>2012
>not buying synthetic meat

I don't quite understand hostility toward vegetarians...

I can get that it's sometimes annoying to be preached at but that doesn't have anything to do with vegetarianism but rather has to with an annoying person.

What issues do you take with a person who chooses of their own freewill to not consume the flesh of members of the animal kingdom?

I'm not a vegetarian, but I'm quite sure the average vegetarian is more intelligent than the average person.

>>4208908
I'm quite sure the average vegetarian is about as intelligent as the average person, unless you have proof to indicate otherwise.

>>4208922

>>4208904
Only the ones that don't spout it as if it were a religion, and those that respect my choice to be a normal person.

OP, go to LetThemEatMeat.com

The guy who runs it is a friend of mine. The site is dedicated to the logical deconstruction of veganism. Check out the older posts, they're hilarious. The newer ones are just tons and tons of philosophy. Check those out too, but again, the funny posts are the older ones.

Example:
http://letthemeatmeat.com/post/847185072/morality-immorality-and-grey-areas-in-vegan-doctrine

>>4208922

It was just a hypothesis, but it turns out I was right:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6180753.stm

Vegetarian IQ is about 5 points higher, on average.

Just google it, pretty much all research shows the opposite.

>>4208904

I was a vegetarian for 11 years, but I NEVER saw any serious hostility towards me being it.

Being a vegetarian isn't something else but not liking shrimps or mushrooms on your pizza, it's a matter of taste and choice.

If someone tries to make it into a strawman religion that "veggies do this and veggies do that", be my guest, you're the one acting like a retard.

>>4208960

> logical deconstruction

I'd love a link, the one you provided was ranting and fallacies 101

>>4208991
Again, go to the main site, and start reading the articles there. I already said that link was just humor, nothing really substantial in there.

Basically Rhys' argument is that since morality is subjective, we aren't obligated to apply it for the sake of applying it. Morality serves us, not the other way around. Not eating animals has no benefit for us.

Sure, we can benefit in terms of health by eating LESS animals, but veganism says animals should have rights and that makes no sense. Why should we give animals rights? We get food, clothing, so many things from them; we experiment on them, and so on. They're just useful to us. Giving all that up makes no sense.

>>4209002
Same argument could be applied to human experimentation by nazis. It's called morality, you cant "logically deconstruct" it.

>>4209010
I'm an ex-vegan, I'm familiar with all of those arguments. Stop being defensive and read the site. Let your belief system be challenged a little bit; you're acting like a christian who doesn't want to hear the atheists' blasphemy.

The idea is that morality is not objective. There is no one "TRUE UNIVERSAL code of morality". It's just a whole bunch of people having emotional opinions about what's right and what's wrong. Therefore, you cannot deem ANYTHING objectively right or wrong.

We didn't stop the Nazis because some objective code required us to do it. We did it because we thought that was some nasty shit. Same with veganism. It's cool if your belief system says killing animals is wrong, but you need to understand that that's just YOUR belief system.
Most people think it's just fine to use animals, and hence, they continue to use them.

Read the site. I wouldn't post it here if it wasn't a really good site. There's plenty of "HURR GOD GAVE US ANIMALS TO SERVE US THE PLANET IS HERE FOR US LET'S BE CAVEMEN" sites out there. Plenty. LTEM is not like those. The owner himself is an ex-vegan of 7 years or something.

>>4208949
need to label the x axis

>>4208890
> 2012
> OP doesn't know that the best supporters of every ideology are rebellious youngster.
> I seriously hope guys know this.

>>4209010
There's a big difference between humans and animals.

You can stick a human in a room with food, and say "Yeah, you're gonna die alright." and that human will freak out.

Do the same with an animal, and the animal will just be happy and eat the food. Because animals can't think as deeply as humans.

Sure, some animals might be smart enough to actually somewhat understand certain aspects of death and dying, but no one kills those animals, except barbaric Japanese fishermen.

>>4209101
rebellious, cult loving, want to belong to something greater, future fanatics and drones.

>>4209114
I'm this guy:
>>4209033
And your argument is also flawed. Saying "animals are dumber so it's OK" to kill them isn't really valid.

