User Controls
We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
-
2018-04-04 at 2:08 PM UTCWe've hit a thousand!
Welcome to the club, niggas. This is officially the longest conversation about animal rights on the internet. Tomorrow's animal liberation scholars will be citing our arguments in their papers. That we have achieved one thousand posts here is a supreme testament to our belief in a better world for all earthly beings, human and nonhuman alike. May we continue to two-thousand, and three, and on until everyone is talking about it. This isn't the end, my niggas, this is only the beginning. -
2018-04-04 at 2:27 PM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick We've hit a thousand!
Welcome to the club, niggas. This is officially the longest conversation about animal rights on the internet. Tomorrow's animal liberation scholars will be citing our arguments in their papers. That we have achieved one thousand posts here is a supreme testament to our belief in a better world for all earthly beings, human and nonhuman alike. May we continue to two-thousand, and three, and on until everyone is talking about it. This isn't the end, my niggas, this is only the beginning.
-
2018-04-04 at 4:23 PM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick We've hit a thousand!
Welcome to the club, niggas. This is officially the longest conversation about animal rights on the internet. Tomorrow's animal liberation scholars will be citing our arguments in their papers. That we have achieved one thousand posts here is a supreme testament to our belief in a better world for all earthly beings, human and nonhuman alike. May we continue to two-thousand, and three, and on until everyone is talking about it. This isn't the end, my niggas, this is only the beginning.
Shut the fuck up, for real... -
2018-04-04 at 4:33 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe
Like it not, you're a part of this moment. I realize you'd prefer to keep eating meat, but when my world government outlaws the practice, I expect that you'll proudly say you were in the thread that started it all.
Originally posted by Speedy Parker Shut the fuck up, for real…
As opposed to the several dozen times you told me to shut up, which were fake?
You still haven't supplied either Lanny or me with a justification for your elementary distinction between morality and ethics. Just in case you're still not sure, I have an ethical position which I believe morally obligates you to do something, and you can think of that in terms of the regular transaction by which people convince others to do things that are right. -
2018-04-04 at 4:36 PM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick Your assessment is opposite reality. Our sophistication has only made us more efficient at exploiting and killing them.
no. there are animal cruelty laws that covers even food animals over your there. there.
there are no law regarding treatment of meat animals here.There's no conflict whatsoever.
yes. reread what you typed.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.
no, there is no known organization that champions to END HUNGER IN 3RD WORLD COUNTRIES AND END MEAT ANIMAL CRUELTY IN THE FIRST.
NEIN. -
2018-04-04 at 4:43 PM UTC
Originally posted by benny vader no. there are animal cruelty laws that covers even food animals over your there. there.
there are no law regarding treatment of meat animals here.
Where is "over your there."?
Are you trying to say that animal cruelty laws vary according to country, but that it's a worse problem here? That's what it looks like, but I can't imagine you're trying to make my point for me. Would you mind rephrasing this post into something arguable?
yes. reread what you typed.
Okay, I reread it. Essentially what I've said is that although hunger in the third world is very important, animal rights groups in the United States should focus on animal rights violations happening in the United States and that I'd happily donate my money to both of them. This is like the third time I've said this now, and you can't seem to get past the fact that your fallacy didn't entrap me as you'd hoped.no, there is no known organization that champions to END HUNGER IN 3RD WORLD COUNTRIES AND END MEAT ANIMAL CRUELTY IN THE FIRST.
NEIN.
Why would they want to do both of those things, so that they can receive the same donation for two separate causes? Do you know how nonprofits work, dude? -
2018-04-04 at 4:51 PM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick We've hit a thousand!
Welcome to the club, niggas. This is officially the longest conversation about animal rights on the internet. Tomorrow's animal liberation scholars will be citing our arguments in their papers. That we have achieved one thousand posts here is a supreme testament to our belief in a better world for all earthly beings, human and nonhuman alike. May we continue to two-thousand, and three, and on until everyone is talking about it. This isn't the end, my niggas, this is only the beginning.
