The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
Please vote in the Forum Structure Poll. Polling will close at 2PM EST on January 21, 2025.
I would never torture either, though I've been involved in the death of quite a few of the former.
I have no problem with that.
Personally, while it's not that realistic, I wonder if it would be healthy if everyone who consumed meat had to take part in the process at least once in their lives, to acknowledge and understand the significance of the chunk of stuff on their plate, and have some concern for the life of the animal they're pouring A-1 over.
If nothing else, it's nice to be a predator and not wholly a scavenger.[/QUOTE]
If you would like to take part in the process of raising and butching a steer for meat, you're welcome to take over my chores for a few months.
Most humans don't do that and neither do most animals.
Plead to numbers. These kinds of moral postulates are completely arbritrary and there's no getting around that. Stop pretending that there's something wrong with me or that you're somehow better than I am just because the ones I accept differ from yours.
Personally, while it's not that realistic, I wonder if it would be healthy if everyone who consumed meat had to take part in the process at least once in their lives, to acknowledge and understand the significance of the chunk of stuff on their plate, and have some concern for the life of the animal they're pouring A-1 over.
If nothing else, it's nice to be a predator and not wholly a scavenger.
--
Cannibalism isn't automatically unethical. It's just very stupid. Like consensual incest, or unsanitary kinks.
Yea I work at a meat department in a grocery store so I work with meat a lot, makes me sad when we end up having to throw away bad meat.
Well, I can always fall back on my uselessly expansive knowledge of opera if I'm backed into a corner (not as bad as the really hardcore opera buffs, but I'm way past Marriage of Figaro, know what I'm saying?).
Not really, no. :P
I have absolutely no knowledge of opera but seeing one performed is an experience that is definitely on my life's to-do list.
Oh yeah, of course, that's what experience gives you though. You can hold your own as soon as you can play a C scale at a quarter note pace. After that, it's just about fucking around with the strings on your way to virtuosity.
Man, you're one of those people that can make people think they can achieve anything, eh?
If you're having fun while you're doing it, it's absolutely true.
I had a serious lull in my playing right after I graduated high school because it wasn't fun anymore. I wasn't playing what I wanted to, I was just whoring myself out to any Christian band that needed somebody to chunk through major chords in time, despite my utter loathing and hatred of Christian music. I stopped playing for about a year and atrophied all to hell. I had sold my guitar and amp, so when a friend of mine recruited me for the jazz band I had nothing to play on. I went into serious debt for a while afterwards, but I bought myself a Mesa Boogie and a Flying V, and my ability just exploded from there. I started having fun again.
I'm not saying the entire song is the same. Just the melody of "Like the coldest winter chill" sounds very similar to the opening of the vocal line to Heart Shaped Box. After I noticed that, I just kept thinking Heart Shaped Box. It doesn't help that, in that song at least, the band sounds like a pop-ier version of Nirvana.
They're contemporaries, and before you get it twisted, Nirvana is nothing but a more marketable version of the Pixies.
Get what twisted? I've never heard of the Pixies before, I'll have to look into that.
I just don't like it when Nirvana (and more specifically Curt Cobain) is credited for creating the alt-rock sound, when really it was the Pixies, but the Pixies never broke on the radio. So basically any time someone insinuates someone is influenced by Nirvana or anything like that, I knee-jerk and mention the Pixies.
There are people comparing deer to dogs here? Seriously?
That's my point, why does one have more value than the other?
Easy answer? Culture. And no, I don't think people killing dogs are uncultured, other cultures have no problem with it. But as it were, in most western cultures dogs were needed for other things than being eaten or killed in fights. It's practically the same thing as just shooting horses would be an immoral thing for many people, as with cows in some countries.
I probably phrased that badly. I understand why, but I think the justification is bullshit. I need a why that actually makes sense. Because I don't give a shit about dogs, and find it absolutely disgusting that one guys get 2 years for killing some, while it can take me less than an hour to get all I need to shoot all the deer I want, including permission from the state.
You have no way of vindicating your own beliefs against mine, so you resort to equating morality with legality. Classy.
I can't answer this question. I'm going to make fun of you to distract from my logical shortcomings.
See you don't like it when it happens to you but its okay when you do it right?
