This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - ๐ Aria ๐ฎ
Pages: 1 ... 294295296 297298 ... 352
8851
« on: June 02, 2015, 02:44:59 PM »
Only if it was like the ODST port, an addition to the Collection.
8852
« on: June 01, 2015, 03:52:12 PM »
To be fair, even with a good job that's above minimum wage, it's cheaper to live outside the boundaries of major cities and to commute to work than it is to get an apartment.
8853
« on: June 01, 2015, 03:45:07 PM »
I have poor self-control.
Case and point, I just spent $150 on 3DS games.
I'm failing to see the issue here.
It was on impulse. I do this a lot, and it's not a good thing.
8854
« on: June 01, 2015, 03:44:18 PM »
In other words, if you don't make enough money to comfortably pay rent, don't rent your own apartment, and leave the west coast.
Or a major urban environment like Metropolitan NYC.
8855
« on: June 01, 2015, 03:42:40 PM »
I have poor self-control.
Case and point, I just spent $150 on 3DS games.
8856
« on: June 01, 2015, 12:49:32 PM »
Me and Tru got married
Buying him as a sex slave isn't marriage, you mong
8857
« on: June 01, 2015, 12:25:38 PM »
Lemon trafficked Tru
Verb killed Challenger and got 20 to life
Cheat's getting his dick sucked by his harem of mods
Flee got his licenses revoked when he was caught fucking a horse
You know, the usual.
8858
« on: June 01, 2015, 12:05:59 PM »
I have poor self-control.
8859
« on: June 01, 2015, 04:28:17 AM »
Pendulate, I'm going to leave it at this:
If you seriously think I didn't read "what's the difference between killing an animal because you want their head mounted on your wall, and killing it because you want a steak on your plate?", then I want you to read our discussion. Again. Because we touched on that multiple times. I gave you the difference; the problem here is that my view is utilitarian, and yours isn't. Please, I already feel insulted enough that a comment has dragged on this long, don't tell me that I didn't take the time to read a discussion I just spent the last three hours going through, and then taking part in.
You said that you're interested in the ethics of hunting. Cool, I (along with others) all gave our views. Mine happened to be that hunting for sport is worse. I gave you my reasoning for why hunting for a head on the wall is different (worse) than meat on a plate. It's, again, Utilitarian. You asked "is the unnecessary killing of an animal unethical regardless of which unnecessary purpose it is killed for?" much later than the OP, and please don't deny that. It's as easy as going and checking the OP again (which, giving the benefit of the doubt, I did).
At least Verb has the decency to call you a cunt and be done with it, instead of dragging a comment on for two pages and ending it with "you just didn't read my post".
8860
« on: June 01, 2015, 03:55:24 AM »
I'm not "exposing" anything, I'm just get tired of this track here.
If that wasn't the point of contention, then don't ask if "there is a difference between hunting for sport and hunting for food". People have given differences, you've just handwaved them away as not being the point of contention. As I stated earlier, when I was more composed, you've either done an abysmal job of explaining your point from the start or you're pushing veganism.
Which you never address the part where I tell you that I'm not disagreeing. Killing things is bad, yes. I've just said that killing for sport is worse than killing for food sense you're not going to use it to the same extent. Hunting for sport creates more waste. That's what I voted for on the poll. If you wanted to talk about how unethical killing things was, then state that in the OP. It's very frustrating explaining why I chose my response to your original statement and being told that it's wrong based on the standards of an (until the past hour) unstated goal.
8861
« on: June 01, 2015, 03:42:56 AM »
It's a civil union with benefits, but it has the connotation of love and one-ness.
8862
« on: June 01, 2015, 03:32:00 AM »
Without having read any of this thread: is this going to be about how even hunting for food provides fun because people enjoy eating meat?
That's one of his points, yes. Another is that eating the animal itself is unnecessary (because plants), so hunting is just bad in general. I've spent the last page saying that murder and torture are bad, sure, but that doesn't mean one can't be worse than the other.
8863
« on: June 01, 2015, 03:30:39 AM »
And I've been telling you over and over that I don't give a flip how bad hunting is. It is completely irrelevant to my initial post.
Here it is:
If you're going to kill something, don't waste it. there is the entire point, in one sentence.
