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 - 15321598721
Pages: 1 ... 293031 3233 ... 37
901
« on: January 12, 2015, 06:51:57 PM »
ITT: clicking two spoilers and then hitting quote
902
« on: January 12, 2015, 03:57:56 AM »
Drop down arrow hides the signatures, like B.old.
i was never on b.old. I always thought that was like a bio or some shit. Other forums Ive been on its always at the bottom of every post
Bnet had real signatures two site redesigns ago but they got moved to a drop down thing because real signatures are frequently obnoxious
903
« on: January 12, 2015, 03:42:07 AM »
You're in a room chained on a wall, naked, and this poster is the only other person there. Moreover, they're unbound.
Are you fucked?
I thought of myself I think I've created a paradox of some kind
904
« on: January 12, 2015, 03:40:15 AM »
905
« on: January 11, 2015, 07:53:00 PM »
fewer members, more shitposting, less moderator bs
906
« on: January 10, 2015, 02:20:43 PM »
Americans have culture?
lol xd
907
« on: January 10, 2015, 02:17:28 PM »
Its easier to go by avatar and nameplate anyways.
Except that a large portion of people have rotating avatars too
908
« on: January 10, 2015, 12:02:24 AM »
I'm arguing to do what you think is moral.
If you think eating people is inherently wrong without consent then eating any other life without consent is wrong too.
Because animals can't give consent to being eaten it is immoral.
It is not considered immoral (in fact, it's considered very moral) to bury a dead person, thus it wouldn't be considered immoral to bury an animal.
Eating people after death without their consent is only wrong because people are capable of understanding and consenting to actions after their death in the first place. That is, in life they had a understanding that their body would continue to exist after death, likely a preference for what should be done with it, and likely an aversion to the thought of certain other things being done to it. If in my will I state that I should not be buried and you do it anyway it is immoral. If I leave no will, burying me without consent from my family is also immoral. If I leave no family behind and you have no knowledge of what culture I belong to, burying me is just as immoral as doing anything else, regardless of how much you want to just assume your culture accounts for all beings. There is absolutely no reason to pick out burial as somehow the best thing to do with the body of an animal when it had no preference in the matter in life and no understanding of the situation in the first place.
909
« on: January 09, 2015, 11:41:29 PM »
Let's bring our human back into it.
They did not say what you should do with their body.
Is it okay to eat them then?
No, they should still be buried.
A life is a life, whether or not it can communicate what it wants to happen after death doesn't matter.
All deaths should be treated equally. In this case, our culture buries out dead. So we bury it.
If they didn't leave a will I believe the decisions go to next of kin but I'm no lawyer. How can you argue against anthropocentrism and then two sentences later tell me we should anthropocentrically treat animal deaths according to human culture as if that's something they would have wanted. The cow didn't consent to being buried, the cow has no existing culture that normalizes burial of the dead, nor could it because the cow doesn't even understand the concept to begin with. By your arguments burying the cow is immoral.
910
« on: January 09, 2015, 11:25:32 PM »
If the being is incapable of consenting and doesn't even understand the proposition of being eaten after death, it is moral.
No it isn't, and I seriously hope you're just trolling if you think that.
If it is immoral to eat a being that doesn't understand the concept of their body continuing on after death, it is equally immoral to do literally anything else with their body and I don't think even you believe that.
Lives = lives, no matter their intelligence. Eating something that lived, whether it had the ability to know it would continuing existing after death or not, is immoral.
Please explain to me why eating them is less moral than doing literally anything else, given the premise that they did not understand the concept of their body lingering after death and left you no articulation of their desires for what to do with it after death. The cow did not consent to you burying its body after it died, therefore immoral. The cow did not consent to you leaving its body to rot in the field after it died, therefore immoral. The cow did not consent to you holding a tasteful funeral service in its honor after it died, therefore immoral.
911
« on: January 09, 2015, 11:13:26 PM »
Good.
The human is dead.
You're eating it.
It is wrong to eat something that used to be living and did not consent, or have the ability to, consent.
/thread
There are two components here, do not conflate them. (1) Consent to being killed (2) Consent to being eaten after death If you have (2), it is moral. If the being is incapable of consenting and doesn't even understand the proposition of being eaten after death, it is moral. (1) is always irrelevant. If it is immoral to eat a being that doesn't understand the concept of their body continuing on after death, it is equally immoral to do literally anything else with their body and I don't think even you believe that.
912
« on: January 09, 2015, 11:05:40 PM »
Is it okay to kill someone and eat them if they don't know they're going to die?
Is it only okay to eat animals who die of natural causes?
Any time you say anything about the morality of killing someone or something in this thread you are speaking in non sequitur.
You're right.
Killing people is wrong.
I hope you understand that.
Killing people is wrong.
This was never up for debate and is not at all what I'm arguing about.
Then elaborate.
I think you need to reread this thread and the original article. Everything in this thread is predicated on the being in question being already dead.
913
« on: January 09, 2015, 11:03:59 PM »
Is it okay to kill someone and eat them if they don't know they're going to die?
Is it only okay to eat animals who die of natural causes?
Any time you say anything about the morality of killing someone or something in this thread you are speaking in non sequitur.
You're right.
Killing people is wrong.
I hope you understand that.
Killing people is wrong. This was never up for debate and is not at all what I'm arguing about.
914
« on: January 09, 2015, 11:01:35 PM »
Is it okay to kill someone and eat them if they don't know they're going to die?
Is it only okay to eat animals who die of natural causes?
