User Controls
We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
-
2018-05-07 at 11:31 PM UTC
-
2018-05-07 at 11:35 PM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick How do you feel when Christians don't give up on saving your soul?
I guess I feel glad that they still seem to care about me even though i don't believe in their belief, in a general sense.
Of course I would be annoyed if I was consistently pestered by them to the point it was interfering with my life but I guess that's my problem just as much as it might be their's.
I kind of always felt like as a true Christian devout to the teaching of the Bible that you are obligated to continue to try and spread the word to nonbelievers as instructed by Jesus. -
2018-05-07 at 11:51 PM UTCI'm clearly no philosophy major and maybe this is some s00per basic stuff but i was more or less just curious how it works if you feel we're morally obligated to do a thing, then are we also inherently morally obligated to try to convince others to do that thing even in the face of heavy opposition, and where does the line get drawn? Maybe this is something you talk about on day 1 of class I don't know.
-
2018-05-07 at 11:53 PM UTC
Originally posted by mmQ I'm clearly no philosophy major and maybe this is some s00per basic stuff but i was more or less just curious how it works if you feel we're morally obligated to do a thing, then are we also inherently morally obligated to try to convince others to do that thing even in the face of heavy opposition, and where does the line get drawn? Maybe this is something you talk about on day 1 of class I don't know.
Nah, that's something they've argued for centuries and it would be good as its own thread. I won't be coming back in here much unless I see new faces trying to spark discussion. I think it ran its course a long time ago, for the most part. -
2018-05-07 at 11:54 PM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick Nah, that's something they've argued for centuries and it would be good as its own thread. I won't be coming back in here much unless I see new faces trying to spark discussion. I think it ran its course a long time ago, for the most part.
Yeah, you've got all the people banned you can get out of it anyways. Time to tuck tail and run. -
2018-05-07 at 11:55 PM UTCKeep it up, buddy. You could be next. I'm a ban machine.
-
2018-05-07 at 11:59 PM UTC
-
2018-05-07 at 11:59 PM UTC
-
2018-05-08 at 12:05 AM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick Nah, that's something they've argued for centuries and it would be good as its own thread. I won't be coming back in here much unless I see new faces trying to spark discussion. I think it ran its course a long time ago, for the most part.
Very well. That's sort of what I was trying to do but I guess I'm not a new face.
*cry cry cry* -
2018-05-08 at 12:17 AM UTC
Originally posted by Thanks for the warning, Lanny.
i couldnt be arsed to do any degree of serious investigating into that but my unintentional observation of their 'posting styles' are very, very similar. part of it is they both dont have a 'natural' syntax/word usage...they both make posts the way someone trying to act in some theatrical performance would. -
2018-05-08 at 12:39 AM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick I can't prove a moral obligation to someone who doesn't believe they have any moral obligations. I'm not going to fit a whole thread's worth of discussion on moral absolutism a the 1,200-end of a thread about animal rights, you can eat that red herring by yourself. If you don't want to talk about animals, Obbe, I'm not going to argue with you. I've made all the points you're asking for and a dozen beyond that, you have selective memory. You've got a really weird way of debating that tends to drive people crazy and I don't intend to follow them. Good luck.
That's like saying you can't prove morality is relative to someone who believes their morals are absolute. It's a cop out, and then you act as if somehow I'm "prohibiting" discussion while you actively refuse to participate in one. I tried to discuss morality with you earlier and you just hand-waved it away, like you are attempting to do now, as if somehow discussing it "stains" this thread. As if everything you've constructed would fall apart like a sand castle during high tide, and maybe the reason you don't want to discuss it is because deep down you know that it is true, morality is relative and nobody has any sort of obligation to adopt your personal preferences. I'm not saying you shouldn't be a vegan or that there are no other premises upon which you can build your argument. If anything I'm actually helping you out by showing you that this is not the right way to argue your position. -
2018-05-08 at 12:45 AM UTC
Originally posted by mmQ No I know that I was just curious. It's probably a good thing to know if you even if think it's possible in any case whatsoever. I guess for the sake of extremes I'll say something like do you think torturing babies is ever morally acceptable?
It's not something I would do but I don't speak for everyone. Don't some creatures eat their babies? -
2018-05-08 at 12:47 AM UTCMale lions will often eat the cubs.
-
2018-05-08 at 12:48 AM UTC
-
2018-05-08 at 1:35 AM UTC
Originally posted by mmQ I think so but i don't think they do it because they want them to suffer or be tortured. Could you come up with an argument for a case in which baby torture is right or ok?
Some religions believe it is morally correct to circumsize baby boys, this is a form of torture a group of people believe is right or ok. (I don't agree with them.) -
2018-05-08 at 4:19 AM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick The logistics of that are difficult to stomach. If you want any sort of reliable supply of meat from animals which have died from old age, you need a large number of strategically-birthed livestock,
and how is this different from current practice ??? animals, like us have a finite life.
and like us in a stable society, there are about the same number of death each day, so that can also happen in a cock farm, all you need to do is to keep breeding enough
new chicks everyday and altho you cant know which cock would die, there will still be an x amount of cocks to die each day.and while you're not killing them for the meat, you're still rearing them for the exclusive purpose of providing food. From my position, this exploitation is impermissible just as is factory farming.
how is this different from people who keep animals for pets and labors like police dogs and derby horses ???? what about milk cows ??? and zoos, of the petting and non petting variety ???
infact the most cruel human-animal relationship ive seen are that of masters and pets.The alternative to agricultural production would be to find animals which died in the wild and butcher them, which I think presents a number of dangers to us and doesn't achieve the consistency of supply that our current industry provides.
care to elaborate what the possible dangers are ??? -
2018-05-08 at 4:27 AM UTC
-
2018-05-08 at 4:41 AM UTC
-
2018-05-08 at 4:43 AM UTC
Originally posted by infinityshock human meat is the same as any other animal: the more physical activity the muscle tissue performs while the animal was living, the 'tougher' the meat becomes.
with athletes youd have to carve the meat into small chunks and slow-boil it as a stew to made it edible.
yes, ive researched this. when nuclear winter comes the neighbors are on the menu.
cant you just use a meat tenderizer ??? -
2018-05-08 at 4:44 AM UTClikely doesn't work so well on muscle
