User Controls
Posts That Were Thanked by Obbe
-
2018-10-02 at 2:39 AM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by AL-LADdin You don't need to believe in a higher power to agree with Kant's essential point. His ethics are an incredible framework for egoist social contract theory. You can replace the coocoo parts with far more rational ideas, but keep the meat, the framework, the exact same.
That's not what I said at all.
His reasoning structure post-premise is sound, but his premise is flawed, so none of his later reasoning matters.
Kant believes that things "ought" to be a certain way, in that things "matter". Things only "matter" if humans are somehow more specialer than other species. Kant was of that opinion.
It is most likely that none of this INHERENTLY matters. To assert that any of this DOES inherently matter requires hard evidence of such. Since no evidence of deities, higher force, or whathaveyou I have witnessed is convincing enough for me to have faith in, to believe in such deities, higher force, or whathaveyou, would be irrational.
Since nothing inherently matters, the only things that matter are what we decide matter. What matters to you is the only thing that matters. That doesn't necessarily mean it matters to me, though, because my interpretation of what matters will be different from yours becoos of my different genetic structure, life experiences, and exact positioning in spacetime.
Since most of the evidence I have witnessed suggests that none of this probably matters, that is the rational conclusion I have come to. Could it matter? Sure, but that is much less likely given the differing sets of evidence I've witnessed.
This is what I've been trying to explain to Lanny, but he keeps bringing up Kant, insisting that that his premises are somehow based on universal truths/laws, which don't exist.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-09-21 at 8:04 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meatThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2018-09-21 at 7:42 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meatThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2018-09-21 at 11:50 AM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Zanick Taste is not a very good point upon which to mount a defense for the practice of murdering millions of helpless animals every year, but ease of access is a real concern. The first world can, in my belief, afford to move to a completely vegetarian diet. Economically, this would be difficult to stomach but it would be possible. But in shitty countries where there is a scarcity of food (not just meat) and animal products are the most nutritious available options, it would help for Western governments to invest in them agriculturally. Animal well-being isn't the only reason we should do this; Americans in particular enjoy a very good lifestyle on the whole, and it's about time they gave a slice of that to the people struggling to swallow their cakes of dirt. There's absolutely no reason children should be starving over eggs in India when they could be given enriched rice or soy or some other easily cultivated plant-based protein source.
Animals are helpless, which means they will naturally live a life of suffering when left to their own devices. The default mode of four-legged existence is suffering. Life sucks when you have four legs and no fingers.
I read a few months ago that something like 70% of moose in Maine die in the wild from ticks. If you've ever seen a moose covered by ticks over 80% of its body, you know how scary nature really is. Others die from freezing to death when they get mange or chronic wasting disease. Getting predated upon is a very painful, slow, terrifying experience.
We can look at the miserable state of wild animals, and allow them to suffer pointlessly because of their natural handicaps, or we can reach in and take advantage of all the benefits of animal domestication, while giving these animals a fairly decent improvement in comfort and safety of the course of their lives.
Anti-meat/milk activists also have no answer as to what to do with animals when we stop killing/milking them. Do we let them loose? If so, they cause much environmental destruction and crop losses. They also get brutally killed by other animals or ticks, or cold wet winds, or hunger. They also take land from wild animals such as deer and the American and Eurasian bison, which are finally resurging after being nearly exterminated. Encounters between them and freed cows would lead to further hybridization; this is irresponsible.
The only "moral" solution would be to end the "holocaust" by simply exterminating all domesticated animals once and for all. But no one wants to do that, and it defeats the entire purpose as well.
The truth is, morality is not the be-all and end-all of human decisions. The biggest con the system ever taught us was that it is, and that we have to have these pointless discussions about abstract ideas like "morality" to justify our actions. We do not. There is something else called reality, and it's far more important. Human actions are about 75% reality, 25% morality. It's what works.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-09-20 at 3:06 AM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by DontTellEm Lanny, are u able to simplify?
I'm interested in what u have to say but it's hard for me to follow.
It's cool if someone were to be aware of whom their speaking, & not just speak.
the best way to defend a shaky belief is by enshrouding it with complex sentence structures and obsfucating it with large, scarry big, long words.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-09-16 at 9:14 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meatAnything that lives can sense things.
Living things possess the goals of growth, reproduction, and perhaps fostering youth. Therefor, no living being wants to be dead before it is dying, besides some humans. (Due to rising suicide rates and existential viewpoint shifts en masse, Malice's theory may hold some weight. Perhaps more on that later.)
In the sense that no living thing wants to be dead, nothing from cacti to roadrunner to bacteria should be killed when morality and/or altruism are accepted and applied by humans.
There is no known natural morality by other animals and plants; only constructed morality by humans.
Greed is what drives all living things; acts of seeming compassion or altruism are actually very complex acts of greed. Other living things do not hold the life of prey as valuable because it does not help theirselves.
It is not necessary for humans to cuff the chains of morality on theirselves, nor is it necessary for them to abstain from eating meat or anything that was living and subsequently killed prior to or during consumption.
