User Controls
We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
-
2018-03-21 at 4 PM UTC
Originally posted by RestStop We have a moral obligation to stop replying to this fucking thread.
negative.
the moral obligation is for the denigration of what the juden-kike OP of this thread is attempting to accomplish, which is the degradation of the white health and vitality by attempting to ruin their proper dietary habits. this thread is now about the encouragement of carnivorous eating habits to promote the healthy well being of the white race. the kikes can eat the grass and leaves.
what meat product consumption will most offend the herbivores?
i am literally going to eat something that originated from a living thing in tribute to this thread. i have to find where they keep the baby cows...
-
2018-03-21 at 4:03 PM UTC
Originally posted by infinityshock negative.
the moral obligation is for the denigration of what the juden-kike OP of this thread is attempting to accomplish, which is the degradation of the white health and vitality by attempting to ruin their proper dietary habits. this thread is now about the encouragement of carnivorous eating habits to promote the healthy well being of the white race. the kikes can eat the grass and leaves.
what meat product consumption will most offend the herbivores?
i am literally going to eat something that originated from a living thing in tribute to this thread. i have to find where they keep the baby cows…
Eating baby cows do be fly tho. -
2018-03-21 at 4:23 PM UTC
Originally posted by infinityshock negative.
the moral obligation is for the denigration of what the juden-kike OP of this thread is attempting to accomplish, which is the degradation of the white health and vitality by attempting to ruin their proper dietary habits. this thread is now about the encouragement of carnivorous eating habits to promote the healthy well being of the white race. the kikes can eat the grass and leaves.
what meat product consumption will most offend the herbivores?
i am literally going to eat something that originated from a living thing in tribute to this thread. i have to find where they keep the baby cows…
If you feel the need to compensate for the lack of dead animals, it really means that my thread has been successful. -
2018-03-21 at 4:27 PM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick If you feel the need to compensate for the lack of dead animals, it really means that my thread has been successful.
the only success in your failed existence is showing the world what a bottom-fag victim you are.
boo-hoo...a fucking cow has to die so people get sustenance. boo-hoo...a cute bunny rabbit has to get chopped into little pieces so a starving family of four can live for another day.
then your retard-esque solution is to go full-herbivore that causes more problems than it resolves.
youve been eating too much soy and those double-Ds on your chest are affecting your judgement. -
2018-03-21 at 4:32 PM UTC
Originally posted by infinityshock the only success in your failed existence is showing the world what a bottom-fag victim you are.
boo-hoo…a fucking cow has to die so people get sustenance. boo-hoo…a cute bunny rabbit has to get chopped into little pieces so a starving family of four can live for another day.
then your retard-esque solution is to go full-herbivore that causes more problems than it resolves.
youve been eating too much soy and those double-Ds on your chest are affecting your judgement.
I think you could easily achieve this degree of stupidity in the discussion forums, where none of your default positions will be assailed by graduates of the fifth grade. -
2018-03-21 at 4:43 PM UTC
-
2018-03-21 at 10:05 PM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick You can say that moral relativism is the truth, but I don't believe that you actually leave anything of your life that matters to you in the universe's hands. You have to decide for yourself which injustices you will or will not tolerate, and if you'd rather abdicate from that choice based on notions of nihilism or spiritual unity, that's your decision. Nothing absolves you of that responsibility, not even when you say it isn't there.
I don't believe we have as much control over our beliefs, intentions and behaviors as we like to think we do. If people would rather eat meat or not eat meat, I believe that is a matter of their preference and that they have no responsibility to do one or the other. You may believe that "nothing absolves us of our responsibility", but you don't appear to have yet convinced anyone here that such a responsibility actually exists, and unless you can convince me otherwise I am left believing these so-called obligations and responsibilities don't actually matter at all. -
2018-03-21 at 10:28 PM UTCAs soon as you say "we have a moral obligation" you are wrong. You can either say "I have a moral obligation" or "we have an ethical obligation. To use we with moral is incorrect.
-
2018-03-21 at 10:30 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe I don't believe we have as much control over our beliefs, intentions and behaviors as we like to think we do. If people would rather eat meat or not eat meat, I believe that is a matter of their preference and that they have no responsibility to do one or the other. You may believe that "nothing absolves us of our responsibility", but you don't appear to have yet convinced anyone here that such a responsibility actually exists, and unless you can convince me otherwise I am left believing these so-called obligations and responsibilities don't actually matter at all.
of course its a matter of preference and their only responsibility is to themselves and their own well being...which means consuming whatever caloric requirements four billion years of evolutionary physiology imparted up on them.
that idiot uses terminology and syntax...'absolve' for example...that makes it seem like people need to answer to a higher, holier entity when in fact is nothing more than his (and those that also subscribe to his mentally deficient beliefs) desire to impart their wills and beliefs upon others in any manner they are able to. any manner being through force of violence, mental subterfuge, or flat out deception. -
2018-03-21 at 10:32 PM UTC
-
2018-03-21 at 11:02 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe I don't believe we have as much control over our beliefs, intentions and behaviors as we like to think we do. If people would rather eat meat or not eat meat, I believe that is a matter of their preference and that they have no responsibility to do one or the other. You may believe that "nothing absolves us of our responsibility", but you don't appear to have yet convinced anyone here that such a responsibility actually exists, and unless you can convince me otherwise I am left believing these so-called obligations and responsibilities don't actually matter at all.
