| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
King K. Rool
Canada4408 Posts
On May 30 2009 03:00 Dariush wrote: I said our race owns them...not me personally...the fuck?  With even a weekend of preparation a human can pretty much own any animals (okay, not counting those rare animals or undersea ones that we can't get to) | ||
|
L
Canada4732 Posts
On May 30 2009 03:01 Foucault wrote: Ok, thanks for elaborating. What I mean is that it seems more like something you'd think in order to have a better conscience, rather than actually caring about the animals. Why do I need to elaborate? It isn't ironic. Feel free to look up what ironic means. | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On May 30 2009 03:00 Dariush wrote: I said our race owns them...not me personally...the fuck? since when do u speak for our entire race? I am not part of that group of assholes that think they "own" animals | ||
|
Aylear
Norway3988 Posts
But mostly, vegetarians just piss me off. | ||
|
Dariush
Romania330 Posts
I don't know what's with this animal loving stuff lately...so much fucking attention to animals, instead of aiding poor countries, helping HUMANS. | ||
|
Klockan3
Sweden2866 Posts
On May 30 2009 03:21 Diomedes wrote: You realize that murdering 1 human to save 100 million ones is just as bad as just murdering 1 human. Lets say you had a helicopter hovering really high over some large city with millions of people in it. On the copter you have a nuke and a person. You are not there. You can push a button to drop the nuke on the city or you can let it blow up in the air saving most of the people in the city. Would you honestly save the person up on the copter? Trading life is a good deal when you don't have any other options, it is just that people see the consequences strangely. If I say: "Kill one person to save a million" many will hesitate since they feel that killing is bad, but if we instead say: "Kill a million to save one person" then everyone will agree that it is wrong, but in essence they are exactly the same thing, just reversed. As for meat, the energy requirement of a humans food intake is really really small compared to the energy requirement for an average humans lifestyle, eating meat or not barely makes a difference. The price on products correlate really well with how much those products drains the energy of the earth, so the best way to save the environment is to stop buying things, not having a car and live in a small apartment, but you will not do that since it would change your lifestyle too much but it would make a much bigger difference for the world than you stopping eating meat. Like, you don't spend your money on meat, then you spend it on other things which is hazardous for the environment. As for the ethical parts about it, I don't see the difference between that and humans exterminating rats for convenience. Of course when exterminating rats, hunting etc we have laws that it is forbidden to cause unnecessary pain, just like we have such laws for the livestock animals. If livestock are treated badly you should attack those who treats them badly, you got every right on your side doing that, however since we have those laws it is just natural for a meat eater to assume that those laws are followed. It is like, a Robber took a stereo system from someone and then sold it to a shop, should we blame the shop for accessory to robbing just because he helped the robber even though he had no idea of what happened? Most animals are treated decently, just because some aren't doesn't mean that we should condemn the whole industry. | ||
|
Diomedes
464 Posts
First off, if someone is trying to kill another person and the only way to stop him from doing that is to kill him then of course that is the only thing you can do. I also didn't say 1 is a bigger number than 100 million. If either one person has to die or 100 million and you have to make a decision then it's obvious what to pick. But murdering 1 person is that what it is, regardless of the excuse. If someone tells me to either murder 1 person or he will murder 100 million then I won't do it, obviously. If someone does, how is that less bad than any other murder? Extenuating circumstances, sure. But that doesn't take away your responsibility. Also all your other arguments against vegetarianism are trash. But it's more pointless to debate that than it is to debate with creationists. | ||
|
FirstBorn
Romania3955 Posts
On May 30 2009 04:10 Diomedes wrote: Klockan3, you don't understand. First off, if someone is trying to kill another person and the only way to stop him from doing that is to kill him then of course that is the only thing you can do. I also didn't say 1 is a bigger number than 100 million. If either one person has to die or 100 million and you have to make a decision then it's obvious what to pick. But murdering 1 person is that what it is, regardless of the excuse. If someone tells me to either murder 1 person or he will murder 100 million then I won't do it, obviously. If someone does, how is that less bad than any other murder? Extenuating circumstances, sure. But that doesn't take away your responsibility. Also all your other arguments against vegetarianism are trash. But it's more pointless to debate that than it is to debate with creationists. Man, you are so full of shit it hurts. | ||
|
Diomedes
464 Posts
There is pretty much reasonable consensus on it by those that have put thought into the issue. | ||
|
King K. Rool
Canada4408 Posts
On May 30 2009 04:10 Diomedes wrote: Klockan3, you don't understand. First off, if someone is trying to kill another person and the only way to stop him from doing that is to kill him then of course that is the only thing you can do. I also didn't say 1 is a bigger number than 100 million. If either one person has to die or 100 million and you have to make a decision then it's obvious what to pick. But murdering 1 person is that what it is, regardless of the excuse. If someone tells me to either murder 1 person or he will murder 100 million then I won't do it, obviously. If someone does, how is that less bad than any other murder? Extenuating circumstances, sure. But that doesn't take away your responsibility. Also all your other arguments against vegetarianism are trash. But it's more pointless to debate that than it is to debate with creationists. As for 1 vs 1 mil. Doesn't that make you a murderer of 100 million people then? | ||
