JewellTH said: No, but I'm pretty sure if I didn't eat meat, I'd either starve without dinner or get beaten on a regular basis depending on certain conditions. Hmm... So I take it that your parents are to blame. My condolences. Mazaev said: No it's not. Once you're out of this phase with the rest of the newgens and hipsters maybe you will all look back and see how stupid you looked thinking you could actually do something and that changing your diet was helping. Calling another persons life style a phase is quite douche-y. Maybe you will someday wake up. Have a nice day, and go fuck yourself. |
| We're omnivorous animals, we are designed to eat meat |
Mazaev said: CondemneDio said: Calling another persons life style a phase is quite douche-y. Maybe you will someday wake up. Have a nice day, and go fuck yourself. As long as you remember that when you're in your 90s contemplating your diet 99% of the population will sill be eating meat and it will be the same in 500 years time. Haha, keep dreaming kid. If at that point humans are still eating meat, the Moon would have to be colonized and terraformed to solely growing meat. Gohadoken said: We're omnivorous animals, we are designed to eat meat A quick correction, we aren't designed. And we can eat meat, and/or veggies and mushrooms. We are not "designed" to eat only meat. |
CondemneDio said: Mazaev said: As long as you remember that when you're in your 90s contemplating your diet 99% of the population will sill be eating meat and it will be the same in 500 years time. Haha, keep dreaming kid. If at that point humans are still eating meat, the Moon would have to be colonized and terraformed to solely growing meat. Gohadoken said: We're omnivorous animals, we are designed to eat meat A quick correction, we aren't designed. And we can eat meat, and/or veggies and mushrooms. We are not "designed" to eat only meat. Of course we aren't designed to eat only meat, but we can and our body functions to do so, not eating something that you can eat because "muh morality" is dumb. |
| every single one of my forum posts is dumb and invalid except for 1, I don't claim them it was a different person it was all fake |
RainyRai said: Of course we aren't designed to eat only meat, but we can and our body functions to do so, not eating something that you can eat because "muh morality" is dumb. 1) We aren't designed. We are a product of evolution. 2) "muh morality" is not the same as morality issues, which you are willing to discuss, instead of making fun of. Here's a hypothetical situation: You are given the choice of devouring one non-descript being out of two, where one feels nothing and the other will feel tremendous pain. Which one would you eat? |
Anna_Cats said: "because it tastes good" |
 I love Christine "If one advances confidently in the direction of his dreams, and endeavors to live the life which he has imagined, he will meet with a success unexpected in common hours. He will put some things behind, will pass an invisible boundary; In proportion as he simplifies his life, the laws of the universe will appear less complex, and solitude will not be solitude, nor poverty poverty, nor weakness weakness." - Henry David Thoreau |
CondemneDio said: RainyRai said: Of course we aren't designed to eat only meat, but we can and our body functions to do so, not eating something that you can eat because "muh morality" is dumb. 1) We aren't designed. We are a product of evolution. 2) "muh morality" is not the same as morality issues, which you are willing to discuss, instead of making fun of. Here's a hypothetical situation: You are given the choice of devouring one non-descript being out of two, where one feels nothing and the other will feel tremendous pain. Which one would you eat? Yeah I was thinking about that designed word, I just wanted it to keep it relevant to everyone. Whether it is design or evolution it doesn't change the fact we have the ability to digest meat and evidence points that not only have we consumed meat through history but possibly that without it we probably would be less intelligent apes today. Nutrients are not the only reason, the hunt itself presents situations where the better communication of the group the more successful it becomes..... Natural selection giving humans another competitive edge. Technology created for hunting would have very similar consequences. As far as which animal I'd eat? Whichever was easier to catch, assuming I'm in a situation where I hunt for my own food efficiency is key. |
Gohadoken said: Yeah I was thinking about that designed word, I just wanted it to keep it relevant to everyone. Whether it is design or evolution it doesn't change the fact we have the ability to digest meat and evidence points that not only have we consumed meat through history but possibly that without it we probably would be less intelligent apes today. Nutrients are not the only reason, the hunt itself presents situations where the better communication of the group the more successful it becomes..... Natural selection giving humans another competitive edge. Technology created for hunting would have very similar consequences. As far as which animal I'd eat? Whichever was easier to catch, assuming I'm in a situation where I hunt for my own food efficiency is key. Meats role in human evolution is all conjecture, as there is no sufficient evidence it was what made our brains bigger. It may have had a role on it, but that does not mean we should eat it forever. Bringing up the hunting and communication aspects is a good point; it is not brought up much. |