Store-bought meat came up, again, as continuing the notion that you introduced pages before this: that you shouldn't hunt because you can just go to the store. I added that preservatives, plus poor farming standards, aren't exactly the best alternative just to try and help flesh it out a bit since it didn't catch on in the first place.
I'm not yelling at you over the internet right now, so you can calm down. I am frustrated, yes, but more because of this apparent communication barrier. We shouldn't be talking past each other, especially considering that this is all from an offhanded comment I made on the topic in an attempt to put it back on track and get it away from veganism and anti-natalism. If you would just take the sentiment at face value then it wouldn't be a problem; instead, you're reading into my posts as an opposition to the idea you're pushing.
And I know you're point: all hunting is bad, so don't do it. Eat plant-based food instead of meat. You can try to avoid using the word all you want, but it's incredibly obvious that it's the intent of this thread by this point. So stop sidestepping that please; I realize that it is very important to you and all, that's great. If you go back and look, I'm not even disagreeing. I'm just pointing out that life isn't black and white. There are shades of grey nearly dark as black.
8864
« on: June 01, 2015, 02:47:37 AM »
I'd like to, but you won't concede something as slight as the fact that one is more immoral than the other, regardless of if that difference is on a Planck-level or a macro-level. This is the thing I've been trying to state this entire time, and no matter what I do to say that, you keep bringing it back to veganism. The fact that you feel you need to convince me anything of veganism, again, shows how much of an assumption you're making of me.It's not that I don't want to discuss it because I have rigid views of it, I don't want to discuss it because:
1) It is irrelevant to the point I was making.
2) I just don't want to discuss it. I've talked it to death with Verb, I don't want to start it anew with someone else.
You asked a question and gave three options, and prompted users to provide justification for their view. If you don't think that I've appropriately done that, then this isn't a problem of veganism vs a traditional diet. It's a problem of utilitarianism and pragmatism.
8865
« on: June 01, 2015, 02:05:39 AM »
Sorry, but I prefer not to debate in that format. I feel it tends to lead to taking things out of context, and it's something I'd rather not do.
You contend that there are alternatives. Fine and dandy, but I will repeat, I am not discussing veganism. I came into the thread to state something that was quite obvious, and a page later I'm still trying to explain it. Venison is objectively a food, no matter how you think of it. Therefore, it fulfills a core necessity (food, shelter, clothing). You can contend that it's not necessary all you wish, but that doesn't mean it fits the role.
I feel you're being sanctimonious because, no matter how many times I tell you I don't want to discuss veganism, you keep turning it into a discussion on promoting veganism. Someone says that they can eat it, you say they can go to supermarkets. Someone says that going to the supermarket for the same thing (underlined for stress) is a poor alternative, you say that you should just not eat meat. If you think it's subtle, it's not; you can call it being critical, but that doesn't change the fact that you are very poorly hiding your motive.
All I said is that if the animal is going to be killed, then eating it and using its materials practically is the more ethical option. And you just can't accept that my view isn't a purely vegan approach. Hell, if you think of me as a (verb-described) "typical meat eater", then I've completely lost interest in discussing the subject. All it shows is that you are making assumptions; and as my saying of the day goes: assumptions make an ass out of you and me.
8866
« on: June 01, 2015, 01:43:34 AM »
necessary.
Before I say anything, define necessary for me. I want to be clear on what you're meaning by it first.
For the purpose of this discussion, an extreme measure that, if you were not to take, would cause you serious harm, seems reasonable. So this requires it to be the only measure available, or the least extreme of the bunch.
Obviously necessity is a difficult thing to pin down, but it's pretty clear in this case, where the hunters have easy access to supermarkets, that hunting for food is not necessary. By the mere fact that there are less extreme and less harmful options.
So you're supporting the notion that sulfites, nitrates, and BHA aren't linked to various cancers and increased asthma-sensitivity? And we've already agreed that buying from the supermarket is the more immoral of the two options, unless you want to revisit that. And how is it "less harmful"?
8867
« on: June 01, 2015, 01:27:38 AM »
To say "You can eat something else" is irrelevant to the question: is it better to hunt for food or fun? Ah, but that's what I'm getting at: hunting for food is hunting for fun, a lot of the time.