An honour to be of service. -
2018-04-04 at 4:59 PM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick Where is "over your there."?
i live in 3rd world country, on a corner somewhere in the map near the end of the world.Are you trying to say that animal cruelty laws vary according to country,
how the fuck do you not already know this and live without been bestowed with darwin awards first ????Would you mind rephrasing this post into something arguable?
hmmm, let me try :
your a re, fucking, tard.
there.Okay, I reread it. Essentially what I've said is that although hunger in the third world is very important, animal rights groups in the United States should focus on animal rights violations happening in the United States and that I'd happily donate my money to both of them. This is like the third time I've said this now, and you can't seem to get past the fact that your fallacy didn't entrap me as you'd hoped.
no, choosing not to choose is not a choice.
i asked you whether youd dedicate all your money to end hunger in 3rd world hellhole or end meat-animal cruelty in the 1st world country.
choose either one.Why would they want to do both of those things, so that they can receive the same donation for two separate causes? Do you know how nonprofits work, dude?
this is moot. -
2018-04-04 at 5 PM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick Like it not, you're a part of this moment. I realize you'd prefer to keep eating meat, but when my world government outlaws the practice, I expect that you'll proudly say you were in the thread that started it all.
Ok.
If you made this thread and said "these are the reasons I choose to not eat meat," or "we shouldn't eat meat for these reasons," I probably never would have posted at all. But when you claimed that we have a moral obligation to stop eating meat, well, you're wrong. That's not true. Nobody has a moral obligation to stop eating meat.
Even if the government banned meat, nobody would have a moral obligation to not eat meat. You don't seem to want to talk about morality at all anymore and are now being rather silly. I guess you don't have a real argument after all. -
2018-04-04 at 5:03 PM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick Like it not, you're a part of this moment. I realize you'd prefer to keep eating meat, but when my world government outlaws the practice, I expect that you'll proudly say you were in the thread that started it all.
As opposed to the several dozen times you told me to shut up, which were fake?
You still haven't supplied either Lanny or me with a justification for your elementary distinction between morality and ethics. Just in case you're still not sure, I have an ethical position which I believe morally obligates you to do something, and you can think of that in terms of the regular transaction by which people convince others to do things that are right.
Your world government? Hahahahahahahahaha
I got threatened with a ban by an overweight fag over your shitty troll thread. It's been obvious from the OP that you are a troll. So fuck you, your world government, this thread, and especially your morals. -
2018-04-04 at 5:04 PM UTC
Originally posted by benny vader i live in 3rd world country, on a corner somewhere in the map near the end of the world.
how the fuck do you not already know this and live without been bestowed with darwin awards first ????
What... Who the hell are you?no, choosing not to choose is not a choice.
i asked you whether youd dedicate all your money to end hunger in 3rd world hellhole or end meat-animal cruelty in the 1st world country.
choose either one.
Generally, I try not to put a spotlight on shitty reasoning, but you're particularly insistent: I am not in any way obligated to accept your false dilemma. I have enough money to give to both of those causes, and I'd sleep better at night for it. -
2018-04-04 at 5:12 PM UTCLEAVE ZANICK ALONE
-
2018-04-04 at 5:20 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe Ok.
If you made this thread and said "these are the reasons I choose to not eat meat," or "we shouldn't eat meat for these reasons," I probably never would have posted at all. But when you claimed that we have a moral obligation to stop eating meat, well, you're wrong. That's not true. Nobody has a moral obligation to stop eating meat.
Even if the government banned meat, nobody would have a moral obligation to not eat meat. You don't seem to want to talk about morality at all anymore and are now being rather silly. I guess you don't have a real argument after all.
Ethically speaking, eating meat is wrong because it supports an industry of exploitation, cruelty, and death. You have a choice of what to do with your money, and you ought to spend it in ways that don't further the suffering of innocent creatures. I've said this to you about a dozen different ways.
