If you eat meat, would you be willing to kill an animal to continue to be able to?

[Underwater Ophelia]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

Every time someone says something in which they disagree with you, it's not that they actually have a point, it's just that they misunderstand you, huh?

You said that example to a comment of how education is necessary. If you cannot see that you have just fucking rationalized the need for keeping people uneducated and suppressed, you can't really say "oh I'm never wrong you just don't get me."
Rather, you can't even see how pervasive your bullshit "that's how things are, deal with it" mentality is.

They may have a point, sure, but my political views ARE often misunderstood.

And still, you're not getting the point of how I feel about the education thing. I'm not trying to keep anyone repressed. I don't give a shit enough to repress people. Even if I didn't think people needed education, how the fuck would that mean I'm against people getting an education and suppressing them?

For a society to work, there HAS to be a person who cleans the toilet or slaughters an animal. I'm not saying I'm going to force that on anyone, or even that a person can't be educated AND do that, I'm saying that those people need to exist, and they don't necessarily need education.

I think it's sort of fucked up that you seem to be implying that people absolutely do need education to be successful or have fulfilling lives. There are people who just aren't smart, and they may make the choice themselves not to spend the money. Those people are still capable of living their lives.
If you aren't implying that, though, then nevermind that last part.

[Mir]

Originally Posted by Solumina

I'm just curious as to where you draw the line as to what animal is "normal" for a person to bond with.

There are no lines. It is an illusion.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by Underwater Ophelia

For a society to work, there HAS to be a person who cleans the toilet or slaughters an animal. I'm not saying I'm going to force that on anyone, or even that a person can't be educated AND do that, I'm saying that those people need to exist, and they don't necessarily need education.

"I'm not saying I want people that don't get a chance of upward mobility. I'm just saying we need them"

Where am I misunderstanding you?

[Mr E Nigma]

I've known some janitor's in my schools who are quite well educated and cool as fuck. Hell, the one in my college helped me Ace my math class. He was a beast at integral calculus and probably loads more from what I could tell by the way he talked.

That stuff doesn't just happen in movies... Sometimes people just need more money.

[Solumina]

My bus driver had a masters in polisci, apparently it is a pretty fun job

[Saya]

Funny story, years ago when I worked in a Wendy's for a few months, there was a guy with a religious studies degree.

[Pyre]

Originally Posted by Underwater Ophelia

So you have a problem with people eating an animal that they made sure was cared for properly, but you don't have a problem with deliberating stunting an animal's growth because it just to "entertain children?"

When did I ever say either one of these things? Have you even been reading my posts? My point was never whether eating a companion animal is wrong or not, but whether it could even be considered a companion. I have no problem with someone eating their pet, but if it's a dog or a cat, then I am going to be unhappy about it because the way I personally feel about such animals. However, I do not think it's morally wrong for someone to eat a fish while also keeping one, which is what my entire discussion has been based upon. And, it's not that the animal's growth is stunted, but that they're usually kept in small tanks, which means they'll be small fish. They also typically will not live very long because they're typically cared for by children. I also never stated my opinion on raising fish to "entertain children," so stop taking my posts out of context and reading into it what does not exist.

For the record, I don't give a damn whether someone eats an animal they consider a pet or not. Love your cow and eat it too, it does not trouble me morally. I should be more troubled by the fact the meat I eat lived a shitty life before it became toilet content.

[Underwater Ophelia]

Originally Posted by Pyre

When did I ever say either one of these things? Have you even been reading my posts? My point was never whether eating a companion animal is wrong or not, but whether it could even be considered a companion. I have no problem with someone eating their pet, but if it's a dog or a cat, then I am going to be unhappy about it because the way I personally feel about such animals. However, I do not think it's morally wrong for someone to eat a fish while also keeping one, which is what my entire discussion has been based upon. And, it's not that the animal's growth is stunted, but that they're usually kept in small tanks, which means they'll be small fish. They also typically will not live very long because they're typically cared for by children. I also never stated my opinion on raising fish to "entertain children," so stop taking my posts out of context and reading into it what does not exist.

For the record, I don't give a damn whether someone eats an animal they consider a pet or not. Love your cow and eat it too, it does not trouble me morally. I should be more troubled by the fact the meat I eat lived a shitty life before it became toilet content.

You've mocked two people now for eating animals that could be considered companions, and if you think it's ok to allow children to care for fish, or that it's ok to keep them in improperly sized tanks, then yeah, you are deliberately mistreating them.

[Pyre]

Originally Posted by Underwater Ophelia

You've mocked two people now for eating animals that could be considered companions, and if you think it's ok to allow children to care for fish, or that it's ok to keep them in improperly sized tanks, then yeah, you are deliberately mistreating them.

Mocking does not mean that I am opposed to it, and it wasn't mocking for the sake of mocking, but mocking to make a joke or be light-hearted. I never said that eating them is wrong. The only arguments I have been involved with are whether you can consider something you eat a companion (that is, something that you are raising to feed off of, not the "keeping fish and eating fish is hypocritical" argument which I am opposed to) and the size of a standard goldfish.

