User Controls
We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
-
2018-04-06 at 12:42 PM UTC
Originally posted by Scientists are always "mystified", whenever they discover a fact which contradicts their short supply of them.
How do we know it is a fact if they discovered it. Their supply being so short, how can we trust that the fact they just discovered won't be something that "mystifies" them at some future date when they discover another "mysterious fact"? -
2018-04-06 at 6:38 PM UTC
-
2018-04-06 at 6:52 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe 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.
Thanks for replying to my questions, sorry I'm back so late but I wanted to make sure I gave enough time to address this.
1) No, not other people. Since you said that you don't approve of factory farming, I want to know what you believe is right, given that it is your right is to make your preferences known in how you purchase goods. I want to know specifically whether you would boycott an industry that employs business practices that you consider morally repugnant. If you do see a boycott as a legitimate option for you as a consumer, I would argue that the meatpacking industry is an institution worthy of such protest.
2) I understand your point, but you must realize that what you advocate opens you up to certain uncomfortable scenarios wherein you could, for example, watch a child drown and do nothing because you have no explicit obligation to help. Human decency is often observed through the implicit, the personal moral obligations that are incumbent upon us as moral agents. Beyond that, many countries have common law requirements for bystanders to act that would prevent things like this, and I see that as preferable to a society where no individual is expected to lend a hand. -
2018-04-06 at 6:53 PM UTC
-
2018-04-06 at 7:02 PM UTC
-
2018-04-06 at 7:07 PM UTC
Originally posted by aldra the concept of 'paleo' is dumb
emulating the diet of people who lived to 30 years old
That statistic is misleading. The “average age” back then was way lower due to factors like the high rate of infant mortality, and those who didn’t live to adulthood (during some points in history up to 40% or more did not). The real numbers for people who made it past childhood were much higher, not accounting the hazards of everyday life back then like disease and predation. The natural life expectancy was probably something like 60 or 70, similar to today. -
2018-04-06 at 9:36 PM UTC
Originally posted by benny vader the jury shall note that he said this, but offered no proof whatsoever to ….
Obbe and I have been more casual about whether to include sources, and have foregone them for most of our discussion, but I'm happy to point you or him in the direction of Wikipedia articles pertaining to the subject.
Basically, there are two kinds of laws that I've found material to our discussion which encourage people to save someone who needs help: there are 'duty to rescue' measures which most often means that failure to lend assistance to someone in need can open you up to litigation, while 'good samaritan' laws are more familiar in the US and offer protection from liability to people who incur liability in the course of lending aid, say, crack a person's rib while performing CPR. Such laws are intended to either penalize people to do nothing and to eliminate the deterrent of a lawsuit for would-be rescuers.
As you'll see in the articles below, between these two legal concepts, there are many countries which have adopted them as law in some form.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Samaritan_law
That these concepts are found in so many places suggests to me that there is an expectation that we help a person whose well-being is compromised, if we are able to. Based on some of the cases cited in the 'duty to rescue' article, I would think that someone who is directly responsible for creating the unsafe conditions that threaten another person's well-being has an even greater obligation to intervene. -
2018-04-06 at 10:18 PM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick As you'll see in the articles below, between these two legal concepts, there are many countries which have adopted them as law in some form.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Samaritan
Besides you sounding like a corporate lawyer arguing some finer point in patent law, did you read the articles? Personally I am shocked that I have basically no duty to help people in trouble.
Reminds me of the great Seinfeld clip:
Larry David is a genius, and completely unafraid of punching sideways - making fun of his fellow jedis - which is what makes his shows so uniquely watchable even for someone like me. -
2018-04-06 at 10:28 PM UTC
Originally posted by GasTheKikesRaceWarNow Besides you sounding like a corporate lawyer arguing some finer point in patent law, did you read the articles? Personally I am shocked that I have basically no duty to help people in trouble.
Reminds me of the great Seinfeld clip:
Larry David is a genius, and completely unafraid of punching sideways - making fun of his fellow jedis - which is what makes his shows so uniquely watchable even for someone like me.
How would you have me discuss the law, as an artist?
I said that many countries have such laws, not that all countries have them or that they're perfectly enforced in the countries that do. You're right, in the US (depending on what state) you don't necessarily have a legal obligation to help someone in danger, but many other countries have passed legislation which obligates their citizens to intervene, and the argument that leads to the passing of this legislation is invariably an appeal to natural rights. Thus, we have a moral obligation to help people who are in danger.
This obligation is magnified when we have also brought about the danger in question. What does that say of our duty to animals in our meatpacking industry? I think you know the answer.
Also, I agree about Larry David - clearly a genius of comedy. Still, I don't care for Curb Your Enthusiasm. -
2018-04-06 at 10:45 PM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick How would you have me discuss the law, as an artist?
YES! Law derives ultimately from an aesthetic.
People feel like something is icky and wrong. It might be murder, fraud or even something like homosexuality or bestiality. They get some nerd interning for a politician to sit down and write something formal sounding prohibiting it, then a bunch of people who didn't read what a nerd wrote vote on it. That is literally how law is created, and always has been.I said that many countries have such laws, not that all countries have them or that they're perfectly enforced in the countries that do. You're right, in the US (depending on what state) you don't necessarily have a legal obligation to help someone in danger, but many other countries have passed legislation which obligates their citizens to intervene, and the argument that leads to the passing of this legislation is invariably an appeal to natural rights. Thus, we have a moral obligation to help people who are in danger.
This obligation is magnified when we have also brought about the danger in question. What does that say of our duty to animals in our meatpacking industry? I think you know the answer.