ReaperCreeper said: Because we're omnivores. Anna_Cats said: "because it tastes good" |
| Today they say you're crazy, tomorrow they will say you're a genious. |
| to people who eat grass and condemn animals to slow and painful death from lack of food and then blame people that kill animals that were killed swiftly and probably less painful - why do you think its okay ? to people who breathe air - why do you think its okay? |
lots of music -  |
| ... |
Prophetess of the Golden Era  |
incisorr said: to people who eat grass and condemn animals to slow and painful death from lack of food and then blame people that kill animals that were killed swiftly and probably less painful - why do you think its okay ? to people who breathe air - why do you think its okay? What the actual fuck? :D |
CondemneDio said: Gohadoken said: Yeah I was thinking about that designed word, I just wanted it to keep it relevant to everyone. Whether it is design or evolution it doesn't change the fact we have the ability to digest meat and evidence points that not only have we consumed meat through history but possibly that without it we probably would be less intelligent apes today. Nutrients are not the only reason, the hunt itself presents situations where the better communication of the group the more successful it becomes..... Natural selection giving humans another competitive edge. Technology created for hunting would have very similar consequences. As far as which animal I'd eat? Whichever was easier to catch, assuming I'm in a situation where I hunt for my own food efficiency is key. Meats role in human evolution is all conjecture, as there is no sufficient evidence it was what made our brains bigger. It may have had a role on it, but that does not mean we should eat it forever. Bringing up the hunting and communication aspects is a good point; it is not brought up much. So if they ever find out plants have "pain" sensations will you give up being vegan or starve? |
TheBrainintheJar said: CondemneDio said: Animals have the right to not suffer, but this right can't be met in the wild. Predators kill, and eat the meat. This is not morally right. They do it to survive which does not make it anymore right. Animals do not have the capability to understand morality. After all, morality is a human concept, easy as that. If they can't understand morals, why should we behave morally to them? Because morality is not defined by what is mutually understood. Infants are also incapable of understanding morality but that doesn't prevent us from treating them in a moral way. There would be little point in the concept if it was only applied to those who share the sentiment. Mazaev said: That's never going to happen, that's the thing. You're an idiot for being hopeful for something like that. You obviously haven't figured and worked out what sort of drastic overhaul you would need in order to see any noticeable change at that. I'll live my life happily eating meat every day and welcoming the nutrients that come with it opposed to restricting what I eat to garbage because I hope it makes me feel better about myself. Indeed. We need these slaves in order for our economy to function efficiently. We can all have these big ideas about how the abolition of slavery would make the world a better place and so on but these people are just not thinking seriously about what a massive requirement it would be to instantaneously make a large percentage of the population economically independent. It simply won't happen! Gohadoken said: CondemneDio said: 1) We aren't designed. We are a product of evolution. 2) "muh morality" is not the same as morality issues, which you are willing to discuss, instead of making fun of. Here's a hypothetical situation: You are given the choice of devouring one non-descript being out of two, where one feels nothing and the other will feel tremendous pain. Which one would you eat? Yeah I was thinking about that designed word, I just wanted it to keep it relevant to everyone. Whether it is design or evolution it doesn't change the fact we have the ability to digest meat and evidence points that not only have we consumed meat through history but possibly that without it we probably would be less intelligent apes today. Nutrients are not the only reason, the hunt itself presents situations where the better communication of the group the more successful it becomes..... Natural selection giving humans another competitive edge. Technology created for hunting would have very similar consequences. As far as which animal I'd eat? Whichever was easier to catch, assuming I'm in a situation where I hunt for my own food efficiency is key. But none of what you've just said applies to the modern world, so your argument is moot. Apart from the stuff about nutrients, evidence for which has yet to be presented. Gohadoken said: So if they ever find out plants have "pain" sensations will you give up being vegan or starve? If we discovered that plants do experience pain then one would need to re-evaluate the argument, although at this point evidence is strongly to the contrary. We know for sure that plants do not posses brains, and this means they cannot experience the depth of feeling that human beings can. While animals also have less developed brains than human beings do, we know for certain that they can experience pain, fear and according to some, even depression. So even if plants can experience pain in some sense, it would still be preferable to eat them rather than animals. The other problem with this line of reasoning is that if we accept that suffering is tolerable, we are forced to question what makes it unacceptable to kill human beings. |