Because think about it; what about those rare cases of humans who can't think even as deeply as a dog? Mentally retarded people. What about babies? They sure fit your description.

Heck, what if an alien species came to earth and had far more complex and "deep" thoughts than we do. Would we then be okay if they decided to murder us? Would you say; "oh shit, I can't think as deeply as you, so you should go ahead and kill me, yeah no problem."

No. The only logically valid argument is that we kill animals and use them because it's convenient and we don't have a good reason not to. The rest is just rationalizing.

>>4209033

Not the guy you're responding to. If the author and you are really holding that morality is purely subjective, then you can't argue that eating meat is "right" or even "not wrong," because those terms have no correspondence to any general property.

I made a list for you Kafka
Confucius
Voltaire
Einstein
Wagner
Aristotle
Plato
Pythagoras
Socrates
Buddah
Ramanujan
Da Vinci
Darwin
Newton
Shakespeare
Tesla

See if you can guess what they have in common.

>>4209140
>>4209140
And we don't.
We're saying people eat meat because they want to and don't have a reason not to. That simple. Nothing about right and wrong.

>>4209139
Fuck you, I'm talking about species. Not defects that run within a species itself.

Also, if aliens with superior intellectual capacities came to Earth, big chance we'd already be dead before they'd notice it.

Better technology = bigger chance of us dying without the aliens to blame.

>>4209155
OMG WERE THEY ALL VEGETARIANS?!!!

WOW WOW WHAT AN ORIGINAL AND DEBATE ENDING ARGUMENT!

APPEAL TO AUTHORITY! WOW!

First of all, for every philosopher that was a vegetarian I can show you ten that weren't.

Second of all, their choices do not matter; only the argument does. That's what we do here.

Or I can just say "LOL BUT CHUCK NORRIS EATS MEAT BAM ARGUMENT DESTROYED XDDDD"

>>4209169

It is a debate ending argument if the argument to begin with was "vegetarians are retarded."

>>4209161
Being a baby isn't a defect. I get your point though.

But do you get mine, too? "We have superior intellect" is really not a justification.

The problem is that there is no NEED for justification. That's all I'm trying to tell you guys. Meat eating needs no defense. It's just another happening of the universe. It's not right or wrong. Objectively, that is.

Moral judgements cannot be argued, since arguments require objectivity. Your own personal feelings are subjective. But as soon as you try to get them out of your head and into others' heads, you walk into territory that requires objectivity.

>>4209176
Hahaha, alright you got me there.

Fuck, now I feel like an over-reactive ass.

Vegitarianfag here. I don't see anything morally wrong with eating meat per se, but to buy meat raised in factory farms were animals never see the sun and live a foot deep in there own feces and urine I have a problem with. If I was presented the opportunity to eat meat was surely raised organically and humanely or was hunted in its natural environment, I would not hesitate to eat it.

>>4209218
Why are meat farms so bad man?

Just simulate nature in there, stack animals in farm flats, put air filters everywhere.

Suddenly, we don't need MILLIONS of ACRES for food, we don't get methane cow farts fucking up the ecosystem, AND we save space for you know - ACTUAL WILDLIFE THAT'S FORCED INTO EXTINCTION BECAUSE FUCKING FARM ANIMALS NEED SPACE?

Fuck farm animal rights. They don't need rights. They're not real animals. Wild animals need rights. They're dying out there.

Fuck people that favour farm animals over wild animals. Farm animals won't ever go extinct.

>>4209231
As I said, it's not the concept of a farm that's bad, it's the conditions that the majority of them have.

>>4208960
>http://letthemeatmeat.com/post/847185072/morality-immorality-and-grey-areas-in-vegan-doctrine
>letthemeatmeat
>let the meat meat

Whaddafuck mang? How does meat meat?

>>4209249
hahaha

Let Them Eat Meat

>>4209114
>Sure, some animals might be smart enough to actually somewhat understand certain aspects of death and dying, but no one kills those animals, except barbaric Japanese fishermen.

Chinamen are humans too, you know.

>>4209114
>implying eating whales is wrong

>>4209398
I will laugh and piss in your face when the oceanic ecosystems start going the way of the mass extinction.

