"The Holocaust on your Plate"

[Hræfn]

The motive, in my opinion, holds no moral significance, only the action (killing) as it is only the action that has any real effect.

 

[leprechaun]

A vegan diet is exceptionally unhealthy, unless it is done with various supplements that are taken from animals, so, in essence, a little bit of cruelty is necessary unless you want to **** up your insides.

Yes, but vegans are generally even more mad than the PETA fanatics. While I agree that factory farming chickens and the like is wrong, as it's basic cruelty, comparing it to the Holocaust is simply retarded. Free range chickens I have no problem with other people eating, even though I won't myself. But going vegan is several steps further than I'd go.

 

[thesneakster]

My opinion? Some people need to get a grip (no, i'm not refering to you Hræfn), we aren't (easily edible) animals, and we weren'r born so. Stop *****ing, or in the next life you might just be a battry hen.

 

[Orcus]

If i still had my old ava, hell i would post alot here... 

 

[Merentha]

A vegan diet is exceptionally unhealthy, unless it is done with various supplements that are taken from animals, so, in essence, a little bit of cruelty is necessary unless you want to **** up your insides.

Yes, but vegans are generally even more mad than the PETA fanatics. While I agree that factory farming chickens and the like is wrong, as it's basic cruelty, comparing it to the Holocaust is simply retarded. Free range chickens I have no problem with other people eating, even though I won't myself. But going vegan is several steps further than I'd go.

Vegans are more insane than PETA?  Wow, that's going a bit far.  Vegans, unless they're in PETA, aren't known to bomb animal testing sites.  Veganism can be done acceptably if you get protein from other places, but that, too, can lead to complications.  I wouldn't call it exceptionally unhealthy, but its certainly not a balanced diet.

Some people need to get a grip (no, i'm not refering to you Hræfn),

I'd say he does.

 

[Narcissus]

The motive, in my opinion, holds no moral significance, only the action (killing) as it is only the action that has any real effect.

The motive doesn't matter??  No moral significance??  Absolutely brilliant. 

You are comparing human lives with that of animals.  If it is only the action that matters ... then there is no difference between killing a man because he drives a nice car (murder) or killing a man because he is trying to kill you (defending yourself).

Great pattern of thought.

 

[thesneakster]

Some people need to get a grip (no, i'm not refering to you Hræfn),

I'd say he does.

Yes, but at least he's argueing reasonably, (eg, without resorting to calling us all killers, or somesuch)

 

[Hræfn]

The motive, in my opinion, holds no moral significance, only the action (killing) as it is only the action that has any real effect.

The motive doesn't matter??  No moral significance??  Absolutely brilliant. 

You are comparing human lives with that of animals.  If it is only the action that matters ... then there is no difference between killing a man because he drives a nice car (murder) or killing a man because he is trying to kill you (defending yourself).

Great pattern of thought.

You could say that self-defence is the action therefore your argument is flawed. Killing someone because you want to steal their wallet is the same as killing someone because they are Jewish, there is no significance to the motive; the person is, in the end, still dead regardless of motive.

Some people need to get a grip (no, i'm not refering to you Hræfn),

I'd say he does.

Merentha, as always, suck my balls.

 

[Raz]

So a man who defends himself should receive the death penalty?

 

[Hræfn]

So a man who defends himself should receive the death penalty?

No, i'm contesting that self-defense is an action on it's own, and should therefore be treated differently. Killing, whether that be genocide, or for monetary gains, or for food, is still the same action.

 

[Narcissus]

No, i'm contesting that self-defense is an action on it's own, and should therefore be treated differently. Killing, whether that be genocide, or for monetary gains, or for food, is still the same action.

So hate (genocide) ... hunger (food) ... monetary gain (greed) wouldn't be actions in and of themselves?  The action is the killing ... not the motive.  Read your own statements that you already made and see if they make any sense ...

You are just trying to defend your beliefs without any logical reasoning behind them.

Narcissus

 

[thesneakster]

So a man who defends himself should receive the death penalty?

No, i'm contesting that self-defense is an action on it's own, and should therefore be treated differently. Killing, whether that be genocide, or for monetary gains, or for food, is still the same action.