AnnoKanoNov 9, 2015 6:59 AM
| Losing an Argument online? Simply post a webpage full of links, and refuse to continue until your opponents have read every last one of them! WORKS EVERY TIME! "I was debating with someone who believed in climate change, when he linked me to a graph showing evidence to that effect. So I sent him a 10k word essay on the origins of Conservatism, and escaped with my dignity intact." "THANK YOU VERBOSE WEBPAGES OF QUESTIONABLE RELEVANCE!" |
Gohadoken said: CondemneDio said: Meats role in human evolution is all conjecture, as there is no sufficient evidence it was what made our brains bigger. It may have had a role on it, but that does not mean we should eat it forever. Bringing up the hunting and communication aspects is a good point; it is not brought up much. So if they ever find out plants have "pain" sensations will you give up being vegan or starve? I would stay a vegan. Got to get my nutrients and energy from somewhere. My choice minimizes the suffering, and the negative impact on Earth itself. AnnoKano said: Infants are also incapable of understanding morality but that doesn't prevent us from treating them in a moral way. I made a similar point earlier, I'm eager too see what TheBrainintheJar's argument to this is. |
| The homo-sapiens is not a vegetarian species; without meat our brain would not have evolved the way it did. And besides, meat tastes awesome and don't even know where to start with that topic. |
  |
CondemneDio said: Gohadoken said: So if they ever find out plants have "pain" sensations will you give up being vegan or starve? I would stay a vegan. Got to get my nutrients and energy from somewhere. My choice minimizes the suffering, and the negative impact on Earth itself. AnnoKano said: Infants are also incapable of understanding morality but that doesn't prevent us from treating them in a moral way. I made a similar point earlier, I'm eager too see what TheBrainintheJar's argument to this is. There is a way vegans can minimize their impact on the environment even more, suicide and take as many with you as possible ALLAH AKBAR!!!! |
Puchkov said: The homo-sapiens is not a vegetarian species; without meat our brain would not have evolved the way it did. In what way does this make eating meat moral? Puchkov said: And besides, meat tastes awesome and don't even know where to start with that topic. It certainly does taste good. Unfortunately, that is not a moral argument. |
| Losing an Argument online? Simply post a webpage full of links, and refuse to continue until your opponents have read every last one of them! WORKS EVERY TIME! "I was debating with someone who believed in climate change, when he linked me to a graph showing evidence to that effect. So I sent him a 10k word essay on the origins of Conservatism, and escaped with my dignity intact." "THANK YOU VERBOSE WEBPAGES OF QUESTIONABLE RELEVANCE!" |
Gohadoken said: There is a way vegans can minimize their impact on the environment even more, suicide and take as many with you as possible ALLAH AKBAR!!!! That involves dying, which means I wouldn't be able to watch anime :D |
CondemneDio said: TheBrainintheJar said: If they can't understand morals, why should we behave morally to them? Because we can! A child or baby does not understand morals. Should we be beating them up or eating them? What about people, who have different morals from yours? Do you kill them for it? Babies and children will grow to understand morals. People who have different morals than me still function around a moral system. We can come to a mutual understanding. "Because we can" can be easily applied to eating meat. |
| WEAPONS - My blog, for reviews of music, anime, books, and other things |
| Animals actually have been found to possess moral systems, not dis-similar to our own, especially in the case of mammals. |
 |
| Bacause it has proteins. |
 |
TheBrainintheJar said: CondemneDio said: Because we can! A child or baby does not understand morals. Should we be beating them up or eating them? What about people, who have different morals from yours? Do you kill them for it? Babies and children will grow to understand morals. People who have different morals than me still function around a moral system. We can come to a mutual understanding. "Because we can" can be easily applied to eating meat. You have a hole in your logic. You expect people to become aware of morals without human aid. A child can be taught to do immoral things. Do you propose humans get their morals from an outside source? Glub said: Bacause it has proteins. Beans have proteins too. And lots of other vegetables too. And before you pull the "there's so little protein in it"-card, do you eat insects, such as grasshoppers? They have lots more protein when compared to red meat. |
SnugglyWhuggly said: Animals actually have been found to possess moral systems, not dis-similar to our own, especially in the case of mammals. They are obviously not anywhere near as complex or sophisticated as human morality, and so even if they do have one it is an inferior one and we should not use it as a reference when building our own moral codes. I don't think anyone has actually explained why a creature not having a moral system justifies killing and eating it though. I'd like to hear someone try. |