You probably think you're a master debater getting into all your sophistry, but I have read this entire thread, and not once have you or Lanny made me feel anything at all. Nasim Taleb(probably another Lanny alt) at least posted videos and showed how the future could be better. That sorta made me feel something. Your tactic is dry argumentation - you're aiming for a "gotcha" that makes your opponent say "wow, you really caught me in that rhetorical trap, first proposed by Aristophanes of Arsophenesus in 1258 BC, therefore you win and I lose. I will now become vegan".
TLDR: your argumentation has zero emotional impact - and we're talking about killing and eating the body of furry little creatures.Also, I agree about Larry David - clearly a genius of comedy. Still, I don't care for Curb Your Enthusiasm.
When you become more cynical you might. It pre-requires a jaded mindset. -
2018-04-06 at 11:06 PM UTC
Originally posted by aldra the concept of 'paleo' is dumb
emulating the diet of people who lived to 30 years old
This is completely wrong. There were plenty of cavemen who lived to their 60's and 70's. The average is just lowered because *most* died of things like starvation and violence and illness. -
2018-04-06 at 11:08 PM UTC
-
2018-04-06 at 11:11 PM UTC
Originally posted by GasTheKikesRaceWarNow YES! Law derives ultimately from an aesthetic.
People feel like something is icky and wrong. It might be murder, fraud or even something like homosexuality or bestiality. They get some nerd interning for a politician to sit down and write something formal sounding prohibiting it, then a bunch of people who didn't read what a nerd wrote vote on it. That is literally how law is created, and always has been.
Even though I know you to be wrong, this vision of how legislation is passed somehow rings far closer to reality than the truth.You probably think you're a master debater getting into all your sophistry, but I have read this entire thread, and not once have you or Lanny made me feel anything at all. Nasim Taleb(probably another Lanny alt) at least posted videos and showed how the future could be better. That sorta made me feel something. Your tactic is dry argumentation - you're aiming for a "gotcha" that makes your opponent say "wow, you really caught me in that rhetorical trap, first proposed by Aristophanes of Arsophenesus in 1258 BC, therefore you win and I lose. I will now become vegan".
TLDR: your argumentation has zero emotional impact - and we're talking about killing and eating the body of furry little creatures.
Hardly a master debater at all, and I wasn't attempting a pathos argument. Though I must admit, I do like your prose. Have I seen you before with another handle that I'd recognize? All of that aside, I didn't see a direct criticism of my argument in your post other than that it doesn't make you feel anything. I wouldn't measure the success of my argument by what it makes you feel, because I'd rather not guess about your capacity for feeling in the first place given that I only know you as "GasTheKikesRaceWarNow".When you become more cynical you might. It pre-requires a jaded mindset.
I've tried. I'm plenty cynical, I just don't care for his character. It lacks the subtlety of Seinfeld, and I don't care for the writing. Perhaps it's unfair of me to compare it to its predecessor. I don't know, it just doesn't grab my attention. Do you know of an episode that might change my mind? -
2018-04-06 at 11:26 PM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick I've tried. I'm plenty cynical, I just don't care for his character. It lacks the subtlety of Seinfeld, and I don't care for the writing. Perhaps it's unfair of me to compare it to its predecessor. I don't know, it just doesn't grab my attention. Do you know of an episode that might change my mind?
I don't think you could care for Larry David's character in CYE. He's ugly, emotionally, physically, intellectually, sexually, and socially. He looks like a shaved rat when he's showering, he's short and weak, he fights with everyone, he has zero friendship-making ability, zero loyalty, even to fellow jedis, and is pretty much just horrible.
His only saving attribute is his extreme loyalty to truth, if someone's baby is ugly he's going to say so, one way or another. He thinks your soup sucks, he's going to let you know. He's a jedi, but without the standard jedi capacity for deception. That's the genius of the show.
That's the genius of the show. I have no idea why someone like Larry David would portray himself like this. Every other episode he's coming across as being either a Nazi or an Anti-Semite. You take anyone and take away his racial defining characteristic and it's going to be funny. The Irish guy who doesn't drink, or the American who doesn't kiss ass. It's can all be cast as funny with a simple twist. -
2018-04-06 at 11:29 PM UTCAlright, I do have an HBO subscription, and from your assessment, it seems possible that I've failed to grasp the point. I'll give it another try.
-
2018-04-06 at 11:31 PM UTCIf it suits me you will be hearing from me soon VERY LOUDLY COMMENDING your choice of television
-
2018-04-06 at 11:31 PM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick Alright, I do have an HBO subscription, and from your assessment, it seems possible that I've failed to grasp the point. I'll give it another try.
You're not even an anti-semite, and you're not prepared to become one. The woke world consists solely of jedis and anti-semites. There is nothing but vacuum outside those intellectual spheres. -
2018-04-06 at 11:33 PM UTC
Originally posted by GasTheKikesRaceWarNow You're not even an anti-semite, and you're not prepared to become one. The woke world consists solely of jedis and anti-semites. There is nothing outside those intellectual spheres.
I can appreciate even the most hardened examples of racial hatred in media. Over the Summer, I almost bought a porcelain lawn jockey that looked like it dates back to Jim Crow just for the historical value. I spent it on drugs instead, but that racist statue would have been a great conversation starter in my living room. -
2018-04-06 at 11:38 PM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick I can appreciate even the most hardened examples of racial hatred in media. Over the Summer, I almost bought a porcelain lawn jockey that looked like it dates back to Jim Crow just for the historical value. I spent it on drugs instead, but that racist statue would have been a great conversation starter in my living room.
Yeah, neither a jedi nor an anti-semite.
Maybe someday the anti-semites will organise, then join with and ally with jedis and rule the world. Maybe Mike Enoch will even get back with his jedi wife.
Either that or have an intellectually bloody and destructive meme-world-war. Literally World War 3:Electric Boogaloo. -
2018-04-07 at 12:46 AM UTC