However, there are some such people that would try to force some or all peoples to cease eating meat irregardless of their wishes. -
2018-09-13 at 12:56 PM UTC in Google is literally a political organization. Not a company.you or any of us here in the united states that have a social security card, ID, drivers license, credit or bank card, insurance card, cable and tv, a phone, uses the internet, has a car, has an address, etc etc that information is in some computer data base, you can be tracked or have your house and property viewed on line by satellite.
every commercial is designed to influence you. every political party wants to influence you to their way of thinking. every company wants to influence you to buy their products.
the only way your information or your life is truly private,not be tracked or spied on or influenced is to ditch all those things I mentioned and move out in the wilderness with none of those things.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-09-12 at 7:50 PM UTC in Night ShiftI did the 11-7 night shift for abiut 6 months up at some shifty laundromat on the north part of town, also doubled as a 24 hour tanning salon lol. It was near the main campus and also near some trailer parks so between the haggard folk doing laundry at all hours and the shit canned students coming into tan up until around 2, there were definitely some stories.
Hell the first night I worked there some girl walked up to the counter with this weird look, sort of held her gaze for a few seconds then turned to the side and threw up all over. She looked me again, said sorry and left. The fucking bathroom was literally 15 feet away too. So that was fun having a hue of vomit lingering in the lobby while I cleaned up that little mess.
For some reason girls really liked to piss in the garbage in the tanning booths too, like once they took their clothes off to tan they suddenly had to piss SO BADLY that they couldn't throw their clothes on quick to yes the bathroom, no, they just pissed in the little garbage can in the corner, for guys like me to find when he's changing out the bags.
It good to the point where we had to fasten the garbage up on the wall so they couldn't be reached to actually piss in, especially by a girl, and yet they STILL managed to do it which would involve some serious acrobatics, and far more effort than just using the bathroom down the hall. They fucking got off on that.
Little piss girls.
But anyway I liked the hours. I'd stay up until mid afternoon and sleep til around 9 then just get ready and hang out til work again. My sleep habits have always been sorta peculiar so adjusting to dramatic shifts doesn't take long for me.
Looking back though I'd definitely rather work the hours I do now like 10—8 or 12-8. Let's me sleep in a little and enjoy my favorite hours of 9pm to 3am.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-06-28 at 7:04 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by benny vader dont waste your time.
this whole thread is a matting ground and all its posts are matting call for people with an above average IQs. real or imagined.
this is how ''intellectuals' and their wanna be counterparts look for potential mates.
I was actually going to mention that the language lanny and falcor use is difficult to follow for anyone who doesn't get a boner reading philosophy papers, and that it's likely a large part of the conflict here
oh, looks like I just didThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-06-27 at 8:13 PM UTC in atlas tuggedThis was the first "chapter book", as my teachers used to say, I have read for leisure since high school. I read it over the course of about a year or 2 with about 2 months of heavy reading, then a 6 month break, then 2 more reading months, etc. I read a lot of it during WD last year because Suboxone makes me want to sit down and read for some reason. I want to share some of my thoughts on the book and author with you.
For those of you who don't know, this a really really really long book about a philisophy called Objectivism and its applications through ficticious literature. It is longer than War and Peace. She took amphetamine for weight loss while writing he most famous works, it kinda shows.
A concept that I like, is that it takes the premise of a fractured society and really does flesh out nearly every nitty gritty instance and detail of how a slowly decaying society falls, tries to repair itself, and continually fails through utter unwillingness to let go of a comfortable and familiar, but doomed, system. Hence, the length.
The writing style is romantic; it takes a "perfect" (in a sense) person and reveals glory through accomplishment. Romantic paintings, for example, follow this style by showing pure emotion and awe from the artist's perespective. When I think of Romanticism, I imagine a "New dawn", or ultimate triumph, so to speak. Rand does a good job of expressing this; tere's not a ton of new age romantic writers out there.
As this is more or less the manifesto of a philisophy, (Rand has written more formal works but they are much less popular) there is an almost divinely portrayed protaginst who emobdies Objectivism in totality:
A faultess man. This is a concept in which I run into a lot of my beef with Rand. She claims that she has always held herself to her doctrine 100% of the time throughout her whole life. I understand that she's big on reason, which is great, so am I. But you can't tell me that you have never done anything unreasonable before in your life.
I would argue that a lot of the best parts of life are unreasonable. Humour is unreasonable. Love, sexual proclivity, things that make you roll your eyes and smile. Humanity loves a contradiction. Ever notice how great movie villains tend to contradict themselves or be conflicted in their descision making process?
I agree that reason is the best course of action for business and material pursuits, as well as for gaining knowledge, pursing justice, and resolving issues. You have to ground yourself in reason to efficiently and effectively do these things. Fart jokes are funny because they just are.
If you read this book, you'll notice right away that Rand's verbiage is just awkward. I want to take her to a nice lunch and leave her with the bill everytime she uses the phrase "lighted a cigarette". Some of her more adult-oriented passages are well done and evoke a good response from me. Others just sound painful, violent, and there's nothing sexier than something along the lines of "he kissed her effieciently as the loosely stressed dimensions of her dress unfurled incredulously" - not a quote, I don't have the book on me. You will incredulously see the wordincredulously every other page because that is her favorite word.