Killing in self defence= saveing yourself from death
killing for food= saveing yourself from death

 

[Raz]

You could say that self-defence is the action therefore your argument is flawed. Killing someone because you want to steal their wallet is the same as killing someone because they are Jewish, there is no significance to the motive; the person is, in the end, still dead regardless of motive.

Self-defence is the motive, killing is the action. There is no significance in motive, murder = murder, regardless the circumstances, according to you. Yet they should be treated differently? This makes absolutely no sense to me.

 

[Hræfn]

Okay, i'm tired and semi-drunk, i really can't be arsed right now, but believe me there is a fairly vocal voice within the realm of philosophy that says it's actions and the consequences of the actions that have any real physical and moral significance, look up Peter Vardy he'd probaby explain it better than a sleep-deprived Icelander whose had too much ale.

G'night.

 

[Merentha]

So a man who defends himself should receive the death penalty?

No, i'm contesting that self-defense is an action on it's own, and should therefore be treated differently. Killing, whether that be genocide, or for monetary gains, or for food, is still the same action.

...   So killing isn't killing when its self defense, but it is killing when its to procure food.  At the same time, killing for direct personal gain is the same as killing someone because of racial characteristics. 

What do you think of the concept of "hate crimes?"  Should said crimes be punished more strongly than a death that results from a misguided theft?  What about revenge-killing?

You could say that self-defence is the action therefore your argument is flawed. Killing someone because you want to steal their wallet is the same as killing someone because they are Jewish, there is no significance to the motive; the person is, in the end, still dead regardless of motive.

Self-defence is the motive, killing is the action. There is no significance in motive, murder = murder, regardless the circumstances, according to you. Yet they should be treated differently? This makes absolutely no sense to me.

Thank you Raz, this summed it up nicely.

ut believe me there is a fairly vocal voice within the realm of philosophy that says it's actions and the consequences of the actions that have any real physical and moral significance,

Yeah, sure there is.  I happen to contend that motive is also highly important.  By your code, a completely accidental death is identical to a premeditated murder on the basis of race.  That is foolishness.

 

[Hræfn]

If you kill someone, for whatever reason, are they or are they not dead regardless of the reason? Yes, they are. My point stands.

 

[Redcoat-Mic]

Why shouldn't animals lives not be as important as Humans lives? Because we won the race to become aware of conciousness? Wow.
As Steven Hawking said "We are just an advanced breed of monkeys on an average planet with a very average star" or something along the line. Animals feel pain, we feel pain.
An animal doesn't have a house you can repossess, a wallet to steal, only it's life to take and what gives us the right to torture and eventually take away the only thing they'll EVER have?
Were as I do eat meat, I am not for the conditions they live in, I think the picture is not meant to show that it's completely the same thing but the conditions sure are. Pigs piled on top of each other is acceptable? I am aware that giving every animal a luxury spa treatment before we bolt them in the brain is impractical to deal with demand but they could certainly be made more efficient (as in some animals aren't left bleeding to death with a botched execution.)
I do not see the murder of a human different to the murder of an animal, seeing as we indeed are an animal. Of course it would be shocking as you don't see Humans murdered everyday, but we see animals dead all the time on TV, if we saw Humans that much we wouldn't give a crap about seeing dead Humans either.

 

[Raz]

If you kill someone, for whatever reason, are they or are they not dead regardless of the reason? Yes, they are. My point stands.

No, it doesn't. Your point was that motive didn't matter.

 

[Merentha]

If you kill someone, for whatever reason, are they or are they not dead regardless of the reason? Yes, they are. My point stands.

True, they are dead.  Should they be punished equally?  Absolutely not.

Your point about moral equality between deaths has not been made, merely that in both situations, someone dies.

 

[thesneakster]

Why shouldn't animals lives not be as important as Humans lives? Because we won the race to become aware of conciousness? Wow.r.

Yes, we did. if you don't like it, go wallow around in some mud, but remember, you won't be able to come back to a warm house, with lights, tv, hot meals, and internet at night.