>>4209405
Still doesn't make it wrong. Just makes it environmentally dangerous for the human race. Not "wrong".

>>4209405
>implying eating a whale that feeds thousands of schoolchildren does fuck anything to your 'sacred' ocean ecosystem

I am not a vegetarian but the only thing that might push me over the edge is factory farms. I wouldn't buy food if there was a clear notice on the package that it came from a factory farm.

Morality doesn't really factor for those of us who eat meat for political and environmental reasons.

I'm flirting with vegetarianism because of world hunger, deforestation for cow farms and methane farts.

>>4208949
I have a full bear, does it count as having a moustache?

>>4209414

weeaboo faggot alert, code red, shut down 4chan, there is a wapanese among us.

Whales are really shitty food, for every gram of whale you eat, you could have eaten at least a kilogram of shrimp, you would be much better off just farming the shrimp and krill (MUCH better off)

Seeing as this thread is severely lacking open vegan debators Ill step in and make poorly worded arguements.

>>4209033

You still cant "logically deconstruct" the belief that unnecessary suffering is not worth preference of taste. That's the core of veganism, the doctrine of least harm. You don't NEED to eat meat, its just unnecessary death. That's not to say eating meat cant be healthy. I laugh at people who go vegan for health. It just says to me that they couldn't figure out to put down the burger and cook some fish.

>>4208961
Vegetarian here... confirming that I was a childhood genius (gifted program, etc.)

>>4209460
>You don't NEED to eat meat, its just unnecessary death.
From that perspective, you don't NEED to live, you're causing deaths of a lot of stuff around you just by living.

Or, you shouldn't exercise. Because when you exercise you burn more calories that you actually need to, thus needing more resources, killing more plants to feed you.

The truth is that none of us have an obligation to "reduce suffering". You can decide you want to do that, and that's fine. But we're not obligated.

>>4209476
You're right you can kill infants all day from a logical perspective. But empathy is the heart of morality, or some other nonsense like that. It still cant be 'logically deconstructed' which is the only claim I'm really rebuking.

>>4209492
No, it can be.
You must understand what it is we're doing.
We're not saying "empathy is a lie, stop believing it, people".
We're saying empathy isn't forced. It's not objective, it's not an obligation. Empathy is a personal thing, it's emotion. Everyone has it different. Therefore, a vegan who feels sad for cows CANNOT expect everyone else to share his/her value system.

That's all the "decustruction" we're doing.

>>4209492

Except, not killing infants was selected for and not eating meat was not...

>>4209514
>not killing infants was selected for

No it wasn't. Maybe not killing your own infant was, but killing a rival's infant could be beneficial, evolutionarily speaking.

>>4209507
Then you aren't deconstructing shit. You're just saying morals aren't standard.

>>4208890
Hitler was a vegetarian, Hitler was bad, therefore vegetarianism caused Hitler to be bad.

Fuck I've lost this argument.

>>4209601
We're deconstructing the myth of objective morals, if we have to be "deconstructing" something.

Yeah, call it what you want, that's what we do. What Rhys does anyway. I just brainstorm with him and help with the writings from time to time.

>>4209527
It was deselected for in humans, whom really have (before the modern age) no idea who the baby's father is. As a population, protecting every child (whom are exceedingly fragile and take a long time to mature, from an animal perspective) is the only way Humanity work from an evolutionary perspective.

>>4209527

not when you're 100 dying apes starving of the horn of africa it wasn't

moreover, since mobility between groups was selected for and killing members (babies) of your own group was selected against, your arguements is not only making noise for the sake of making noise, but also wrong.

>>4209649

No, it's right.

>>4209619
So you're just abstractly saying your preference of taste is worth more than the life of an animal. That doesnt deconstruct vegansim. That's what you said your friend's site does.

>>4208904
>I don't quite understand hostility toward vegetarians...
We're just angry, because all we have to defend our position is "It tastes good" and the naturalistic fallacy.

>>4209676
Vegan here, some people such as athletes have the performance defense. While you could probably compensate entirely with supplements meats can provide the best food in an athletic performace increasing diet with or without supplements.

