But it would be against my ethics to eat it.Dipshit.
Quote from: SecondClass on January 09, 2015, 09:46:45 PMLook at it this way: if you hated the taste of a certain food, absolutely couldn't stand it, and some cafe gave you an extra helping of it, would you try to repress your gag reflex and scarf it down? Or would you be a normal, sane person and send it back?if that "certain food" used to be sentient and was tortured and killed to end up on my tray, then yes, i'd either find someone who does want it, or i would eat it myselfbecause i'm ethical like that
Look at it this way: if you hated the taste of a certain food, absolutely couldn't stand it, and some cafe gave you an extra helping of it, would you try to repress your gag reflex and scarf it down? Or would you be a normal, sane person and send it back?
Quote from: The Edgy Master on January 09, 2015, 09:52:52 PMBut it would be against my ethics to eat it.Dipshit.no, it wouldn'twasting food should be against all vegetarian's ethicsotherwise, you're a moronit's not about not eating meat for the sake of not eating meatif you're that kind of vegetarian, you're a vegetarian for the wrong reason
Quote from: SecondClass on January 09, 2015, 09:46:45 PMYou'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
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.
Quote from: Baha on January 09, 2015, 09:52:09 PMQuote from: SecondClass on January 09, 2015, 09:46:45 PMYou'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 crazyMy 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.
I found a very important for you all to take, especially you vegetarians. Please dohttp://thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=vegetarian_test
Quote from: SecondClass on January 09, 2015, 09:59:30 PMQuote from: Baha on January 09, 2015, 09:52:09 PMQuote from: SecondClass on January 09, 2015, 09:46:45 PMYou'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 crazyMy 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
I'm not a vegetarian at all.Here, let's put it this way.In an alternate reality cannibalism has no ill side effects. However it is still illegal because it's fucking wrong.You go to a restaurant and order a steak.However upon receiving the steak you find out it's actually long pork.Do you,A, not eat it, leave and call the copsB, eat it, and call the copsIf you choose A, by your logic, you're wasting people's lives.If you choose B, you're eating someone.
Quote from: Baha on January 09, 2015, 10:00:45 PMQuote from: SecondClass on January 09, 2015, 09:59:30 PMQuote from: Baha on January 09, 2015, 09:52:09 PMQuote from: SecondClass on January 09, 2015, 09:46:45 PMYou'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 crazyMy 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 ethicsBecause she has an ethical right not to eat it. We're talking about vegetarians in general.
cannibalism isn't wrong if it's consensual, andi would never order a steak even if i wasn't vegan
that situation is a lot different anyway, because when it comes to cannibalism, that's a little more complex morally speaking than just eating an animal, in my opinion
The human cattle was treated exactly as regular cattle would have been treated.
However it is still illegal
Quote from: SecondClass on January 09, 2015, 10:02:28 PMQuote from: Baha on January 09, 2015, 10:00:45 PMQuote from: SecondClass on January 09, 2015, 09:59:30 PMQuote from: Baha on January 09, 2015, 09:52:09 PMQuote from: SecondClass on January 09, 2015, 09:46:45 PMYou'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 crazyMy 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 ethicsBecause she has an ethical right not to eat it. We're talking about vegetarians in general.No, we're not.
Quote from: The Edgy Master on January 09, 2015, 10:04:44 PMThe human cattle was treated exactly as regular cattle would have been treated.but it's still a humanso it's way differentare you dumb, or
Quote from: The Edgy Master on January 09, 2015, 09:58:42 PMHowever it is still illegalthis is where your analogy broke down
Yeah, we are. Verbatim's first comment was referring to vegetarians in general.
Quote from: SecondClass on January 09, 2015, 10:07:24 PMYeah, we are. Verbatim's first comment was referring to vegetarians in general.only because i forgot that there were vegetarians that were vegetarian for the wrong reasons, not for the ethical reasonsso i was referring to ethical vegetarians, not... whatever, healthnut vegetarians or whatever
Quote from: Baha on January 09, 2015, 10:07:12 PMQuote from: The Edgy Master on January 09, 2015, 09:58:42 PMHowever it is still illegalthis is where your analogy broke downelaborate.
Quote from: The Edgy Master on January 09, 2015, 10:08:03 PMQuote from: Baha on January 09, 2015, 10:07:12 PMQuote from: The Edgy Master on January 09, 2015, 09:58:42 PMHowever it is still illegalthis is where your analogy broke downelaborate.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
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.
So trying not to die is the wrong reason. Gotcha.
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.
Quote from: Baha on January 09, 2015, 10:47:51 PMI 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.
Quote from: The Edgy Master on January 09, 2015, 10:51:38 PMQuote from: Baha on January 09, 2015, 10:47:51 PMI 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.
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?
Quote from: The Edgy Master on January 09, 2015, 11:00:15 PMIs 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.
Quote from: Baha on January 09, 2015, 11:01:35 PMQuote from: The Edgy Master on January 09, 2015, 11:00:15 PMIs 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.
Quote from: The Edgy Master on January 09, 2015, 11:02:49 PMQuote from: Baha on January 09, 2015, 11:01:35 PMQuote from: The Edgy Master on January 09, 2015, 11:00:15 PMIs 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.
Quote from: Baha on January 09, 2015, 11:03:59 PMQuote from: The Edgy Master on January 09, 2015, 11:02:49 PMQuote from: Baha on January 09, 2015, 11:01:35 PMQuote from: The Edgy Master on January 09, 2015, 11:00:15 PMIs 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.
Quote from: The Edgy Master on January 09, 2015, 11:04:26 PMQuote from: Baha on January 09, 2015, 11:03:59 PMQuote from: The Edgy Master on January 09, 2015, 11:02:49 PMQuote from: Baha on January 09, 2015, 11:01:35 PMQuote from: The Edgy Master on January 09, 2015, 11:00:15 PMIs 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.
Vegetarian test