A thought does not equal mistreatment. And unless they're being kept in a small pond, then they'll be stunted regardless. Even 6in fish deserve a lot of room.

[blackwater1110]

Mr. E,

Sorry I didn't respond to your post sooner; I've been busy lately. That said, there's a few things I'd like to point out to you.

Originally Posted by Mr. E Nigma

2 things I guess you obviously missed maybe.

This is a contradiction in terms. Petty, yes, but also true.

Originally Posted by Mr. E

Saya was the first one to call chimps savages, I've already made that clear. Honeythorn may have described their actions but Saya classified them as savages.

You, called Seidre a hypocrite, (You didn't use the word hypocrite but you basically worded out it's meaning, that she morally condemned chimps but wouldn't apply that same thought process to us, since if their nature results in her condemnation of them, then why doesn't ours?).

It seems there is a double standard here, or to use your favorite word, a hypocrisy. You start by arguing for the letter of the law when Saya called chimps savages, but then argue for the spirit of the law when you say I 'worded out the meaning' of hypocrite in pointing out the inconsistencies in Seidre's philosophy.

You can't have it both ways. Either honeythorn described them as brutal killing machines to which everyone agreed and for which I called Seidre a hypocrite, or Saya called them savages, Seidre called them 'more savage' than gorillas, and I asked her to explain how she could hold this creature as possesing savagery and yet also be 'natural' and therefore moral; but you can't have your cake and eat it too. Who's the hypocrite now?

Originally Posted by Mr E

She is not a hypocrite, nor did she do what you actually said. She NEVER condemned chimps.. I'm not sure where you feel she did, she did however agree that they are savage. (which isn't a condemnation)

Savage adj. :
1. fierce, ferocious, or cruel; untamed: savage beasts.
2. uncivilized; barbarous: savage tribes.
3. enraged or furiously angry, as a person.
4. unpolished; rude: savage manners.
5. wild or rugged, as country or scenery: savage wilderness.
6. Archaic. uncultivated; growing wild.

I would argue that calling something 'savage' IS a condemnation.

Condemn v.:
1. to express an unfavorable or adverse judgment on; indicate strong disapproval of; censure.

I suppose my argument would look like this:

1. That which is savage is condemned.
2. Seidre agrees that to some degree, chimps are savage.
3. To the degree that Seidre believes chimps are savages, she condemns them.

If you don't believe being labeled as 'savage' is condemning behavior, ask the natives of North and South America. One of the main justifications for the conquering of their lands and subsequent murder and coercion of their peoples was their apparent savagery.

That said, if seidre had said that she did not condemn chimps for their savage behavior, I would then ask her why, to see if her moral system considered 'savage' tendencies within a species to be acceptable, by virtue of these tendencies being natural. Oh wait--I already did that:

Originally Posted by blackwater1110

You call chimps savages for killing other types of monkey to survive, despite that this occurs "naturally" in every sense of the word: without outside intervention; in the utilitarian sense of capacity for nourishment; in the sense that the animals suffer no physical or psychological blowback for their actions, etc. Yet, despite your round condemnation on a moral level of this animal's natural behavior, you are unable or unwilling to apply this same standard to yourself. Why?

Seidre, if after reading this, you wish to respond more substantially and not avoid the point of the argument via a semantic loophole, I'd love to hear your thoughts.

Back on subject:

Originally Posted by Mr. E

Morals are based on what you believe to be right and wrong. And if Seidre wants to use the bases of any animal's natural instincts to be morally okay for something, I have no idea why you'd tell her it's wrong. But maybe then again your morals go against that, because oh wait... you've decided for yourself that that's not right. I'm not saying that is how you feel, but it's a good example of morals.

Go read some of my posts about ethics, and the first thing you'll get is that I'm an ethical subjectivist. You don't need to explain that to me.

Why would I challenge seidre's morals? Because they are internally inconsistent. I have no problem if someone's morals differ from mine AND are consistent with themselves, but if their own arguments are in conflict, I think it's worth pointing out. It's by addressing these conflicting ideals that we are forced to think, and grow.

Originally Posted by Mr. E

So you've no right to condemn someone else for merely using something as a moral basis when you do the same thing. And yes I could say you condemned her for it, because you flat out told her she was wrong.

Really? Did I condemn her? Did I flat-out tell her she was wrong? I don't remember doing so. Did I point out the inconsistency in her moral philosophy and ask her to explain it? Yes, I'd admit to that. But I never even said she was wrong, not to mention morally reprehensible. Maybe you shouldn't resort to linguistic reductionism for the sake of winning a dumb internet forum argument. Why are you protecting Seidre so much anyway? I'm pretty sure she's a big girl and can handle herself.