>>4209676
>We're just angry, because all we have to defend our position is "It tastes good" and the naturalistic fallacy.

Hurr. More accurately, being anti-vegetarian is the new way to be edgy. They're so overtly altruistic that shitting on them is how teenagers now express that they are a dark and complex individual. Like hating on more energy efficient technologies because "green" sounds corny and wasting energy on excess is manly.

There are legitimate reasons to oppose vegetarianism, but those aren't among them. I arrange lifeforms on an ethical hierarchy according to intelligence. This would obviously mean that I could not complain if aliens moved in and began exterminating/eating us, and I sure wouldn't enjoy it, but I would recognize that they aren't committing the same crime by doing so as if they wiped out a species of equal intelligence.

>2012
>not growing your own meat

>>4209700
Should I be mad at you or love you?

You used the word "edgy" to make your half-assed judgement of anti-vegans seem valid, which is a practice I hate. Whenever I see the word "edgy" used in a ridiculing context I immediately make a point to stop taking the person seriously.

But the second half of your post had sincere admission of your logical paradox, and I liked you for your honesty there.

So I guess it's neutral.

Grr.... you netural faggot!

>>4209676
>>4209672
Personally, "it tastes good" is really the only excuse I'd list for my consumption of meat. Not that I think I should ever have to find "excuses" for eating meat.

Eating meat is not something that should be frowned upon. It's just fucking EATING. Holy shit. How much politically correct and detached from humanity do you need to get to think EATING is wrong?

We kill animals and we eat them. There is nothing wrong with that.

>>4209719
[same logic applies to eating babies]

>>4209010
lrn2 speciesism

>>4209745
>implying speciesism is an argument.
its simply saying "herpderp, but humans are SPECIAL..." and at the same time it fails to declare what makes them actually special.

>>4209737
There are two reasons why we don't eat babies:

-First reason is subjective: you may feel bad for the baby (empathy) and prefer not to eat it.

-Second reason is social: even if you wanted to eat the baby (it is entirely possible to not have that empathy) if you ate it, the parents of the baby, and the other humans would attack you for not fitting in with their worldview, for causing them emotional pain; and so on.

This second rule is really what keeps the baby eaters at check.

However, the second rule doesn't apply to livestock.

-First rule applies: you could, subjectively feel bad for the cow and choose not to eat it. Or you could not feel bad and choose to eat it. Up to you- just like with the baby.

-Second rule DOESN'T APPLY though:
No one cares if you eat a cow. As long as it's not someone else's cow (in which case eating the cow might cause them economical/emotional damage) no one really cares. The cow itself cares, but it's feelings have no consequence on us. A cow can't speak up, cows can't get together and rebel against humans. What they think is irrelevant.

Do you now see the difference? It's not the same logic, I have just demonstrated the mechanisms behind both instances and showed how they are NOT the same thing.

We don't not eat babies because "it's wrong". We don't eat them because of subjective opinion + social consequences.

With animal meat, there are no social consequences. It all comes down to personal feelings.

>>4209719
He loses additional points for starting out with "hurr".

>Eating meat is not something that should be frowned upon. It's just fucking EATING. Holy shit. How much politically correct and detached from humanity do you need to get to think EATING is wrong?
That's a complete distortion of the argument. No one is saying eating is wrong. Absolutely no one. It's about whether killing animals for food is acceptable even in cases where alternatives exist.

>>4209751
say if there was a hypothetical group of people, let us call them "jews".
And say if nobody really liked them and most people would be happy if they were all exterminated. Now these "jews" wouldn't like being exterminated, but it doesn't matter, because we're not looking at it from their perspective because they're not the ones doing the killing. right?

>>4209749
Humans are special because they're the only intelligent things so far in the Universe?

>>4209759
Huh? There are numerous intelligent species.

>>4209759
>implying

Sorry, i have forgotten the all-important special factor which makes humans special. Could you please remind me?

>>4208971
I am a vegetarian, have been for almost all my life, and when I tell people this information they seem to naturally assume I am an asshole about it, when in-fact I won't ever mention it unless questioned.
I also happen to be quite intelligent in the really good at exams kinda way, socially not so.

