Hmmm... never seen that before, is it new? It says its only availiable in select locations in the US so probably not toledo. I really should just move to ann arbor, I could actually go to resteraunts and have more than 2 choices on the menu. |
|
|
|
Last edited by Sisyphus50; 01-12-2011 at 07:43 AM.
Hmmm... never seen that before, is it new? It says its only availiable in select locations in the US so probably not toledo. I really should just move to ann arbor, I could actually go to resteraunts and have more than 2 choices on the menu. |
|
157 is a prime number. The next prime is 163 and the previous prime is 151, which with 157 form a sexy prime triplet. Taking the arithmetic mean of those primes yields 157, thus it is a balanced prime.
Women and rhythm section first - Jaco Pastorious
Speak to a manager at your local supermarket about getting it shipped in from a nearby state that does sell/produce it. It's more business for them, especially if they put any kind of point-of-sale on it. |
|
Wat? |
|
You treat pleasure as the one and only criterion Brady has for making any sort of moral decision. When you countered with your slavery example, you implied that animals are equal to humans. The point of my post was to state that pleasure is far from the sole determining factor. I'm sure it could be reasonably assumed that Brady doesn't care to dine on human hamburgers anytime soon. |
|
It's the only criterion that he brought up in his "argument." He may or may not acknowledge other criteria, but to guess at what these criteria may be would be presumptuous of me. As you probably do not know, putting words in an opponent's mouth is generally not a good argumentative strategy. |
|
Why assume it to be a serious argument? If you can't assume common sense, then why assume valid argument? |
|
I think it is you who is assuming that I assumed it a serious argument. (If your head is beginning to swim at that statement, don't worry .) Obviously I don't think that brady would be prepared to submit his post to his philosophy professor. That's hardly the point of my response. |
|
Last edited by DuB; 01-12-2011 at 12:44 PM.
I would argue that you can only get your point 5 is a direct result of point 1, which I've already outlined why I disagree with. For if you believed that animals (other conscious creatures in different skin) deserve the same level of physical integrity and autonomy we give to our fellow humans (as I do), then raising them for the purpose of ending their lives before they would naturally expire for the purpose of eating them does become immoral. Viewed in this light it's almost like 'The Island' where clones are raised as 'organ farms' for their policy holders, just not on the same scale. |
|
It really doesn't matter if brady was serious or not when he made his statement. He proposed an idea and then Dub proposed an isomorphic idea that points out the crux of the moral issue. Many(if not most) people value their own personal pleasure over the lives and experience of animals. Ideas still hold the same information regardless of the intentions of thier creators. |
|
157 is a prime number. The next prime is 163 and the previous prime is 151, which with 157 form a sexy prime triplet. Taking the arithmetic mean of those primes yields 157, thus it is a balanced prime.
Women and rhythm section first - Jaco Pastorious
It is your fault since you are paying them to do it for you. You can hunt, you can raise your own animals, but that is probably too much trouble for you. You can buy from farms that treat their animals as humanely as possible, but since you don't care, then you don't care. |
|
It was just a Troll post guys. I didn't think anyone would take me seriously. LOL |
|
We're immoral meat eaters, because we're eating meat that originated from animals that suffered from immoral practices, caused by other humans? Could the same be said if we were to find animals that suffered, and then died by natural causes e.g., by a winter storm? One could say that another human's inevitable actions are out of their personal control as that of a winter storm that will continue anyway, and that they're just picking up the results. Another option. If another animal that happened to be omnivorous saw these immoral practices, and freely chose to eat the dead animal that suffered during it, also neglecting the accessible tasty fruit nearby, would that animal be committing an immoral act also? One may say that the animal cannot conceive a reason to care, but even if rational, does it need to care? Let's say: the (rational) animal recognizes self pain (of course). However so, that doesn't mean it ought to empathize with the already dead animal, that can no longer feel pain. Even if it was empathetic towards the suffered animal, where must it follow that, because of so, it need not allow itself to eat it, dead or alive? |
|
Last edited by Somii; 01-12-2011 at 09:20 PM.
I stomp on your ideas.
The meat eaters indirectly contribute to the amount of immorality occurring. As the demand for meat drops, the amount of meat produced drops. Only while the demand is kept high is the production kept high. Therefore the amount of immorality occurring is entirely in our control. |
|
Who wants to eat nasty dead shit that they found laying on the ground? It's not that difficult to find food. On top of this, at least in my opinion, it is not so immoral to kill a wild animal for food, and if you have no other option then obviously this is not a bad thing. But in modern society it is quite easy to find other sources of sustenance. The issue of immorality is mainly with the conditions which the animals are kept, as clearly this causes a tremendous amount of suffering vs a few moments of it(as in hunting). I have friends who hunt and I do not consider them immoral, nor the rest of my family who eats meat from the store. |
|
157 is a prime number. The next prime is 163 and the previous prime is 151, which with 157 form a sexy prime triplet. Taking the arithmetic mean of those primes yields 157, thus it is a balanced prime.
Women and rhythm section first - Jaco Pastorious
Your reasoning that animal slaughtering is inevitable. Of course there will always be animal slaughtering in nature (and in society for as long as there is a demand for meat), but it is within the consumers' power to lower the amount of needless animal slaughtering that does occur. |
|
Last edited by MindGames; 01-12-2011 at 10:57 PM.
The majority of this post is irrelevant to what I wanted answered in my post. Also, not everyone undertaking philosophy is interested in moral philosophy. |
|
I stomp on your ideas.
What did you want answered? I love talking about this topic. I'd also really like to hear what your answer to my question was, thus the boldness |
|
Last edited by StonedApe; 01-13-2011 at 12:49 AM.
157 is a prime number. The next prime is 163 and the previous prime is 151, which with 157 form a sexy prime triplet. Taking the arithmetic mean of those primes yields 157, thus it is a balanced prime.
Women and rhythm section first - Jaco Pastorious
This has been said a few times in this thread so far and it still amuses me now as it did the first time. Is not a crowd of people or a substantial amount of people made up of single individuals? How else are we expected to raise the bar to this nebulous 'substantial amount' if not one at a time through honest discussion and inquiry? Short of a large scale prion disease or salmonella outbreak across an entire country for a sustained period of time (and ignoring imported meat), millions of people aren't going to switch to vegetarian diets overnight without having their reasoning poked and prodded, one at a time, by the reasoning of other vegetarians (through books, youtube, TV and discussion). |
|
Bookmarks