User Controls
Posts by Obbe
-
2018-05-12 at 7:28 PM UTC in The Retardest Thread: Fashionably Late Edition.
-
2018-05-12 at 7:25 PM UTC in The Retardest Thread: Fashionably Late Edition.
-
2018-05-12 at 2:53 PM UTC in The Retardest Thread: Fashionably Late Edition.
-
2018-05-11 at 10:09 PM UTC in The Retardest Thread: Fashionably Late Edition.Tits are too small, weird elbows.
-
2018-05-11 at 7:49 PM UTC in The Retardest Thread: Fashionably Late Edition.
-
2018-05-10 at 10:16 PM UTC in The Retardest Thread: Fashionably Late Edition.
-
2018-05-10 at 6:17 PM UTC in The Retardest Thread: Fashionably Late Edition.
-
2018-05-10 at 11:12 AM UTC in The Retardest Thread: Fashionably Late Edition.
-
2018-05-09 at 6:29 PM UTC in just got 12 grams of spice in the mail
-
2018-05-09 at 6:20 PM UTC in just got 12 grams of spice in the mail
-
2018-05-08 at 1:35 AM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by mmQ I think so but i don't think they do it because they want them to suffer or be tortured. Could you come up with an argument for a case in which baby torture is right or ok?
Some religions believe it is morally correct to circumsize baby boys, this is a form of torture a group of people believe is right or ok. (I don't agree with them.) -
2018-05-08 at 12:45 AM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by mmQ 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?
It's not something I would do but I don't speak for everyone. Don't some creatures eat their babies? -
2018-05-08 at 12:39 AM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
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.
That's like saying you can't prove morality is relative to someone who believes their morals are absolute. It's a cop out, and then you act as if somehow I'm "prohibiting" discussion while you actively refuse to participate in one. I tried to discuss morality with you earlier and you just hand-waved it away, like you are attempting to do now, as if somehow discussing it "stains" this thread. As if everything you've constructed would fall apart like a sand castle during high tide, and maybe the reason you don't want to discuss it is because deep down you know that it is true, morality is relative and nobody has any sort of obligation to adopt your personal preferences. I'm not saying you shouldn't be a vegan or that there are no other premises upon which you can build your argument. If anything I'm actually helping you out by showing you that this is not the right way to argue your position. -
2018-05-07 at 11:14 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
-
2018-05-07 at 10:56 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
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 10:24 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
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. -
2018-05-07 at 7 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Zanick It really doesn't:
Suffering doesn't factor into that equation. You mentioned that plants might potentially suffer (without offering evidence) but you quickly abandoned this by saying that it doesn't matter what life we eat. Whichever you really think it is, it's immaterial to your position once you "thank" them for their "sacrifice". That's a nice ritual but practically speaking, it's meaningless. We need real advocacy for real organisms, not killing and gratitude. If you think plants are morally complex and you care about their suffering, I would urge you to stop eating them. If you'd rather say "thank you" and call it square, they conveniently won't be around to disagree.
What's your point? Choosing to not eat meat is a nice ritual but ultimately it is meaningless. Some people prefer to eat meat, some people prefer not to eat meat, either way it doesn't really matter. -
2018-05-07 at 5:54 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meatI didn't say anything about ethics. My argument does consider suffering, it considers the suffering of all life forms. You can eat people if you want, just know that every action has consequences.
-
2018-05-07 at 3:42 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Zanick Well, suppose that I do want to eat a person. I'd give thanks for their noble sacrifice, and I'd use every part of the carcass so that they won't have died in vain. As long as I keep it quiet that I've done this, I wouldn't suffer at all by your reasoning. Unless you think there are additional criteria I ought to consider, I don't see why this would be any different from eating a tomato from my garden.
It isn't illegal to eat a tomato from your garden. Anyway, I thought you were more concerned with the suffering of the life you're consuming not the one you are sustaining. I find it hard to believe you would eat a person if you can't even eat a chicken. -
2018-05-07 at 3:38 AM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Zanick I think so, but you offered a justification that makes eating meat a karma-free activity when you express thanks to the animal, which is then considered a sacrifice. If this absolves you of the need to worry about the circumstances of the creature's life and death, why not eat humans?
I have no desire to do that.
