User Controls
We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
-
2018-12-21 at 12:14 PM UTC
-
2018-12-21 at 12:15 PM UTC
-
2018-12-21 at 12:16 PM UTC
-
2018-12-21 at 12:20 PM UTC
-
2018-12-21 at 12:28 PM UTC
Originally posted by vindicktive vinny immagine your an attorney for an alledged pedo.
If you spend three years in law school and still haven't learned about legal ethics, you done fucked up somehow.
If you don't believe in the legal system (i.e. the right to a fair trial - a right to which EVERYONE is entitled to - regardless of the crime they are alleged to have committed), then don't become a lawyer.
It's not rocket science. -
2018-12-21 at 12:31 PM UTC
Originally posted by Loing He's trying to cosplay that right now
I'm assuming you're referring to this thread in SG (for those reading this who don't read every single thread on NiS).
For the record, I was in agreement with you on "having sex with children is wrong."
It was when you started talking about taking baseball bats to people's faces that we diverged so greatly.
Whodathunk you could be against sex with children AND sports-paraphernelia-related assaults at the same time? -
2018-12-21 at 12:35 PM UTC
Originally posted by gadzooks If you spend three years in law school and still haven't learned about legal ethics, you done fucked up somehow.
If you don't believe in the legal system (i.e. the right to a fair trial - a right to which EVERYONE is entitled to - regardless of the crime they are alleged to have committed), then don't become a lawyer.
It's not rocket science.
you asked for examples of something that are morally wrong but ethically right, i gabe you just that.
defending a person whos guilty of child mollestation is just morelly wrong even if your tuat persons attorney, but to direllict your duties to defend him would just be plain unethical.
there.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-12-21 at 12:44 PM UTC
Originally posted by vindicktive vinny you asked for examples of something that are morally wrong but ethically right, i gabe you just that.
defending a person whos guilty of child mollestation is just morelly wrong even if your tuat persons attorney, but to direllict your duties to defend him would just be plain unethical.
there.
I see where you're coming from, and I'll go as far as to concede that you are right in a certain kind of way.
But there are different levels/scopes of morality/ethics.
If you are opposed to defending alleged child molesters, don't become a defense attorney.
Either you believe in the underlying principle of the right to a fair trial for all, or you don't. -
2018-12-21 at 1:09 PM UTC
-
2018-12-21 at 3:06 PM UTC
-
2018-12-21 at 9:40 PM UTC
Originally posted by vindicktive vinny so people should be unrepresented ?
Wut?
I'm basically saying the exact opposite.
I truly believe in the legal principle that everyone should have the right to a fair trial.
I could actually see myself being a criminal defense attorney for that exact reason.
Very few people have the constitution for it though because they would feel morally conflicted about representing someone whom they believe to be guilty of some especially heinous crime.
My point was that, while I may believe my client to be guilty, and I may find their actions to be morally condemnable, I am still not betraying my own ethical or moral principles within this particular scope of morality.
Thus, morality and ethics are still one and the same concept.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-12-21 at 9:46 PM UTC
-
2018-12-21 at 10 PM UTC
Originally posted by Loing Do you think cannibals should be allowed to kill and eat members of our society because it is their dietary preference?
No, I don't.
Originally posted by Lanny No one ever said you did, the claim has been that the moral obligation is not to eat meat. This has nothing to do with opinions or preferences.
I think morals are just opinions or preferences. A vegetarian might feel morally obligated to not eat meat, but someone who eats meat does not. -
2018-12-21 at 10:28 PM UTC
-
2018-12-21 at 10:35 PM UTCIt’s fascinating to me how programmed individuals like Infinijedi are so participatory in their wholesale oppression that they feel motivated to police the bodies of others on the basis of what they decide to eat. Their lot really is little better than the animals butchered on their behalf, and yet he can’t help himself in conceding to the institutions that have manufactured his diet. He represents the truly subjugated; so far downtrodden that he fails to recognize he is enslaved within a hegemony of slaughter. Plant-based diets are arguably more ethical and demonstrably healthier, but it’s inevitable that some people, determined to retain their position in a hierarchy, will resist the emergence of anything which contradicts their narrow understanding.
-
2018-12-21 at 10:39 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe No, I don't.
Okay, and I'm presuming you wouldn't think it's acceptable for people to kill or destroy other people's homes for recreation.
We put overwhelmingly more calories into the generation of meat than necessary for the production of vegetables, and vegetables are cheaper and easier to produce. Cattle accounts for over 90% of the world's carbon emissions. We could have complete and total food abundance by simply switching to vegan diets and totally eliminate most of global climate change overnight.
We are literally destroying homes, right now, by eating meat. Rising sea levels are literally forcing Sri Lankan people to leave their homes from their beautiful island and come to the mainland, which is receding too.
Yes, you have a moral obligation to stop eating meat.
As a bonus, we don't need to operate pain mills, where we just generate suffering and pain and fear in innocent animals, born sinless but destined for a life of pain and a brutal end. Never to roam a real field and graze real grass, fed corn and raised in a pen with two inches of leg room since it comes stumbling out it's calf, born ambling and ironically optimistic for the great world it has just arrived in. What a sad, sudden break with reality he will meat. We can end that.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-12-21 at 10:40 PM UTCYou can send then all to loing, he will take care of them.
-
2018-12-21 at 11:22 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny Then you misunderstand what is meant by "moral obligation" in the title of the thread.
I don't think I did, it really is just personal preference. Maybe you misunderstand what moral obligations really are?
Originally posted by Loing Okay, and I'm presuming you wouldn't think it's acceptable for people to kill or destroy other people's homes for recreation.
We put overwhelmingly more calories into the generation of meat than necessary for the production of vegetables, and vegetables are cheaper and easier to produce. Cattle accounts for over 90% of the world's carbon emissions. We could have complete and total food abundance by simply switching to vegan diets and totally eliminate most of global climate change overnight.
We are literally destroying homes, right now, by eating meat. Rising sea levels are literally forcing Sri Lankan people to leave their homes from their beautiful island and come to the mainland, which is receding too.
Yes, you have a moral obligation to stop eating meat.
As a bonus, we don't need to operate pain mills, where we just generate suffering and pain and fear in innocent animals, born sinless but destined for a life of pain and a brutal end. Never to roam a real field and graze real grass, fed corn and raised in a pen with two inches of leg room since it comes stumbling out it's calf, born ambling and ironically optimistic for the great world it has just arrived in. What a sad, sudden break with reality he will meat. We can end that.
I think people are going to eat each other, kill each other and destroy each other regardless of whether or not you or I think it is right or wrong or what our preferences are. The system makes these things illegal because these things are bad for the system, disrupt cohesion. Whether you or I believe these behaviors are right or wrong is irrelevant to what the system does.
A solution to all of that impending doom you mentioned is something the system is going to be seeking if it doesn't want to collapse. Nobody has any real obligation to do anything at all, though some people feel like they do. The system will utilize propaganda to compel you to feel a certain way, the system will attempt to influence your beliefs but that's all they are. Beliefs, feelings, opinions and preferences. You really can do whatever you want to do, but try to destroy the system you face the consequences. Everyone is doing what matters to them, and the system is doing what matters to it. Maybe everything will collapse and turn back into dust one day. -
2018-12-21 at 11:52 PM UTC
-
2018-12-21 at 11:56 PM UTC
