User Controls
We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
-
2018-03-31 at 4:59 AM UTCI live in Canada. I think we've historically been pretty good with animal rights.
-
2018-03-31 at 5:19 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny This doesn't seem like a real challenge to his position though. It simply resolves to "how likely is it that a whale beaching itself is an intentional suicide attempt?" which is a biological or maybe psychological question rather than a philosophical one. I'm not sure on what grounds whale suicide is a "reasonable assumption", he's admitted it seems it's possible but hasn't committed to how likely it is. If you can establish intentional suicide is more likely than not then fine, let the whale die, but we don't seem to be at that point yet.
a - your a bitch and you have a many moral obligations to delete other unrelated posts if you deleted my posts for being off topic.
b - whales have intelligence and terrain tracking sonars. they knew their swimming into terrain at a very high and dangerous speed and their gonna beach themselves, but they did it anyway ;
their suicidal. or high from eating puffer fish.
c - your also a faggot.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-03-31 at 7:52 AM UTC
Originally posted by inb4l0pht I live in Canada. I think we've historically been pretty good with animal rights.
To the best of my knowledge, Canada is innocent of many of our crimes. Animals in the United States have no voice, and so they receive little consideration. Because our roots don't go much deeper than the 1970's, the platform hasn't managed to adapt to the information age just yet. That's why this thread needs to reach 1,000 posts, making it perhaps the longest animal rights conversation in the history of the internet.
Originally posted by benny vader b - whales have intelligence and terrain tracking sonars. they knew their swimming into terrain at a very high and dangerous speed and their gonna beach themselves, but they did it anyway
Right, because that never malfunctions as a result of illness or common interferences from the shoreline. -
2018-03-31 at 7:55 AM UTCAnimals don’t have a voice anywhere dumbass
-
2018-03-31 at 7:56 AM UTCThey can’t speak!!! They’re not capable of language!
-
2018-03-31 at 10:29 AM UTCAnimals taste good. Fuck your morals.
-
2018-03-31 at 5:13 PM UTC
Originally posted by Speedy Parker Animals taste good. Fuck your morals.
Unless you're content for you and your family to be kept as livestock by a superior predator, bred with one another and eventually slaughtered hanging upside down in a barn, you cannot justify that you do it to another species. You scream about preserving the hierarchy of nature, but when it gives you something you don't like, you'll want to declare an exception. -
2018-03-31 at 5:26 PM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick Right, because that never malfunctions as a result of illness or common interferences from the shoreline.
/https%3A%2F%2Fblueprint-api-production.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fuploads%2Fcard%2Fimage%2F739970%2Ff60a6eab-52e7-4ea7-be5c-9e12a84121c4.jpg)
so, i guess this is the natures way of recalling whales fitted with defective sonar.
and also :
https://themethematician.wordpress.com/category/on-the-matters-of-heaven-and-earth/
p/s : this was many, many years ago and my english was about 3rd grade. -
2018-03-31 at 7:43 PM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick Unless you're content for you and your family to be kept as livestock by a superior predator, bred with one another and eventually slaughtered hanging upside down in a barn, you cannot justify that you do it to another species. You scream about preserving the hierarchy of nature, but when it gives you something you don't like, you'll want to declare an exception.
The vast majority of people are basically livestock, except instead of meat the harvest is taxes. The system sucks but you can't really reject it unless you go live in the woods like the Unabomber and even there he still was dependent on society buying his supplies in town. Eventually it will happen to all of us too, the system will eat us up and destroy our humanity and we will become post-humans. -
2018-03-31 at 8:30 PM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick Unless you're content for you and your family to be kept as livestock by a superior predator, bred with one another and eventually slaughtered hanging upside down in a barn, you cannot justify that you do it to another species. You scream about preserving the hierarchy of nature, but when it gives you something you don't like, you'll want to declare an exception.
Correction you can't justify it asshole. They are your morals. All animals are welcome in my house. Right beside the mashed potatoes. So fuck off before I stuff an apple down your throat and a spit up your ass faggot. -
2018-03-31 at 8:34 PM UTCI was scratching a cow today and it kept sticking it tongue out to lick me and I got a little hungry.
