User Controls

We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat

  1. Originally posted by Obbe You would say no because how would you know my morals are superior? It would be impossible. Morality isn't objective, there is no such thing as a "morally superior" being. Therefore we shouldn't use morality as the basis for any argument when there are better, real, measurable things we could use instead.

    ^ Illiteracy

    I'm not positing the existence of an objectively morally superior being, nor do I need to: someone who operates within the bounds of my moral system but with less inconsistencies and deviations from it's conclusions would be morally superior to me. They don't even need to buy into my morality. They might even propose their own moral system, which generates conclusions I am more comfortable with, and which are more consistent, in which case if I don't have the capacity to get it or the might to resist it, they could probably judge me as being morally equivalent in their eyes, to a cow in my eyes.

    Also, what are these better things to use?
  2. Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]
    Originally posted by Captain ^ Illiteracy

    I'm not positing the existence of an objectively morally superior being, nor do I need to: someone who operates within the bounds of my moral system but with less inconsistencies and deviations from it's conclusions would be morally superior to me. They don't even need to buy into my morality. They might even propose their own moral system, which generates conclusions I am more comfortable with, and which are more consistent, in which case if I don't have the capacity to get it or the might to resist it, they could probably judge me as being morally equivalent in their eyes, to a cow in my eyes.

    Also, what are these better things to use?

    The reason you don't get what I am saying is because I'm just morally superior to you. A better thing to use would be something objective and measurable. For example, we shouldn't put people in jail because we believe they are "bad" and want to punish them. We should put people in jail when they demonstrate that they harm society in an objective way and our best option at the time is to separate them from the general population.
  3. Originally posted by Obbe The reason you don't get what I am saying is because I'm just morally superior to you. A better thing to use would be something objective and measurable. For example, we shouldn't put people in jail because we believe they are "bad" and want to punish them. We should put people in jail when they demonstrate that they harm society in an objective way and our best option at the time is to separate them from the general population.

    Ok, can you explain ur moral system
  4. Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]
    Originally posted by Captain Ok, can you explain ur moral system

    That's like a cow asking a human to explain his moral system. It's beyond your capacity. I should know, seeing as I am a morally superior being compared to you.

    That's why we shouldn't use morality as a basis for an argument. Mortality is not objective. You cannot prove an argument built on sand. There are better, more convincing ways Zanick could have made his argument. Instead of claiming that meat eating is immoral, he could have tried something we can actually measure like the sustainability of the current industry or the impact it has on our health, etc.
  5. Originally posted by Obbe That's like a cow asking a human to explain his moral system. It's beyond your capacity. I should know, seeing as I am a morally superior being compared to you.

    Don't be stupid, cows cannot talk to humans or ask them to explain things.

    Your simile fails. Explain your moral system.

    That's why we shouldn't use morality as a basis for an argument.

    Uh, so a non-sequitur. Ok.

    Mortality is not objective. You cannot prove an argument built on sand.

    Who said anything about proving anything? This is a circular argument.

    There are better, more convincing ways Zanick could have made his argument. Instead of claiming that meat eating is immoral, he could have tried something we can actually measure like the sustainability of the current industry or the impact it has on our health, etc.

    Lets imagine there is a button labeled "X". Pressing this button will lead to the obliteration of all life on earth in 1 week. Should pressing X be illegal?
  6. Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]
    Originally posted by Captain Who said anything about proving anything? This is a circular argument.



    Lets imagine there is a button labeled "X". Pressing this button will lead to the obliteration of all life on earth in 1 week. Should pressing X be illegal?

    Exactly, you cannot prove an argument to be true by basing it in morality. Which is why zanick should have picked something other than morality to base his argument on.

    I don't know if pressing the button should be illegal, I suppose it depends on what you want to achieve. If the goal is to survive as long as possible, ending all life on earth should probably be against the law. The button should probably also be destroyed.
  7. Originally posted by Obbe Exactly, you cannot prove an argument to be true by basing it in morality.

    Which is why zanick should have picked something other than morality to base his argument on.

    Yeah, I'm not doing this any more.

    I don't know if pressing the button should be illegal, I suppose it depends on what you want to achieve.

    Wow, congratulations on accepting my moral system.
  8. Bologna Nacho African Astronaut
    Forget morality, we have an OBLIGATION to eat meat.
  9. Kinks Actually pretty straight [bitch the twenty-second stewpan]
    Can I at least eat bugs or something?
  10. -SpectraL coward [the spuriously bluish-lilac bushman]
    Even though they are sensitive, bugs do not have a central nervous system, therefore they do not feel pain.
  11. Kinks Actually pretty straight [bitch the twenty-second stewpan]
    Cool, I’m going to eat the fuck out of some bugs then.
  12. -SpectraL coward [the spuriously bluish-lilac bushman]
    Not recommended. Some bugs contain poisons and viruses.
  13. Kinks Actually pretty straight [bitch the twenty-second stewpan]
    Ok dad, teach me what bugs I can eat
  14. I think SpectraL's cock qualifies
  15. Kinks Actually pretty straight [bitch the twenty-second stewpan]
    He would never suggest that

    That’s why I asked him and not you.
  16. Originally posted by Kinks He would never suggest that

    That’s why I asked him and not you.

    It was more a burn towards his j sect sized penis, rather than a suggestion that you suck his cock. Although I know sucking cock is way more serious business to you.
  17. Kinks Actually pretty straight [bitch the twenty-second stewpan]
    Sucking cock is always a serious business, it has to be done properly
  18. Originally posted by Kinks Sucking cock is always a serious business, it has to be done properly

    I'm sure, you wrote the book on sucking cock.
  19. -SpectraL coward [the spuriously bluish-lilac bushman]
    Originally posted by Kinks Ok dad, teach me what bugs I can eat

    Anoplura - lice
    Orthoptera - grasshoppers, crickets and cockroaches
    Hemiptera - true bugs
    Homoptera - cicadas and treehoppers
    Hymenoptera - bees, ants and wasps
    Diptera - flies and mosquitoes
    Coleoptera - beetles
    Lepidoptera - butterflies and moths
    Megaloptera - alderflies and dobsonflies
    Odonata - dragonflies and damselflies
    Ephemetoptera - mayflies
    Trichoptera - caddisflies
    Plecoptera - stoneflies
    Neuroptera - lacewings and antlions
    Isoptera - termites
    The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
  20. Kinks Actually pretty straight [bitch the twenty-second stewpan]
    See, dad knows best
Jump to Top