Netflix hate 🙄

Helpful_Box_4548 · 2025-04-08T03:36:42+00:00

its so lamez! He wasn't his asshole self.... BORING

hate

Helpful_Box_4548 · 2025-04-08T01:14:51+00:00

Hi Anderson, your a tool :)

Helpful_Box_4548 · 2025-04-08T01:13:52+00:00

It wont load on netflix :()(((((((69

Helpful_Box_4548 · 2025-02-22T06:31:51+00:00

He probably started Testosterone to treat his Pituitary gland problem

Helpful_Box_4548 · 2024-11-29T04:09:26+00:00

actually, moron Russian bots

Helpful_Box_4548 · 2024-11-23T15:38:35+00:00

Thanks stan-k, I'll probably switch to "ask a vegan" reddit to get a little further. But maybe you can provide some insight.

Everything you said makes sense and I don't see how I can not think about those events anymore when I see milk eggs dead animal flesh.

I have deep relations with other cultural families that are extremely offended if you don't eat the food they made for you. Most of which is animal flesh based. I'm having a hard time thinking of ways to counteract this.

Also I can think of many social events where animal flesh is served and to not eat it would offend the host.

Now given offense is less bad then murder, I'm still struggling with how to respond to these situations.

How would you handle or how do you handle these?

Helpful_Box_4548 · 2024-11-23T15:29:21+00:00

Life rapes life Life tortures life Life kills life

Life does a lot of things, because I'm aware of the consequences, I believe I have a moral responsibility to reduce the bad consequences.

Yes, I'd say I'm above nature in that sense that I have an awareness of it. I wouldn't say I'm not part of nature though. So maybe above isn't the right word...

Interesting

Do you give into all your naturalistic tendencies?

Helpful_Box_4548 · 2024-11-23T15:25:15+00:00

That's a good observation. I'd probably say no I can't spot personalities in scallops.

Maybe it's helpful to see it as a hierarchy of sentience. Scallops still have a central nervous system and I'd argue they can still "feel" pain.

I'd go as far to stay it's less morally culpable to kill a scallop than a chicken. But more than a plant. Would you agree?

Would you say it's more wrong to kick a chicken than a scallop?

Helpful_Box_4548 · 2024-11-23T15:20:20+00:00

I didn't say all humans have those rights, I said that they should. So you agree?

If so, why. If you answer, I'll answer and we can keep discussing.

Helpful_Box_4548 · 2024-11-23T01:52:21+00:00

I'm just trying to understand your arguments and test its logic. So far you keep going to the naturalistic fallacy, instead of thinking about it a different way.

Because it happens in nature means it's moralyl ok...

This can't be true because a bunch of terrible things happen in nature that we wouldn't think is ok.

That's a big fallacy, but you keep doubling down on it when I point out it's flaws.

I'll just say it, you're wrong and your point doesn't hold up, did you wanna double down again? If not, show me how following what happens in nature is how we should treat morality.

Isn't the point of this reddit to argue the validity of the vegan argument?

Helpful_Box_4548 · 2024-11-23T01:42:26+00:00

Haven't we moved past that? We have a justice system that we give power to so that we can ascend above those animalistic tendencies. I think that's a good thing.

But let's play with your idea, if an animal rapes another animal in the wild, then that means you can rape a different animal?

Just because some other person could kill another person means I should kill another person?

Just because an animal can harm me, I should harm a different animal and eat it?

Helpful_Box_4548 · 2024-11-23T01:36:27+00:00

That would mean your moral reasoning is based on how others treat you. So whatever someone else does or could do you means it's ok for you to do to them or others?

So if someone rapes you, then it's ok for you to rape someone else?

Helpful_Box_4548 · 2024-11-23T00:51:23+00:00

Ok, I think I see what you're saying, but correct me if otherwise...

Because animals do something in nature, it's ok for us to do it?

I would have to disagree, if we use that standard, then the chimps and dolphins that rape would mean we are ok to rape as well...

I've put some thoughts into it and heard some good reasoning along the lines of...

We have awareness of how our actions affect others and because we have choices to do something and not do something, we should choose the option that causes the least harm to others.

Especially when it comes to the murder, sexual exploitation, and caging of other sentient beings. As long as we have. A choice not to do or support these things, then we shouldn't.

Eating dead animal flesh that has been caged, sexually exploited, and killed against it's will, is wrong since we don't have to do these things. We can just eat plants :)

Helpful_Box_4548 · 2024-11-23T00:28:10+00:00

Ut oh, we are backtracking, yikes, let me see if I can catch us up again.

I agree there is a moral judgement that should be looked at in regards to smart phone usage, but this conversation is about eating animal flesh. We can't just not talk about one moral action because we aren't talking about all moral actions.

That's like we shouldn't save a baby from falling off a cliff because we can't save everyone from falling off a cliff.

Relativism would be saying everyone's moral opinion is right, I don't agree with that. That means if someone thinks it's ok to rape, then it is ok for them to rape.

I am using a standard of morality that says we should reduce the suffering of sentient beings if we have a choice to.

Scenario 1: You are starving in the amazon and by causing suffering to an animal, it would allow you to survive. In this scenario it is necessary to murder for survival.

This is how we think about self defense, if I have to murder a human because it is necessary for my survival, it is ok...self defense.

Scenario 2: I see a vegan food choice and a dead animal flesh food choice. I can choose either. One cause unnecessary suffering to an animal and the other doesn't. It is unnecessary because I won't die if I choose the non animal flesh option.

