Summarize the posters of The Lounge in one photo

HanSolo

DJ Crazy Times
Apr 7, 2008
99,234
35,424
Las Vegas
I made those posts an hour ago (my mistake) . You've had plenty of time.

I realize none of you are intelligent enough to have a conversation about anything beyond Internet memes and fast food, but perhaps you could at least do a bit of Googling before you post from now on?

So one love and zen of you. The harmony of spirit is just radiating off of you.
 

Chris Hagen*

Guest
Except I never said that intelligence is the main reason why we should eat animals. It's merely to state that we are the superior species. And under the metric of sheer ability and accomplishment we are indeed superior. Im not saying that superiority in intelligence is a fair justification to murder another being. Certainly not within the species. This is where ethics come in.

Your hyperbolic example is understood but inappropriate. Would you extend it to say that if people fail this iq test, people should eat that person? From the beginning Ive argued that eating other animals is justified because in nature there has always been a food chain. And the carnivores with the means and strength to consume those lower on the chain always have and always will.

I never said intelligence was the metric for our place on the food chain. But you obtusely took the concept of intelligence and applied it to an absurd comparison saying it's some jurlstification for in species murder.

Its quite funny that you claim most if us here are incapable of proceeding with a proper debate and yet your debate tactics are laced with self serving logical fallacies.
The food chain involves going out and hunting and killing animals. If you do that, then all the power to you.

Going to the supermarket and paying some kid with acne at a cash register for your package of meat that was raised chained up unable to move in a barn isn't really the food chain, is it? I don't think the chain in "food chain" refers to chaining up other sentient beings.

If I was in the wild and needed to hunt to survive, absolutely I would do it. Much like I would choose my mother's life over the life of a cow. We are inherently built to survive. That is our objective as a species and as individual beings. That said, I don't need to eat a tortured cow to survive, so I choose not to, because I have that ability and my morals tell me that the taste of a cow to me is not more important than the life of a cow to that cow, or to that cow's mom, or to that cow's baby. Animals are not machines that lack the ability to be happy or fearful or feel pain.
 

Chris Hagen*

Guest
So we can conveniently write off the murder of animals by other animals because survival. Why don't we force those animals to convert to being herbivores? I mean if all life is equally valuable then the survival justification isn't enough to negate the atrocity.

I mean these carnivores don't even prepare their food in a neat package. They slaughter and begin to eat their prey while they're still alive. This is a violation of the sanctity of life is it not? By your standards, these animals must be punished for their crimes or a means must be found to curb this behavior so that they begin to eat plants instead. Plants that are alive. If all life is sacred why is it okay to uproot plants that are alive?

For how smart you want everyone to think you are, you are incapable of comprehending that there's a difference between the value of a life and the difference between one species' strengths, weaknesses, and abilities they have over the other indicating species superiority. You're arguing there's no superiority on a holistic moral stance based on your view of the value of all life. Where most who make the claim that we are superior view it from a practical standpoint. But you don't want to understand the difference because it doesn't fit your preset agenda.
I'm not sure what kind of response you're looking for here with this incoherent rambling that wasn't addressed in my previous post so I'm not going to bother.
 

HanSolo

DJ Crazy Times
Apr 7, 2008
99,234
35,424
Las Vegas
Doesn't understand point, must be incoherent. All right buddy.

It is as I said. Even your superior mind isn't capable of drawing the distinction between species superiority in a practical sense of the term, and that no life is worth more than the other.

I didn't use misleading speech here. You threw out the red herring of intelligence not being justification for murder. I separated the concepts of intelligence, morality (re the value of life), and what makes a species superior to another in a practical sense to keep things on point

I thought someone as smart as you could at least see that much if not the grand scope of my point. But I guess I was stupid for thinking that. Either that or you don't understand and threw out "bruhh it's incoherent" to cover that up. Only you know for sure, but either way it's amusing.

