| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
lorkac
United States2297 Posts
On April 16 2012 09:52 sc4k wrote: Oh you think having penetrative sex with an 11 year old is a bad thing? Well there are people in America who think it's good, who are you to tell them they can't have it? So this is where Dorthy left you? But what would Tinman do without his strawman? | ||
|
lorkac
United States2297 Posts
On April 16 2012 09:14 Malstriks wrote: plants aren't self-aware. they don't have a nervous system or a brain as far as i'm aware. Cows have bigger brains than dogs (mass wise) Pigs are smarter than dogs (intellect) by your logic--cows and pigs should be saved and the US should eat dogs en mass. | ||
|
BentoBox
Canada303 Posts
| ||
|
Jay Chou
45 Posts
On April 16 2012 10:40 lorkac wrote: I eat because they not human. I think your argument boils down to - you do not eat because they are off a different species within the category of animal. You are happy to eat: Fish, pigs, dogs, cats, chimpanzees, elephants etc. Just not homo. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciecism | ||
|
lorkac
United States2297 Posts
On April 16 2012 10:43 BentoBox wrote: Humans are not even a carnivorous species in the first place. Yet we still kill animals for convenience, pleasure, and because of habit. Dogs are not fundamentally different from any other animal on earth. What defines the "human level" exactly? Our capacity of rational thought? Because a lot of shit we do cannot find any justification ethically but powerful lobbyists make it so that is simply overlooked. If we're going to get into the realm of lobbyists, politics, and the American Zeitgeist. Then eating dog is wrong because we arbitrarily say so. For no other reason than our sheer force of will and our willingness our beliefs are superior to the beliefs of others. But seriously though--dogs are animals. We eat them or don't eat them because they're edible. | ||
|
sc2superfan101
3583 Posts
idk, something about a dog just makes it more important to me than a pig or a cow. | ||
|
sc4k
United Kingdom5454 Posts
On April 16 2012 10:30 Blasterion wrote: You see sex with minors is human to human level. Eating dogs/cats is a human to animal level. Because they are not human they can't be judged on the same level. KJSharp was talking about banning the consumption of dogs/horses/cats. DystopiaX argued that it is wrong to do that, because there are people who feel differently to KJSharp. I simply presented the reason why that is a useless point to make. KJSharp was presenting the case for banning consumption of those animals. If enough people in the country agree with him, then I'm sorry people who don't agree, it will be made law. Right now (in England) it's not illegal to eat dog or cat although we do have animal cruelty laws at least, we don't go for this completely bullshit 'treat anything that's not human however you want to no matter how cruelly': http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/45/crossheading/prevention-of-harm But meh, to be honest I know a lot of people look down on those who eat dogs and disapprove of the Chinese/ Koreans who do it. Also, the French aren't highly regarded for their penchant for animal cruelty and chowing down on horses. On April 16 2012 10:38 lorkac wrote: So this is where Dorthy left you? But what would Tinman do without his strawman? Hint: next time you try a really bad putdown, check for spelling... | ||
|
BentoBox
Canada303 Posts
On April 16 2012 10:46 lorkac wrote: If we're going to get into the realm of lobbyists, politics, and the American Zeitgeist. Then eating dog is wrong because we arbitrarily say so. For no other reason than our sheer force of will and our willingness our beliefs are superior to the beliefs of others. But seriously though--dogs are animals. We eat them or don't eat them because they're edible. Would I be arrested in america if I took dogs from an animal shelter, euthanized them and ate them? Eating dog is only "wrong" because of the affection we have for them. Nothing else. | ||
|
lorkac
United States2297 Posts
On April 16 2012 10:44 Jay Chou wrote: I think your argument boils down to - you do not eat because they are off a different species within the category of animal. You are happy to eat: Fish, pigs, dogs, cats, chimpanzees, elephants etc. Just not homo. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciecism lol no. I'd eat people too--but that's homicide and is unacceptable in society outside of extreme circumstances. As a society, we protect each other and support each other (that's the reason we formed a society to begin with). Because of this, we have certain rules like "don't kill each other" which, luckily enough, includes don't eat each other. We also have other rules such as no more slavery or no more ownership of other human beings. This is also to protect us from losing our freedoms, to protect us from losing our autonomy. This means we can't simply claim dead bodies randomly as they fall in order to eat them. There is a specific sequence of rights and red tape that need to be waded through with the ownership of the body going from family to state to science etc.... Because of this, as a society, we have a lot of rules that prevent the support of cannibalism. Eating people in and of itself isn't wrong--but it's wrong in the sense that it does not support a system that would protect and nurture humanity as a whole. If, for example, dogs and pigs switched places and people had bacon for pets and lassie for dinner--the US wouldn't be any different than it is now. Saying dogs are special is irrelevant to the way things work. If, hypothetically, you lived in a society where it was okay to cannibalize each other--it would only work in a society that supported the cannibalization of either the dead or the enemy. Because social systems cannot be supportive of practices which encourages the murder of fellow members of said society--otherwise the social group crumbles. Cannibalistic animals are solitary by nature for a reason. | ||
|
Jay Chou
45 Posts
