|
Vegetarianism
|
|
| ALCATRAZ |
Date: Monday, 15/Feb/10, 0:11 AM | Message # 301 |
Writers
Posts: 473
|
Quote (I_Guy) And people look for any excuse to attack people who use the word nigger when it's used in a context that is completely appropriate.
There is no such "context" that makes it completely appropriate for a white man to say the word nigger. There are too many other words you can use. You and eboyd aren't allowed to say that word in person, so why say it on the internet? It only reinforces the fact that you need the internet to vent because if you said it in person, well, you already know what would happen. LOL.
"I personally think OBCL2 is better than the original" - Lord Meth 
|
|
|
|
| EmSeeD |
Date: Monday, 15/Feb/10, 1:01 AM | Message # 302 |
Heads
Posts: 11464
|
how do you know eboyd wouldn't have used the word nigger in the same non-racist context in real life? you don't. eboyd was giving an example of what a typical racist would say, but you have to get all offended over nothing.
http://chirbit.com/emseed
http://youtube.com/siwooot
|
|
|
|
| J-Breakz |
Date: Monday, 15/Feb/10, 3:53 AM | Message # 303 |
Heads
Posts: 2162
|
wow u guys are gay
livin life like some cheesy movie
|
|
|
|
| I_Guy |
Date: Monday, 15/Feb/10, 3:29 PM | Message # 304 |
Heads
Posts: 1792
|
Quote (J-Breakz) I think morals should only be applied to humans. I mean, if we didn't eat meat then we wouldn't have even been able to come up with our ideas of morality.
That's too much of an assumption. It's not worth considering. There's no way of knowing such a thing. Quote (J-Breakz) Also, in a lot of cases hunting is good to prevent the overpopulation of certain species or even killing insects or rodents. If one species of animal is overpopulated then a bunch of diff kinds of species are affected by it. Would it then be okay to kill certain animals if we are trying to ensure the sustainability of the world we know it as today?
We don't know how to ensure the sustainability of nature. We have evolved to have too much mind. The best way to ensure the sustainability of nature is to leave it alone completely and isolate ourselves. Human tampering will never fix anything. I need not go into the exploitation that humans engage in which definitely does not assist sustainability. Quote (J-Breakz) adding to this I think it would only make sense if the consequences of killing animals are equal to the consequences of killing people if morals are being put in place. Whether that be prison or heavy rehabilitation (the type of stuff I_Guy would want ppl to go thru instead of bein put in prison).
That would be logically consistent and I would advocate it if society was ready. The rehabilitation would be a rehabilitating out of speciesism and anthropocentrism. Quote (J-Breakz) And this means every animal, from people to insects. Also, if this is the case, why should ppl be allowed to abuse plant life? Cutting down trees is morally wrong could work in your argument, couldn't it?
Your right, by the logic I am using, killing anything that is considered "life" would be unethical. And even then, when we realize that even molecules of life are made of inorganic non-life elements we can conclude that we have no right to disturb anything in existence. But this whole deconstruction reveals something essential. This ethical issue is on a continuum. Destroying non-life is less unethical than destroying plants. Destroying plants is less unethical than destroying bacteria. Destroying bacteria is less unethical than destroying insects. Destroying insects is less unethical than destroying animals. Destroying animals is less unethical than destroying human animals. Destroying humans is less unethical than destroying an entire planet with all life on it. And there are is billions of levels in between. And if there was something more intellectually effective than humans we would plug them in also. The idea of such a continuum challenges any absolute solution that we may posit. Facing this difficult continuum, we have to locate the bare minimum that will maintain and sustain our own existence and yet at the same time "lessen the pain" of the moral issue at hand. Sadly we are not attempting to locate that minimum. Their is a philosophy here that is essential to understand. We have to understand that the universe is absurd. And when our logic breaks things all the way down we discover this dismal absurdity. Finding the bare minimum is key though, because once we find it, we can say "well we can do no more." And we would be justified, for our capabilities as humans will not allow us to do anymore (unless we someday merge with technology). Realizing this universal absurdity, the location of the bare minimum allows us to keep our own existence and also do all we can do to obey the logic that we employ. We can then abide the best of ethics the best we can, and live in spite of the absurdity. It is a difficult way of life to master, and I doubt we ever will.......due to CAPITALISM and religion, both inherently being anti-life, or as Fromm would say "necrophilious," haha.
We all know that each of our end is near; the question is do we accept the end of our living existence, or do we accept our existence as dead men...
|
|
|
|
| J-Breakz |
Date: Tuesday, 16/Feb/10, 3:45 AM | Message # 305 |
|
Heads
Posts: 2162
|
Quote (I_Guy) That's too much of an assumption. It's not worth considering. There's no way of knowing such a thing.
Okay, after a little research I have found plenty of evidence that has countered the idea, so I suppose it wouldn't be right to make the assumption.
Quote (I_Guy) We don't know how to ensure the sustainability of nature. We have evolved to have too much mind. The best way to ensure the sustainability of nature is to leave it alone completely and isolate ourselves. Human tampering will never fix anything. I need not go into the exploitation that humans engage in which definitely does not assist sustainability.
Humans are still animals. We are just as much part of this Earth as any other animal. We play a key role in sustaining the world as we know it today just like every animal has a key role in doing the same. Quote (I_Guy) Destroying non-life is less unethical than destroying plants. Destroying plants is less unethical than destroying bacteria. Destroying bacteria is less unethical than destroying insects. Destroying insects is less unethical than destroying animals. Destroying animals is less unethical than destroying human animals. Destroying humans is less unethical than destroying an entire planet with all life on it. And there are is billions of levels in between. And if there was something more intellectually effective than humans we would plug them in also.
