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 - Assassin 11D7
Pages: 1 ... 555657 5859 ... 336
1681
« on: December 09, 2015, 12:14:33 AM »
That's real nice hon. WAY closer.
Can't ever stop stroking that ego about how right you always are, eh? By that logic if I castrated every Tiger in the world, I wouldn't be responsible for killing off the species and would've done nothing wrong. WWF can't do shit. You'd be responsible for their extinction.
But you didn't kill any of them.
Yep, nothing wrong. Then why in he hell are you arguing in support of him when that's specifically what I was referring to when talking with him? Because there's nothing actually wrong with what he's saying--I'd just prefer a different method.
This was primarily about the method.
1682
« on: December 09, 2015, 12:07:15 AM »
I find it within the realm of ethically/morally acceptable to kill other animals for products when following certain standards.
What is right to one person may be different to another, at this base level, whoever succeeds and beats their rivals is right in society. At a more complicated theoretical level, right might be objective, but people are not anywhere close to finding such a conclusive answer today.
I wager I'm closer than you are.
That's real nice hon. Extinction is killing off a species, that is what you're doing. Ensuring the species as a whole dies without consent. Wrong. Extinction is when the last member of a species dies. Doesn't have to be killed. Species can die out on their own without being hunted by a predator species. It happens. And that's what should happen with us.
Trying to brand people who don't have kids as murderers is a pretty lame smear tactic.
And again--with the consent thing, I don't think forced sterilizations would be the most ethical way of going about it.
By that logic if I castrated every Tiger in the world, I wouldn't be responsible for killing off the species and would've done nothing wrong. WWF can't do shit. I'm not doing that. Then why in he hell are you arguing in support of him when that's specifically what I was referring to when talking with him?
1683
« on: December 08, 2015, 11:42:41 PM »
From the example that was posed. Try reading more into what the response is to before quoting wikipedia.
I read the example he posed.
He isn't proposing that we kill anyone.
He proposed forced sterilizations--not necessarily something I agree with--but that's still nowhere near murder.
Extinction is killing off a species, that is what you're doing. Ensuring the species as a whole dies without consent.
1684
« on: December 08, 2015, 11:41:33 PM »
Congrats, you beat them, choosing #3. Albeit not physically eradicating them to mushy pulp, much to Psy's discontent, you went into conflict and beat your enemy.
I thought you meant physically.
Knowing that, are you going to answer the question, now?
Does might make right?
And if it doesn't make right, what right do YOU have in supporting the meat & dairy industry?
Define right.
Well, I used it in two ways.
"Might doesn't make right."
"Right" meaning ethical.
"What right do you have to support the meat & dairy industry?"
Based on the fact that physical strength doesn't give you moral priority, what logical rationale is there to support the meat & dairy industry?
I'd ask you to define your own version of ethical, but I can already tell that I disagree wholly and don't see what you think is going to happen from this. I find it within the realm of ethically/morally acceptable to kill other animals for products when following certain standards. What is right to one person may be different to another, at this base level, whoever succeeds and beats their rivals is right in society. At a more complicated theoretical level, right might be objective, but people are not anywhere close to finding such a conclusive answer today.
1685
« on: December 08, 2015, 11:25:06 PM »
Congrats, you beat them, choosing #3. Albeit not physically eradicating them to mushy pulp, much to Psy's discontent, you went into conflict and beat your enemy.
I thought you meant physically.
Knowing that, are you going to answer the question, now?
Does might make right?
And if it doesn't make right, what right do YOU have in supporting the meat & dairy industry?
Define right.
1686
« on: December 08, 2015, 11:24:03 PM »
>Kill all humans
How do you expect that to be taken? "Antinatalism is a philosophical position that assigns a negative value to birth, standing in opposition to natalism. It has been advanced by figures such as Arthur Schopenhauer, Emil Cioran, Peter Wessel Zapffe and David Benatar."
Where do you get "kill all humans" out of this?
From the example that was posed. Try reading more into what the response is to before quoting wikipedia.
1687
« on: December 08, 2015, 11:23:08 PM »
I have to wonder what the thought process is behind the people who call for and design machines like that.