Let's concede that for sake of argument. Here's the comparison:
Hunting for Food:
-Provides entertainment
-Provides essentials (food, shelter, services, goods)
-Provides non-essentials (decoration, frivolous goods)
Hunting for Sport:
-Provides entertainment
-Provides non-essentials (decoration, frivolous goods)
Hunting for food, even giving that those hunters may find it fun, is still more practical than hunting for sport. More practical being more useful, more useful being more ethical.
But now you're adding all these factors that were never present in the original question. The question assumed nothing more than both acts provide entertainment. Now you've added your own assumptions -- in a way that seems somewhat biased, actually. Why does hunting for food suddenly provide "essentials" (when I think we've established that it often doesn't) and why does hunting for sport provide strictly "non-essentials"?
This was why I specifically chose to make my question exclusive to the kinds of hunting that are not necessary (an unnecessary act cannot be done to produce essential goods; this would invalidate the meaning of essentiality). And these kinds of food-hunting are very common in developed society, so it is not an unimportant question.
I do feel like you're being a bit sanctimonious, to be honest. It should be obvious given the framing of the question that "essentials" refers to food in general and [direct/converted] material for shelter, unless you're contesting that we don't need to eat or need shelter. And I've already established this, which you didn't refute. hunting for sport doesn't provide food, it isn't converting raw materials into practical tools: it only creates a trophy. A trophy, I also conceded, /could/ be bartered (bizarrely), but the sole fact that it is only /one/ product rather than a multitude lessens its innate value. If you traded it for non-meat, would that in itself create even more baselessness? There's a plethora of consumable vegetables and fruits in the wild you could have chosen alternatively, as you've said. Eating the animal for food, rather than bartering it (as you're implying is possible) is logical; or alternatively, not using the animal for food is irrational. Despite all of this, as I've just discussed via a separate discourse, you're missing my original point: hunting for sport is worse by an inch or a mile. Whether they're both immoral is irrelevant, I stress. As Verb restated a page ago, and I will restate to put in terms that you should be amicable with, is the lesser of two evils.
8868
« on: June 01, 2015, 01:04:17 AM »
Also, I didn't bring up supermarkets; it was mentioned previously in the thread, and if I'm not mistaken, that was your doing. I was just trying to skip over established notions.
8869
« on: June 01, 2015, 01:03:11 AM »
necessary. Before I say anything, define necessary for me. I want to be clear on what you're meaning by it first.
8870
« on: June 01, 2015, 01:00:33 AM »
calm down guys, don't hunt me for sport
It's okay, I'll eat your flank and grind your bones for rheumatic medicine.
8871
« on: June 01, 2015, 12:59:00 AM »
It's really easy to distinguish Verb and Pendulate:
Verb calls you a cunt
Pendulate calls you a cunt indirectly
:^)
8872
« on: June 01, 2015, 12:56:51 AM »
10 pages on such a simple topic.
Guys......
At least a page of that spent discussing it respectfully. Besides, calling it "simple" is rather inane considering how many "simple topics" get multiple pages of responses.
You can easily overcomplicate a simple topic.
Or you can reply "LOL" six-dozen times and get the same result: multiple pages over a simple topic. Why is this (discussing ethics and providing justification for your views) such a disappointing thing again? All I can think of is that it is a wonder why this wasn't posted in Serious.
8873
« on: June 01, 2015, 12:51:19 AM »
To say "You can eat something else" is irrelevant to the question: is it better to hunt for food or fun? Ah, but that's what I'm getting at: hunting for food is hunting for fun, a lot of the time.
Let's concede that for sake of argument. Here's the comparison: Hunting for Food: -Provides entertainment -Provides essentials (food, shelter, services, goods) -Provides non-essentials (decoration, frivolous goods) Hunting for Sport: -Provides entertainment -Provides non-essentials (decoration, frivolous goods) Hunting for food, even giving that those hunters may find it fun, is still more practical than hunting for sport. More practical being more useful, more useful being more ethical.
8874
« on: June 01, 2015, 12:46:13 AM »
10 pages on such a simple topic.
Guys......
