you) or am I expected to take your babbling as the higher authority over the OED?
You can just carry on thinking what you think for I give shit. It doesn't change anything dumbass. -
2018-03-04 at 9:34 AM UTC
Originally posted by Sophie I will say no there is no moral issue there, no matter how personally objectionable i may find the act.
Huh, OK. So what does it mean for something to be objectionable if it poses no moral issue? On what grounds to you object to the torture of animals?
Originally posted by Speedy Parker You can just carry on thinking what you think for I give shit. It doesn't change anything dumbass.
Lol, you're incapable of admitting you're wrong huh? It's hilarious watching you try to back out of this without admitting how fucktarded you are. -
2018-03-04 at 9:38 AM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick We don't structure our diets based on what spear-chuckers were wrangling 6,000 years ago. We have purchasing power in an agrarian society, so we enjoy the luxury of thinking about what we eat. We need to consider the action of eating meat from the perspective of what is possible and correct, here and now, rather than from the perspectives of what was favorable for our ancestors. Today we have the option to replace our intake of animal products with responsible, healthier alternatives; this is something relatively recent and it should be seized upon for the welfare of everybody. We don't need to consume meat anymore to achieve maximal cognitive functioning.
Yes, the animals would be saved, but there are also advantages for us in adopting a vegetarian diet. The health benefits speak for themselves, and it would also lessen the impact of the agriculture industry on the environment. If you aren't swayed by the morality of the issue, perhaps these benefits are meaningful to you.
I thought those benefits were why we are morally obligated... but now I think I actually should read your beginning arguments. Most people I know that are on a plant based diet love it. I think I could do it, I just haven't tried yet. -
2018-03-04 at 10:27 AM UTC
Originally posted by benny vader yea … but theres nothing natural, apex or beta about obese niggers and faggots consuming a fuck ton of factory made ground beef of cow and non-cow origins and reconstituted chickens substrates.
nothing.
if anything its carnality against the order of nature.
then why do they exist then?
. -
2018-03-04 at 10:55 AM UTCi been having this similar argument with some veggie nuts on a fb group the last couple of days. i swear this idiots comeback was to claim 'hunter-gatherers' ate fruit for the first 22 million years. well you can see my reply for yourselves, lol.
spectroll, was this you?
. -
2018-03-04 at 1:20 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny Huh, OK. So what does it mean for something to be objectionable if it poses no moral issue? On what grounds to you object to the torture of animals?
Lol, you're incapable of admitting you're wrong huh? It's hilarious watching you try to back out of this without admitting how fucktarded you are.
You failing to comprehend does not equal me being wrong. -
2018-03-04 at 1:29 PM UTC
-
2018-03-04 at 1:30 PM UTC
Originally posted by NARCassist i been having this similar argument with some veggie nuts on a fb group the last couple of days. i swear this idiots comeback was to claim 'hunter-gatherers' ate fruit for the first 22 million years. well you can see my reply for yourselves, lol.
spectroll, was this you?
.
Of course not, because I'm aware of the fact man is only about six thousand years old, not millions.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-03-04 at 2:24 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny There's really no argument to be had at this point over whether or not it's possible to have a nutritionally sufficient vegetarian diet, it is. So I assume what you're saying here is "eating meat can satisfy human dietary requirements" which is of course correct but then so can eating babies, that doesn't make it morally acceptable.
Some wild animals will fling their shit at each other too. That doesn't make it an acceptable thing to do in a civilized society.
you can eat nigger dicks to satisfy your dietary requirements, too. you can also take your strawman fallacy and jam it right up your cocksocket. i didnt say anything about babies...youre the idiot that did. youre also delusional to think that a vegetarian diet is nutritionally sufficient. the human physiology has evolved for millions of years to consume an omnivore diet and youre deluded enough to think you can magically change that. go look up some of the archeological studies done on humans that had diets exclusively plant-based due to not having access to animals and see what ill-health they were in. the same goes for modern humans...theyre not designed to eat an exclusively plant-based diet. most importantly, the morals that you claim to possess, as well as those of PITA, are exclusive to yourselves and you may cordially stuff them into your asshole at the end of a bulldozer.
you dont see anyone consuming animals uncooked while still alive, either, retard. except for maybe that nutso nigger who was eating that homeless guy on live TV...but totally not the point. -
2018-03-04 at 2:26 PM UTC
Originally posted by NARCassist i been having this similar argument with some veggie nuts on a fb group the last couple of days. i swear this idiots comeback was to claim 'hunter-gatherers' ate fruit for the first 22 million years. well you can see my reply for yourselves, lol.
spectroll, was this you?
they were hunting fruits and nutsThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-03-04 at 2:28 PM UTC
Originally posted by MAL I thought those benefits were why we are morally obligated… but now I think I actually should read your beginning arguments. Most people I know that are on a plant based diet love it. I think I could do it, I just haven't tried yet.
they love it because theyre mentally deficient. anyone that retarded would be happy about anything
if truth were to be told theyd also be happy about mass-immigration, miscegenation, and eradication of the constitution. -
2018-03-04 at 2:29 PM UTC
-
2018-03-04 at 2:38 PM UTC
Originally posted by benny vader so is meat eating morally acceptable to you if i raise feral chickens and cocks in my backyard, let them roam and reproduce freely in the ''wild'' and then comsuming them when needed ???
I think this and hunting animals for food is ok
I just find factory farming wrong
I also think that if we were explicitly designed to eat meat we would not have to cook it. No other predators do. But that's just my opinion and has no basis in fact