Like, why?
They're typically used for trash compactors/shredders. Here's one used for plastics.
1688
« on: December 08, 2015, 11:20:37 PM »
Since you can't objectively look at your life, which I guess now is a requirement to be able to choose things, why does anything you say hold merit?
Because I can look objectively at my life and say "Y'know, it would've been a lot better if I had never been born."
But you just said nobody can look objectively at their life? Okay, Frank Miller. >Kill all humans How do you expect that to be taken? Consent can be rendered void in certain circumstances. Taking a life to save 100, for example.
I mean, I wouldn't want to forcefully sterilise everyone (i'd rather convince them), but I probably won't shed a tear if our drinking water has purposefully rendered us incapable of reproduction thanks to Ultron or some shit.
And I'm also not killing anyone. Not sure where you got that from "consent-based philosophy." But wouldn't the most death be best, since it would be numerical attrition until nobody is left to suffer? Extinction is killing off a species, that is what you're doing. Ensuring the species as a whole dies without consent.
1689
« on: December 08, 2015, 11:06:08 PM »
No, I just snap their necks.
You know, usually, the people they tend to hire for these jobs are usually autistic/retarded.
Because they are less likely to feel empathy.
Everything makes sense now.
you've proven you know nothing of the chicken production industry.
Most farmers aren't "hired" they operate under contract and have full operation of their own farms. They simply follow company guidelines in order to get the chickens they produce. the farmers grow the birds themeselves, then give them back to be slaughtered.
How accurate is this?
1690
« on: December 08, 2015, 11:04:38 PM »
I'm glad to see my leave hasn't ceased the extremism, dying animal images, name-calling, and general stupidity at all.
1691
« on: December 08, 2015, 08:18:58 PM »
Conflict fuels progress. In the first scenario nobody else was beaten, so you take that one.
Where are you going with this, and by Jove that was an awful pun.
No one has to beat anyone. People can communicate their ideas with each other without hurting anyone. This is how agreements are made peacefully. If the person is reasonable, they can be persuaded into thinking that might doesn't make right, too.
So it does matter. It does make a difference whether might is right or not.
Congrats, you beat them, choosing #3. Albeit not physically eradicating them to mushy pulp, much to Psy's discontent, you went into conflict and beat your enemy.
1692
« on: December 08, 2015, 08:16:32 PM »
That's why they can make that choice themselves, and not have it decided by a group that thinks they know what's best for everyone, and that best is having them not exist.
You'll never be able to prove that people will be able to "choose for themselves". Ever. I don't think we'll ever get to that point, personally.
And also, people, once born, are unable to objectively look at their lives.
Since you can't objectively look at your life, which I guess now is a requirement to be able to choose things, why does anything you say hold merit? Did you miss something? They won't collectively agree on it, individuality is core to every human.
>hypothetical future, majority of people come to the consensus that life is shit and isn't worth it
>a few contrarians are like "lol nah, we ain't doing that"
>forceful sterilisations for everyone
If we ever got to the point where the government was seriously considering the end of our species, I think it's safe to assume they'll have contingency plans.
I think it's safe to assume that if such a tyrannical regime came about they would not only have the greatest possible comic book line, but be opposed so fervently that it would not work. The way to get man to fight the best he can is to give him no way out, you'll guarantee that. Not to mention, doesn't that go against your whole ideology of consent is everything? If you're at the point where killing people without consent is okay, you're becoming that which you despise.
1693
« on: December 08, 2015, 08:05:21 PM »
It was a hypothetical, but okay, say you do. Why does that matter what you think of it? I see a few possible options stemming from this scenario:
1.) You say it's wrong and do nothing, nothing changes.
2.) You say it's wrong and do something, but the alleged wrongdoer beats you and nothing changes.
3.) You say it's wrong and do something, and wipe out the wrongdoer and now you decide what changes until someone succeeds you. Why does anyone have to beat anyone?
Pen is mightier than the sword and all that.
The pen is rightier than the sword, too. Imagine that.