On April 16 2012 10:47 sc2superfan101 wrote: i wouldn't eat dog, but i wouldn't outlaw the eating of it either... idk, something about a dog just makes it more important to me than a pig or a cow. That 'something' is irrational cognitive dissonance. | ||
|
Blasterion
China10272 Posts
On April 16 2012 10:50 sc4k wrote: KJSharp was talking about banning the consumption of dogs/horses/cats. DystopiaX argued that it is wrong to do that, because there are people who feel differently to KJSharp. I simply presented the reason why that is a useless point to make. KJSharp was presenting the case for banning consumption of those animals. If enough people in the country agree with him, then I'm sorry people who don't agree, it will be made law. Right now it's not illegal to eat dog or cat although we do have animal cruelty laws at least, we don't go for this completely bullshit 'treat anything that's not human however you want to no matter how cruelly': http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/45/crossheading/prevention-of-harm Hint: next time you try a really bad putdown, check for spelling... In that case you would be correct as Society sets the moral standards for the people, while the mass sets the moral standards for society, so yes in the rare case where the mass and thus society deem it's acceptable to rape underage minors, it would be socially acceptable because of the mass do not deem it morally incorrect. After all even though Society have laws, aren't the laws made by other humans too? | ||
|
lorkac
United States2297 Posts
On April 16 2012 10:50 sc4k wrote: KJSharp was talking about banning the consumption of dogs/horses/cats. DystopiaX argued that it is wrong to do that, because there are people who feel differently to KJSharp. I simply presented the reason why that is a useless point to make. KJSharp was presenting the case for banning consumption of those animals. If enough people in the country agree with him, then I'm sorry people who don't agree, it will be made law. Right now (in England) it's not illegal to eat dog or cat although we do have animal cruelty laws at least, we don't go for this completely bullshit 'treat anything that's not human however you want to no matter how cruelly': http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/45/crossheading/prevention-of-harm But meh, to be honest I know a lot of people look down on those who eat dogs and disapprove of the Chinese/ Koreans who do it. Also, the French aren't highly regarded for their penchant for animal cruelty and chowing down on horses. Hint: next time you try a really bad putdown, check for spelling... So you don't disagree that you're simply attempting to deflect your weak argument with irrelevant out of topic examples? Cool. I guess you've lost the argument then? | ||
|
sc2superfan101
3583 Posts
On April 16 2012 10:55 Jay Chou wrote: That 'something' is irrational cognitive dissonance. or, you know, it might be that i like dogs as animals and i don't like pigs or cows as animals except for when i'm eating them... i think the term "irrational" is one of the most overused and least understood terms on the internet. A: I like dogs, they are super cool. + B: Eating super cool stuff is not cool in my opinion. = C: I won't eat dogs. and then: A: i eat pigs because they are tasty and not super cool. + B: some people find dogs to be tasty and not super cool. + C: pigs and dogs are both animals, nothing really inherently special about either = D: i won't eat dogs, but have no moral problem with other people doing so. D and C are both rational, and even better than that, they are not mutually exclusive. so, as we can see, there is absolutely nothing irrational about it. | ||
|
lorkac
United States2297 Posts
On April 16 2012 11:01 sc2superfan101 wrote: or, you know, it might be that i like dogs as animals and i don't like pigs or cows as animals except for when i'm eating them... i think the term "irrational" is one of the most overused and least understood terms on the internet. A: I like dogs, they are super cool. + B: Eating super cool stuff is not cool in my opinion. = C: I won't eat dogs. and then: A: i eat pigs because they are tasty and not super cool. + B: some people find dogs to be tasty and not super cool. + C: pigs and dogs are both animals, nothing really inherently special about either = D: i won't eat dogs, but have no moral problem with other people doing so. D and C are both rational, and even better than that, they are not mutually exclusive. so, as we can see, there is absolutely nothing irrational about it. A: There is nothing wrong with eating dogs + B: I have a problem with eating dogs = C: Irrational Cognitive Dissonance | ||
|
Blasterion
China10272 Posts
The topic is ethics of dog meat which, Should the Eating of dogs be allowed, Should people have a choice in having dog stew or beef stew for dinner. | ||
|
sc4k
United Kingdom5454 Posts
On April 16 2012 10:57 lorkac wrote: So you don't disagree that you're simply attempting to deflect your weak argument with irrelevant out of topic examples? Cool. I guess you've lost the argument then? Um, I wasn't actually discussing anything with you, I have no idea what you are talking about. I was just correcting the guy's reply to KJSharp. I am fully convinced that eating dogs should be banned, it's a simple emotional decision that they are too good to us, they have too many ongoing uses, they have been extremely useful and instrumental in our ascension as a species. You can't really argue with my simple emotional response. I'm not convinced there are any other arguments against the eating of dogs. If you aren't swayed by the argument, then so be it, you clearly have a different set of priorities to me. What matters is how many people will agree with you and will agree with me. I think you have the advantage in terms of making eating dogs illegal...congratulations are in order. I don't think this topic is particularly deep, we aren't dealing with a complex socio-economic issue. PS I only responded to your post because of your bad putdown. | ||
|
lorkac
United States2297 Posts
