• 2 Posts
  • 32 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 27th, 2023

help-circle

  • BonfireOvDreams@lemmy.worldtoLemmy Shitpost@lemmy.worldPhilosophy meme
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    Would need to go the a priori, teleological, or modal route - definitely no empirics to claim. I absolutely think objective morality can coexist with invented morals. As stated prior, the majority of morals likely are subjective, but it doesn’t follow to me that all of them are. I don’t think the idea that ‘using zyklon b to kill millions of innocent people is bad’ is an invention. I’m fine with the idea that people realized not through invention but discovery that, ‘yeah it is pretty fucked actually.’


  • BonfireOvDreams@lemmy.worldtoLemmy Shitpost@lemmy.worldPhilosophy meme
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    I expect this response despite the indication of its issue. Were nazi’s morally rigtheous in gassing millions of innocent people to death because they believed so? At that time that was their ‘progress.’ Independent of other socities or yourself having any issue, it’s simply fine to say that because a nazi thinks it’s fine, it is fine?

    I don’t think so, and I don’t think that injustice is dependant on my preference to view it that way. It just is wrong.


  • BonfireOvDreams@lemmy.worldtoLemmy Shitpost@lemmy.worldPhilosophy meme
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    I too highly suspect most moral relativists are full of shit and don’t actually believe in it. Ya’ll don’t believe in moral progress? A society of chronic rapists is not inherently bad outside of your societies or personal preferences? The overwhelming majority of moral decisions being relative doesn’t discount that at least one very important concept can be capable of superceding our preferences.






  • BonfireOvDreams@lemmy.worldtoMemes@lemmy.mlPlant based > Flesh based
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    Go back to school. Arguments lead to logical conclusions. Your point is stupid. You are worried about framing in discourse far more than the argument. Just use that brain power of yours to reformat the argument minus the framing you don’t like. Such as, ‘if anything digestible is morally permissable to digest, that would include babies, which you probably wouldn’t morally permit, so perhaps you should find a more useful argument. Babies have meat too.’ There, that better? You shouldn’t eat animals (or 99.9999999% of them) because they are conscious - entailing varying degrees of thoughts, feelings, social dynamics, and the obvious capacity to suffer - many animals of which exhibit higher degrees of consciousness than a newborn human.

    And jfc my dude you responded to the idea of babies being eaten with ‘besides, some people are cannibals.’ I didn’t strawman. You actually said that.

    If you still can’t figure out how ‘my body can digest stuff so its a-okay to eat literally anything digestible’ is incredibly dumb even after I’ve told you where that logic leads then just don’t participate in discourse at all and we’ll help you get through life since you can’t do it on your own. Are you done with the intellectualy dishonest semantics or no?


  • BonfireOvDreams@lemmy.worldtoMemes@lemmy.mlPlant based > Flesh based
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    My point is that our “body” is able to sustain itself on a diet that includes animal meat, out body has evolved to be able to process it. Including babies and dogs.

    Your point is stupid and absolutely includes babies and dogs. You can digest those beings just fine.

    Besides, while I don’t share their views, there are cultures where eating dogs or practicing cannibalism is common.

    ‘I’m not normalizing eating babies,’ proceeds to normalize eating babies






  • BonfireOvDreams@lemmy.worldtoMemes@lemmy.mlSee?? I'm supporting togetherness
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    PETA takes any animal. So those no kill shelters that you probably love so much have to get rid of animals and send the animal to the next shelter in the chain. Eventually, that could mean PETA shelters. Guess what that means? The most aggressive animals, the most disabled animals, the most sick animals, the most expensive to take care of animals, and otherwise those least desired by those looking for companion animals, are likely to end up at a PETA shelter. They don’t have the funding, the staff, or the safety protocols in place to deal with the never ending supply that breeding creates. If you don’t want PETA to kill animals, which they don’t want to do, encourage the ban on animal breeding so there are fewer of these cases. Also stop pretending that your local no kill shelter is separate from that process. They just offload the bad press to PETA. Do not buy animals. Rescue & adopt.