User Controls
We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
-
2019-04-16 at 1:06 AM UTCBecause they have different levels of competence as moral agents.
-
2019-04-16 at 2:35 AM UTCwhy does that matter to you
-
2019-04-16 at 2:59 AM UTCFor the same reason that considering other humans as valid moral agents matters; it underpins any ability for me to say someone shouldn't do something to me.
-
2019-04-16 at 5:36 PM UTCbut lanny, alcohols are evil.
for every gallons of alcohol you consume, an equal amount of gallon of CO2 is released. worse when its colored alcohols, like whiskeys and cognacs because then, trees, normally harmless oaks that do nothing but mind their own business of slurping up dioxides of carbon and refurbishing them into oxygen in the forests would have to be chopped down, turned into barrels and charred.
producing loads of carbon. and its dioxides. even worse is when these brandies and whiskies need to be pass thru charcoal enhancements, because then, blocks of virgin oaks would have to be chopped up and burnt, releasing an even greater amount of CO2, just to produce lumps of single use charcoal for charcoal enhancements.
Originally posted by dr bitchface
My philosophy in life is that if I can't do it drunk then it's probably too much effort to be worth doing sober.
Quote
"Utilitarian"
Originally posted by best boi
Saddle up MORALLY SUPERIOR BEINGs, fields used for the cultivation of coffee contribute to mass starvation as these acres could be used to farm FOOD CROPS but they aren't, therfor we have a moral obligation to stop drinking coffee immediately.
This is why it is evil for lanny to stuff all the butter sauce twinkies into his gullet and down to his fat ASS. He is contributing to the PAIN AND SUFFEREING of other peoples, therefor LANNY is MORRALLY BAD
Fucking moral hypocrite who obv can't refute a word I said. Lil' Empty has never been more fitting.
@lanny -
2019-04-17 at 12:49 AM UTC
-
2019-04-17 at 1:06 AM UTC
-
2019-04-17 at 3:41 AM UTC
-
2019-04-17 at 10:49 AM UTC
Originally posted by yabbadabbadindunuthin I don't think you guys are understanding my point at all, because what you're saying has no bearing on it whatsoever.
My argument is not that the FDA is perfect system.
My argument is not that the FDA is immune to corruption.
My argument is not that the FDA has never been wrong.
My argument is not that the FDA hasn't ever revoked their approval of drugs.
My point is simply that, if you're going to put drugs or supplements into your body, you're better off at least having a bare-bones standards enforced by an imperfect government agency regulate it than allowing corporations to run wild selling whatever they want. In the overwhelming majority cases, the FDA has prevented many of the atrocities that you saw in the early 1900s when nothing was regulated at all. Just a friendly reminder that more soldiers died in the Spanish American war from poisoned meat rations than enemy fire, cocaine was prescribed as medicine, and even soda had cocaine in it. The reason this kind of hogwash came to a stop is because Roosevelt started the FDA.
I know you guys are clearly hostile to the government, but I sincerely fucking doubt that when you get prescribed medicine from a doctor, you go out and find a non-FDA approved alternative because you think the government is out to get you or the FDA is a bunch of "terrorists."
To my original point within this thread, I'm not relying on non-FDA approved supplements to get 200 grams of protein a day even if simply due to the fact that people die from this kind of stuff all the time.
Their attempt to ban KrŠ°tom made me lose all faith in them
They're STILL trying. At least the DEA seems to have had enough of their shit -
2019-04-20 at 11:25 AM UTC
Originally posted by Common De-mominator To tell you no one cares about your opinion. Which is true. Faggot.
You care enough to keep responding
Originally posted by vindicktive vinny because i cared about how i made you look.
not how i feel about how you feel.
Thanks, your actions all make me look good. It's a comparison thing... -
2019-04-20 at 12 PM UTC
-
2019-04-20 at 12:21 PM UTC
-
2019-04-20 at 3:13 PM UTC
-
2019-04-20 at 4:26 PM UTC
-
2019-04-20 at 7:12 PM UTC
-
2019-04-20 at 8:07 PM UTC
-
2019-04-20 at 9:14 PM UTC
-
2019-04-20 at 11:32 PM UTC
Originally posted by Common De-mominator I'm not the one claiming relativity is equal to not being real or epistemically objective.
Speed is relative. Do you believe in speed as a concept?
What is quick for the tortoise can be slow for the hare. Morality is like that. What is good for the lion can be bad for the gazelle. -
2019-04-21 at 12:08 AM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe What is quick for the tortoise can be slow for the hare.
Do you believe a metric such as "5 miles per hour" makes sense for someone moving at the speed of either a tortoise or a hare?Morality is like that. What is good for the lion can be bad for the gazelle.
What benefits the lion is not necessary what is morally good for the lion, and vice versa. -
2019-04-21 at 11:42 AM UTC
Originally posted by Common De-mominator Do you believe a metric such as "5 miles per hour" makes sense for someone moving at the speed of either a tortoise or a hare?
What benefits the lion is not necessary what is morally good for the lion, and vice versa.
Do you believe 5 miles an hour is quick or slow?
What you believe is morally good for the lion is not necessarily what the lion believes is morally good for the lion. -
2019-04-21 at 12:17 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe Do you believe 5 miles an hour is quick or slow?
You are avoiding the question by responding with an asinine non sequitur. Do you believe a term like "5 miles per hour" is meaningful?What you believe is morally good for the lion is not necessarily what the lion believes is morally good for the lion.
What the lion or I believe is morally good is irrelevant to what is morally good.