Only because when I do it it accompanies a logical argument. Though, don't let my rebuttal let you think that your accusation of hypocrisy is relevant at all.
Most humans don't do that and neither do most animals.
Plead to numbers. These kinds of moral postulates are completely arbritrary and there's no getting around that. Stop pretending that there's something wrong with me or that you're somehow better than I am just because the ones I accept differ from yours.
Just because one of Charlie Manson's followers believed they were doing great things, does not mean they were doing great things.
Meaning, just because you think it is ok to do whatever the hell you want to an animal, doesn't mean it is alright for you to do whatever it is you want to an animal.
I probably phrased that badly. I understand why, but I think the justification is bullshit. I need a why that actually makes sense. Because I don't give a shit about dogs, and find it absolutely disgusting that one guys get 2 years for killing some, while it can take me less than an hour to get all I need to shoot all the deer I want, including permission from the state.
Yeah, my disagreement is in the disparity in reactions toward various forms of animal violence.
I mean, like I said -- laws against staged fights = good -- but justifying it on the grounds of "animal cruelty" or "violence towards animals" when there's all kinds of other legal forms of violence and cruelty towards animals is morally inconsistent.
Most humans don't do that and neither do most animals.
Plead to numbers. These kinds of moral postulates are completely arbritrary and there's no getting around that. Stop pretending that there's something wrong with me or that you're somehow better than I am just because the ones I accept differ from yours.
Just because one of Charlie Manson's followers believed they were doing great things, does not mean they were doing great things.
Meaning, just because you think it is ok to do whatever the hell you want to an animal, doesn't mean it is alright for you to do whatever it is you want to an animal.
But you don't have any way to support the assertion that it's not. Nothing. It's completely arbritrary.
You have no way of vindicating your own beliefs against mine, so you resort to equating morality with legality. Classy.
I can't answer this question. I'm going to make fun of you to distract from my logical shortcomings.
See you don't like it when it happens to you but its okay when you do it right?
Only because when I do it it accompanies a logical argument. Though, don't let my rebuttal let you think that your accusation of hypocrisy is relevant at all.
Totally, espcially since sometimes some of your posts (maybe not in thie arguement) consisted of nothing but making fun of the other person.
So, I'm sort of just returning. Is Church the resident D&D retard these days? Should I preemptively just roll my eyes and laugh whenever I see a post by him?
You have no way of vindicating your own beliefs against mine, so you resort to equating morality with legality. Classy.
How about this: killing any living creature is wrong, unless it is out of necessity, for your own survival or welfare, or perhaps for the survival or welfare of others. Even then, it's still not a good thing; it is a necessary evil.
Thus, according to this system, if it is possible to live on a completely vegetarian diet without any significant impact on health, well-being, etc, it is wrong to eat meat or in any way contribute to the unnecessary death of animals. It is also wrong to kill mosquitos, spiders, etc, although the debate over just how "alive" an insect is could be had.
Before you ask, I eat meat, and I kill bugs all the time. I am in violation of this moral system (which I think is the most correct and honest one). I am just too lazy and apathetic to care.
Most humans don't do that and neither do most animals.
Plead to numbers. These kinds of moral postulates are completely arbritrary and there's no getting around that. Stop pretending that there's something wrong with me or that you're somehow better than I am just because the ones I accept differ from yours.
Just because one of Charlie Manson's followers believed they were doing great things, does not mean they were doing great things.
Meaning, just because you think it is ok to do whatever the hell you want to an animal, doesn't mean it is alright for you to do whatever it is you want to an animal.
But you don't have any way to support the assertion that it's not. Nothing. It's completely arbritrary.
So since you are allowed to do anything to an animal because you own it, when I have a child can I do anything I want to it?
Posts
Personally, while it's not that realistic, I wonder if it would be healthy if everyone who consumed meat had to take part in the process at least once in their lives, to acknowledge and understand the significance of the chunk of stuff on their plate, and have some concern for the life of the animal they're pouring A-1 over.
If nothing else, it's nice to be a predator and not wholly a scavenger.[/QUOTE]
If you would like to take part in the process of raising and butching a steer for meat, you're welcome to take over my chores for a few months.
