d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate > Should We Shame Fat People?
Prev12728293031174Next
Closed New Topic New Poll
Views: 21861Replies: 1733Track Topic
Member
Posts: 52,254
Joined: Jul 10 2010
Gold: 113.20
#281
Mar 21 2016 04:04pm
Quote (j0ltk0la @ Mar 21 2016 02:59pm)
Apparently I don't love animals because I enjoy eating steaks 3-5 times a week.


You don't without cognitive dissonance.

You cannot be morally disturbed by someone finding an animal in the street and torturing it for their pleasure if you pay people to torture animals for your own palate pleasure. Neither is necessary.
Member
Posts: 49,289
Joined: Jun 18 2006
Gold: 11.77
#282
Mar 21 2016 04:04pm
Quote (j0ltk0la @ Mar 21 2016 04:59pm)
Apparently I don't love animals because I enjoy eating steaks 3-5 times a week.

The cows I eat live a very good life, they're raised birth to death, never having to worry about food or shelter.

In exchange for a few meals. :)


Heart disease so tasty.

Quote (Nathan @ Mar 21 2016 05:01pm)
I would grant that it's part of the Democratic platform, and that for those whom the environment is a top issue, they tend to support them. Also regarding your example, atheism isn't necessarily concerned with the activity of others whereas environmentalism necessarily is.


Atheism isn't a belief that will ever be overtly supported by elected liberals for the foreseeable future. Veganism is.

I'm just going on the record to call every liberal on this forum an asshole 20 years before they change their diets. :D

This post was edited by IceMage on Mar 21 2016 04:05pm
Member
Posts: 96,125
Joined: Mar 15 2007
Gold: 7,252.72
#283
Mar 21 2016 04:05pm
Quote (Nathan @ Mar 21 2016 06:04pm)
You don't without cognitive dissonance.

You cannot be morally disturbed by someone finding an animal in the street and torturing it for their pleasure if you pay people to torture animals for your own palate pleasure. Neither is necessary.



...nonsense ; you can not transfer your dissonance to others , it doesn't work that way .
Member
Posts: 2,664
Joined: Dec 4 2011
Gold: 6.66
#284
Mar 21 2016 04:06pm
Quote (Nathan @ Mar 22 2016 12:04am)
You don't without cognitive dissonance.

You cannot be morally disturbed by someone finding an animal in the street and torturing it for their pleasure if you pay people to torture animals for your own palate pleasure. Neither is necessary.


Disagree, palate pleasure can theoretically be achieved without animal suffering, but sadistic pleasure through torture by definition can't be done without inflicting suffering.
Member
Posts: 52,254
Joined: Jul 10 2010
Gold: 113.20
#285
Mar 21 2016 04:11pm
Quote (Neptunus @ Mar 21 2016 03:06pm)
Disagree, palate pleasure can theoretically be achieved without animal suffering, but sadistic pleasure through torture by definition can't be done without inflicting suffering.


So how does that invalidate what I say? The two actions are still morally equivalent.
Member
Posts: 96,125
Joined: Mar 15 2007
Gold: 7,252.72
#286
Mar 21 2016 04:12pm
Quote (Nathan @ Mar 21 2016 06:11pm)
So how does that invalidate what I say? The two actions are still morally equivalent.


...woah there nelly ...have you suddenly discovered an objective form of morality you ascribe to ?
Member
Posts: 52,224
Joined: Jan 3 2009
Gold: 8,902.00
#287
Mar 21 2016 04:13pm
Quote (Goomshill @ Mar 21 2016 01:45pm)
bone to pick with the DFL? I'd rather they turned it all into e85


Nah, both parties. John Kline, my outgoing Rep voted for the last 3 farm bills, and his wife owns a share in a farm in western MN that if I had to hazard an educated guess, makes sugar beets.

I'd rather e85 subsidies die a painful and ignominious death.
Member
Posts: 52,254
Joined: Jul 10 2010
Gold: 113.20
#288
Mar 21 2016 04:15pm
Quote (WidowMaKer_MK @ Mar 21 2016 03:12pm)
...woah there nelly ...have you suddenly discovered an objective form of morality you ascribe to ?


My claim isn't about an objective morality.

You can subjectively find both perfectly moral, or you can find both immoral, and that's totally subjective.

The point is they're equivalent, not objectively good or bad.
Member
Posts: 96,125
Joined: Mar 15 2007
Gold: 7,252.72
#289
Mar 21 2016 04:16pm
Quote (Nathan @ Mar 21 2016 06:15pm)
My claim isn't about an objective morality.

You can subjectively find both perfectly moral, or you can find both immoral, and that's totally subjective.

The point is they're equivalent, not objectively good or bad.


...no , the only point you are making is that you think they are equivalent .
Member
Posts: 4,783
Joined: Jul 6 2012
Gold: 68.99
Warn: 10%
#290
Mar 21 2016 04:17pm
Quote (Nathan @ Mar 22 2016 01:15am)
not objectively good or bad.

Why do you think this is the case?
Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
Prev12728293031174Next
Closed New Topic New Poll

© 2003-2026 d2jsp  Contact