User Controls
We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
-
2018-04-03 at 11:31 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny I don't accept your premise that morality is purely subjective though
I believe that if people would rather eat meat or not eat meat, that is a matter of their preference and that they have no responsibility to do one or the other. I don't believe there is a "more correct" way of behaving. I don't believe there is a universal morality. I don't believe the "right thing to do is what I believe would be good if everyone did it too". I believe right and wrong is relative, from person to person and from person to animal to plant to mushroom. It's all just a bunch of stuff happening. Some people feel eating animals is wrong so they don't do it. But nobody has any obligation to do anything at all, so it goes.
If your argument is correct, you should be able to convince us and we 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 ok, too. -
2018-04-03 at 1 PM UTC
-
2018-04-03 at 1:01 PM UTC
-
2018-04-03 at 4:40 PM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick No, that is not what I'm saying. Some places in the world have become dependent on animal products, but lack the infrastructure to easily transition toward plant-based alternatives without harming their own population considerably.
do you even live in the real world and know what your talking about ???
meats are extremely costly in the 3rd world countries and the staple food here are plants.
plants are what we eat for sustenance and meats are luxuries.At the same time, very poor countries with problems in their food supply generally won't have the resources to slaughter animals on the massive scale we've seen in the US.
so your saying that causing extreme sufferings to the animals on a small scale is acceptable, yes ????
will genocide on a small / smaller scale also morally acceptable to you ???It would be ideal if they did eventually embrace animal rights, but until relieving impoverished countries of their supply problems becomes somewhat easier, we should focus our political capital toward changing those countries who can unquestionably afford it.
morality is a luxury to be pondered upon on a full stomick.If you're trying to suggest that we should prioritize every region of the world equally when we promote animal rights, I would say you have a generous perception of the funding and participation that goes into my cause. We have limited resources, so it's important to spend them where they're expected to do the most good.
do you prefer to use the fundings to end animal suffering in the 1st world or end hunger in the 3rd and 4th world shithole ???
and explain the morality behind your reasoning/s.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-04-03 at 6:18 PM UTC
-
2018-04-04 at 1:20 AM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe I believe that if people would rather eat meat or not eat meat, that is a matter of their preference and that they have no responsibility to do one or the other. I don't believe there is a "more correct" way of behaving. I don't believe there is a universal morality. I don't believe the "right thing to do is what I believe would be good if everyone did it too". I believe right and wrong is relative, from person to person and from person to animal to plant to mushroom. It's all just a bunch of stuff happening. Some people feel eating animals is wrong so they don't do it. But nobody has any obligation to do anything at all, so it goes.
There's a bunch of classic issues with strongly relativist positions. A common one is that it's no ethics at all: it gives you no guidance on how you ought to live. You can take the moral error theory position but that's different than "what's right is what's right for you" and I expectly it's quite counter to your intuitions. I'd be willing to bet there are a number of things you think ought to be, at least casually.If your argument is correct, you should be able to convince us and we will agree with it. If you are unable to convince me, maybe it's because my point of view is the correct one.
This seems blatantly false, at least in general. Correct arguments don't convince many people of many things. There is no argument you could deliver to, say, a vehement flat earther that would shake their faith in their position regardless of the strength of your argument.
Originally posted by Speedy Parker Morality is individual and therefore for entirely subjective you fat fuck.
That's a nice opinion you've got there. -
2018-04-04 at 3:38 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny There's a bunch of classic issues with strongly relativist positions. A common one is that it's no ethics at all: it gives you no guidance on how you ought to live. You can take the moral error theory position but that's different than "what's right is what's right for you" and I expectly it's quite counter to your intuitions. I'd be willing to bet there are a number of things you think ought to be, at least casually.
I think I'm ok with that.
Originally posted by Lanny This seems blatantly false, at least in general. Correct arguments don't convince many people of many things. There is no argument you could deliver to, say, a vehement flat earther that would shake their faith in their position regardless of the strength of your argument.
Ok. I guess I will just continue to think thay morality is relative and thay nobody has any moral obligation to stop eating meat then. -
2018-04-04 at 3:41 AM UTC
-
2018-04-04 at 3:58 AM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe I think I'm ok with that.
Ok. I guess I will just continue to think thay morality is relative and thay nobody has any moral obligation to stop eating meat then.
Dude, I'm not sure what the deal is, but you give this response to a lot of claims that actually merit a more thorough refutation. It doesn't promote discussion, and it's frustrating. I think you can do better than that. -
2018-04-04 at 4:14 AM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick Dude, I'm not sure what the deal is, but you give this response to a lot of claims that actually merit a more thorough refutation. It doesn't promote discussion, and it's frustrating. I think you can do better than that.