Oh, and cut out the 'dumbass' comments. Frankly, it's immature, and if you can't respond intelligently, then you shouldn't be arguing in the first place.

[Anima_Severem]

If I wasn't such a pizza junkie I'd go vegetarian easily.

It's not a moral thing at all.

I'm just really really squeamish.

[IBreatheJoeyJordison]

Meat is horrible.
Killing animals is horrible.
And loving both of them is horrible.

[Underwater Ophelia]

No, meat is delicious.

[Godslayer Jillian]

As is tobacco.

[Joker_in_the_Pack]

Originally Posted by Underwater Ophelia

For a society to work, there HAS to be a person who cleans the toilet or slaughters an animal. I'm not saying I'm going to force that on anyone, or even that a person can't be educated AND do that, I'm saying that those people need to exist, and they don't necessarily need education.

Yeah! The people can't just clean up after themselves.

FUCK THAT MAN.

[Underwater Ophelia]

Originally Posted by Joker_in_the_Pack

Yeah! The people can't just clean up after themselves.

FUCK THAT MAN.

Specialization allows for progress.

[Godslayer Jillian]

The key part of your post is that "you're not going to force it on anyone"
And no one would want to do those jobs especially with such a miserly average wage this system assigns to them.
For some reason, you're seeing education as an ends rather than as a beginning. Everyone should be educated because everyone is entitled to knowledge and trade skills.
That the job of janitor doesn't need education is not an argument for depriving a certain group of people from education to make them janitors.

[Underwater Ophelia]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

The key part of your post is that "you're not going to force it on anyone"
And no one would want to do those jobs especially with such a miserly average wage this system assigns to them.
For some reason, you're seeing education as an ends rather than as a beginning. Everyone should be educated because everyone is entitled to knowledge and trade skills.
That the job of janitor doesn't need education is not an argument for depriving a certain group of people from education to make them janitors.

Christ.
I never said I would deprive anyone of education.
I never said I would support a system that did.

I said education IS NOT NECESSARY TO LIVE IN THE SAME WAY THAT FOOD AND WATER ARE.

[JCC]

Mahatma Gandhi had a commune type thing in South Africa and one of his stipulations was that everyone had to take a turn at cleaning the toilets out, and his wife was like this prissy middle-class chick and she was all "I'm not cleaning up my shit, get one of the Untouchables to do it" and Gandhi was like "WOAH BITCH, SAY WHAT? THERE ARE NO UNTOUCHABLES IN THIS PLACE, NOW GET ON YOUR KNEES AND SCRUB YOUR OWN DAMN SHIT YOU LAZY BITCH", and she relented and everyone was happy and equal. Underwater Ophelia needs to get in touch with the inner Gandhi.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by Underwater Ophelia

Christ.
I never said I would deprive anyone of education.
I never said I would support a system that did.

I said education IS NOT NECESSARY TO LIVE IN THE SAME WAY THAT FOOD AND WATER ARE.

I'm not saying you did.
What you did do is assume that Marx only cared about the 'bare essentials' which he didn't.

That was the reason you mentioned your argument in that thread. And it was based in false assumptions.
I don't even understand where people get that. I got into the same discussion with like six people in my humanities class. Without knowing Marx, for some reason they feel when we talk about equality, everyone will only have bare essentials. That's how fucking bourgeois they are. That's how fucking scared they were about having the same as other people.
When I mentioned that if they think in an equal society everyone will have only enough to survive, then in this unequal society most people don't even have that and therefore they must be slowly dying, everyone else said "wow, that's true."

Sorry for going off that tangent. I was looking for an excuse to say that story, because those guys annoyed me. All guys for some reason.

[Underwater Ophelia]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

I'm not saying you did.
What you did do is assume that Marx only cared about the 'bare essentials' which he didn't.

Wait, no I didn't.
I can't remember exactly why, but I said we had to figure out what exactly the bare essentials were.

I never assumed anything about Marx, or even mentioned him in anything I said.

[JCC]

All of this pointless debate and counter-debate and endless prolix is starting to get to me. Let's follow this through to its logical conclusion so that there is no room for argument or disagreement.

Whatever I say is correct. This is self-evident, simply look at how sensible my statements are and how wonderfully I reinforce them. The verity of JCC's statements is incontrivertible.

I am a socialist. Therefore, as I am always right, socialism is included in this coccoon of truth, and the debate is ended.

[† Cado Angelus †]

I do kill, i like, go hunting once every two months... i should be going down the wanganui river to hunt these wild bulls in three months, t'is fun.

[honeythorn]

Do you eat what you kill?

[HellforgedX]

Meat-on-meat sandwich with meat juice. Ever tried to juice a chicken? I worked at a slaughterhouse for a while, and I've killed chickens, pigs, goats, ducks, and rabbits on my grandparents' farm. I'D DO IT AGAIN, TOO! YA HEAR ME?!?
I've only ever killed deer with a vehicle before, but I know I could do it with a bullet or an arrow.