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 - Pendulate
Pages: 1 ... 91011 1213 ... 16
301
« on: May 31, 2015, 05:06:50 PM »
Oh god not this shit again.
INB4 OP makes a wall of text responce to this trying to counterpoint every single letter with it's own wall of text like he/ she always doed, and then Verb threatens to blow up the universe again.
These PETA level threads make me want to go to an animal reserve with an LSAT just to piss off vegans
Wow. This is one topic where you really aren't willing to think rationally, huh?
302
« on: May 31, 2015, 05:05:07 PM »
This is like saying that there's no difference between using water for a slip and slide and giving it to African kids because the water is getting 'wasted' anyways
Did you read the OP?
303
« on: May 31, 2015, 05:03:24 PM »
There's nothing wrong with hunting as long you eat most of the animal and it isn't endangered.
Did you read the OP?
304
« on: May 31, 2015, 05:02:08 PM »
Hunting for sustenance is less morally reprehensible because there is a meaningful purpose besides just perverse entertainment. It's a necessary facet of the animal kingdom as well as maintaining ecosystems. I thought this was obvious.
Protein is also an essential part of our diet, and meat is a direct source for that. (And yeah I'm aware you can obtain protein from nuts etc but it's hardly as viable as meat is).
Did you read the OP? The idea that hunting for food has a "meaningful purpose" breaks down outside of extreme survival situations. Hunting for sport can maintain ecosystems, too.
305
« on: May 31, 2015, 04:56:54 PM »
But we have supermarkets!!!!!!
Terrible example. Maybe I want to know exactly how and when my food was killed. There is zero wrong with hunting for food. It's literally how our species survived up until like 200 years ago.
We are comparing hunting for sport to hunting for food. Not hunting for food to buying meat at the supermarket.
306
« on: May 31, 2015, 07:19:13 AM »
Well yeah, but I'm trying to dig at the logic behind your views, not just how you feel about them.
Not to be pushy, but when people say that something "doesn't bother them" it sounds as though they're just going off their emotions instead of thinking rationally. I mean, there are quite a lot of things that don't really bother me emotionally, but I can still recognize that they are important moral issues.
307
« on: May 31, 2015, 06:56:22 AM »
3. I don't see a problem with it, just how I grew up. Animals are a source of food, clothing, and other products.
You think a person's upbringing is the ultimate arbiter of morality? Like, they shouldn't think critically about the beliefs that were instilled into them in childhood?
308
« on: May 31, 2015, 06:36:46 AM »
Is "like-bait" a thing now?
309
« on: May 31, 2015, 06:29:54 AM »
I like to put a spoonful of peanut butter in mine.
Oh we're talking about store-made coffee. Yuck
310
« on: May 31, 2015, 06:22:21 AM »
Well, first off it's illegal and unregulated, meaning no tags, limits, or firearm/ammo restrictions. I don't see how that's pertinent to the ethical side of the issue, but okay. Secondly, if done enough, it can completely deplete game populations for legal hunters. So by killing animals illegally you make it harder to kill even more animals legally? Third, and this seems to mostly be an asian/african issue anymore (though I think there's issues down in Delaware with their endangered fox squirrel population), it directly hinders and opposes conservation efforts.
That's true. I noticed that none of your objections are with the act of killing the animal itself, though?
311
« on: May 31, 2015, 05:50:09 AM »
They're basically one and the same.
Now poaching... fuck those assholes.
Why is poaching so much worse?
312
« on: May 31, 2015, 05:49:33 AM »
Eh, as for Pendulate I wasn't looking to start another stupid vegan war thread or derail this one. I don't care what you eat. I was just being honest with my opinion of refusing to eat meat or being against hunting. Its an opinion. I wasn't trying to be a dick about it. Just jesting and being playful. Though that tone probably doesn't carry over in text.
Well ya, we all have opinions, but I think it's completely fair to say that some are more valid than others. And nobody should want to cling to an opinion just because it's their opinion. That's why honest discussion is so valuable; If my opinion is shown to be wrong, I change it. No point being wrong any longer than I have to. *Not saying you're necessarily wrong here, just that the opinion card is a pretty silly thing to pull most of the time.
313
« on: May 31, 2015, 04:13:13 AM »
The thing is that most hunting is required for population control purposes (since we've forced out most natural predators). For the sake of the animals (disease, etc). Hunting is also regulated by permit ensuring the population doesn't come anywhere close to endangered. Which makes the sport aspect of it acceptable. The truth of this is not so simple, I'm afraid. Wildlife departments commonly manipulate the predator:prey ratios in the environment to provide hunters with plenty of game and generate revenue. This is then propagated as "population control" (a term vague enough to keep the public happy while not really explaining anything or giving any insight into how the ecological imbalance came about). This isn't conspiracy talk either -- it's openly listed in annual reports. Most hunters have access to supermarkets, so that makes no difference to me. As long as you're not endangering the overall population, and not wasting the meat, I'm fine with it. But then you should have no problem with sport hunting either, assuming it doesn't damage the overall population. (edit: it appears you don't. Moving on) Plus what's more respectable? Raising a cow in its own shit and then firing a pin into its head, or hunting a deer and giving it a reasonable chance. Not sure what this "reasonable chance" would be ("okay deer, I'm gonna count to one hundred..."?) but I agree that it is preferable to factory farming. That doesn't make it ethical, though. Anyone saying hunting is wrong (for any reason) should be horrified by any meat on any plate. Undoubtedly, but I'm asking about the act of hunting itself, not the inconsistent beliefs people have toward it. I suppose that's why I respect vegans more since they're at least willing to stick to their beliefs across the board. I was going to say thanks, but then... Even if I think those beliefs are pants on head stupid -__- I was kinda hoping to avoid this but the bait is too strong. What do you find so stupid about it? I'm willing to bet that they are not the beliefs that most vegans actually hold.