But he can’t do better than that. He couldn’t remember off the top of his head which philosopher to rip off to copy/paste in a response. So he didn’t bother giving it any more thought -
2018-04-04 at 4:23 AM UTC
Originally posted by benny vader do you even live in the real world and know what your talking about ???
meats are extremely costly in the 3rd world countries and the staple food here are plants.
plants are what we eat for sustenance and meats are luxuries.
I didn't specifically have meat in mind, but anything that can be produced locally is valuable in many parts of the world. Eggs, milk, and meat obtained on such a small scale shouldn't warrant our attention as much as a factory farm in my own country, because not only is scale massively different, the cruelty is markedly different. They are in no way equivalent.so your saying that causing extreme sufferings to the animals on a small scale is acceptable, yes ????
will genocide on a small / smaller scale also morally acceptable to you ???
I believe I've been clear in saying that it's not acceptable to me in any case, but in practical terms, a movement with finite resources ought to direct their efforts first to the most egregious violations - incidentally, much of it is concentrated here in the United States.do you prefer to use the fundings to end animal suffering in the 1st world or end hunger in the 3rd and 4th world shithole ???
and explain the morality behind your reasoning/s.
How about I not play into your gay fallacy and donate to both of them? Moral agents are in dire need either way, and I'm getting by pretty well with a car and a home. -
2018-04-04 at 4:33 AM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick Dude, I'm not sure what the deal is, but you give this response to a lot of claims that actually merit a more thorough refutation. It doesn't promote discussion, and it's frustrating. I think you can do better than that.
I give that response to a lot of claims? Which ones? Why does your claim "merit a more thorough refutation"? I don't think it does. I don't think it really matters at all. It doesn't need to promote discussion. If you want to discuss, then discuss. Tell us why we have a moral obligation. You can do it. -
2018-04-04 at 5:14 AM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick the cruelty is markedly different. They are in no way equivalent.
people in 3rd world countries are living in shittier conditions than people who lives in the 1st world countries and you think somehow, by miracle, their animals are living in better conditions and being treated better than their fellow animals in the 1st world countries ???
srsly.a movement with finite resources ought to direct their efforts first to the most egregious violations - incidentally, much of it is concentrated here in the United States.
this contradicks with this.How about I not play into your gay fallacy and donate to both of them? Moral agents are in dire need either way, and I'm getting by pretty well with a car and a home.
on one hand your saying that youd prefer to concentrate on those things that happen in the US and on the other your saying that youd fund BOTH ???
and its nice to know you hold animals as high in regard as people in the 3rd world shitholes.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-04-04 at 5:32 AM UTC
Originally posted by benny vader people in 3rd world countries are living in shittier conditions than people who lives in the 1st world countries and you think somehow, by miracle, their animals are living in better conditions and being treated better than their fellow animals in the 1st world countries ???
srsly.
Your assessment is opposite reality. Our sophistication has only made us more efficient at exploiting and killing them.this contradicks with this.
on one hand your saying that youd prefer to concentrate on those things that happen in the US and on the other your saying that youd fund BOTH ???
and its nice to know you hold animals as high in regard as people in the 3rd world shitholes.
There's no conflict whatsoever. I think that animal rights activists in the US would be most effective in focusing on the issues here, for the reasons I stated. I would rather donate to organizations that champion both of those causes, not one of them. And yes, I believe animals should have inherent rights like humans, and similarly, they shouldn't be exploited, butchered, and consumed. -
2018-04-04 at 6:23 AM UTC
This would have been Lanny/Zanicks perfect woman. -
2018-04-04 at 6:30 AM UTCImagine having a militant vegan girlfriend and having to sneak out to eat steak.
Although coming back home to Hitler quotes would make it worth while. -
2018-04-04 at 9:59 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny There's a bunch of classic issues with strongly relativist positions. A common one is that it's no ethics at all: it gives you no guidance on how you ought to live. You can take the moral error theory position but that's different than "what's right is what's right for you" and I expectly it's quite counter to your intuitions. I'd be willing to bet there are a number of things you think ought to be, at least casually.
This seems blatantly false, at least in general. Correct arguments don't convince many people of many things. There is no argument you could deliver to, say, a vehement flat earther that would shake their faith in their position regardless of the strength of your argument.
That's a nice opinion you've got there.
It's not an opinion it is a fact based on the definition of words. Fuck you, fuck your ban threat, and fuck this thread. -
2018-04-04 at 11:26 AM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick Dude, I'm not sure what the deal is, but you give this response to a lot of claims that actually merit a more thorough refutation. It doesn't promote discussion, and it's frustrating. I think you can do better than that.
If I give that response to a lot of claims, can you tell me which ones? And why does your claim "merit a more thorough refutation"? I don't think it does. I don't think it really matters at all. It doesn't need to promote discussion. If you want to discuss, then discuss. Tell us why we have a moral obligation. Maybe you find it frustrating to attempt because no such obligation exists and it is merely your personal preference. -
2018-04-04 at 12:20 PM UTCCheck emThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2018-04-04 at 12:20 PM UTCCheck em again
