User Controls
We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
-
2018-05-07 at 9:59 PM UTC
-
2018-05-07 at 10:14 PM UTC
Originally posted by MORALLY SUPERIOR BEING I bet athletes would be some delicious lean meat.
If my plane ever crashes and I have to eat the dead to survive I hope it's full of professional weightlifters.
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.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-05-07 at 10:18 PM UTC
-
2018-05-07 at 10:19 PM UTCI’m going with this guy if the world ceases to exist as we know it tomorrow
-
2018-05-07 at 10:21 PM UTCI bet lala would be tender
-
2018-05-07 at 10:21 PM UTCYou bitch
-
2018-05-07 at 10:24 PM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick Not eating meat isn't a ritual, it's a principle. It's measured in the number of animals who don't die for the purpose of consumption. If you care about suffering, this is a very important metric to use and it has real-world value, unlike your best wishes for the consumed.
I'm not addressing your nihilism, it's a refuge from a failing argument and it's prohibitive to discussion.
Morality is a luxury not everyone can partake in. Most people are too hungry to consider or even care where their next meal comes from. Some lucky individuals do have the ability to follow their desires and preferences, to eat what they want. Some people prefer to eat meat, and some people prefer not to. Some people feel that certain behaviors are moral and some are immoral. But morality doesn't seem to extend beyond the scope of their feelings, beyond their subjective perspective and into the real world we all share together. You may prefer to not eat meat and that is fine, but thus far all you have demonstrated is that you have this preference and not that anyone else has an obligation to adopt it. Morality is simply your refuge from a failing argument, and your inability to demonstrate any real moral obligation ends this discussion before it can even begin.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-05-07 at 10:34 PM UTC
Originally posted by infinityshock you dont get sleeping sickness from prions. it comes from an organism. prions arent an organism
some weird protein I thought, I made a mistake was thinking of Kuru -
2018-05-07 at 10:38 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe Morality is a luxury not everyone can partake in. Most people are too hungry to consider or even care where their next meal comes from. Some lucky individuals do have the ability to follow their desires and preferences, to eat what they want.
This is possibly one of my favorite arguments against vegetarianism, and it's a very important weakness in the platform. There are villages in impoverished regions where they're lucky to get eggs, and my response to that problem is that these are marginal cases, which is to say that they make up a small minority and they ought to be permitted as we focus our efforts on transgressions of a higher priority. Factory farming in the US has no such justification, and if that's all animal rights activists focus on eradicating over the next ten years for animal rights progress, we'll have our work cut out for us.Some people prefer to eat meat, and some people prefer not to. Some people feel that certain behaviors are moral and some are immoral. But morality doesn't seem to extend beyond the scope of their feelings, beyond their subjective perspective and into the real world we all share together. You may prefer to not eat meat and that is fine, but thus far all you have demonstrated is that you have this preference and not that anyone else has an obligation to adopt it. Morality is simply your refuge from a failing argument, and your inability to demonstrate any real moral obligation ends this discussion before it can even begin.
I've said about a million different ways why you're morally obligated and your only defense is "well, I'm not convinced, so you must be wrong". It's not a debate when you do that, you can deny things all day and it won't be a debate. You started out very well in this post, Obbe. -
2018-05-07 at 10:42 PM UTCIt happened in roanoke before people knew about prions, alot of people still don't know about prions. I won't be eating people because I have my bug colonies.
-
2018-05-07 at 10:46 PM UTC"So I should kill animals before they can all starve to death in the wild? I can't believe I never thought of that. It's almost like a hideously flawed syllogism just vomited out of your mouth onto the keyboard."
No proper conservation techniques should be put in place and humans should become the predators when there are none or not enough to do the job, exactly what is being done now. I never defended factory farming and I'm actively working against it by farming bug colonies, what the fuck are you doing? -
2018-05-07 at 10:53 PM UTC
Originally posted by Madman "So I should kill animals before they can all starve to death in the wild? I can't believe I never thought of that. It's almost like a hideously flawed syllogism just vomited out of your mouth onto the keyboard."