Well, this is an internet forum, and I can't make anyone believe something they'd rather not, no matter how right I think I am. As for failing to convince members of my position, you're not wrong. Lanny and CF appear to support animal rights, plus a couple of others, so I wouldn't say you're correct, either. Mostly it sounds as though your mind is made up because I think you prefer to deconstruct ideology, rather than follow it, which is fine.
Originally posted by infinityshock of course its a matter of preference and their only responsibility is to themselves and their own well being…which means consuming whatever caloric requirements four billion years of evolutionary physiology imparted up on them.
that idiot uses terminology and syntax…'absolve' for example…that makes it seem like people need to answer to a higher, holier entity when in fact is nothing more than his (and those that also subscribe to his mentally deficient beliefs) desire to impart their wills and beliefs upon others in any manner they are able to. any manner being through force of violence, mental subterfuge, or flat out deception.
You can be mad that I use words like "absolve" but I'm pretty sure it's because you're the only person here who can't define it. It's seven letters, so it's not difficult vocabulary, you're just very stupid. -
2018-03-21 at 11:03 PM UTC
Originally posted by Speedy Parker As soon as you say "we have a moral obligation" you are wrong. You can either say "I have a moral obligation" or "we have an ethical obligation. To use we with moral is incorrect.
Lanny explained at length that you don't know the meaning of either word, so why are you still here? -
2018-03-21 at 11:48 PM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick Well, this is an internet forum, and I can't make anyone believe something they'd rather not, no matter how right I think I am. As for failing to convince members of my position, you're not wrong. Lanny and CF appear to support animal rights, plus a couple of others, so I wouldn't say you're correct, either. Mostly it sounds as though your mind is made up because I think you prefer to deconstruct ideology, rather than follow it, which is fine.
It's not that I would rather not believe animals shouldn't be eaten - I just don't believe it. If I found your argument convincing then I would believe it. But it doesn't convince me, or at least nothing you have said to me so far has convinced me. I don't think my mind is unchangeable. And is that not why you made this thread? To convince others? To challenge my beliefs with your own? You said yourself, "The entire history of moral causes has been a struggle on the part of some people to convince others that there exists a more correct way of conducting themselves." If your argument is correct, you should be able to convince me and I will agree with it. If you are unable to convince me, maybe it's because my point of view is the correct one. Or maybe they are just different points of view, and we just see the world differently. That's all ok. -
2018-03-22 at 12:48 AM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick You can be mad that I use words like "absolve" but I'm pretty sure it's because you're the only person here who can't define it. It's seven letters, so it's not difficult vocabulary, you're just very stupid.
im the only person here who can define it. try to prove me wrong. ill give you a heads up: no matter what your reply youre going to lose.
your communications style is like a nigger. youre mentally inept but try to compensate by mimicking the adept communications skills...or at least the vocabulary part because the syntax and grammar are far beyond your ability. your posts have a barely comprehensible flow of thought with 'related' terminology/plot points, then, almost randomly, you throw in a word or two that is wholly unrelated and inappropriate.
youre an idiot. -
2018-03-22 at 1:07 AM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe It's not that I would rather not believe animals shouldn't be eaten - I just don't believe it. If I found your argument convincing then I would believe it. But it doesn't convince me, or at least nothing you have said to me so far has convinced me. I don't think my mind is unchangeable. And is that not why you made this thread? To convince others? To challenge my beliefs with your own? You said yourself, "The entire history of moral causes has been a struggle on the part of some people to convince others that there exists a more correct way of conducting themselves." If your argument is correct, you should be able to convince me and I will agree with it. If you are unable to convince me, maybe it's because my point of view is the correct one. Or maybe they are just different points of view, and we just see the world differently. That's all ok.
I don't know, maybe I'm salty about salvaging my own arguments now that they've been drowned in a sea of idiots. I thought I had presented my position clearly, is there a specific criticism you'd like to offer, other than that we just should walk away and agree to believe different things?
You have read the arguments I've offered to you, as far as I can tell, which I appreciate. But, if your replies are any indication, I'm pretty sure that you're here to talk about plants. Please, no more about plants. I realize it's a fascinating subject, and there is an overlap, but you've made a successful thread about them already. This is a thread about whether or not to eat meat.
For or against, this debate relies upon friendly disagreement. If you don't take a position and dig your heels in, it's not going to be fun for either of us. IRL I also prefer to 'live-and-let-live' but this is a discussion forum, and we're disagreeing for a reason. -
2018-03-22 at 1:30 AM UTCGuys, there's no rule against name calling but if your post is 100% insults and 0% discussion of the thread's topic then please take it elsewhere.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2018-03-22 at 1:31 AM UTC
-
2018-03-22 at 1:34 AM UTCThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2018-03-22 at 2:24 AM UTCwhat non meat eaters should do is actually try to develop some chemical, biological and radiological agent that can incapacitate or destroy animals nervous system and feed it to the animals prior to the slaughter.
dilemma solved. -
2018-03-22 at 3:22 AM UTC
Originally posted by benny vader what non meat eaters should do is actually try to develop some chemical, biological and radiological agent that can incapacitate or destroy animals nervous system and feed it to the animals prior to the slaughter.
dilemma solved.
A lot of people have this attitude toward lobsters and crabs - that, if you eliminate their nervous system from the equation prior to boiling them, you aren't actually doing harm. The problem is that most people don't know how lobsters' nervous systems work, and they are actually inflicting a slow and extremely painful death.