You wanna eat other humans you can go do that.
3DS: 2852-6809-9411
Plead to numbers. These kinds of moral postulates are completely arbritrary and there's no getting around that. Stop pretending that there's something wrong with me or that you're somehow better than I am just because the ones I accept differ from yours.
Yea I work at a meat department in a grocery store so I work with meat a lot, makes me sad when we end up having to throw away bad meat.
3DS: 2852-6809-9411
See you don't like it when it happens to you but its okay when you do it right?
3DS: 2852-6809-9411
I have absolutely no knowledge of opera but seeing one performed is an experience that is definitely on my life's to-do list.
If you're having fun while you're doing it, it's absolutely true.
I had a serious lull in my playing right after I graduated high school because it wasn't fun anymore. I wasn't playing what I wanted to, I was just whoring myself out to any Christian band that needed somebody to chunk through major chords in time, despite my utter loathing and hatred of Christian music. I stopped playing for about a year and atrophied all to hell. I had sold my guitar and amp, so when a friend of mine recruited me for the jazz band I had nothing to play on. I went into serious debt for a while afterwards, but I bought myself a Mesa Boogie and a Flying V, and my ability just exploded from there. I started having fun again.
What am I, an ant?
Though actually since most food consumption is farming instead of hunting I suppose that makes sense.
4H club for everyone.
--
It's true that values like "torture is bad" are subjective.
Also things like "making children go to war is bad."
Cannibalism is a bad example for this stuff anyway since there are actual physical repercussions of partaking
On the black screen
I probably phrased that badly. I understand why, but I think the justification is bullshit. I need a why that actually makes sense. Because I don't give a shit about dogs, and find it absolutely disgusting that one guys get 2 years for killing some, while it can take me less than an hour to get all I need to shoot all the deer I want, including permission from the state.
Above all else, it must be fun.
Only because when I do it it accompanies a logical argument. Though, don't let my rebuttal let you think that your accusation of hypocrisy is relevant at all.
Just because one of Charlie Manson's followers believed they were doing great things, does not mean they were doing great things.
Meaning, just because you think it is ok to do whatever the hell you want to an animal, doesn't mean it is alright for you to do whatever it is you want to an animal.
You never heard of the Pixies, Irene? :shock:
Awesome. Be here in the morning and I'll set you up good.
Celeryyy I was asking about the similarities between Nirvana and The Pixies
On the black screen
Shhh, apparently it is a "moral issue".
I think the most important part is "don't play with Christian bands," but to each their own.:P
You say that like Church hasn't killed people.
Should I bring my musket, or one of my swords?
I mean, like I said -- laws against staged fights = good -- but justifying it on the grounds of "animal cruelty" or "violence towards animals" when there's all kinds of other legal forms of violence and cruelty towards animals is morally inconsistent.
That may have something to do with me growing up in China and then listening exclusively to classical music until the age of 18.
Yeah well, I don't think Christian bands would want me in the first place.
On the black screen
But you don't have any way to support the assertion that it's not. Nothing. It's completely arbritrary.
Totally, espcially since sometimes some of your posts (maybe not in thie arguement) consisted of nothing but making fun of the other person.
3DS: 2852-6809-9411
Just leave those, I got a set you can use.
But you should probably bring your own shitkickers, because I don't have any small enough.
How about this: killing any living creature is wrong, unless it is out of necessity, for your own survival or welfare, or perhaps for the survival or welfare of others. Even then, it's still not a good thing; it is a necessary evil.
Thus, according to this system, if it is possible to live on a completely vegetarian diet without any significant impact on health, well-being, etc, it is wrong to eat meat or in any way contribute to the unnecessary death of animals. It is also wrong to kill mosquitos, spiders, etc, although the debate over just how "alive" an insect is could be had.
Before you ask, I eat meat, and I kill bugs all the time. I am in violation of this moral system (which I think is the most correct and honest one). I am just too lazy and apathetic to care.
Jesus Christ, I despise Christian music.
I've treated every animal I've ever met better than any human I've ever met.
So since you are allowed to do anything to an animal because you own it, when I have a child can I do anything I want to it?
3DS: 2852-6809-9411
It's an epidemic!