Maybe I missed something, but why exactly would destroying non-life be less unethical than anything else?
livin life like some cheesy movie
|
|
|
|
| I_Guy |
Date: Tuesday, 16/Feb/10, 1:55 PM | Message # 306 |
|
Heads
Posts: 1792
|
Quote (J-Breakz) Humans are still animals. We are just as much part of this Earth as any other animal. We play a key role in sustaining the world as we know it today just like every animal has a key role in doing the same.
But if we grow too parasitic then we get destructive. But aside from that, when a creature evolves to look back on the world and try a conscious effort to intervene in the natural process of the wild, it sets off the balance that preceded that creature. Quote (J-Breakz) Maybe I missed something, but why exactly would destroying non-life be less unethical than anything else?
First, for subjective reasons - pain. Second, destroying non-life has less effect on the ecosystem. Of course, it depends on how much you destroy, that itself is on its own continuum. But it really depends on if everyone values "effectiveness." Human beings are much more effective in the world than a rock.
We all know that each of our end is near; the question is do we accept the end of our living existence, or do we accept our existence as dead men...
|
|
|
|
| eboyd |
Date: Saturday, 20/Feb/10, 6:40 AM | Message # 307 |
Heads
Posts: 13145
|
Quote (J-Breakz) Also, in a lot of cases hunting is good to prevent the overpopulation of certain species or even killing insects or rodents. If one species of animal is overpopulated then a bunch of diff kinds of species are affected by it. Would it then be okay to kill certain animals if we are trying to ensure the sustainability of the world we know it as today? If that's the case then morals shouldn't even be used to argue the case of vegetarianism. this is a mighty fine case for the legalization and encouraging of murder for the purposes of the prevention of overpopulation of human beings as well 
my new theme song
erikboyd60@hotmail.com
"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"
-T.S. Eliot
battle record:
7-0-0
|
|
|
|
| J-Breakz |
Date: Saturday, 20/Feb/10, 3:47 PM | Message # 308 |
|
Heads
Posts: 2162
|
Quote (eboyd) this is a mighty fine case for the legalization and encouraging of murder for the purposes of the prevention of overpopulation of human beings as well
Well, one, I said that morals should only be applied to humans and, two, actually in a capitalist society there is no need to encourage murdering in order to prevent overpopulation. Money would prevent overpopulation. The more kids parents give birth to the more money it costs to take care of all of them, duh. The argument could work if we lived in a society without any regular form of money tho *cough cough*
livin life like some cheesy movie
|
|
|
|
| eboyd |
Date: Saturday, 20/Feb/10, 5:12 PM | Message # 309 |
|
Heads
Posts: 13145
|
Quote (J-Breakz) The argument could work if we lived in a society without any regular form of money tho *cough cough*  so the labor theory of value isn't a "regular form of money"? ok ok, i'll stop here before we go off topic 
my new theme song
erikboyd60@hotmail.com
"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"
-T.S. Eliot
battle record:
7-0-0
|
|
|
|
| J-Breakz |
Date: Sunday, 21/Feb/10, 6:57 PM | Message # 310 |
|
Heads
Posts: 2162
|
Quote (eboyd) so the labor theory of value isn't a "regular form of money"? ok ok, i'll stop here before we go off topic
The labor theory of value isn't a commonly used theory because it doesn't work. But ok, we won't go off topic.
livin life like some cheesy movie
|
|
|
|
| Menace |
Date: Sunday, 21/Feb/10, 8:38 PM | Message # 311 |
Heads
Posts: 6764
|
Quote (J-Breakz)
The labor theory of value isn't a commonly used theory because it doesn't work. But ok, we won't go off topic. Values of commodities are related to the labor needed to produce them the most purest anarcho-capitalist will recognize that .  So please don't judge what you don't understand .
|
|
|
|
| I_Guy |
Date: Sunday, 21/Feb/10, 8:54 PM | Message # 312 |
|
Heads
Posts: 1792
|
Quote (J-Breakz) Money would prevent overpopulation. The more kids parents give birth to the more money it costs to take care of all of them, duh.
What a joke. Money sure as hell doesn't prevent overpopulation now. Some of the poorest families have the most kids.
We all know that each of our end is near; the question is do we accept the end of our living existence, or do we accept our existence as dead men...
|
|
|
|
| eboyd |
Date: Sunday, 21/Feb/10, 8:57 PM | Message # 313 |
|
Heads
Posts: 13145
|
lol so true. i haven't seen you in a while btw. glad to see you back.
my new theme song
erikboyd60@hotmail.com
"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"
-T.S. Eliot
battle record:
7-0-0
|
|
|
|
| J-Breakz |
Date: Monday, 22/Feb/10, 12:17 PM | Message # 314 |
|
Heads
Posts: 2162
|
Quote (Menace) Values of commodities are related to the labor needed to produce them the most purest anarcho-capitalist will recognize that . So please don't judge what you don't understand .
Omg.. labor is just ONE OF THE MANY things that decide the price of things. Quote (I_Guy) What a joke. Money sure as hell doesn't prevent overpopulation now. Some of the poorest families have the most kids.
(They do that for welfare)
livin life like some cheesy movie
|
|
|
|
| Menace |
Date: Monday, 22/Feb/10, 1:52 PM | Message # 315 |
|
Heads
Posts: 6764
|
Quote (J-Breakz) Omg.. labor is just ONE OF THE MANY things that decide the price of things. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value
|
|
|
|