314
« on: May 31, 2015, 03:38:16 AM »
Clearly Hunting for sport is worse.
If I ever have to hunt an animal, it means I'm hungry as fuck. By that point it's survival. Hunt an animal or be hunted by an animal.
What about in developed society?
315
« on: May 31, 2015, 03:37:45 AM »
There can be. You can hunt out of necessity, and not gain enjoyment out of it. Likewise you can hunt and give the food away. My cousins usually get their own permits as well as filling my grandmothers. So in that sense they're hunting purely for the sport of it. Even if the food is still being used.
I don't see anything preventing you from doing both tho. I think most hunters see it both ways. Though obviously that seems deplorable to the vegan/peta types. In the end its like you said not much difference whether you get enjoyment out of it or not. End result is the same. I don't see either as being worse, or even bad.
What about people who have easy access to supermarkets? And please don't lump me in with PETA =[
316
« on: May 31, 2015, 12:51:09 AM »
First off, you've confused the terms. Generally, one would likely firstly imagine that "hunt for food" implies that things are shitty enough that you have to go out there and get shit done for yourself out of neccessity. I made sure to caveat that. From experience, people are generally okay with hunting for food even outside of survivalist situations. What creates more waste? The first option. There's a very slight difference, in that at least one scenario, one death is less of a waste than the other. I think this a very trivial difference and not really valid, but it is a difference nonetheless, so thanks. Is there a difference between trophy hunting, and hunting for food when there's iffy meat products on store shelves?
Very slight.
I'm inclined to agree.
317
« on: May 31, 2015, 12:46:18 AM »
Lol
Dude, the meaning is in the name.
Hunting for sport.
Hunting for food.
Its not rocket science.
You know very well what the question was asking.
318
« on: May 31, 2015, 12:14:10 AM »
What do you think?
I find it common for people to be against hunting for sport, but okay with hunting as long as it's done for food. But I can't see any worthwhile distinction; 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?
Assuming in both cases that it is in developed society with access to supermarkets, obviously.
I think this is mostly a conditioned mindset bred from the idea that hunting for food serves a purpose other than merely deriving pleasure at the animal's expense. But this seems to break down pretty quickly when you look at it closely.
Please vote and explain the reason behind your vote. Thanks
*Also this is not intended to be a "go vegan" proselytism. I'm just interested in the ethics of hunting.
319
« on: May 30, 2015, 05:41:15 PM »
My pull up bar was 20 bucks I think. Works fine
320
« on: May 30, 2015, 05:37:47 PM »
i'm never derogatory for the sake of being derogatory
I'd argue that being derogatory is ineffective regardless of intent.
321
« on: May 30, 2015, 05:35:19 PM »
I haven't read the whole thread so I'm not sure if this has already been addressed, but if slut-shaming causes emotional pain, and all suffering is objectively bad, then I think you've got your explanation.
I don't think anyone can say all suffering is objectively bad, because that would make criticizing immoral acts itself immoral.
I'm fairly certain that Verb ascribes to the philosophy that suffering is inherently bad, and if something appears painful but has utility it isn't suffering. I might be completely off-base though.
I don't see how that works unless it's attempting to make the term "suffering" exclusive to immoral acts. But it's not how everyone else uses the word, and since it's not merely a synonym for pain, but rather a word for a specific kind of pain, it wouldn't work if you tried. But "bad" =/= immoral anyway, which I'd assume is what Verb would say. Suffering can be inherently bad without being inherently immoral.
322
« on: May 30, 2015, 05:21:55 PM »
I haven't read the whole thread so I'm not sure if this has already been addressed, but if slut-shaming causes emotional pain, and all suffering is objectively bad, then I think you've got your explanation.
I don't think anyone can say all suffering is objectively bad, because that would make criticizing immoral acts itself immoral. Haven't read the thread either, but if by slut-shaming you mean slut-criticizing, then sure, it's not a bad thing. And I suppose the social stigma of being a slut can deter some people from being promiscuous, which is arguably a good thing. But being derogatory for no reason other than to be derogatory? No, I can't see why that should ever be encouraged.
323
« on: May 29, 2015, 10:25:35 PM »
Well, that was disappointing.
324
« on: May 29, 2015, 10:21:12 PM »
There's absolutely no good reason to say it, ever.
325
« on: May 29, 2015, 10:16:57 PM »
No, that's what I'm accusing you of doing.
You certainly haven't provided any evidence for your claim. It seems to be based solely on a "feeling" that you have.
326
« on: May 29, 2015, 10:00:02 PM »
Online relationships are the results of infatuation
How do you figure that?
If anything there's less to be infatuated with, as the attraction stems from a less physical foundation.
People have like two things in common and then they think you're made for each other
And you're saying that's exclusive to, or more prominent in online relationships? I think you may be generalizing from what is a very limited view. Boy and girl meeting on Warcraft =/= the majority of online relationships.
327
« on: May 29, 2015, 09:54:19 PM »
Online relationships are the results of infatuation
How do you figure that? If anything there's less to be infatuated with, as the attraction stems from a less physical foundation.
328
« on: May 29, 2015, 09:44:20 PM »
Sure it's beta as fuck People still say this?
329
« on: May 29, 2015, 03:29:32 PM »
Privacy is overrated.
330
« on: May 29, 2015, 07:31:51 AM »
Well being off your face tends to increase the likelihood of doing something stupid.
Police generally aren't trigger-happy lunatics. The article said the victim attacked them. I see no reason to sensationalize it based on conjecture.
Pages: 1 ... 91011 1213 ... 16
|
Show Posts