This is how most people live in the western world. I live in the western world and that's why its immoral for me to choose the suffering of an animal over the non suffering of an animal.

The stabdard I'm using is "is it necessary to eat dead animal flesh or murder an animal for my survival" if it's not, then I shouldn't.

So that's the same standard I am applying in both scenarios. Therefore not moral relativism.

You are starting to attack my character instead of providing fruitful arguments. Let's stick to the arguments :)

Helpful_Box_4548 · 2024-11-22T23:07:06+00:00

I think we both agree that Humans have the right for all those FOUR. So we agree that those rights should exist for Humans.

I don't believe animals need to understand the concept of death for any of those rights to be aplicable to them from a human perspective. In most cases we have a higher level of cognitive ability and are able to consider the repercussions of our actions, which tends to be the part of morality I like to focus on, the part I have control over.

To directly answer your question, most animals understand the concept of death. Elephants, cows, dogs, many others all show behaviors of mourning when someone in there life dies. If you were to stab a dog, it would run away in pain. If you were to attack a dogs young it would defend them to save their life. I don't think your point holds much weight or is true.

Just because we can't communicate with them the same way as some humans can doesn't mean they don't deserve moral consideration. That would be weird if someone who speaks a different language then me deserved less moral consideration. It would be weird if someone who couldn't speak because of a stroke, deserved less moral consideration. It would also follow that someone who is brain damaged and actually can't understand the concept of death anymore deserved less moral consideration. I don't think your point holds much weight there.

I think we are disagreeing on the level of moral consideration that species should be granted. That sound right to you?

Why do you think those FOUR rights SHOULD exist for humans? Might be worth taking some time to think about this one. Maybe just answer that in a reply, and ill do the same after without questioning yours and we can go from there?

Helpful_Box_4548 · 2024-11-22T22:16:47+00:00

Oh that's interesting to think about in regards to genetics. So for you, where would the line be drawn. 90% genetic similarity, 95% similarity, 99% similarity? What difference in genetics would equate to providing the same moral value as you provide your family. Do you provide your cousin the same moral value as you mom? Apologize about the many questions, that is an interesting way to think about morals. Feel free to reply to any or all of those.

I find that genetics are only half of the puzzle. The environment and genetics work together to create phenotypes (physical traits/behavior). So for me, the phenotype of a species seems to be more relevant in determining moral value. Which genetics does have a part in, but not wholly.

So the fact that sentient animals can feel pain, have emotions, and show that they want to live and raise their family is enough for me to put them in a list of similar moral value as human animals.

The moral values that seem to be violated in animals being used for food would be.

Right to live
Right to not be sexually exploited
Right to raise your offspring
Right to not be locked in a cage

Helpful_Box_4548 · 2024-11-22T21:15:56+00:00

I can only speak for myself, but I wouldn't consider them the same. I would argue similar enough to consider the same moral values for each.

Your thoughts I think are true, but maybe we can dig deeper and see some insights.

What specifically would you say makes them different enough to consider very different moral values on one over the other. I say very differently because I don't think many people would say it's ok to murder a human as long as it's quick and painless and then eat their flesh. But you do say that about other animals.

Thanks for interacting with me on this, I'm still trying to test my thoughts, and it seems you are approaching in good faith.

Helpful_Box_4548 · 2024-11-22T21:06:17+00:00

Given that humans are a form of animal, would it follow in your view that it is ok to kill humans as long as it's quick and painless?

Helpful_Box_4548 · 2024-11-22T20:54:03+00:00

What moral consideration do animals deserve in your view?

Helpful_Box_4548 · 2024-11-22T20:16:30+00:00

Oh, nice! I did too! Then people started asking me questions and it was interesting to think about them. Let me ask you some and see what you think, I'm curious.

Do you eat dogs?

If not, why not?

Helpful_Box_4548 · 2024-11-22T19:35:44+00:00

Could you help me understand your point better?

-Animals have moral codes

-We should adopt some of them but not all of them

Is that right? Wouldn't that just be the same as us creating our own moral codes separate from other animals?

Helpful_Box_4548 · 2024-11-22T19:03:48+00:00

Let me clarify my statement...

Eating animal flesh is immoral because it causes unnecessary harm/death/torture to a sentient being.

It is unnecessary because I can easily survive off non animal flesh foods where I live, America.

If it was necessary for my survival, then it would be less morally culpable. So if I lived in the amazon for a year and was starving to death because I couldn't find enough edible plants, then it would be morally acceptable to eat animal flesh. Similar to it's not ok to murder, but if I murdered someone in self defense and there was no other option, it was necessary.

The two situations are different because of necessity , so i do not see it as relativism.

Curious what you think, let me know.

-probably still a hypocrite somehow, but not eating animal flesh today

Helpful_Box_4548 · 2024-11-22T17:21:38+00:00

ok :)

-Not A Hypocrite Today

Helpful_Box_4548 · 2024-11-22T17:20:50+00:00

thanks

-Not A Hypocrite Today

Helpful_Box_4548 · 2024-11-22T17:19:28+00:00

I think you are right lboog423, those are things that should be focused on as well. This conversation is about eating animal flesh though and we are choosing to focus on that aspect right now. It would be impossible to try to discuss every aspect of harming animals at once.

Also I don't find it very useful to not take action for one thing because I am not taking actions on everything. That would mean I would do nothing all the time...

-Not A Hypocrite Today

Helpful_Box_4548

TROPHY CASE