There's room for a little on-topic silliness in a thousand post discussion thread, lighten up. This got as long as it did because I made a strong claim in the title. I know it's bothering you, but that's the only reason you're in here right now, torturing me with circular reasoning. Why don't you try joining the discussion? It seems as though you like philosophy, so engage us on these claims, rather saying that we aren't trying, pronouncing yourself the victor and taking refuge in relativism again and again. -
2018-04-04 at 5:29 PM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick Ethically speaking, eating meat is wrong because it supports an industry of exploitation, cruelty, and death. You have a choice of what to do with your money, and you ought to spend it in ways that don't further the suffering of innocent creatures. I've said this to you about a dozen different ways.
There's room for a little on-topic silliness in a thousand post discussion thread, lighten up. This got as long as it did because I made a strong claim in the title. I know it's bothering you, but that's the only reason you're in here right now, torturing me with circular reasoning. Why don't you try joining the discussion? It seems as though you like philosophy, so engage us on these claims, rather saying that we aren't trying, pronouncing yourself the victor and taking refuge in relativism again and again.
There's not really anything to discuss - you made a claim and have failed to demonstrate it. You keep insisting that "this is unethical" and "we ought to do that" but you have not shown these claims to be true. There is nothing to take refuge from, you don't have an argument. You claim we have a moral obligation, your job is to demonstrate this. You cannot do this because morality is relative. There is nothing else left to say. -
2018-04-04 at 5:31 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe There's not really anything to discuss - you made a claim and have failed to demonstrate it. You keep insisting that "this is unethical" and "we ought to do that" but you have not shown these claims to be true. There is nothing to take refuge from, you don't have an argument. You claim we have a moral obligation, your job is to demonstrate this. You cannot do this because morality is relative. There is nothing else left to say.
If you don't think I've demonstrated my argument's truth sufficiently, and furthermore, you don't even think it's possible, and that there's nothing left to say, then why are you wasting your time in here? -
2018-04-04 at 5:35 PM UTC
-
2018-04-04 at 5:42 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe I want you to understand that your claim isn't true.
I don't think you can do that. Normative ethical claims aren't predicated on a truth value because you don't find ethics in the wild. They are a product of human relationships, and you operate on their basis every day. To say that you don't employ morality in a number of your decisions on a daily basis is obviously a fabrication because you probably don't rape or cannibalize people - that I know of. So, if we can agree there are certain ethical presuppositions with which you align yourself, are you open to considering that there might be others? -
2018-04-04 at 5:46 PM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick I don't think you can do that. Normative ethical claims aren't predicated on a truth value because you don't find ethics in the wild. They are a product of human relationships, and you operate on their basis every day. To say that you don't employ morality in a number of your decisions on a daily basis is obviously a fabrication because you probably don't rape or cannibalize people - that I know of. So, if we can agree there are certain ethical presuppositions with which you align yourself, are you open to considering that there might be others?
Of course I agree with that. I said several times that morality is relative. You claimed that we all have the same moral obligation. That's simply not true. What you consider to be wrong is not what everyone else does or should consider to be wrong. -
2018-04-04 at 5:59 PM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick What… Who the hell are you?
irrelevant who am i. the thing is that here, im free to torture and animal anyway i please before the slaughter and theres not a single gott damm rules against it.
you should see the aquarium where they keep the catfishes.I am not in any way obligated to accept your false dilemma.
lol, this entire thread and the mille posts in it is based on your phalse dillema.
this entire is it moral to meat or not to meat is a pha fucking lse dilemma.
pha fucking lse.
why should we you and not you us ??? -
2018-04-04 at 6 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe Of course I agree with that. I said several times that morality is relative. You claimed that we all have the same moral obligation. That's simply not true. What you consider to be wrong is not what everyone else does or should consider to be wrong.
Right, morality is relative. Noted. One more question, though: do you hurt animals is your free time? Do you hurt them for your job? What would you say is good about hurting animals, aside from providing meat?