To the philisophy of Objectivism, which would be a better post for Oh The Humanites!, I'll briefly say that I agree with many, but not all of the principles and not to the nth degree of infinity as she does. Me not believing in 100% of her principles alone, literally makes me an untouchable in her view, and not worthy of life.
She is a purist, and the more I read, the more distanced I feel. To me, purists of any sort, whatever the position, tend to be complete asshole pricks incapable of empathy for any non-purist. She cannot see another point of view, therefor other points of view are not worthy of existing. What a shitty way to live, if I only talked to people I agreed with completely, I would talk to about 0 people. So would everyone else. I can empathize without agreeing with the opposing viewpoint. Rand cannot. She also ran out money and lived off SSI towards the end of her life but insisted she was consistent with her views.
It is a well written book, and is worth reading if your views fall within even distant earshot of the views of the intended audience. It remarkably doesn't lag either until the late second act. There are moments in the book that I have never seen done before in any medium that were extremely satisfying to read, and it deserves to be considered a modern classic, just one with several disclaimers attatched before picking it up. -
2018-06-26 at 5:16 PM UTC in The reason I do not do church.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2018-06-25 at 10:53 PM UTC in LaterMalice has an ankle disability?
-
2018-06-25 at 1:27 PM UTC in A week of being straight edgeI used to be a straight edge anti drug classic rocker with long blonde hair and a ripped GUNS N ROSES t shirt and I would skip school to play video games then walk around the hood at night and see my classmates in a dark alley smoking the devils lettuce and they start snickering as I walk by like "NICE SHIRT HEHEHEHE.... HEY WANT SOME WEED SCRAWNY?" and I would reply "FUCK OFF YOU DEGENERATE SUBSTANCE ABUSERS! TALK TO ME IN 10 YEARS WHEN YOUR ALL ON METH AND SUCKING DICK FOR CRACK MONEY!"
Then I would come home and the front door is missing because my dad sold it for cocaine and also all the TV's and the couch is gone too and my dad sits me down on a milk crate in the living room and says "Son, I aint gonna be able to pay rent this month"
So I would go into my room and play my Ramones cassette max volume while I look at my cool SOBER ART posters and think about how much I hate drugs and drug users because ALL THEY DO IS BOTHER ME IN DARK ALLEYS AND SELL MY TV REEEEEEEEE!
I'm gonna spend this week being sober again and relive the days of my youth.
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-06-22 at 5:06 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Captain Yes and no. The ability to violate morality without pragmatic repercussions, belongs to the strong. But strong is relative, and if you can't extend your morality to those weaker than you, then you have to concede that someone stronger than yourself should choose to do the same to you.
isnt this how the world had, has always been ???
morality has always been dictated by the strong.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-06-21 at 6:25 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Obbe That's possibly just a human-centric or animal-centric approach to morality / consumption.
Imagine if we stumbled on a form of alien life that we didn't even recognize as life but was actually intelligent and felt pain from our experiments while we didn't even realize it. Would that make us evil? Or imagine if something with super-human intelligence stumbled upon us and saw us as just another resource to exploit … maybe come back to Earth every 10000 years to harvest new organisms, ideas, technologies. Just another experiment. Maybe it wouldn't even consider "suffering" to be something to be concerned about. Is that really evil? Or is it only evil 'to us'?
I guess my point is that I don't believe we have any obligation to die for the sake of some other form of life. And I do believe that eventually science will recognize that all forms of life, even plants, are intelligent to some degree and can suffer to some degree, and if your response to that is suicide I don't think that's going to achieve anything except people like me will still be here living life while people like you won't be.
or imagine if aliens that can communicate telepathically come to earth, and sees us unable to communicate telepathically,
just assumes us to to be not being able to feel pain.
becos they couldnt hear us scream.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-06-20 at 4:27 AM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by -SpectraL The ventral nerve cord in insects is not the same as the spinal cord in humans. This makes a huge difference in how stimuli is interpreted.
We can discuss wether this is true or not, once you admit that insects do, in fact, have a central nervous system. There's no point in discussion nervous structure if you deny the existence of these animals' CNSs.
Originally posted by Obbe Why do you pick which lifeforms are morally considerable and which lifeforms are not?
I don't and have never claimed toThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-06-19 at 11:03 PM UTC in ATTN: GhostSpectral there are only two rules and that’s literally the second one.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2018-06-19 at 12:45 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meatWhen you mow your grass
The “fresh cut grass smell”
Is actually their way of screaming in pain.
Sweet smelling pain and agony...every 5 days 😎The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-06-19 at 11:30 AM UTC in Everybody is such a boring fucking loser.DURRRR I HATE WOMEN ALL I DO IS POST ABOUT HOW MUCH I HATE WOMEN AND HOW THAT TOTALLY DOESNT MAKE ME GAY!
OMG YOU GUYS ARE LIKE SO BORING!The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-06-19 at 2:28 AM UTC in ATTN: GhostYeah I'm not really seriousThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