No proper conservation techniques should be put in place and humans should become the predators when there are none or not enough to do the job, exactly what is being done now. I never defended factory farming and I'm actively working against it by farming bug colonies, what the fuck are you doing?
I'm not rearing or eating bugs, which I don't think sounds either compassionate or appealing. Beyond my vegan diet, I'm not discussing my activism with you because you aren't an activist. I'm glad you don't believe in factory farming, though, as it's a horrid institution. We disagree on the 'how' of conservation but we apparently agree that it's necessary in some form. -
2018-05-07 at 10:56 PM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick This is possibly one of my favorite arguments against vegetarianism, and it's a very important weakness in the platform. There are villages in impoverished regions where they're lucky to get eggs, and my response to that problem is that these are marginal cases, which is to say that they make up a small minority and they ought to be permitted as we focus our efforts on transgressions of a higher priority. Factory farming in the US has no such justification, and if that's all animal rights activists focus on eradicating over the next ten years for animal rights progress, we'll have our work cut out for us.
I've said about a million different ways why you're morally obligated and your only defense is "well, I'm not convinced, so you must be wrong". It's not a debate when you do that, you can deny things all day and it won't be a debate. You started out very well in this post, Obbe.
Your argument is built on a false premise, and the whole house of cards falls apart if the base cannot handle the load placed upon it. I don't believe your preferences apply to anyone other than you and see no reason why they should. You have never even attempted to explain why you think your preferences should apply to everyone else.
Like I said before, if you started your argument by saying something like "this is why I don't eat meat," or "factory farming is unsustainable," or even something like "these are the health benefits of a vegetarian diet," at least those are real arguments worth considering. But your whole "moral obligation" idea is pretty much just you telling us that you're convinced of this and that if we disagree with you we're just wrong. It's not a debate when you do that. Tell us why you believe morality is not relative, and maybe this can actually go somewhere. -
2018-05-07 at 10:59 PM UTCAdam and eve ate an apple, consumption of a living thing is the original sin and why babies are baptised. It is a sin to consume any living thing and we have to accept that we are sinful. You denial of your sin makes it worse.
-
2018-05-07 at 11:07 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe Your argument is built on a false premise, and the whole house of cards falls apart if the base cannot handle the load placed upon it. I don't believe your preferences apply to anyone other than you and see no reason why they should. You have never even attempted to explain why you think your preferences should apply to everyone else.
Like I said before, if you started your argument by saying something like "this is why I don't eat meat," or "factory farming is unsustainable," or even something like "these are the health benefits of a vegetarian diet," at least those are real arguments worth considering. But your whole "moral obligation" idea is pretty much just you telling us that you're convinced of this and that if we disagree with you we're just wrong. It's not a debate when you do that. Tell us why you believe morality is not relative, and maybe this can actually go somewhere.
Do you personally think that there are any objective moral truths? -
2018-05-07 at 11:14 PM UTC
-
2018-05-07 at 11:19 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe Your argument is built on a false premise, and the whole house of cards falls apart if the base cannot handle the load placed upon it. I don't believe your preferences apply to anyone other than you and see no reason why they should. You have never even attempted to explain why you think your preferences should apply to everyone else.
Like I said before, if you started your argument by saying something like "this is why I don't eat meat," or "factory farming is unsustainable," or even something like "these are the health benefits of a vegetarian diet," at least those are real arguments worth considering. But your whole "moral obligation" idea is pretty much just you telling us that you're convinced of this and that if we disagree with you we're just wrong. It's not a debate when you do that. Tell us why you believe morality is not relative, and maybe this can actually go somewhere.
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. -
2018-05-07 at 11:22 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe I can't think of any off hand. If you think there is one, list it here and I'll tell you if I agree with it… however, just because I personally might agree with it doesn't mean it is objectively true.
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? -
2018-05-07 at 11:24 PM 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.
How come you're not morally obligated to continue discussing it with him even if he doesn't get agree with your side? -
2018-05-07 at 11:24 PM UTCI think cowardice is objectively immoral, you have to shoot people that run away in the back so everybody knows they can die fighting or die like a coward.