Conflict fuels progress. In the first scenario nobody else was beaten, so you take that one. Where are you going with this, and by Jove that was an awful pun.
1694
« on: December 08, 2015, 08:03:36 PM »
this about antinatalism yet?
Right on time, just got there a page back. Haven't got to feminism yet, so you've got time.
1695
« on: December 08, 2015, 07:58:17 PM »
And I don't really care if you think your life is better when you struggle -- you shouldn't be allowed to make that decision for anyone else. That's why they can make that choice themselves, and not have it decided by a group that thinks they know what's best for everyone, and that best is having them not exist. If the human race ever decided to collectively "die out", we'd sterilise everyone and make sure there were plans in place for the confirmed extinction of our species.
Plus, without a diverse enough gene pool, natural selection will get rid of us quickly enough. Did you miss something? They won't collectively agree on it, individuality is core to every human. Assuming they would be small enough, and/or wouldn't take measures to deal with it if they were.
1696
« on: December 08, 2015, 07:53:29 PM »
Because you can't complain when you're fucking dead, and the other(s) that lived don't care/believe it was right. Ultimately, whether it was objectively right, if such a thing can even be said, is irrelevant to the outcome.
Except it isn't, because there are more than two organisms on this planet. I can see a strong organism kill a weak organism and say, "That's wrong."
It's not that hard.
It was a hypothetical, but okay, say you do. Why does that matter what you think of it? I see a few possible options stemming from this scenario: 1.) You say it's wrong and do nothing, nothing changes. 2.) You say it's wrong and do something, but the alleged wrongdoer beats you and nothing changes. 3.) You say it's wrong and do something, and wipe out the wrongdoer and now you decide what changes until someone succeeds you. Whether you were right or wrong in #1 or #2, the other prevails. Whether you were right or not in #3, your authority prevails. Why does right matter here? Rightness decides no outcome if it's objective, but it is decided by outcome if it is subjective. Other than that, I've got no say on it.
1697
« on: December 08, 2015, 07:42:01 PM »
The majority of people thus far have believed that the most logical path in existence is to build a better future so that future generations will have more, have a better life, and be able to build an even better life for their next generation until bliss is reached.
Okay, but because of our stupid biology, we're designed to have a happiness ceiling. We're never going to live in eternal bliss -- it's not in our nature.
Fuck nature.
And that matters, because why? That can be edited once we reach the technology to do that if we keep moving forward, if the person wants eternal bliss for some reason. Personally, I think eternal happiness sounds horrible and I'd rather gut myself. All of people have never agreed on anything, it's a ginormous leap to assume they would, and especially about such an unpopular belief.
I think that's a somewhat ridiculous statement. Yeah, there are contrarians, but it's safe to assume that most people in this world don't believe that blacks are sub-human, for example.
You said most, congrats that means there will still be some, and if they were the only ones to survive, they would spread on because of it.
1698
« on: December 08, 2015, 07:34:12 PM »
I thought I made it pretty clear and addressed your point by saying it doesn't matter who is right, one's alive one's dead.
Do I need to say it a fourth time for you to get it?
Why doesn't it matter who is right.
Because you can't complain when you're fucking dead, and the other(s) that lived don't care/believe it was right. Ultimately, whether it was objectively right, if such a thing can even be said, is irrelevant to the outcome.
1699
« on: December 08, 2015, 07:30:56 PM »
Yes, yes it is.
What is? The difficulty of comprehension or my scenario being "out there"?
The majority of people thus far have believed that the most logical path in existence is to build a better future so that future generations will have more, have a better life, and be able to build an even better life for their next generation until bliss is reached. The few that have come to the conclusion that the most logical path in existence is to end our existence end their existence and everyone else continues on with the previous conclusion. All of people have never agreed on anything, it's a ginormous leap to assume they would, and especially about such an unpopular belief.
1700
« on: December 08, 2015, 07:25:59 PM »
I don't care, I answered it anyway. Did you want to go on about that or do you have nothing to respond with so you're going to insults and playing clueless?