I don't get the whole "if you eat meat you don't like animals" thing. Like many sheltered people, especially liberals, Zanick ascribes evil motives to anyone who doesn't agree with him.
I would totally try to save a beached whale, and I would totally eat a beached whale. That is what it is being a fully developed human with a functioning and consistent moral code. -
2018-03-31 at 9:44 PM UTC
Originally posted by GasTheKikesRaceWarNow I don't get the whole "if you eat meat you don't like animals" thing. Like many sheltered people, especially liberals, Zanick ascribes evil motives to anyone who doesn't agree with him.
I don't think anyone has said or even suggested this. It is kind of strange to like animals and also support an institution that causes them tremendous suffering, but then I think that describes a lot of people. It's easy to be uncritical of practices you've been conditioned to accept since birth. -
2018-03-31 at 10:21 PM UTC
-
2018-04-01 at 12:07 AM UTC
Originally posted by GasTheKikesRaceWarNow Schopehauer said that life is suffering.
If you think Schopenhauer's analysis can be applied to animals (if it can be applied to anything at all) then you'd be doubly critical of the meat production industry as it's singly responsible for the existence of the vast majority cows and chickens alive today. Eating meat necessitates the creation of sentient animals, which would be indefensible under Schopenhauer's ethics. -
2018-04-01 at 2:52 AM UTC
Originally posted by benny vader
so, i guess this is the natures way of recalling whales fitted with defective sonar.
and also :
https://themethematician.wordpress.com/category/on-the-matters-of-heaven-and-earth/
p/s : this was many, many years ago and my english was about 3rd grade.
You’re the Methemetician?? -
2018-04-01 at 3:49 AM UTC
-
2018-04-01 at 3:52 AM UTCNo I just never knew that was you lol. I thought you were a bling alt honestly
-
2018-04-01 at 4:06 AM UTCI remember The Methemitician.
Originally posted by Lanny If you think Schopenhauer's analysis can be applied to animals (if it can be applied to anything at all) then you'd be doubly critical of the meat production industry as it's singly responsible for the existence of the vast majority cows and chickens alive today. Eating meat necessitates the creation of sentient animals, which would be indefensible under Schopenhauer's ethics.
I don't have any comeback whatsoever against Schopenhauer's narrative, but I feel like I have to reject him anyway.
Obviously the meat industry sucks, but it is only necessary due to the high human population. Get rid of 99% of the people and everyone will be a lot happier and all our problems will go away. I predict that this will eventually happen. -
2018-04-01 at 4:52 AM UTC
Originally posted by GasTheKikesRaceWarNow I don't have any comeback whatsoever against Schopenhauer's narrative, but I feel like I have to reject him anyway.
Yeah, I appreciate some of Schopenhauer's ideas on an aesthetic level but I don't think he was really doing particularly good philosophy and don't accept his conclusions. I'm just saying that if you accept his arguments, and think they apply to animals, then you can't condone eating meat on those grounds.Obviously the meat industry sucks, but it is only necessary due to the high human population. Get rid of 99% of the people and everyone will be a lot happier and all our problems will go away. I predict that this will eventually happen.
I agree that the meat industry sucks, and that overpopulation is a real problem we should address (although our societies would collapse with a 99% loss of population over night, or even spaced over several generations). That said our population does not necessitate the meat industry at all. Our choices as consumers do. We could feed our population just fine without the meat industry. So even if you think traditional family-scale ranching is acceptable and that our population will eventually be reduced to the point where this will be the only type of meat production going on (and I think these things are far from given) then you still have to realize that by buying meat or paying for it at restaurants you're supporting an institution that's causing tremendous amounts of unnecessary animal suffering. -
2018-04-01 at 12:59 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny I don't think anyone has said or even suggested this. It is kind of strange to like animals and also support an institution that causes them tremendous suffering, but then I think that describes a lot of people. It's easy to be uncritical of practices you've been conditioned to accept since birth.
I really want to hurt you