>>4209767

We built computers, gas stations, light-up sneakers, interplanetary travel, genetic engineering, pyramids, fake vaginas, governments, writing systems, etc..

I mean, come on, bro. We are LITTLE bit different. Let's not say that we're not special.

>>4209767
>>4209765
So where are the great animal cultures? Animal technology?

Nice trolling, but humans are the only intelligent species so far.

Hm, I read a study which showed that vegetarianism is more linked with homosexuality. It was a study about lifestyle, but don't remember where I found it.

>>4209756
Jews are humans.
In human psychology, the more something looks and acts like us, the more we emphasize with it.

This is why; if you put a human, a cow, a bug, and a plant together, even though they were all "LIFE", it would be the easiest to kill the one the least like you.

Jews are humans, and so most people would emphasize with them and not want to kill them. That is the FIRST (the subjective) reason.

The second reason would also apply (the social reason): Even if one or two people didn't identify with Jews, the majority would, and they'd be protected. Also, Jews can voice their discomfort in a way that most people would care about. They could also band and fight back. Therefore, killing jews /=killing cows.

>>4209759
but there are also non-intelligent humans, how does that compute with your definition?

>>4209781
>Nice trolling
Fuck you. Humans are *not* the only intelligent species on this planet; that's just a fact. Even if you consider us the most intelligent one, this doesn't completely nullify the demonstrable intelligence of other species.

>>4209799
Even a retard is still smarter than the smartest animal on the planet.

Also, a reminder to everyone in this thread:
You should all really check out LetThemEatMeat.com once this thread is over. It has ALL of these topics we've discussed here explained at great detail.

hey vegans, if your way is the right way then why do you have to take supplement vitamins that you would otherwise get in a non-vegan diet to stay healthy

>>4209801
No fuck you.

Where are the goddamn dolphin cities then? Where are they?

>>4209790
not that guy but he proposed a situation in which the majority does not identifiy with jews...
If you want a consistent and good ethic/morality whatever, you cant have a systems that makes the holocaust "good".

I know that some leftwingers in my country contemplate how to engage the veggies in america, as to attack the economic system...

that's the only explanation I have for the lunacy.

>>4209811
Dolphins don't give a fuck about building thousands of monuments to penises.

>>4209804
no thats simply not true.

>>4209807
I don't think the vegans in this thread are arguing that veganism is healthy or natural. Their argument is that it is ethically superior. My argument against that is that since ethics are subjective at best, no form of ethics can be "superior" to the next.

Subjective value systems cannot be compared.

I think it should be legally and morally okay for smart people to eat retards.

>>4209816
In that case, I think that society would be just fine with the Jew extermination.

Think about it. Picture a city full of Nazis. They look at the Jews and they don't feel the slightest empathy for them.

In this scenario, the nazis could actually kill all the jews, and their society would not be affected by this at all.

The jews would suffer, but the facts would remain: the nazis were stronger. The strength gave them the power to choose who lives and who dies. The Jews didn't want that but they had no choice. They got killed, no one cared, and society moved on as usual.

As you can see, in this scenario, no matter how much we naturally think of this extermination as a horrible thing, the nature of ethics made it easy for the Germans.

If they didn't care about the Jews, then they felt nothing "wrong" about killing them. The jews felt bad, but to the Germans, that doesn't matter, since the observer can only exerience life through his own senses. Even if someone said they were in great pain, if you can't identify with them you won't feel bad about them being in that pain.

>>4209822
The internal consistency of value systems can be compared, though, and even though I personally do eat meat, I think of it as an act of convenience-based hypocrisy.

>>4208949
And what does the x axis represent?

>>4209842
Assuming this city REALLY has only jews and nazis, you are correct. And if that city is inside a completely enclosed reality, with no outside perspective.

>>4208960
Continuum fallacy, continuum fallacy everywhere.