I already went on about it--you ignored the question. If you are okay with killing animals for food, would you also be okay if some super alien race invaded earth and slaughtered and ate us?
because if you wouldn't be okay with that, you're a hypocrite
i mean, if we're going by the logic of "it's okay because animals are stupid and weak and good for nothing else"
something that thinks the same way about you should probably be able to eat you, right
I thought I made it pretty clear and addressed your point by saying it doesn't matter who is right, one's alive one's dead. Do I need to say it a fourth time for you to get it?
1701
« on: December 08, 2015, 07:20:44 PM »
That is literally what you said. You asked if might makes right. Are you feigning stupidity or did you just not understand? It was a rhetorical question, shithead.
I don't care, I answered it anyway. Did you want to go on about that or do you have nothing to respond with so you're going to insults and playing clueless?
1702
« on: December 08, 2015, 07:18:43 PM »
Daily reminder that deer only reproduce so often as an evolutionary response to the fact that we're always killing them.
Also we killed a lot of wolves and predators that hunted them, but lets forget that.
1703
« on: December 08, 2015, 07:17:51 PM »
]You said might makes right, right? That's not what I said, I was mocking your logic.
Might obviously doesn't make right--if it did, I probably wouldn't be a vegan.
That is literally what you said. You asked if might makes right. Are you feigning stupidity or did you just not understand?
1704
« on: December 08, 2015, 07:13:19 PM »
Doesn't really matter who is right when anyone who might've disagreed is dead.
what the fuck are you talking about
meat-eaters say the most bizarre-o shit when they get desperate
You said might makes right, right? I said, it doesn't matter because nobody can complain that something wasn't right when all who think that way have ceased to function in any capacity to express such thoughts.
1705
« on: December 08, 2015, 07:10:49 PM »
I'd wager it's far more important to confront the industry doing these things to animals and force them to change their methods to something more moral than to stop eating meat and pretend I did something meaningful.
The only thing "more moral" is to stop production entirely.
Vegans save 150+ animals every year just by being vegan.
Or y'know, something moderate instead of extremist, although I understand you aren't a fan of the concept. Raising them on free range farms with ample food, next to no stress, sunlight, and not inhumanely killing them would be a much more realistic step in the right direction. If there's less meat on the market because of it, then that's acceptable and they could always just kill more deer. There's always too many deer. And where do you get that number from? Did the meat industry stop killing 150+ animals whenever someone writes them a letter about how they've become vegan?
1706
« on: December 08, 2015, 07:06:09 PM »
So, who would be slaughtering me?
Something much bigger, stronger, and smarter than you.
Because might makes right, right?
Doesn't really matter who is right when anyone who might've disagreed is dead.
1707
« on: December 08, 2015, 07:04:42 PM »
People like you should be killed, violently.
You're never going to convince people talking like this.
No matter how much you want to have this reaction, if it's more important to you to get people to eat less meat, this obviously isn't the way.
I don't think Verb cares about that. I'd wager it's far more important to confront the industry doing these things to animals and force them to change their methods to something more moral than to stop eating meat and pretend I did something meaningful.
1708
« on: December 08, 2015, 07:02:43 PM »
e]Last time I asked a pig how it felt about people eating them it didn't complain. People like you should be killed, violently.
I thought the video of violently killing pigs implied we were against that?
Not if you think it's okay.
If you think it's okay to slaughter animals, you should be slaughtered.
So, who would be slaughtering me?
1709
« on: December 08, 2015, 07:01:37 PM »
Worrying how people have no idea who Rouhani is.
He's SO MUCH better than Ahmadinejad. Probably why nobody talks about him- nobody wants to hear a good story about Iran.
I didn't even know Ahmadinejad wasn't president anymore until I saw this. Figured he would be president for life.
It doesn't really matter who the president is. The Ayatollah controls everything.
But no, Iran has "elections".
I thought he was mostly a figurehead that decides religious things, then the president does everything else?
1710
« on: December 08, 2015, 06:58:44 PM »
e]Last time I asked a pig how it felt about people eating them it didn't complain. People like you should be killed, violently.
I thought the video of violently killing pigs implied we were against that?
Pages: 1 ... 555657 5859 ... 336
|
Show Posts