| Losing an Argument online? Simply post a webpage full of links, and refuse to continue until your opponents have read every last one of them! WORKS EVERY TIME! "I was debating with someone who believed in climate change, when he linked me to a graph showing evidence to that effect. So I sent him a 10k word essay on the origins of Conservatism, and escaped with my dignity intact." "THANK YOU VERBOSE WEBPAGES OF QUESTIONABLE RELEVANCE!" |
AnnoKano said: SnugglyWhuggly said: Animals actually have been found to possess moral systems, not dis-similar to our own, especially in the case of mammals. They are obviously not anywhere near as complex or sophisticated as human morality, and so even if they do have one it is an inferior one and we should not use it as a reference when building our own moral codes. I don't think anyone has actually explained why a creature not having a moral system justifies killing and eating it though. I'd like to hear someone try. BrainintheJar has evaded that question many times by now. Must be because there's no logical or intelligent way of justifying it. You can only give it a religious or an (twisted) emotional reason. |
BrainInTheJar said: What makes you certain babies grow to understand morals? Some grow up to become psychos. The issue is that if humans are so enlightened and capable of understanding morality and compassion, then why eat meat? If they can't understand morals, why should we behave morally to them? We actually do behave morally towards animals, but because we are immoral and greedy we try and justify killing them and it just doesn't work. Are you against having sex with animals? If we don't want to behave morally toward them then why would you be against it? |
Trance said: I'm a guy and I can imagine buttfucking another guy. I don't find the thought repulsive, and I can even imagine kissing another man. |
AnnoKano said: SnugglyWhuggly said: Animals actually have been found to possess moral systems, not dis-similar to our own, especially in the case of mammals. They are obviously not anywhere near as complex or sophisticated as human morality, and so even if they do have one it is an inferior one and we should not use it as a reference when building our own moral codes. I don't think anyone has actually explained why a creature not having a moral system justifies killing and eating it though. I'd like to hear someone try. True, but animals do have morals, at the very least. There is no "justification" for killing and eating an animal really, moral systems or not. Killing and eating a human may be seen as "immoral" or "unjust" because humans are "sentient". But I don't think a life-form being "sentient" gives it any more "right" to life. |
|
SnugglyWhuggly said: True, but animals do have morals, at the very least. There is no "justification" for killing and eating an animal really, moral systems or not. Killing and eating a human may be seen as "immoral" or "unjust" because humans are "sentient". But I don't think a life-form being "sentient" gives it any more "right" to life. Sorry to say, but that's double standards. If both are sentient, and it is morally wrong to kill both, killing animals is not okay. Humans would get a free pass just because they happen to be of the same species. From a purely evolutional killing humans would make more sense; you would be killing competitors, and you'd get to pass your own genes forward. |
CondemneDio said: Sorry to say, but that's double standards. If both are sentient, and it is morally wrong to kill both, killing animals is not okay. Humans would get a free pass just because they happen to be of the same species. From a purely evolutional killing humans would make more sense; you would be killing competitors, and you'd get to pass your own genes forward. I personally believe most mammals are "sentient" (I don't even like that term myself, as I swear to God the definition seems to be different for just about everyone I've spoken to), at least going by what "sentience" traditionally means. Some bird species as well, such as those in the crow family. |
|
SnugglyWhuggly said: CondemneDio said: Sorry to say, but that's double standards. If both are sentient, and it is morally wrong to kill both, killing animals is not okay. Humans would get a free pass just because they happen to be of the same species. From a purely evolutional killing humans would make more sense; you would be killing competitors, and you'd get to pass your own genes forward. I personally believe most mammals are "sentient" (I don't even like that term myself, as I swear to God the definition seems to be different for just about everyone I've spoken to), at least going by what "sentience" traditionally means. Some bird species as well, such as those in the crow family. Yeah, it's hard especially animals are viewed differently around the globe, and even within countries. Crows are very intelligent animals, just like dolphins and octopi. |
| Because what I eat are animals, and it just is that stronger eats the weaker. |
 |
Yksiloituminen said: Because what I eat are animals, and it just is that stronger eats the weaker. Are you stronger than a bear or a shark? You must one musclebound badass then. |
obscureanimefan said: cause I feel like it Great reasoning there. I better start killing people then. You know, because I just feel like it. |
