Animal Consciousness and Meat

[Tartarus Sauce]

(18-12-2012 07:31 PM)FZUMedia Wrote:  

(18-12-2012 07:28 PM)frankiej Wrote:  Please, please, pleeeeaaassseee show us that you understand it, because it really doesn't look like you do.

Evil people make up rules which they do not follow themself. For example, a Christian God breaks all of his rules and commandments routinely. A bad parent will hit a child and tell them "do not use violence to solve problems!". A liberal will claim to be against violence, yet support higher rates of violence from the state.

Good people are 100% consistent with their own rules, since the very definition of evil is changing rules for yourself while inflicting a different set of rules on others.

Please explain how that is something more than simply your own subjective interpretation of morals. You seem to constantly be using an appeal to authority as "objective evidence." That authority is none other than you. All your arguments boil down to "It is true because I believe in it." No wonder you won't give supporting evidence, for your arguments, the only "objective" evidence of importance is that you believe in a claim, and you can't see why anybody needs any other evidence other than the fact that YOU believe in it.

Seems to me that isn't an objective view on morality, but actually is simply what you adopted as your justification for being a bigoted asshole who only cares about his own viewpoints and could give a shit less about anything or anyone else's opinions. After all, it can't be you in the wrong, regardless of how offensive, obnoxious, or retarded the drivel you spew out is. I mean come on, you've been consistent, so you reason you can't be wrong.


I believe you are suffering from more than just autism, you seem to be suffering from full blown narcissism. You have constantly belittled and offended members here while claiming intellectually superiority for, quite frankly, doing nothing more than sitting your fat ass down and bellowing "Lo and behold TTA, this is my claim, and it is indisputable fact because of no other reason than the fact that I believe it to be so." Then you label people as being "bullies" for disagreeing you, distorting our claims so that we think you should be "thrown in prison" for disagreeing with us, boasting about you how have "outshone" everyone on this forum, going on and on about your "superior habits." Fuck, you even admitted to being some spoiled, obscenely rich brat with some hot ass GF. You've been trying to shove your "superiority" in our faces this entire time. Then, to top it all off, you petty neg-rep everybody who is offended by you.

You have glorified every aspect of your being to absurd degrees and refuse to listen to counter-arguments based on solid foundations, opting to dismiss them out of hand for committing the heinous crime of *GASP* disagreeing with you. Every aspect of your being and behavior is SCREAMING narcissist.

[bemore]

My brain.....

[Vera]

(18-12-2012 05:55 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  I do not think you understand how this world works.

Fixed.

And as for your "rep" FZU - this is a FORUM. Not a stage for you and only you to spout your crap. Everybody joins in. If you don't want me to - put me on ignore. I've said it before and will say it again - you are not the centre of the universe and the world is not here to accommodate you and your fragile little ego. Grow up.

On the up side - I got my very own attempt at an insult, as opposed to being lumped up in one ugly mess with the rest of you, bozos

[fstratzero]

(18-12-2012 05:11 PM)FZUMedia Wrote:  

(18-12-2012 04:36 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  This is a malformed assumption that morals are universally objective. Morality is almost entirely subjective and differs from various social species as well.

If morality is not universal then I can kill people for any 'greater good'. Either all murder is wrong, or no murder is wrong. Either all rape is wrong, or all rape is right- you can't pick and choose morals.

Anyways the most basic of human ethics is to measure suffering, and reduce suffering where ever possible, within your own tribal identity.

However murder and rape are not always evil in situational contexts. You would need a way to evaluate situations to come to the more morally right situation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics#Hist...l_theories

[FZUMedia]

(18-12-2012 09:24 PM)Tartarus Sauce Wrote:  

(18-12-2012 07:31 PM)FZUMedia Wrote:  Evil people make up rules which they do not follow themself. For example, a Christian God breaks all of his rules and commandments routinely. A bad parent will hit a child and tell them "do not use violence to solve problems!". A liberal will claim to be against violence, yet support higher rates of violence from the state.

Good people are 100% consistent with their own rules, since the very definition of evil is changing rules for yourself while inflicting a different set of rules on others.