>>4209822
but thats a bad argument.
I know godwins law, but when discussing ethics you cant realy get around the holocaust.
Shit like the holocaust cant be considered good in any respectable ethical system. If we agree with this we already made the assumption that some views are better than other ones. How would you react to someone saying. "The holocaust cant be considered bad, because all ethics are subjective, so stop claiming it was bad"
Also you try to invalidate all ethical thoughts with it.
Hell yes, ethics are subjective and? Your perception of reality is subjective as well.
Yet some ethics arer consistent, reasonable, and everyone profits from them, and others are not.

>>4209833
how do you define smart people though? what stops them from eating you? what if by some accident of nature, you weren't smart and you had to be eaten. what if you weren't a retard but you also weren't that smart either? what if all the atletic people got together and decided anyone who could'nt benchpress three times their weight had to die? don't you see how stupid that is?

it's the same reason i like top gear. yes i admit cars are bad for the enviroment but until someone comes up with a better idea that doesn't suck ass, i'm not going to pretend that cars don't exist or F1 isn't awesome. likewise, until someone comes up with a better alternative for meat, they can fuck off.

There was a study that showed giving vegetarians creatine (which is found in meat) significantly improved IQ scores.

On the other hand. I Know there were some very smart vegetarians that lived in the past.

Modern activists are stupid as fuck imo and they should focus on something that matters, like human suffereing. But whatever I'm not really mad, I think there is something to violence against animals translating to violence against people, I agree that we should let people abuse their pets.

>>4209849
Exactly. However, that "hypocrisy" is not actually necessarily there; this depends on how you look at it. For instance; do you realize that there are no real "species" in nature?

In nature, there are only atoms. Everything else is just different combinations of atoms. The human mind and the minds of other creatures register these as seperate objects, but in OBJECTIVE reality, the entire universe is just atoms, flying around, changing forms. When they take the form of a human, we call it "ITS A HUMAN!" but in reality it's just a bunch of minerals.

Therefore, nature works with materials. Not individuals, not species. You can call all humans "the human species" but the members of that "species" aren't actually bonded with anything other than an arbitrary label; in reality they are all separate creatures.

When we realize that concepts such as "species", "individuals", "families" were specifically MADE by the human mind for CONVENIENCE issues; the seperation of cows in society from humans in society being a CONVENIENCE issue stops looking like hypocrisy.

See?

>>4209870
>likewise, until someone comes up with a better alternative for meat, they can fuck off.
its called plants, and it does the job as fine as meat.

all things die eventually it's the circle of life. things are reborn and remade into new things as they die off.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwSKkKrUzUk

>>4209863
>how do you define smart people though?
I'll let them watch A Beautiful Mind, then ask them if they think it really deserved the Oscar. If they say Yes, then clearly they deserve to be lunch.

>don't you see how stupid that is?
You mean your fallacious appeals to adverse consequences? Sure I do.

>>4209877
To produce artificial meat is stem-cell research and it is against the will of god.

Don't expect the religious community to just accept it and let go :)

I have read about it being cheap and a real potential product, but personally... I'm not sure. Is it really safe to linger with proteins and stuff? Who knows what kind of effects there might be?

>>4209861
>Shit like the holocaust cant be considered good in any respectable ethical system.
Now you are just being emotional and not logical.

If we want objective logic, we need to think coldly, like a computer.

We all have feelings, but when it's time to argue like intelligent men, those feelings need to take the back seat for a while. You should know this by now, else you wouldn't be here.

I would also like to thank everyone by pointing out that /sci/ is probably the only place where people can discuss such an emotionally rooted topic from opposite angles like perfectly objective adults and not turn it into childish name calling. Thank you gentlemen, be you vegan or omnivore, it's an honor talking to you.

>>4209877
huhuhuhuh. plants don't have the same number of essential amino acids as meat does and an intelligent vegan diet with a physically active lifestyle will always require supplementation regardless of how much you cry about it. now a vegetarian lifesyle with eggs and milk is certainly doable if depressing and monotonous.

>>4209842
but thats not how ethics work.
Yes ethics are subjective, but if we had to decide today to have an ethical codex, nearly everyone on this board would want to have one where such things can never happen.(a majority exterminating a minority simply because they have no emphaty for them).
Thats the starting point for every ethical thought, and thats the only way we can argue about ethics?
Do you agree or not agree that you do not want something like this to happen? Thats the foundation for our ethical thoughts, and thats the reason, ethical arguments count even if they are only subjective.

