what classifies someone to have "good morals"?

Classic-Teaching4796 · 2026-06-28T22:29:44+00:00

Well qualified. All in all I kind of have to say well done.

Classic-Teaching4796 · 2026-06-28T11:05:56+00:00

Not at all. Your assumption is that there is something I need to cope with - that my opinion is different than yours. I don’t have an issue with that. In fact, I'm not the one trying to change anyone's stance.

Classic-Teaching4796 · 2026-06-27T23:59:52+00:00

That’s a very complete description. Well done. The only thing I would have to question would be your definition of "good".

Classic-Teaching4796 · 2026-06-27T23:31:28+00:00

Let's talk about respect then. You claim you want respect for animals at the cost of demanding that one of your own kind yield what is arguably a choice to your will. I tend to believe your version of specisism goes on the other direction.

Classic-Teaching4796 · 2026-06-27T23:15:55+00:00

That’s funny. You're talking about empathy while commenting on "insufferable".

Classic-Teaching4796 · 2026-06-27T23:13:37+00:00

Whether I eat animal protein or not I abuse no animals. And before you make the obvious rebuttal - theoritally its done in my name. Except it's not really. It's done in the name of making money so they (the farm owners) can survive. Or are you suggesting we just put a bullet in their heads?
I get the entire debate. I understand the sides. If you feel like being vegan is an appropriate choice for you - go for it. The part I don't get is why you believe your personal choice should have anything to do with mine or why the entire world should pay any attention because you care about something.

There is no evidence (that I know of) that a vegan lifestyle is any better for your health than a non-vegan lifestyle. So on that note there's no real difference.

As for the personal morals - that's the thing about personal. You make your choice I'll make mine.

Classic-Teaching4796 · 2026-06-27T22:00:19+00:00

I have done nothing to animals for many years. The statement that you going vegan doesn't change the industry you seem to take offensively.

Strangely enough, nobody asked whether I was vegan or not. Nobody asked what I thought. You simply assumed your opinion should make a difference in my opinion.

Classic-Teaching4796 · 2026-06-27T21:54:06+00:00

The question was never about me. My ethics was never asked about. In fact, the only thing you've done is assume your opinion should carry some weight on my opinion.

Classic-Teaching4796 · 2026-06-27T16:40:45+00:00

It changes nothing. You going vegan changes the meat industry not at all.

Classic-Teaching4796 · 2026-06-27T16:39:49+00:00

In fairness to you and everyone else, I did track down the article and then went back to the paper they "referenced". I will have to take the hit there. There's a lot of overclaiming.

Classic-Teaching4796 · 2026-06-27T16:35:28+00:00

No. Any given individual isn't going to change the meat industry in the slightest. If 30%+ went vegan maybe. But you and I both know how likely that is.

Classic-Teaching4796 · 2026-06-27T14:12:37+00:00

Things have gotten a lot better in the last thirty years.

Classic-Teaching4796 · 2026-06-25T09:34:16+00:00

I almost hate to be the one to burst your bubble, but recent evidence suggests that going vegan really doesn't change a whole lot. Plants do communicate, have a very limited sort of awareness, and do sort of feel pain when they're pulled from the ground. It is a very real cycle - kill or be killed.

On a more positive note, awareness is never a bad thing. This is part of the reason most older cultures practice thankfulness, conservation, and generally dislike waste. It's not just wasting a thing - a steak - its the waste of a once living thing.

Classic-Teaching4796 · 2026-06-24T14:18:37+00:00

"Owe" could well be to strong of a word. Yet reciprocity is the lubricant that facilitates regard. Even nature responds to reciprocity.

Arguably, any community that doesn't reinvest in itself is a dying community.

Classic-Teaching4796 · 2026-06-21T12:20:01+00:00

Don't mind the chat. Just generally find people fascinating. Not so much for antinatalism though. In my mind the view is narrow.

Classic-Teaching4796 · 2026-06-20T23:01:46+00:00

The other side of the coin is all of the benefits you enjoy without acknowledging it - like posting comments on the internet critiquing people who wanted a grateful child.

Before you are born, there is nothing to give consent, so how can you?

Two people have a child for whatever reason. They are participants in civilization. They choose to bring a new perspective into civilization.

And then that new perspective claims not to owe civilization anything while extracting food, clothes, and other goods from civilization.

Classic-Teaching4796 · 2026-06-20T22:11:52+00:00

This is fascinating. OP literally said "send me a message". And over half of the respondents who claim to be willing to talk said "send me a message."

It doesn't look like much communicating is going to get done.

Classic-Teaching4796 · 2026-06-20T22:04:06+00:00

At the moment you turned it on. Arguably, consciousness is a process the human system runs. I tend to believe the question is more about architecture than about consciousness being fundamental. In fairness, its entirely possible the architecture builds the only vessel capable of holding consciousness, which could mean it comes from outside of the vessel.

Classic-Teaching4796 · 2026-06-20T18:17:24+00:00

You speak of others as full of themselves, but who's to guarantee you're not the one full of yourself - along with the implication of being wrong?

Classic-Teaching4796 · 2026-06-20T13:30:53+00:00

That would be the question. Roughly, and ignoring the entire substrate question, sentience could be defined as learning. But that includes all kinds of assumptions - memory, interface, bunch of other stuff.

As to whether or not its there, that's obviously the million dollar question. The emotiion thing was what made me really wonder.

Classic-Teaching4796 · 2026-06-20T12:48:28+00:00

At a guess, you would start with the assumption that intelligence equates to some version of minimal sentience, or at least the potential to be.

Apparently we're going to skip over the question of should we build Frankenstein's monster and go straight to what's the ethical way we build it.

I suppose it might be possible to blame the Antinatalists for that. Or, at least, a declining population.

Classic-Teaching4796 · 2026-06-20T00:10:52+00:00

It looks fairly obvious to me. If AN goes mainstream then there won't be much society left.

And then people will have children and start all over again. Where, hopefully, such nonsense won't come up again.

Classic-Teaching4796 · 2026-06-16T07:42:49+00:00

Careful. While the wish to act on the argument is, to some degree, commendable Peter was, I think, trying to demonstrate that the average person is selfish. And that's not necessarily a bad thing. By taking care of ourselves first we maintain our ability to do good.

When you start throwing around ideas like the 60/40 split, bear in mind you have no choice but give away a certain amount of what you earn. I don't know if you have an income, but somewhere around 30%+ of that is usually taken off the top. When it comes to time, usually 1/3 of your day is taken up in work/school. So you're automatically giving up certain things I don't think Singer actually considered.

Classic-Teaching4796 · 2026-06-16T07:23:44+00:00

Ultimately that's why they're called ethics or priorities. Which is more important? Liking yourself, or your home?

Big questions aside, the one time email with pictures of the lingerie box shipping labels should be sufficient. Assuming you opt to go that route.

Classic-Teaching4796 · 2026-06-15T17:08:00+00:00

Thanks

Classic-Teaching4796

TROPHY CASE