The food chain involves going out and hunting and killing animals. If you do that, then all the power to you.

Going to the supermarket and paying some kid with acne at a cash register for your package of meat that was raised chained up unable to move in a barn isn't really the food chain, is it? I don't think the chain in "food chain" refers to chaining up other sentient beings.

If I was in the wild and needed to hunt to survive, absolutely I would do it. Much like I would choose my mother's life over the life of a cow. We are inherently built to survive. That is our objective as a species and as individual beings. That said, I don't need to eat a tortured cow to survive, so I choose not to, because I have that ability and my morals tell me that the taste of a cow to me is not more important than the life of a cow to that cow, or to that cow's mom, or to that cow's baby. Animals are not machines that lack the ability to be happy or fearful or feel pain.

Oh look at the cognitive dissonance! I thought all life is sacred and there's no excuse for murdering another being. Except when the point is brought up that other animals murder for sustenance you conveniently create a scenario where you're in the wilderness and can't possibly find some plants to eat for nutrients and all of a sudden, yeah it's okay to take a valuable life.

Just cause it's not all of us going out and killing these animals doesn't remove our species from its position on the food chain. We are the most exaggerated and efficient carnivores on the planet. We as a species have found a way, as members of the carnivores on the food chain, to get mass amounts of meat for the whole of the species. To the point where yes, we have more than we need. The debate then is, should we only kill enough to survive? What would you say then? No we don't need to kill at all, we can all just be vegan. But what about the other members of this circle of life? Why are they not held to the same standard? Why must we stop being predatory carnivores, and not try to curb the dietary habits of other carnivores on the food chain? I understand the idea that some of the animals we eat suffer cruelty as part of the process but like I said, some of natures predators will start to eat their prey living while their herd/family watch in horror or at least see as they try to get away. Is this not animal on animal cruelty? Perhaps it's not as bad as chaining animals up in a warehouse for calculated slaughter but like I said, we as a species are an exaggerated version of what has always been. The difference is we're more efficient at what other species have been doing since before we got here.
 
Last edited:

Bones Malone

Owner - HF Boards
Oct 22, 2010
21,115
2,176
Buffalo
The food chain involves going out and hunting and killing animals. If you do that, then all the power to you.

Going to the supermarket and paying some kid with acne at a cash register for your package of meat that was raised chained up unable to move in a barn isn't really the food chain, is it? I don't think the chain in "food chain" refers to chaining up other sentient beings.

If I was in the wild and needed to hunt to survive, absolutely I would do it. Much like I would choose my mother's life over the life of a cow. We are inherently built to survive. That is our objective as a species and as individual beings. That said, I don't need to eat a tortured cow to survive, so I choose not to, because I have that ability and my morals tell me that the taste of a cow to me is not more important than the life of a cow to that cow, or to that cow's mom, or to that cow's baby. Animals are not machines that lack the ability to be happy or fearful or feel pain.

You no longer need your mother to survive though. You are a big intelligent boy who can get by all on your own. So I guess humans life is more valuable than a cow's.
 

Jiminy Cricket

#TeamMeat
Mar 9, 2014
2,183
2,090
This T`hread is such an hot Topic! :handclap: Another Suc`Ces`s`Ful T`Hread. :) Congratulation`s @ChristopherHagen on another Successful Thread!!! :handclap:
 

irunthepeg

Board man gets paid
May 20, 2010
35,277
3,199
The Peg, Canada
The cognitive dissonance:

What a tragedy dogs died in the fire.

**** the billions of animals we slaughter every year.

I realize none of you are intelligent enough to have a conversation about anything beyond Internet memes and fast food, but perhaps you could at least do a bit of Googling before you post from now on?

We can't all be millionaire playboy studs like you, TJ.
 

JS19

Legends Never Die
Aug 14, 2009
11,377
356
The Shark Tank
ITT: A minority telling people that the way they live their life is wrong, and must do everything in their power to change it, even if said minority is completely irrelevant to one's life.
 