Any time you say anything about the morality of killing someone or something in this thread you are speaking in non sequitur.
915
« on: January 09, 2015, 10:59:41 PM »
I never anywhere in this thread made any argument that it was moral to kill them. Just for sake of making this clear, even if the human in your hypothetical consented to being eaten after they died, but was then murdered, it would not change my answer.
916
« on: January 09, 2015, 10:57:20 PM »
I had to think about this, but under certain conditions (if the deceased consented to their body being used this way that would qualify), I would say the ethical thing to do would be to eat them. Revulsion at eating a human being is evolutionary baggage (given they consented and they're already dead) and your analogy claimed no negative health consequences.
I have to qualify that because the analogy still isn't really accurate. Human rights surrounding death are vastly different from animal rights surrounding death, mainly because humans understand death and can articulate how they wish to be treated after death.
Odd, most animals don't consent to being killed for food. :/
I never anywhere in this thread made any argument that it was moral to kill them. Animals are incapable of articulating what should be done with their bodies after they're dead. It's questionable whether many animals even understand that they will die.
917
« on: January 09, 2015, 10:47:51 PM »
Sorry.
It's not illegal.
Do you eat the fucking human, or do you not eat the fucking human?
Sorry, my analogy is still accurate.
I had to think about this, but under certain conditions (if the deceased consented to their body being used this way that would qualify), I would say the ethical thing to do would be to eat them. Revulsion at eating a human being is evolutionary baggage (given they consented and they're already dead) and your analogy claimed no negative health consequences. I have to qualify that because the analogy still isn't really accurate. Human rights surrounding death are vastly different from animal rights surrounding death, mainly because humans understand death and can articulate how they wish to be treated after death.
918
« on: January 09, 2015, 10:21:49 PM »
However it is still illegal this is where your analogy broke down
elaborate.
Why are you using something illegal as an analogy for something legal? When you use something illegal and have to mention calling the cops and shit in your alternatives you're making it really easy to tell you your analogy is false
919
« on: January 09, 2015, 10:20:20 PM »
Can you post a non-stumbleupon link this site is shitting itself with some tiny frame in the top left
no
Then I guess I can't do that
920
« on: January 09, 2015, 10:19:30 PM »
Can you post a non-stumbleupon link this site is shitting itself with some tiny frame in the top left
921
« on: January 09, 2015, 10:07:12 PM »
However it is still illegal this is where your analogy broke down
922
« on: January 09, 2015, 10:03:32 PM »
You're not grasping what I'm saying. Sure, I could eat it. But I have no obligation to. Nor do I have any obligation to ensure it's consumed. If it ends up in the trash, that's the restaurant's fault. Look, this view on its own would maybe be defensible, the point is that is contradicts the typical justifications for being vegetarian. So if you make this argument and are also vegetarian your views are likely not internally consistent.
That's also why your analogy misses the point, unless you're vegetarian purely because you hate the taste of meat, in which case u crazy
My grandma is a vegetarian because her body can't metabolize animal fats or something like that.
I guess she should just eat an accidentally placed piece of pork if the restaurant gets her order wrong unless she wants to be a straight up idiot.
Then she is not a vegetarian on ethical grounds and why are you even pretending to argue about ethics
Because she has an ethical right not to eat it. We're talking about vegetarians in general.
No, we're not.
923
« on: January 09, 2015, 10:00:45 PM »
You're not grasping what I'm saying. Sure, I could eat it. But I have no obligation to. Nor do I have any obligation to ensure it's consumed. If it ends up in the trash, that's the restaurant's fault. Look, this view on its own would maybe be defensible, the point is that is contradicts the typical justifications for being vegetarian. So if you make this argument and are also vegetarian your views are likely not internally consistent.
That's also why your analogy misses the point, unless you're vegetarian purely because you hate the taste of meat, in which case u crazy
My grandma is a vegetarian because her body can't metabolize animal fats or something like that.
I guess she should just eat an accidentally placed piece of pork if the restaurant gets her order wrong unless she wants to be a straight up idiot.
Then she is not a vegetarian on ethical grounds and why are you even pretending to argue about ethics
924
« on: January 09, 2015, 09:52:09 PM »
You're not grasping what I'm saying. Sure, I could eat it. But I have no obligation to. Nor do I have any obligation to ensure it's consumed. If it ends up in the trash, that's the restaurant's fault. Look, this view on its own would maybe be defensible, the point is that is contradicts the typical justifications for being vegetarian. So if you make this argument and are also vegetarian your views are likely not internally consistent. That's also why your analogy misses the point, unless you're vegetarian purely because you hate the taste of meat, in which case u crazy
925
« on: January 09, 2015, 09:45:43 PM »
You could easily choose to not let that meat be wasted. If your views are strong enough that you'd try to entirely cut meat out of your diet I'd think the least you could do is manage to not let some chicken chunks go to waste.
926
« on: January 09, 2015, 09:19:34 PM »
"your opinion is unpopular and I would like to easily dismiss it"
927
« on: January 09, 2015, 09:08:01 PM »
>tfw people still haven't seen this site when it's been around since the dawn of time Spoiler the feel is unwarranted self-importance, and I am a bad person
928
« on: January 09, 2015, 08:17:57 PM »
At what age?
I mean as long as it's legal I don't care
929
« on: January 09, 2015, 08:15:21 PM »
At what age?
930
« on: January 09, 2015, 08:07:15 PM »
And they're testing this why?
SCIENCE
Pages: 1 ... 293031 3233 ... 37
|
Show Posts