|
Diomedes
464 Posts
On May 30 2009 04:18 King K. Rool wrote: As for 1 vs 1 mil. Doesn't that make you a murderer of 100 million people then? Obviously not. Say I am an organ donor with a complete set of healthy organs. Say there are several people that die without a donor organ. You could you kill me, so that my organs can be used to save other people. If you don't, does that make you a murderer of those that would die without my organs? It's 1 life vs quite a few; heart, lungs, liver, kidneys, etc. | ||
|
FirstBorn
Romania3955 Posts
On May 30 2009 04:16 Diomedes wrote: FirstBorn, it's basic ethics. There is pretty much reasonable consensus on it by those that have put thought into the issue. That doesn't make you less full of shit. I do agree that the murder is murder no matter the context. If we cannot give life willingly, we should not take it. But going as far as saying you wouldn't kill someone that, if let alive will kill millions is bullshit. And millions is just a big number. Let's assume a serial killer will kill all the members of your family, all your friends, all the persons you are attached to. And if the only way to stop him were to kill him you bravely say you wouldn't. That makes you full of shit in my book. | ||
|
Diomedes
464 Posts
Learn to read. Also, funny that you think your argument is going to be stronger if a serial killer is to kill people I know rather than random people. Haha. | ||
|
Night[Mare
Mexico4793 Posts
On May 29 2009 05:39 Aegraen wrote: As I said before, it's only 'morally' questionable in the eyes of those who see animals on the same plain as humanity. We are not equals. so that gives the humanity the right to torture animals for consumption? you must be fucked in the brain to think that. We being 'superior' to the animals would mean we would treat them fairly, not abuse them for the sole purpose of consumption. actually i think you're just trolling if you cant feel a little empathy. I despise people who belive them superior to other beings. It's just the same shit the nazi did. Was not the arian race superior to everything? Would you be raising latin american people for food consumption because they're are inferior (just as an example of arian race being superior)? | ||
|
FirstBorn
Romania3955 Posts
| ||
|
Diomedes
464 Posts
Unless you really believe the lives of people that I happen to know are somehow more valuable than the lives of everyone else on this planet. [edit] lol you finally realized how bad you arguments are so you remove them. And then you edit in that? Shameful. | ||
|
Wohmfg
United Kingdom1292 Posts
On May 30 2009 04:20 Diomedes wrote: Obviously not. Say I am an organ donor with a complete set of healthy organs. Say there are several people that die without a donor organ. You could you kill me, so that my organs can be used to save other people. If you don't, does that make you a murderer of those that would die without my organs? It's 1 life vs quite a few; heart, lungs, liver, kidneys, etc. That's different because it's their fault they need an organ donor, you shouldn't have to give up your organs for someone else because their body is broken. The people who are having a bomb dropped on them have nothing relating them to having a bomb dropped on them, and neither does the person who is sacrificing their life. | ||
|
Fontong
United States6454 Posts
On May 30 2009 02:57 Kaialynn wrote: Yeah totally. You didn't even read my post at all. Pound for pound, yes, Meat is more ineffecient that vegetables/wheat/other crops. But do you really think that if everyone went vegeterian, we could feed the world (Or hell, a country) based on the crops alone and the buildings where cows are 'farmed'? Be serious. EDIT: Cows aren't grown :S I have really no idea what you are trying to argue here. Are you trying to say that if we try to grow all crops rather than growing all livestock we will not be able to feed everyone? | ||
|
King K. Rool
Canada4408 Posts
On May 30 2009 04:20 Diomedes wrote: Obviously not. Say I am an organ donor with a complete set of healthy organs. Say there are several people that die without a donor organ. You could you kill me, so that my organs can be used to save other people. If you don't, does that make you a murderer of those that would die without my organs? It's 1 life vs quite a few; heart, lungs, liver, kidneys, etc. Well once you die of natural causes you can still donate a good amount. On May 30 2009 04:26 Night[Mare wrote: Again the problem is we don't see animals in the same light as you, and again this is comparison between animals and humans, not humans and humans.so that gives the humanity the right to torture animals for consumption? you must be fucked in the brain to think that. We being 'superior' to the animals would mean we would treat them fairly, not abuse them for the sole purpose of consumption. actually i think you're just trolling if you cant feel a little empathy. I despise people who belive them superior to other beings. It's just the same shit the nazi did. Was not the arian race superior to everything? Would you be raising latin american people for food consumption because they're are inferior (just as an example of arian race being superior)? | ||
|
Klockan3
Sweden2866 Posts
On May 30 2009 04:26 Night[Mare wrote:so that gives the humanity the right to torture animals for consumption? Contrary to what vegans tell you it is illegal to torture animals, the end. | ||
| ||
|
|
BSL 21
Sziky vs eOnzErG
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Krystianer vs Classic
TriGGeR vs SKillous
Percival vs Ryung
ByuN vs Nicoract
OSC
BSL 21
Cross vs Dewalt
Replay Cast
Wardi Open
OSC
Solar vs MaxPax
ByuN vs Krystianer
Spirit vs TBD
OSC
Korean StarCraft League
|
|
|
EPT