Please explain how that is something more than simply your own subjective interpretation of morals. You seem to constantly be using an appeal to authority as "objective evidence." That authority is none other than you. All your arguments boil down to "It is true because I believe in it." No wonder you won't give supporting evidence, for your arguments, the only "objective" evidence of importance is that you believe in a claim, and you can't see why anybody needs any other evidence other than the fact that YOU believe in it.

Seems to me that isn't an objective view on morality, but actually is simply what you adopted as your justification for being a bigoted asshole who only cares about his own viewpoints and could give a shit less about anything or anyone else's opinions. After all, it can't be you in the wrong, regardless of how offensive, obnoxious, or retarded the drivel you spew out is. I mean come on, you've been consistent, so you reason you can't be wrong.


I believe you are suffering from more than just autism, you seem to be suffering from full blown narcissism. You have constantly belittled and offended members here while claiming intellectually superiority for, quite frankly, doing nothing more than sitting your fat ass down and bellowing "Lo and behold TTA, this is my claim, and it is indisputable fact because of no other reason than the fact that I believe it to be so." Then you label people as being "bullies" for disagreeing you, distorting our claims so that we think you should be "thrown in prison" for disagreeing with us, boasting about you how have "outshone" everyone on this forum, going on and on about your "superior habits." Fuck, you even admitted to being some spoiled, obscenely rich brat with some hot ass GF. You've been trying to shove your "superiority" in our faces this entire time. Then, to top it all off, you petty neg-rep everybody who is offended by you.

You have glorified every aspect of your being to absurd degrees and refuse to listen to counter-arguments based on solid foundations, opting to dismiss them out of hand for committing the heinous crime of *GASP* disagreeing with you. Every aspect of your being and behavior is SCREAMING narcissist.

Universally Preferable Behaviour. It makes logical sense, two people cant steal from each other at the same time, it literally would not work. Initiating violence against someone is not preferable behaviour both logically and in functionality. When slaves were used for work they required mass amounts of resources to use and keep them working- since they hated their slave master they had no desire to do the work and was incredibly inferior to current methods of work and employment we have today, were employees are treated with voluntarism and decency they actually want to do work. Violence and threats in any situation turns what you are doing into unsustainable shit. For example, making a living from being a thief is not sustainable, since one day you will get shot or sent to prison (and rightfully so). There's more to be earned from starting trading relationships with people than stealing from them. This is true in your relationship with family, friends, children, co-workers, etc.

Being offended isn't an argument, is what I am saying logically wrong or not?.

[Logica Humano]

(19-12-2012 07:26 AM)FZUMedia Wrote:  

(18-12-2012 09:24 PM)Tartarus Sauce Wrote:  Please explain how that is something more than simply your own subjective interpretation of morals. You seem to constantly be using an appeal to authority as "objective evidence." That authority is none other than you. All your arguments boil down to "It is true because I believe in it." No wonder you won't give supporting evidence, for your arguments, the only "objective" evidence of importance is that you believe in a claim, and you can't see why anybody needs any other evidence other than the fact that YOU believe in it.

Seems to me that isn't an objective view on morality, but actually is simply what you adopted as your justification for being a bigoted asshole who only cares about his own viewpoints and could give a shit less about anything or anyone else's opinions. After all, it can't be you in the wrong, regardless of how offensive, obnoxious, or retarded the drivel you spew out is. I mean come on, you've been consistent, so you reason you can't be wrong.


I believe you are suffering from more than just autism, you seem to be suffering from full blown narcissism. You have constantly belittled and offended members here while claiming intellectually superiority for, quite frankly, doing nothing more than sitting your fat ass down and bellowing "Lo and behold TTA, this is my claim, and it is indisputable fact because of no other reason than the fact that I believe it to be so." Then you label people as being "bullies" for disagreeing you, distorting our claims so that we think you should be "thrown in prison" for disagreeing with us, boasting about you how have "outshone" everyone on this forum, going on and on about your "superior habits." Fuck, you even admitted to being some spoiled, obscenely rich brat with some hot ass GF. You've been trying to shove your "superiority" in our faces this entire time. Then, to top it all off, you petty neg-rep everybody who is offended by you.