>>4209877
Again, our argument is not whether it's possible to live as a vegan; but whether it is DESIRABLE to live as a vegan.

We only get to live once. Some people have enough problems without creating arbitrary moral standards for themselves that make life even harder.

I myself eat meat, because I wouldn't want to deal with all the nooks and crannies of veganism to save animals I don't give a fuck about. It's really that simple.

>>4209884
>basing intelligence off a subjective opinion of whether a movie was good or bad

you would quality as a retard in my book

dolphins don't have opposable thumbs. And what about primitive tribes? What did they invent?
And what about the mentally retarded? Left on their own they couldn't build a civilisation.

And what about women?
Think about it. How many women have invented shit?
In fact, if you look throughout history i'll bet you find almost all of civilisation was done by people with iqs above 105. Let's exterminate everyone under 100. sound good>?

>>4209887
different guy here but it is impossible to completely remove emotions away from any discussion no matter how intelligent you are. the very nature of our situation as human beings stop us from doing so. furthermore since these are things that effect all of society, emotions are important to consider. you've taken the idea of restraining emotion to some childish notion of removing it completely.

>>4209884
i'm being fallacious? you're bringing up a beautiful mind and saying retarded people should be killed and than you're going to pretend you're on some intellectual high ground? seriously? 0/10 for shit tier trolling. fuck off

>>4209904
>you would quality
I certain does.

>>4209903
that wasnt what the post said I was responding to.

1. shut up
2. watch this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwSKkKrUzUk
3. close the thread

>>4209914
please don't act like a smart ass in the face of an obvious type, it just makes you look worse.

>>4209898
As I explained; ethical "arguments" can only be made because of wide social appeal. You can write it in the law book; "eating babies is wrong"; not because it is objectively wrong to eat babies; but so many people agree with their subjective ethics that babies feel wrong to them, that it works practically as an objective value.

But it still doesn't mean it IS an objective system. It's NOT.

This is why ethical "arguments" are destined to go on forever. Until people realize that facts:
>Ethics are subjective
>There is no "right way to do things" set in stone
>Therefore it is simply pointless to argue which way is the "right" way, in every instance.

Every choice you make, you make because YOU WANT TO. Think about this; every thing in life comes down to this.

Even the ultimate form of alturism, say, motherhood; is actually self-serving. The mother feels a compulsion to feed her baby, and feeds the baby to satisfy her desire to feed the baby.

Everything we do is self-serving.

I eat the meat of a cow because I want to eat the cow.
You save the cow because you want to save the cow.

>>4209909
>you're bringing up a beautiful mind and saying retarded people should be killed and than you're going to pretend you're on some intellectual high ground? seriously?
And that's what we in the superior megamind trade call the tu quoque fallacy.

Anyway, raise a proper objection or accept your fate as breakfast with silent dignity.

>>4209909
If you've been following my posts, you will see that I always take human psychology into consideration in my arguments.

However, it is very important to be able to make THIS distinction:

THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE SUBJECTIVE AND THE OBJECTIVE.

When you say something like "I don't care who you are, eating babies is WRONG!!!", you're making an objective claim; which we know can't be made for ethics.

But I have absolutely NO objections to the idea that most people feel that eating babies is wrong. Yes, I'm sure they do. In fact, I myself feel that way. I feel that it is unpleasant, undesired behaviour. But I know that it's not "WRONG". "wrong" to me is more like "false". 1+1=5 is WRONG, it is FALSE

Eating babies is a physical possibility. It is not WRONG, it is not FALSE, in that OBJECTIVE sense.

It is "wrong, and bad" in the subjective sense. But that's not arguable on objective grounds.

>>4209925
an objection to what? you don't even have an arguement to begin with my trolling friend. first you made some ridiculous blanket statement about "retarded" people being killed and than I found out your definition of retarded is whether or not they liked some hollywood movie. Than when you are confronted you throw out some fancy logic terms. you don't even have an argument to begin with. i'm sure you're laughing your ass off right now because "hurr i don trollz dis faggot lol XD!" but you're just humiliating yourself here.