User Controls
We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
-
2018-04-04 at 11:50 PM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick You could dispose of the entire discipline of ethics with such an argument. I don't believe that is your intention, though.
I think that you're arguing in bad faith. You don't like that my thread became successful and yours didn't. That's why you grafted the discussion about plants here, and that's why you're trying to drown us in circular logic crafted specifically to stifle discussion. I'd appreciate if this passive-aggressive behavior would stop. I never did anything to you, I just happened to make a thread that took off and now I'm trying to maintain it. It's really not so different from yours, in that regard.
No Zanick. I'm not jealous of your thread, I'm not trying to stifle discussion or drown it by talking about plants (notice that I actually stopped talking about plants when you asked me to - you continued to talk about plants yourself with people other than me). Honestly, I'm not that clever or malicious.
I simply disagree with you. I don't believe anyone has a moral obligation to not eat meat. Some people prefer to not eat meat, and that is all it is. A preference. I understand why you prefer to not eat meat. You've explain this. But neither I nor anyone else have any moral obligation to adopt your preferences. -
2018-04-04 at 11:57 PM UTCThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2018-04-05 at 12:11 AM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe
No Zanick. I'm not jealous of your thread, I'm not trying to stifle discussion or drown it by talking about plants (notice that I actually stopped talking about plants when you asked me to - you continued to talk about plants yourself with people other than me). Honestly, I'm not that clever or malicious.
I simply disagree with you. I don't believe anyone has a moral obligation to not eat meat. Some people prefer to not eat meat, and that is all it is. A preference. I understand why you prefer to not eat meat. You've explain this. But neither I not anyone else have any moral obligation to adopt your preferences.
Not jealous? Is that why you've brought up that subject three separate times, both to alter the course of discussion and to complain?
You've compared this thread to yours several times throughout this thread, I have to believe that on some level, it offends you. Even if this isn't the case, I'm sure you can see how I and others may have gotten that idea. I gave you the benefit of the doubt even though this was obviously the case, but now I'm done arguing with you. I don't think you're interested in a productive discussion, and I don't want to fight with you. -
2018-04-05 at 12:18 AM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick Not jealous? Is that why you've brought up that subject three separate times, both to alter the course of discussion and to complain?
You've compared this thread to yours several times throughout this thread, I have to believe that on some level, it offends you. Even if this isn't the case, I'm sure you can see how I and others may have gotten that idea. I gave you the benefit of the doubt even though this was obviously the case, but now I'm done arguing with you. I don't think you're interested in a productive discussion, and I don't want to fight with you.
Thanks for posting those quotes; it reminded me that I actually was able to get Finny to shut up simply by posting more and more scientific research that supported the topic. You literally had to request the admin to moderate this thread and eventually ban Finny just because he was saying things you don't like.
Good arguments can stand up on their own. Your argument cannot stand on it's own because nobody has a moral obligation to not eat meat. You may prefer to not eat meat and that is fine, but thus far all you have demonstrated is that you have this preference and not that anyone else has an obligation to adopt it.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-04-05 at 12:22 AM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe Thanks for posting those quotes; it reminded me that I actually was able to get Finny to shut up simply by posting more and more scientific research that supported the topic. You literally had to request the admin to moderate this thread and eventually ban Finny just because he was saying things you don't like.
Good arguments can stand up on their own. Your argument cannot stand on it's own because nobody has a moral obligation to not eat meat. You may prefer to not eat meat and that is fine, but thus far all you have demonstrated is that you have this preference and not that anyone else has an obligation to adopt it.
You've trolled this thread long enough. I can see I was a fool to vouch for you with Rust on Zoklet. He told me as much, I shouldn't be surprised he was right yet again.
Buzz off. -
2018-04-05 at 12:29 AM UTCI haven't been trolling at all, and I apologize if anything I've said in this thread has made you feel low. I don't think you're a fool. And I think Rust was an asshole, but I believe he would have agreed with me on this one. He would not have been as polite as I have been either. Probably would have told you that morality is imaginary.
Like I said a couple posts ago, if your argument was "this is why I don't eat meat," or "this is why I think industrial farming should change," I wouldn't have had any reason to post in this thread. But your claim that we have a moral obligation to stop eating meat is just wrong. We have no obligation to adopt your preferences. You appear to have no argument for that claim. And that's ok! It really does not matter. At least you got a really big thread out of it. -
2018-04-05 at 12:53 AM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe I haven't been trolling at all, and I apologize if anything I've said in this thread has made you feel low. I don't think you're a fool. And I think Rust was an asshole, but I believe he would have agreed with me on this one. He would not have been as polite as I have been either. Probably would have told you that morality is imaginary.