Juzmo

Registered User
Nov 17, 2009
42,979
1,178
Just cause it's not all of us going out and killing these animals doesn't remove our species from its position on the food chain. We are the most exaggerated and efficient carnivores on the planet. We as a species have found a way, as members of the carnivores on the food chain, to get mass amounts of meat for the whole of the species. To the point where yes, we have more than we need. The debate then is, should we only kill enough to survive? What would you say then? No we don't need to kill at all, we can all just be vegan. But what about the other members of this circle of life? Why are they not held to the same standard? Why must we stop being predatory carnivores, and not try to curb the dietary habits of other carnivores on the food chain? I understand the idea that some of the animals we eat suffer cruelty as part of the process but like I said, some of natures predators will start to eat their prey living while their herd/family watch in horror or at least see as they try to get away. Is this not animal on animal cruelty? Perhaps it's not as bad as chaining animals up in a warehouse for calculated slaughter but like I said, we as a species are an exaggerated version of what has always been. The difference is we're more efficient at what other species have been doing since before we got here.
We do not derive our energy and nutrient requirements from a diet consisting mainly or exclusively of animal tissue so we are not carnivores. We are omnivores and very inefficient at that considering how much of different resources, time and energy we put into producing the unnecessary large amount of animal products for so many that have no actual need for them.

While biologists tell that were not at the top, which makes sense considering a large majority of us we aren't killing all these apex predators, with a somewhat larger minority actually killing any of the animals they eat I can still understand people regarding ourselves to be at the top. At the same time I don't think the moral imperative of "might makes right" is ethically defensive or a proper reason to justify causing needless suffering and death of 150 billion beings each year.

So sure, we have the ability to kill any other animals with the technology that we have that we have developed with the help of our brain. But at the same time we have also used our intelligence to come up with ways for us living in civilization to survive perfectly fine without these animal products that are actually only making our survival more or less difficult especially in the future with how much of a driver animal agriculture is of most environmental ills and climate change.

Wild animals in completely different situations than us are hunting, killing and causing some sort suffering to other animals, doing the only thing they know how to keep themselves and their genes to survive while lacking the mental capacity to conceptualize ethics unlike us, which is why they also indeed do many other things we find unethical like stealing, raping, eating children for example. The large majority of vegans accept and understand these behaviors because of these factors, just like they do with people with unusual medical or living conditions for example who literally have no other options than to eat animal products in order to survive and can't pick another dietary habit like so many of us.

Oh, and are animals of equal worth to human beings imo? It's a very complicated question and even just a concept in a way, but in the end I'd say my answer would be "not completely" from my perspective as a human. Though imo the more relevant questions we should be asking ourselves should be if we should view all these animals with enough worth that their lives are more valuable than a portion of our convenience. Or with the emotional and intellectual capabilities that are significant on a certain level should these animals deserve enough of our respect that we shouldn't subject them to a life of cruelty and ultimately death to have a meal when there are many satisfying plant-based alternatives.

But unfortunately not actually that relevant questions in this society.
 
Last edited:

HanSolo

DJ Crazy Times
Apr 7, 2008
99,234
35,424
Las Vegas
Thanks for the intelligent response Juzmo.

Unless it's copypasta then **** you

Edit: seems like it's not cause it addresses all my arguments.

I agree that we have the means and can certainly adapt to eating a more herbivorous diet, but for some we're just too hardwired to eating meat that it's hard to go without it. I've actually tried to go without eating meat and just eating vegetables, even ones that are supposedly a good source of protein and I felt terrible. Aside from the fact that I like the taste of meat, going vege only made me more hungry all the time, and at times I felt malnourished and woozy. I'm so used to having at least one substantial meal that includes meat a day, that biologically the adjustment is a difficult one for me to put it lightly.

