User Controls
We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
-
2018-03-09 at 10:01 PM UTC
-
2018-03-09 at 10:16 PM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick This is a distinctly monistic ontology. You aren't avoiding philosophy with your arguments, you're joining in. I think you'll like it.
Not really. Atheism proposes that there is no god, which is a philosophical position that denies taking a religious one. Egoism, on the other hand, is a valid way of philosophically examining your moral choices. Is there a specific strain of egoism that you find particularly appealing?
Originally posted by Lanny On the off chance this isn't stirnerposting, why other than a moral truth could justify your obligation to do what benefits yourself?
Yeah, it was stirnerposting and I'm not actually an egoist. Moral nihilist is probably the most fitting description. Which of course means that I think egoism is a perfectly fine philosophy to follow if one is personally inclined, as is the belief that we have an obligation to stop eating meat. But I wouldn't use the word truth in the context of moral philosophy since these are rather arbitrary constructs.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-03-09 at 10:42 PM UTCYou can live off this stuff indefinitely, it's like Soylent liquid food
-
2018-03-09 at 11:16 PM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick No, I didn't. Read every post I've made in this thread, I haven't used the word "sentience" once. You substituted that because my actual measurement of animal rights - moral agency - is too many letters for you.
you should shut your pie hole when you're ahead. I was trying to give you credit when obvious it was a mistake.
you want to give rights to property. to non-entities. to a fucking food-item. there is no justification for that other than mental disease.
you're an idiot. -
2018-03-09 at 11:16 PM UTC
-
2018-03-09 at 11:17 PM UTC
-
2018-03-09 at 11:22 PM UTC
-
2018-03-09 at 11:24 PM UTC
Originally posted by infinityshock don't be a fucking retard…you get the point I was trying to make.
I do. You were likening the assignment of moral rights to animals with mental illness because, in your incorrect understanding, both involve ascribing human qualities to inanimate objects. But animals are not inanimate objects (the word animate and animal share a latin root, btw) nor is moral agency an exclusively human quality, or at least not incontrovertible so.
Or maybe you're talking about the meta-point of how you've given up on having an actual discussion and have regressed to name calling. I got that point too, but thought I was being polite in not brining it up.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-03-09 at 11:53 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny I do. You were likening the assignment of moral rights to animals with mental illness because, in your incorrect understanding, both involve ascribing human qualities to inanimate objects. But animals are not inanimate objects (the word animate and animal share a latin root, btw) nor is moral agency an exclusively human quality, or at least not incontrovertible so.
Or maybe you're talking about the meta-point of how you've given up on having an actual discussion and have regressed to name calling. I got that point too, but thought I was being polite in not brining it up.
you missed the point that animals are neither deserving nor requesting 'rights.'
it is disgusting that there are those demented enough to display the hubris of professing to know what is best for organisms that neither want nor need their attentions.
the animals subscribe to the prime law of the universe. survival of the fittest. -
2018-03-10 at 12:12 AM UTC
Originally posted by infinityshock you should shut your pie hole when you're ahead. I was trying to give you credit when obvious it was a mistake.
you want to give rights to property. to non-entities. to a fucking food-item. there is no justification for that other than mental disease.
you're an idiot.
You don't seem interested in contributing anything, learning anything, or really doing anything of value in this thread. You know you can argue against animal rights and still be a good user, right? Look at Issue313, for example, or Daily, or any other user opposite my position who isn't you, and try to be more like them.
Originally posted by infinityshock don't be a fucking retard…you get the point I was trying to make.
Look, I'll try to be nice this time: you're in a philosophical discussion, in one of the discussion forums. You need to understand that specific words have specific meanings, and if you use them incorrectly, you can expect that you'll need to defend themselves or you'll get shut down. You can't play fast-and-loose in philosophy, your arguments should rather be carefully thought through and as airtight as you can make them. You might be having a hard time because you weren't sure what to expect, and that's okay, just try to get along and learn something if you really want to participate and be well-received. -
2018-03-10 at 12:13 AM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick You don't seem interested in contributing anything, learning anything, or really doing anything of value in this thread. You know you can argue against animal rights and still be a good user, right? Look at Issue313, for example, or Daily, or any other user opposite my position who isn't you, and try to be more like them.
Look, I'll try to be nice this time: you're in a philosophical discussion, in one of the discussion forums. You need to understand that specific words have specific meanings, and if you use them incorrectly, you can expect that you'll need to defend themselves or you'll get shut down. You can't play fast-and-loose in philosophy, your arguments should rather be carefully thought through and as airtight as you can make them. You might be having a hard time because you weren't sure what to expect, and that's okay, just try to get along and learn something if you really want to participate and be well-received.
lol dumass -
2018-03-10 at 12:15 AM UTCAnimals are not moral agents. They are automatons.
-
2018-03-10 at 12:16 AM UTC
Originally posted by infinityshock you missed the point that animals are neither deserving nor requesting 'rights.'
So because animals are unable to sign the social contract (employing human language, no less), they are tacitly consenting to their own murder?it is disgusting that there are those demented enough to display the hubris of professing to know what is best for organisms that neither want nor need their attentions.
Better that I would consider the well-being of animals for them than you, considering I understand that they're actually sentient, and thus have some ideas about what conditions they might find agreeable.the animals subscribe to the prime law of the universe. survival of the fittest.
If animals can't request their rights in writing, why do you think they can subscribe to an unwritten "prime law of the universe" as you have so eloquently phrased it? -
2018-03-10 at 3:18 AM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick You don't seem interested in contributing anything, learning anything, or really doing anything of value in this thread. You know you can argue against animal rights and still be a good user, right? Look at Issue313, for example, or Daily, or any other user opposite my position who isn't you, and try to be more like them.
Look, I'll try to be nice this time: you're in a philosophical discussion, in one of the discussion forums. You need to understand that specific words have specific meanings, and if you use them incorrectly, you can expect that you'll need to defend themselves or you'll get shut down. You can't play fast-and-loose in philosophy, your arguments should rather be carefully thought through and as airtight as you can make them. You might be having a hard time because you weren't sure what to expect, and that's okay, just try to get along and learn something if you really want to participate and be well-received.
you're an idiot. -
2018-03-10 at 3:19 AM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick So because animals are unable to sign the social contract (employing human language, no less), they are tacitly consenting to their own murder?
Better that I would consider the well-being of animals for them than you, considering I understand that they're actually sentient, and thus have some ideas about what conditions they might find agreeable.
If animals can't request their rights in writing, why do you think they can subscribe to an unwritten "prime law of the universe" as you have so eloquently phrased it?
you're an idiot. -
2018-03-10 at 3:39 AM UTC
-
2018-03-10 at 3:40 AM UTC
-
2018-03-10 at 3:40 AM UTC
-
2018-03-10 at 3:53 AM UTCThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2018-03-10 at 3:59 AM UTC
Originally posted by Jeremus Where does a "rational" animal begin and end? I'd say it's even worse than humans: animals are one bad event away from going rogue.
at the same point where a school goer stops being a school goer and starts being a school shooter, and the very same point where niggers and pitbulls ...
chimp out.They have no intellectual capacity compared to a person, their reasoning is one level deep.
not as much as a person but they still have it.