You have glorified every aspect of your being to absurd degrees and refuse to listen to counter-arguments based on solid foundations, opting to dismiss them out of hand for committing the heinous crime of *GASP* disagreeing with you. Every aspect of your being and behavior is SCREAMING narcissist.

Universally Preferable Behaviour. It makes logical sense, two people cant steal from each other at the same time, it literally would not work. Initiating violence against someone is not preferable behaviour both logically and in functionality. When slaves were used for work they required mass amounts of resources to use and keep them working- since they hated their slave master they had no desire to do the work and was incredibly inferior to current methods of work and employment we have today, were employees are treated with voluntarism and decency they actually want to do work. Violence and threats in any situation turns what you are doing into unsustainable shit. For example, making a living from being a thief is not sustainable, since one day you will get shot or sent to prison (and rightfully so). There's more to be earned from starting trading relationships with people than stealing from them. This is true in your relationship with family, friends, children, co-workers, etc.

Being offended isn't an argument, is what I am saying logically wrong or not?.

No one said violence is preferable. Sometimes it is required of us. Biologically, morality is a necessary social appendage. You will find that most reptiles, for instance, have a less evolved sense empathy and fairness than a chimpanzee. It is currently, for example, more widely accepted that marriage should take place between solely and man and a woman, and that homosexual intercourse is not "normal". However, as we look towards nature, other species find it completely acceptable. Gorillas, Penguins, Chimpanzees, Dolphins, Pigeons, Elephants, Giraffes, Bonobos, Sheep, Goats, Lions, Canines, etc. Obviously we have a different sense of morality than other species of animal. But why stop there? Many nations of the world have completely accepted and integrated homosexuality into their culture, where as others believe that is not correct. It is a subjective sense of morality, based on individual perception.

We look at the amorality of death, especially of our own species, however, with a negative connotation. That is biological, and is almost completely accepted throughout social animals. Violence and in-fighting threatens the existence of the collective, though sometimes it is necessary to defend the collective from a perceived internal or external danger.

What you are saying is under the assumption that morality is not subjective, therefore you are uneducated. As said previously, relying purely on logic is illogical when you do not have facts to support it. Stop grasping onto your unreason and research what you are talking about.

[FZUMedia]

(19-12-2012 10:14 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  

(19-12-2012 07:26 AM)FZUMedia Wrote:  Universally Preferable Behaviour. It makes logical sense, two people cant steal from each other at the same time, it literally would not work. Initiating violence against someone is not preferable behaviour both logically and in functionality. When slaves were used for work they required mass amounts of resources to use and keep them working- since they hated their slave master they had no desire to do the work and was incredibly inferior to current methods of work and employment we have today, were employees are treated with voluntarism and decency they actually want to do work. Violence and threats in any situation turns what you are doing into unsustainable shit. For example, making a living from being a thief is not sustainable, since one day you will get shot or sent to prison (and rightfully so). There's more to be earned from starting trading relationships with people than stealing from them. This is true in your relationship with family, friends, children, co-workers, etc.

Being offended isn't an argument, is what I am saying logically wrong or not?.

No one said violence is preferable. Sometimes it is required of us. Biologically, morality is a necessary social appendage. You will find that most reptiles, for instance, have a less evolved sense empathy and fairness than a chimpanzee. It is currently, for example, more widely accepted that marriage should take place between solely and man and a woman, and that homosexual intercourse is not "normal". However, as we look towards nature, other species find it completely acceptable. Gorillas, Penguins, Chimpanzees, Dolphins, Pigeons, Elephants, Giraffes, Bonobos, Sheep, Goats, Lions, Canines, etc. Obviously we have a different sense of morality than other species of animal. But why stop there? Many nations of the world have completely accepted and integrated homosexuality into their culture, where as others believe that is not correct. It is a subjective sense of morality, based on individual perception.