On April 16 2012 11:06 Blasterion wrote: I think we are a little off track right now most people seems to want to disapprove the people that won't eat dogs but why do we give a shit about that? The topic is ethics of dog meat which, Should the Eating of dogs be allowed, Should people have a choice in having dog stew or beef stew for dinner. I'm very much down for the main topic. Dogs are edible animals that people have eaten and still eat today. Whole countries are doing it--and even countries who are not doing institutionally have most likely eaten (as a society over time) their share of dog (I'm looking at you Ozzarks!) Being that is the case, it's not only perfectly okay and normal to eat dog both historically, culturally and scientifically--but the people who pretend that eating dog is any different than eating any other animal is actually contradicting human history, science, and culture. ie--it's weird if you don't think eating dog is okay. | ||
|
lorkac
United States2297 Posts
On April 16 2012 11:09 sc4k wrote: Um, I wasn't actually discussing anything with you, I have no idea what you are talking about. I was just correcting the guy's reply to KJSharp. I am fully convinced that eating dogs should be banned, it's a simple emotional decision that they are too good to us, they have too many ongoing uses, they have been extremely useful and instrumental in our ascension as a species. You can't really argue with my simple emotional response. I'm not convinced there are any other arguments against the eating of dogs. If you aren't swayed by the argument, then so be it, you clearly have a different set of priorities to me. What matters is how many people will agree with you and will agree with me. I think you have the advantage in terms of making eating dogs illegal...congratulations are in order. I don't think this topic is particularly deep, we aren't dealing with a complex socio-economic issue. Your counterarguement to the discussion of dog meat is that anyone who is okay with eating dogs is okay with sex offenders molesting children. That is proof that you have already lost the conversation and probably have a long time ago. Not against me--because I don't really care what you think--but against whoever it is you're arguing against. You not wanting to eat dog does not mean no one should eat dog. Why? Because that same argument can be made the other way. Korea eats dogs--why shouldn't you? See how silly it is to use feelings as an argumentative case? Your father enjoys having sex with your mother--everyone should enjoy having sex with your mother? The logic is silly and leads nowhere. Being that that is the case--you're left with no choice than to suggest that people who eat dogs are also supportive of child sex offenders. Why? Because you have no argumentative case outside of you saying so. It's a dictatorial attack on people who are honestly trying to communicate with you. As for your attempt to move this to a populist decision ie "What matters is how many people will agree with you and will agree with me" then you're clearly already accepting that it is irrational and pointless that you don't like eating dogs. And yet, instead of simply being honest with yourself that you're in the wrong, you're hoping that if you simply have enough people who support you, each of them absent of any argument just like yourself, that maybe you'll be able to just pretend that your belief system, which you admit is logically wrong and unsound, will hopefully be accepted as correct despite all evidence to the contrary? | ||
|
sc4k
United Kingdom5454 Posts
On April 16 2012 11:19 lorkac wrote: Your counterarguement to the discussion of dog meat is that anyone who is okay with eating dogs is okay with sex offenders molesting children. My counterargument to the discussion of dog meat? Pardon me? And no, I wasn't arguing morality here, I was simply pointing out the uselessness of the idea of saying that if the majority thinks something should be banned, they should somehow stay their desire because there is a minority of people which disagrees. I honestly have no idea what you're blathering on about, Blasterion accepted my point anyway, I wasn't making a criticism of any of his moral arguments. I don't care what his or your moral arguments are, I think eating dogs should be banned because of the reason I gave. I'm not interested in changing your mind. On April 16 2012 11:19 lorkac wrote: As for your attempt to move this to a populist decision ie "What matters is how many people will agree with you and will agree with me" then you're clearly already accepting that it is irrational and pointless that you don't like eating dogs. And yet, instead of simply being honest with yourself that you're in the wrong, you're hoping that if you simply have enough people who support you, each of them absent of any argument just like yourself, that maybe you'll be able to just pretend that your belief system, which you admit is logically wrong and unsound, will hopefully be accepted as correct despite all evidence to the contrary? How old are you and what do you study? My guess is 20 and philosophy. I don't think my opposition to eating dogs is irrational, it's just based on the point I presented. I don't want anyone else to eat dogs because of that point...problem? | ||
|
Supamang
United States2298 Posts
I think it'd be weird if someone in America, a place where dogs are viewed strictly as pets/companions, killed and ate a dog (not out of desperation). I might question his character if he was a born and bred American, and I might be a little disgusted simply because he must have been instilled with the same respect most Americans give dogs and still decided to kill and eat a dog anyway. If someone from Korea ate a dog, I might not agree with it but I wouldn't question it. Simple as that for me. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games |
|
WardiTV Weekly
Ultimate Battle
Rush vs BeSt
Replay Cast
Rogue vs Classic
Patches Events
PiGosaur Cup
Kung Fu Cup
Replay Cast
The PondCast
KCM Race Survival
IntoTheTV X SOOP
herO vs Rogue
Reynor vs Solar
ByuN vs SHIN
Clem vs MaxPax
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
