Originally Posted by Mallymkun
I'm guessing you're still mad about the abortion thing. Alright, go ahead.
No. Are you mad or something though? Seems like you're projecting.
Originally Posted by Mallymkun
What's with the inclusive pronouns? I care and lots of others do, otherwise animal rights wouldn't be debated so often.
Are you a vegetarian then? You ever visited a zoo? You ever had a pet? Generally, most people can relate with these things. There's no need to dispute such a pedantic point.
Originally Posted by Mallymkun
Firstly, pigs being slaughtered blah blah
Dogs being raised blah blah
As for lions, blah blah blah
The point of the examples was to show that all of these things are done without consent and the majority of people are fine with it. You're trying to disprove a point I wasn't making.
Originally Posted by Mallymkun
Right now we are deeming it appropriate to kill for pleasure; living beings with the ability to feel pain and emotion.
Uhh, explain to me how you came to this conclusion in the context of animal testing? I don't see how it relates.
Originally Posted by Mallymkun
It's very dangerous to state objective standpoints in morality. We are constantly changing our perception of morality, and we have done for the last century (e.g. giving homosexuals and women equality)... If it's just your opinion that they're not morally wrong for doing what they do, then you're free to that opinion, but you did state it like a fact, which I'm just trying to clarify.
I think it's possible to establish a baseline standard of morality that all sane people would agree with - I don't think it's absurd to suggest there are some objective truths in ethics. I briefly mentioned it before; maximising happiness and minimising suffering. You seem interested in podcasts, so give a listen to this conversation between Sam Harris and philosopher/ethicist Peter Singer.
Originally Posted by Mallymkun
Right, because I felt it was appropriate to quote you in my signature and call you a nutter. Please.
To be fair, you said you only fuck for procreation. I put it in my sig because it was hilarious, not because I was angry with you.
Originally Posted by Mallymkun
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/bandwagon
I clearly argued that what we perceive to be a good end can be the justification for acting out without another animal's consent. I'm merely elaborating on the initial point I made, while making the differentiation between the purpose of the situations you asked me.
I wasn't making a statement on how things ought to be. I was making a statement on how things are (after which, I unpacked some reasons as to why things are that way).
Stop trying to look for 'logical fallacies' in everything I say - It's a real shitty and juvenile method of argumentation (it also shows you don't really understand them properly).
Originally Posted by Mallymkun
Was a statement on slaughter.
Uhuh, but we're killing animals for food. We don't often kill for 'pleasure' as you suggested. Whatever though, this point isn't relevant.
Give a listen to that podcast when you can.
instead of testing on innocent animals who probably have children or families to get back to, test it on people who have betrayed humanity as a whole. for example, serial killers or pedophiles.
I just wanna say that the first post is one of the most beautiful poems I ever read.
Particularly the verse "opinions." was very insightful. It stretches the word and gives it an emphasis that suggests that most people don't have very deep ideas about the subject and spew their blatant bullshit over the topic without doing any research or thinking.
Here another shit opinion for your opinion bucket:
The more we test shit on animal, eat them, or rely on them in any other shape or form, they are in a very good state of existance.
Some guy in here posed protecting lions as a duty of humanity in order to preserve them.
I would argue that if McDonald's were to invent a Simba Burger the amount of lions on this planets would reach ridiculous amounts in no time, simply because their existance has become profitable.
Cows and pigs are among the most successful species on the planet simply because we want them to be.
Same with lab rats. They shouldn't complain. We make sure their genes exist.
Good idea, every lab on the planet should breed some large amounts of pedophiles for that purpose. Perhaps 100 per lab? Dunno, sounds reasonable.
Particularly the verse "opinions." was very insightful. It stretches the word and gives it an emphasis that suggests that most people don't have very deep ideas about the subject and spew their blatant bullshit over the topic without doing any research or thinking.
Here another shit opinion for your opinion bucket:
The more we test shit on animal, eat them, or rely on them in any other shape or form, they are in a very good state of existance.
Some guy in here posed protecting lions as a duty of humanity in order to preserve them.
I would argue that if McDonald's were to invent a Simba Burger the amount of lions on this planets would reach ridiculous amounts in no time, simply because their existance has become profitable.
Cows and pigs are among the most successful species on the planet simply because we want them to be.
Same with lab rats. They shouldn't complain. We make sure their genes exist.
Originally Posted by Ancient
instead of testing on innocent animals who probably have children or families to get back to, test it on people who have betrayed humanity as a whole. for example, serial killers or pedophiles.
Good idea, every lab on the planet should breed some large amounts of pedophiles for that purpose. Perhaps 100 per lab? Dunno, sounds reasonable.
Last edited by Redundant; Dec 3, 2016 at 09:51 PM.
How are you?