We look at the amorality of death, especially of our own species, however, with a negative connotation. That is biological, and is almost completely accepted throughout social animals. Violence threatens and in-fighting threatens the existence of the collective, though sometimes it is necessary to defend the collective from a perceived internal or external danger.

What you are saying is under the assumption that morality is not subjective, therefore you are uneducated. As said previously, relying purely on logic is illogical when you do not have facts to support it. Stop grasping onto your unreason and research about what you are talking about.

If violence is in your 'toolbox' then that fundamentally changes how you interact with people. For example, if your last resort to a girl not dating you is to rape her, you probably aren't going to treat her well, give her flowers etc- you will likely give off one creepy vibe which would make it even more likely for the girl not to want to date you. Or if you want to be employed, and your last resort to not being employed is to smash the boss' car- you probably aren't going to prepare much for the interview, which will make you less likely to not resort to violence in the first place. If your last resort to people you disagree with is to throw them in jail, you probably are not going to try to reason with them as much as if you were peaceful. You see the pattern? Violence 'for the greater good' makes all of your relationships suffer because of it.

True morality is never initiating violence, since violence turns everything into shit for yourself and others. I haven't seen any example of where that isn't the case- you requesting 'evidence' for violence being bad is like requesting me for evidence of gravity, I don't need to show you data - we can see it already if we have half a brain working.

[Logica Humano]

(19-12-2012 10:23 AM)FZUMedia Wrote:  

(19-12-2012 10:14 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  No one said violence is preferable. Sometimes it is required of us. Biologically, morality is a necessary social appendage. You will find that most reptiles, for instance, have a less evolved sense empathy and fairness than a chimpanzee. It is currently, for example, more widely accepted that marriage should take place between solely and man and a woman, and that homosexual intercourse is not "normal". However, as we look towards nature, other species find it completely acceptable. Gorillas, Penguins, Chimpanzees, Dolphins, Pigeons, Elephants, Giraffes, Bonobos, Sheep, Goats, Lions, Canines, etc. Obviously we have a different sense of morality than other species of animal. But why stop there? Many nations of the world have completely accepted and integrated homosexuality into their culture, where as others believe that is not correct. It is a subjective sense of morality, based on individual perception.

We look at the amorality of death, especially of our own species, however, with a negative connotation. That is biological, and is almost completely accepted throughout social animals. Violence threatens and in-fighting threatens the existence of the collective, though sometimes it is necessary to defend the collective from a perceived internal or external danger.

What you are saying is under the assumption that morality is not subjective, therefore you are uneducated. As said previously, relying purely on logic is illogical when you do not have facts to support it. Stop grasping onto your unreason and research about what you are talking about.

If violence is in your 'toolbox' then that fundamentally changes how you interact with people. For example, if your last resort to a girl not dating you is to rape her, you probably aren't going to treat her well, give her flowers etc- you will likely give off one creepy vibe which would make it even more likely for the girl not to want to date you. Or if you want to be employed, and your last resort to not being employed is to smash the boss' car- you probably aren't going to prepare much for the interview, which will make you less likely to not resort to violence in the first place. If your last resort to people you disagree with is to throw them in jail, you probably are not going to try to reason with them as much as if you were peaceful. You see the pattern? Violence 'for the greater good' makes all of your relationships suffer because of it.

True morality is never initiating violence, since violence turns everything into shit for yourself and others. I haven't seen any example of where that isn't the case- you requesting 'evidence' for violence being bad is like requesting me for evidence of gravity, I don't need to show you data - we can see it already if we have half a brain working.

So is it immoral for the woman who is being raped to fight back? Or how about when a father is defending his family from a criminal? Or when a soldier protects his nation from invaders? According to you it is. You have yet to demonstrate the true meaning of subjective morality. "True" morality is whatever you, with your individual perception, believe is right. I may think that an Islamic extremist is doing the wrong thing, but he believes he is doing the right thing.

The idea that there is "good" and "evil" already presupposes that there is an absolute objectivity to morality. Your position is malformed.