At least a page of that spent discussing it respectfully. Besides, calling it "simple" is rather inane considering how many "simple topics" get multiple pages of responses.
8875
« on: June 01, 2015, 12:44:21 AM »
Well specifically, my question was regarding cases where necessity is not a factor. So I think we may still be talking past each other.
On my logical outline you agreed with Points A through C perfectly fine, which entailed why eating wild game is more ethical than commercially grown. To that end, necessity (by handwave of supermarkets) is irrelevant due to it being a comparatively immoral circumstance.
8876
« on: June 01, 2015, 12:41:56 AM »
I've already stated that I'm not going to discuss veganism itself; it may be touched upon as related to the subject, but it is otherwise irrelevant. You asked whether hunting for food or sport was more ethical. Whether or not killing it is ethical is not the focus; if that was your intention, then the OP was either poorly worded or very underhandedly sanctimonious.
Well, hunting and killing are inextricably intertwined, no? We're invariably dealing with the killing of living organisms here. Therefore, you have to look at the question from the standpoint of, "Which of these two causes justifies the killing more?"
That's how I looked at it, anyway.
Your options are hunting for food, or hunting for sport. How it tastes is a loose point at best because not hunting it isn't an option. Disregarding nutritional value is also irrelevant (see: proteins can be consumed through legumes and nuts) because, again, not hunting it isn't an option. To say "You can eat something else" is irrelevant to the question: is it better to hunt for food or fun?
8877
« on: June 01, 2015, 12:30:25 AM »
I've already stated that I'm not going to discuss veganism itself; it may be touched upon as related to the subject, but it is otherwise irrelevant. You asked whether hunting for food or sport was more ethical. Whether or not killing it is ethical is not the focus; if that was your intention, then the OP was either poorly worded or very underhandedly sanctimonious.
8878
« on: June 01, 2015, 12:25:13 AM »
Your hypothetical insists that it's either a or b; the truth of the matter is that you're not selling the antlers for a TV, it's for currency. Currency could be used for any number of things, and even then, you're implying you have to sell them. They can be used for medicine, handles, whistles, replacement buttons, fire-starters, pressure flakers, et cetera. The antlers have far more practical uses beyond wall-hanging. Add into the fact that using as much as possible entails more than that (including the skull, eyes, the fur, and meat that isn't traditionally eaten by humans) you get more from "hunting for food" than you do "hunting for sport".
A trophy is worth less do to it being less useful, and what's more useful is more ethical.
I think the idea of exchanging a precious commodity (a piece of a once-living organism) for a frivolous good was more to his point, however. Let's say it was a barter.
To refer to my first point, it implies that it's only "deer burgers" (food) or a "television" (frivolous good). This is not the case. Let's alter the case to pure barter, and let's also say that I'm not intending to use the raw materials myself (because I'm bartering them). I can trade them for that TV, medicine, some veggies, clothes, matches, a tent, someone to craft something for me, etc. I could go on. So by hunting for food, not only am I filling my stomach, I'm also trading for essential -- or non-essential -- goods and services. I will concede that you can trade a trophy, however bizarre it is; however, hunting for food still has multiple purposes to hunting for sport's one. It's still more useful, and therefore more ethical.
8879
« on: June 01, 2015, 12:20:23 AM »
To clarify my own position, I don't hunt whatsoever; the last time I did anything close to that was when I was 10 and I went "fun fishing" (throwing the fish back) with my grandfather. I'm not invested in the outcome of this beyond how much it enthralls me.
8880
« on: June 01, 2015, 12:15:01 AM »
Your hypothetical insists that it's either a or b; the truth of the matter is that you're not selling the antlers for a TV, it's for currency. Currency could be used for any number of things, and even then, you're implying you have to sell them. They can be used for medicine, handles, whistles, replacement buttons, fire-starters, pressure flakers, et cetera. The antlers have far more practical uses beyond wall-hanging. Add into the fact that using as much as possible entails more than that (including the skull, eyes, the fur, and meat that isn't traditionally eaten by humans) you get more from "hunting for food" than you do "hunting for sport".
A trophy is worth less do to it being less useful, and what's more useful is more ethical.
Pages: 1 ... 294295296 297298 ... 352
|
Show Posts