User Controls
We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
-
2019-05-01 at 8:03 PM UTC
-
2019-05-01 at 8:10 PM UTC
-
2019-05-01 at 10:24 PM UTC
Originally posted by Common De-mominator Why don't you explain what you meant so I can unambiguously get an accurate picture of your views
Why dont you just read what I actually wrote? You seem determined to be contrarian and call me retarded no matter what my views are. Out of the goodness of my heart I will repeat the claim once more: goodness and badness are relative. What do I mean by this? I mean something can be good from one perspective and bad from another. Like eating meat can be good from one perspective or bad from another... but without some relativity, eating meat is just eating meat. The goodness or badness of it comes from perspective, it comes from relation. It is not inherently good or bad. Nothing is.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2019-05-01 at 11:42 PM UTC
-
2019-05-02 at 12:35 AM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe Why dont you just read what I actually wrote?
I did, I'm asking for clarification because you deliberately obfuscate everything you say... Because you are retarded and don't ever actually have a coherent point.You seem determined to be contrarian and call me retarded no matter what my views are.
I will call you retarded where you are acting retarded. I try to be a very fair and intellectually honest person.Out of the goodness of my heart I will repeat the claim once more: goodness and badness are relative. What do I mean by this? I mean something can be good from one perspective and bad from another. Like eating meat can be good from one perspective or bad from another… but without some relativity, eating meat is just eating meat. The goodness or badness of it comes from perspective, it comes from relation. It is not inherently good or bad. Nothing is.
That is literally 100% consistent with how I characterized your point:
Originally posted by Common De-mominator Right, I'm agreeing with you. But Obbe's claim was that good and bad is of the same nature, so 0.63 mph is fast for 0 mph and slow for 1 mph. Your point doesn't address that claim. That fact is irreconcilable from either perspective.
But the simple fact is that he hasn't actually established good and bad is like that in any way, and I've established the opposite.
What part of my characterization do you disagree with? -
2019-05-02 at 2:25 AM UTC
-
2019-05-02 at 2:32 AM UTC
Originally posted by Common De-mominator What part of my characterization do you disagree with?
I only disagree with the idea that anything is inherently good or bad and that we have an obligation to do something about it.
Originally posted by Common De-mominator But Obbe's claim was that good and bad is of the same nature
And I'm not even sure what you mean by that. -
2019-05-02 at 2:39 AM UTCdon't need a good rational defense on this. whatever the meat is beef, pork, chicken...i don't care where it came from. i enjoy what i enjoy. now that it is much warmer weather i will be bbq'ing all the fine juicy sauced up meat like there is no tomorrow.
yummy -
2019-05-02 at 2:41 AM UTCand according to lanny's moral system
ALCOHOL IS EVIL -
2019-05-02 at 2:43 AM UTCwhat the fuck? there ain't nothing EVIL about it. Ban me faggot..oops
-
2019-05-02 at 2:52 AM UTCPLEASE stay on the topic of Lanny and his meat, folks. He's warned you several times before.
-
2019-05-02 at 2:55 AM UTCI apologize. I'm just a tad sensitive to the topic of alcohol right now. Carry on all.
-
2019-05-02 at 3:20 AM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe I only disagree with the idea that anything is inherently good or bad and that we have an obligation to do something about it.
And I'm not even sure what you mean by that.
So again, you didn't even address my characterization. What that meant was, that you asserted that good and bad were similar to fast and slow. Are you having trouble reading?
Nobody said anything is inherently good or bad either. Just that moral obligations exist. My specific claim is that moral obligations are a necessary consequence of logical consistency in addition to your nature as an agent in the world.
Initially you were asked why you didn't believe there was nothing you "ought" (i.e. why you didn'thave any moral obligation) and you cited the claim that there in fact no oughts, only ises.
I already pointed out that this is a retarded statement because the guy you copped it from initially was literally making the opposite argument (that there are necessary moral entailments that can be objectively, scientifically ascertained) and that is actually the necessary result of taking the stance that there are no oughts, only ises (which I don't agree with).
Which leaves your assertion, again, completely unsubstantiated on any level and actually completely retarded on a fundamental level.
So let's try this again: why do you believe you have no moral obligations? -
2019-05-02 at 3:51 AM UTCan agent for what?
-
2019-05-02 at 3:52 AM UTC
-
2019-05-02 at 3:53 AM UTCyou can't tell me what you think I am an agent for?
Really? -
2019-05-02 at 3:53 AM UTCIt is called a joke.
Any sort of conscious self interest, which is what I would say qualifies as moral agency. -
2019-05-02 at 3:59 AM UTC
-
2019-05-02 at 4 AM UTC
-
2019-05-02 at 4:05 AM UTCPainis
