Seal Clubbing

[Ash256]

I think now should be a good time to tell how I'm pro-dog fighting as long as they're not mistreated outside of the arena. The amount of suffering dogs endure in a deathmatch is no greater than if they were born in the wild. Actually it's arguably less. Wild animals don't usually die peaceful deaths. When they're not gulped down or crushed instantly, they're slowly chocked or disemboweled

If we were dropped into the jungle somewhere we'd very possibly be bitten by a poisonous creature and die a slow and painful death involving some kind of paralysis. But that doesn't make shooting a person in the head morally neutral.

[wufwugy]

If we were dropped into the jungle somewhere we'd very possibly be bitten by a poisonous creature and die a slow and painful death involving some kind of paralysis. But that doesn't make shooting a person in the head morally neutral.

That's absolutely right, but that's also why I look to practicality instead of abstraction. When you boil it down, morality is actually a red herring. All the "morality" of our society is a product of tangible civil functions. So I won't say that shooting somebody in the head is wrong because it's morally wrong, but because it's deleterious for the society in a very real way. When you examine our morals, you'll see this sort of thing come to light. An example is how we are so willing to shoot foreign brown people in the head, yet not shoot our neighbors down the street. The morals haven't really changed, but the relative social impacts have

[wufwugy]

If we were dropped into the jungle somewhere we'd very possibly be bitten by a poisonous creature and die a slow and painful death involving some kind of paralysis. But that doesn't make shooting a person in the head morally neutral.

I should reform my response a little. At first I thought your response was to a different post of mine, so that changes my first response by a little, but not a lot

I'll just reform it by saying that I merely consider a "normal" level of suffering as normal and unavoidable. I won't get my panties in a wad over organisms living normal lives and enduring what they've been mostly evolved for, but I will most certainly get my panties in a wad over artificial suffering taken to extremes. That's the primary reason why I lament modernism over tribalism. Yes, tribalism does involve some suffering, but it's not even remotely close to the levels in modernism. I consider the levels in tribalism to be "acceptable" while the modernism levels are unacceptable. That's getting into fairly tale land, but I think the example can illustrate where I'm coming from

Also, I think if you look at our lives, you'll see that we consider a certain level of suffering as normal. Like a baby has to cry or a child has to confront a bully or an adult has to experience a broken heart. All I'm saying is that we shouldn't imagine that suffering that should be considered normal to be extreme. I only say this because animal activists are oblivious to it. They get mad because humans butcher a cow, but they don't realize that if things were left up to nature, it'd be lions and hyenas and wild dogs butchering the livestock instead

[Ash256]

I'll just reform it by saying that I merely consider a "normal" level of suffering as normal and unavoidable. I won't get my panties in a wad over organisms living normal lives and enduring what they've been mostly evolved for, but I will most certainly get my panties in a wad over artificial suffering taken to extremes. That's the primary reason why I lament modernism over tribalism. Yes, tribalism does involve some suffering, but it's not even remotely close to the levels in modernism. I consider the levels in tribalism to be "acceptable" while the modernism levels are unacceptable. That's getting into fairly tale land, but I think the example can illustrate where I'm coming from

Also, I think if you look at our lives, you'll see that we consider a certain level of suffering as normal. Like a baby has to cry or a child has to confront a bully or an adult has to experience a broken heart. All I'm saying is that we shouldn't imagine that suffering that should be considered normal to be extreme. I only say this because animal activists are oblivious to it. They get mad because humans butcher a cow, but they don't realize that if things were left up to nature, it'd be lions and hyenas and wild dogs butchering the livestock instead

The crux of my argument is choice. Animals in our 'care' (used loosely) are under our control. If I own a dog which I've trained to be loyal to me, I can feed it, love it and take care of it, equally I can kick the shit out of it and poke it in the eyes with a stick. Once an animal is under our control, what would happen to it in the wild isn't that relevant, because we have the choice to control what actually happens to it in the present. Vegetarians say we have a choice as to whether or not we wish to eat meat and I agree with them. We have control over what we inflict on our animals. I don't feel comfortable seeing a slaughter but I choose to inflict that on animals because I like meat and it's nutritious.

And that's why I pretty much agree with you on meat and disagree on dogfighting.

[wufwugy]

The crux of my argument is choice. Animals in our 'care' (used loosely) are under our control. If I own a dog which I've trained to be loyal to me, I can feed it, love it and take care of it, equally I can kick the shit out of it and poke it in the eyes with a stick. Once an animal is under our control, what would happen to it in the wild isn't that relevant, because we have the choice to control what actually happens to it in the present. Vegetarians say we have a choice as to whether or not we wish to eat meat and I agree with them. We have control over what we inflict on our animals. I don't feel comfortable seeing a slaughter but I choose to inflict that on animals because I like meat and it's nutritious.

And that's why I pretty much agree with you on meat and disagree on dogfighting.

Push come to shove, I may not like dog fighting for emotional or other reasons, but I usually bring up some level of support for it in a response to generic retard animal lovers making stupid arguments.

And I wouldn't really say you have much choice about eating meat. You do, but the choices aren't inherently equal. I mean, I guess you could choose to not eat meat and becoming weaker, sicker, and stupider because of it

I'm being somewhat contrarian right now, though. I think there are several valid philosophies on the matter

[d0zer]

And I wouldn't really say you have much choice about eating meat. You do, but the choices aren't inherently equal. I mean, I guess you could choose to not eat meat and becoming weaker, sicker, and stupider because of it

u srs?

[wufwugy]

u srs?

Yes, there is at least one vitamin that has been demonstrated to be accessible to humans only by consuming animal flesh. Perhaps it is also accessible via intramuscular injection, but that shit is retarded

[d0zer]

Yes, there is at least one vitamin that has been demonstrated to be accessible to humans only by consuming animal flesh. Perhaps it is also accessible via intramuscular injection, but that shit is retarded

B12? No idea which you're referring to because it's tough to find a dietitian in this day and age that doesn't acknowledge that vegetarian diets are able to meet nutritional requirements without supplements, especially with eggs and dairy.

Vegan diets are tougher without supplements (oral, not non-intramuscular (lol)), but not impossible. Just impractical for people who don't have tons of time on their hands.