Like I said a couple posts ago, if your argument was "this is why I don't eat meat," or "this is why I think industrial farming should change," I wouldn't have had any reason to post in this thread. But your claim that we have a moral obligation to stop eating meat is just wrong. We have no obligation to adopt your preferences. You appear to have no argument for that claim. And that's ok! It really does not matter. At least you got a really big thread out of it.
If you want me to believe you're here to debate honestly rather than to string me along, you'll have to answer my questions seriously and not dodge them to change the subject. If I ask you to briefly restate your position, I would expect that you'll do it, just as I've done dozens of times per your request. If this is going to be a proper discussion on even footing, you need to demonstrate that you're not here expecting to be entertained by my position, but that you're actually willing to consider its validity.
1) I explained to you how the principle of supply and demand grants you the option to choose what business practices you support. You've said that you don't like factory farming, so please tell us whether you would see it as appropriate to boycott the meat packing industry, or otherwise, why you disagree with how the problem has been formulated.
2) You brought up a tangent about murder, which I responded to before you evaded the subject again. Why do you think it's morally permissible to ignore murder? Virtually every society acknowledges that this is the case, either explicitly through law or by tradition, so I believe you have the burden of proof on this issue, and if you disagree, you can explain why you don't.
If you answer one or both of these questions in full, now that I've asked each of them twice, without changing the subject or defaulting to 'I have no obligation; prove me wrong' then I will have to consider that I just got salty for no reason. Do you intend to proceed, or are we at odds for real? -
2018-04-05 at 2:24 AM UTCI'm guessing this is what obbe is saying, or asking, but Ill ask anyway. Does this 'moral obligation' apply to everyone in general, or everyone that believes in such a thing as morals, or moral obligation at that?
-
2018-04-05 at 3:25 AM UTC
-
2018-04-05 at 3:28 AM UTCThat is QUITE the invention, I must say.
*does some shit with my moustache* -
2018-04-05 at 3:33 AM UTCLol u ever seen a chicken they are stupid as hell man, we don't need to worry abt them
-
2018-04-05 at 3:34 AM UTCAlso cow are not intelligence too
-
2018-04-05 at 11:57 AM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick 1) I explained to you how the principle of supply and demand grants you the option to choose what business practices you support. You've said that you don't like factory farming, so please tell us whether you would see it as appropriate to boycott the meat packing industry, or otherwise, why you disagree with how the problem has been formulated.
2) You brought up a tangent about murder, which I responded to before you evaded the subject again. Why do you think it's morally permissible to ignore murder? Virtually every society acknowledges that this is the case, either explicitly through law or by tradition, so I believe you have the burden of proof on this issue, and if you disagree, you can explain why you don't.
1) If some people prefer to boycott the meat industry I think that is fine. Nobody has any obligation to do so, but everyone has the ability to do what they believe is right.
2) Everybody has an ability to do what they believe is right but nobody has an obligation to. If someone was murdered right in front of you and instead of doing anything about it you just froze and pissed your pants I wouldn't hold it over your head or make you think you were obligated to do anything about it. It would be ok. -
2018-04-05 at 12:05 PM UTCI'm going vegan mainly for reasons of the experience and I believe its an easier diet than eating meat all the time like I do now. You just eat a salad, some beans and stuff and your full instead of eating like a million pounds of random animals every day.
-
2018-04-05 at 5:24 PM UTC
-
2018-04-05 at 5:31 PM UTCMy doctor recommended paleo, but she might be too old and set in her ways to see the benefits of a plant based diet. This thread is wayyyy too big to read, but thanks to any of the veg/vegans here who are abstaining from meat. You're doing something I haven't been able to do yet for your health and the environment. I think that's pretty cool. :)
-
2018-04-05 at 5:37 PM UTC
Originally posted by -mal- My doctor recommended paleo, but she might be too old and set in her ways to see the benefits of a plant based diet. This thread is wayyyy too big to read, but thanks to any of the veg/vegans here who are abstaining from meat. You're doing something I haven't been able to do yet for your health and the environment. I think that's pretty cool. :)
the concept of 'paleo' is dumb
emulating the diet of people who lived to 30 years oldThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-04-05 at 5:52 PM UTC
-
2018-04-05 at 6:24 PM UTC
Originally posted by benny vader So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years, and he died.
No humans ate meat, before the Great Flood wiped out all vegetation on the planet and they were forced to eat it. This would have contributed to their increased life spans, but the main reason is genetic. The farther man gets away down the genetic line of Adam, the more imperfect the genes are. Like making a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy on an old photocopy machine... eventually the document becomes almost unreadable. -
2018-04-05 at 6:46 PM UTC