[Chas]

(19-12-2012 10:23 AM)FZUMedia Wrote:  

(19-12-2012 10:14 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  No one said violence is preferable. Sometimes it is required of us. Biologically, morality is a necessary social appendage. You will find that most reptiles, for instance, have a less evolved sense empathy and fairness than a chimpanzee. It is currently, for example, more widely accepted that marriage should take place between solely and man and a woman, and that homosexual intercourse is not "normal". However, as we look towards nature, other species find it completely acceptable. Gorillas, Penguins, Chimpanzees, Dolphins, Pigeons, Elephants, Giraffes, Bonobos, Sheep, Goats, Lions, Canines, etc. Obviously we have a different sense of morality than other species of animal. But why stop there? Many nations of the world have completely accepted and integrated homosexuality into their culture, where as others believe that is not correct. It is a subjective sense of morality, based on individual perception.

We look at the amorality of death, especially of our own species, however, with a negative connotation. That is biological, and is almost completely accepted throughout social animals. Violence threatens and in-fighting threatens the existence of the collective, though sometimes it is necessary to defend the collective from a perceived internal or external danger.

What you are saying is under the assumption that morality is not subjective, therefore you are uneducated. As said previously, relying purely on logic is illogical when you do not have facts to support it. Stop grasping onto your unreason and research about what you are talking about.

If violence is in your 'toolbox' then that fundamentally changes how you interact with people. For example, if your last resort to a girl not dating you is to rape her, you probably aren't going to treat her well, give her flowers etc- you will likely give off one creepy vibe which would make it even more likely for the girl not to want to date you. Or if you want to be employed, and your last resort to not being employed is to smash the boss' car- you probably aren't going to prepare much for the interview, which will make you less likely to not resort to violence in the first place. If your last resort to people you disagree with is to throw them in jail, you probably are not going to try to reason with them as much as if you were peaceful. You see the pattern? Violence 'for the greater good' makes all of your relationships suffer because of it.

True morality is never initiating violence, since violence turns everything into shit for yourself and others. I haven't seen any example of where that isn't the case- you requesting 'evidence' for violence being bad is like requesting me for evidence of gravity, I don't need to show you data - we can see it already if we have half a brain working.

You do not understand that to live in society requires compromise. Compromise is not violence.

[FZUMedia]

(19-12-2012 10:37 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  

(19-12-2012 10:23 AM)FZUMedia Wrote:  If violence is in your 'toolbox' then that fundamentally changes how you interact with people. For example, if your last resort to a girl not dating you is to rape her, you probably aren't going to treat her well, give her flowers etc- you will likely give off one creepy vibe which would make it even more likely for the girl not to want to date you. Or if you want to be employed, and your last resort to not being employed is to smash the boss' car- you probably aren't going to prepare much for the interview, which will make you less likely to not resort to violence in the first place. If your last resort to people you disagree with is to throw them in jail, you probably are not going to try to reason with them as much as if you were peaceful. You see the pattern? Violence 'for the greater good' makes all of your relationships suffer because of it.

True morality is never initiating violence, since violence turns everything into shit for yourself and others. I haven't seen any example of where that isn't the case- you requesting 'evidence' for violence being bad is like requesting me for evidence of gravity, I don't need to show you data - we can see it already if we have half a brain working.

So is it immoral for the woman who is being raped to fight back? Or how about when a father is defending his family from a criminal? Or when a soldier protects his nation from invaders? According to you it is. You have yet to demonstrate the true meaning of subjective morality. "True" morality is whatever you, with your individual perception, believe is right. I may think that an Islamic extremist is doing the wrong thing, but he believes he is doing the right thing.

The idea that there is "good" and "evil" already presupposes that there is an absolute objectivity to morality. Your position is malformed.

I said 'initiating' violence- I'd have no problem killing someone if my life was threatened by the person in question, defending yourself is completely different to initiating violence- surely you understand this?. I said this many times.

'belief' is the key word there, if your morality requires faith and belief you are probably you are doing the wrong thing. Morality is as evident as gravity- I don't 'believe' I am a good person, I am good by an objective definition since I never initiate violence on a micro or macro scale. It's not my belief, it's just a fact that I am a good person. Those that do not do as I are bad, and I have no hesitation calling those that initiate violence evil.