But what it comes down to for me, is that I will admit that I just don't feel bad enough for the animals we kill for food. I feel no less bad for the cows that give me milk and beef, than the lion feels bad for herd of gazelles he's stalking. I understand the difference between me and the lion is necessity versus preference. I just don't feel bad. It's a way of the world that probably won't change any time soon. And I don't prescribe to the idea that if I eat the meat from someone else's killing, I'm an animal murderer by association. Outside of the few times I've gone fishing I've never killed an animal myself. If an organ doner is killed by some psycho in a way that the organs are perfectly preserved, is the doctor who removes those organs also guilty of murder? What about the organ recipient?

On the other hand I do find it hypocritical when people get up in arms when hunters gun down a lion or a bear, but then don't do anything to protest a practice like fishing.

And back to the other side, on the note of fishing, I'd ask in what ways would a global vegan diet replace all the jobs lost from the ending of global consumption of meat? Also how do you implement veganism worldwide? I think you could end all war before you get the whole of humanity to stop eating meat.
 
Last edited:

Mantis

I am a doctah
Mar 7, 2011
25,495
4,942
Crimetown, Saskatchewan
Eva Shockey. Would do strange things to her

1801254_787584161269149_1035595587_o1.jpg
 

Chris Hagen*

Guest
If an organ doner is killed by some psycho in a way that the organs are perfectly preserved, is the doctor who removes those organs also guilty of murder? What about the organ recipient?
Cute. Not at all.

More like you want an organ so you pay someone to go kill an organ donor so you can then receive that organ. Which would make you guilty.
 

HanSolo

DJ Crazy Times
Apr 7, 2008
99,234
35,424
Las Vegas
Cute. Not at all.

More like you want an organ so you pay someone to go kill an organ donor so you can then receive that organ. Which would make you guilty.

I didn't pay the guy at Wal Mart or wherever to go kill a cow to make my steak. I paid the guy at the wal mart who gives the money to the guys in corporate that bought the after product of the action of a guy that killed an animal.

If I go to a pawn shop and buy a watch that a guy who murdered someone in the process of a burglary pawned at that shop, that doesn't make me guilty of murder. Even if I know the watch belonged to a murder victim.
 
Last edited:

Chris Hagen*

Guest
Your lack of empathy, not unlike a serial killer's, does not justify killing.
 

John Price

Gang Gang
Sep 19, 2008
384,953
30,500
If a vegan sees a pest like a fly or gnat would he kill it?

Saw a fly today in the bathroom and had to swat it to death with my sandal. **** flies.
 

Chris Hagen*

Guest
I didn't pay the guy at Wal Mart or wherever to go kill a cow to make my steak. I paid the guy at the wal mart who gives the money to the guys in corporate that bought the after product of the action of a guy that killed an animal.

If I go to a pawn shop and buy a watch that a guy who murdered someone in the process of a burglary pawned at that shop, that doesn't make me guilty of murder. Even if I know the watch belonged to a murder victim.
Some of the stupidest things I've ever read.

You'd be okay with going to a store to buy a human leg when you know someone was paid to torture and murder an innocent person for?
 

Ad

Upcoming events

  • HV 71 @ Lulea Hockey
    HV 71 @ Lulea Hockey
    Wagers: 4
    Staked: $413.00
    Event closes
    • Updated:
  • Croatia vs Portugal
    Croatia vs Portugal
    Wagers: 2
    Staked: $50.00
    Event closes
    • Updated:
  • Luxembourg vs Northern Ireland
    Luxembourg vs Northern Ireland
    Wagers: 5
    Staked: $52,070.00
    Event closes
    • Updated:
  • Poland vs Scotland
    Poland vs Scotland
    Wagers: 2
    Staked: $50.00
    Event closes
    • Updated:
  • Serbia vs Denmark
    Serbia vs Denmark
    Wagers: 2
    Staked: $55.00
    Event closes
    • Updated:

Ad

Ad