CondemneDio said: Yeah, it's hard especially animals are viewed differently around the globe, and even within countries. Crows are very intelligent animals, just like dolphins and octopi. Yeah, there's some countries that have little to no animal rights/laws at all. Even within Western countries though, we still often seem to have the ol' "some animals are more equal than others" mindset. I don't think reptiles, fish or invertebrates have as many (or any) laws protecting them as "higher" forms of life do, for example. Beat a seal to death with a club? That's cruelty! Shoot a few snakes for their skin, "because they're dangerous", or sport? Meh... |
|
kuuderu said: I don't even think if it's okay or not, mate.. I just eat it. |
 |
obscureanimefan said: CondemneDio said: Are you stronger than a bear or a shark? You must one musclebound badass then. Actually we are... Human beings are the strongest species on the planet. Intelligence is strength too. We are stronger in only that department. Put a human into any survival scenario without clothes and other provisions. They'll be dead in a day or few. |
obscureanimefan said: CondemneDio said: We are stronger in only that department. Put a human into any survival scenario without clothes and other provisions. They'll be dead in a day or few. We tried that. It was called evolution. Hunter gatherer tribes lived that way and obviously they survived. Not without clothes up north. And I was talking about modern human, the people around at present. Humans are wusses in the wild, and can die from the smallest of things. |
| I kinda feel bad when I think about it, but I won't stop because it feels too good. :P |
Mazaev said: CondemneDio said: Calling another persons life style a phase is quite douche-y. Maybe you will someday wake up. Have a nice day, and go fuck yourself. As long as you remember that when you're in your 90s contemplating your diet 99% of the population will sill be eating meat and it will be the same in 500 years time. hahaha. Mazaev knows what's up |
CondemneDio said: obscureanimefan said: We tried that. It was called evolution. Hunter gatherer tribes lived that way and obviously they survived. Not without clothes up north. And I was talking about modern human, the people around at present. Humans are wusses in the wild, and can die from the smallest of things. >modern human A modern human would do what they could to survive. |
| every single one of my forum posts is dumb and invalid except for 1, I don't claim them it was a different person it was all fake |
CondemneDio said: TheBrainintheJar said: Babies and children will grow to understand morals. People who have different morals than me still function around a moral system. We can come to a mutual understanding. "Because we can" can be easily applied to eating meat. You have a hole in your logic. You expect people to become aware of morals without human aid. A child can be taught to do immoral things. Do you propose humans get their morals from an outside source? Glub said: Bacause it has proteins. Beans have proteins too. And lots of other vegetables too. And before you pull the "there's so little protein in it"-card, do you eat insects, such as grasshoppers? They have lots more protein when compared to red meat. You're right. I should rephrase it as: Babies and children can be taught morals. Humans have no in-born morality. It's something we learn from our society. |
| WEAPONS - My blog, for reviews of music, anime, books, and other things |
Mazaev said: khunter said: hahaha. Mazaev knows what's up Mate I always know what's up, always stating them facts. That shit you put made me laugh harder than the first time I saw Hangover. Good shit man. Condemeneddio is probably not retarded though. |
RainyRai said: >modern human A modern human would do what they could to survive. Yeah, the most probably would. Not that it would keep them alive for longer than a day or two. TheBrainintheJar said: You're right. I should rephrase it as: Babies and children can be taught morals. Humans have no in-born morality. It's something we learn from our society. Sorry, but I'm still not satisfied :D Should people, who have been isolated, and have no morals be killed then? What about people with difficult mental illnesses that prevent them from understanding reality? khunter said: Mazaev said: Mate I always know what's up, always stating them facts. That shit you put made me laugh harder than the first time I saw Hangover. Good shit man. Condemeneddio is probably not retarded though. Make on mistake, I am a fully functional, intelligent adult human being. I just happen to be very vocal about my opinions on a select few issues. A person who has a 100% opposing opinion of these things will end up in a crash course with me :D |
More topics from this board
» If there's a weeb university, what kind of classes do we need?Cute_Marseille - 2 hours ago |
10 |
by _l0gic
»»
9 minutes ago |
|
» Is there any country you like more than the one you live in right now? And if so, why haven't you taken the leap?fleurbleue - 8 hours ago |
27 |
by SmugSatoko
»»
43 minutes ago |
|
» In which country do you think nature is least likely to kill you?fleurbleue - Oct 24 |
19 |
by Nomad_of_Fire
»»
55 minutes ago |
|
» Where do you guys meet people irl?Cneq - Oct 25 |
17 |
by MegaManSword
»»
1 hour ago |
|
Poll: » Which of the Fall Holidays do you like the least?TheBlockernator - 5 hours ago |
16 |
by Tamim1357
»»
2 hours ago |