BonfireOvDreams

joined 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

I'd agree that it's not. What about honey makes you feel like you need it or otherwise that it is somehow different than eating other animal products? If you use it just because you like it, you could argue the same for any other animal product. I'm primarily concerned with their lack of consent, in some cases the clipping of queen bee wings & confinement to a fixed space, & resource theft. There's also the concerns of native bee populations being unable to compete with honey bees.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)
[–] [email protected] -3 points 11 months ago (4 children)

May as well not considering willful complicity in their deaths is wrong.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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.'

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (3 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Have you eaten beans? I eat them on the regular and am a feces excreting machine

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year 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?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (7 children)

Why can your body digest new born babies and dogs? Why can your body sexually violate them? Dumb take. You dont derive ethics from what your body is physically capable of doing.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I mean I'm just saying, banning meat lobby shilling and boomer tier animal abuse memes is morally good. Would be pretty based mod. Idk. They can get shit on in the thread for sure but I wouldn't mind not seeing the brain rot 🤷‍♂️

 
 

MY MADNESS

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This is the correct take. Is it any surprise that OF models generate a lot of nsfw content? Unless the users posting is too frequent, it's not spam. If a painter links to their webpage on a post where they share their art do we cry spam? Treating their content like spam entirely on the grounds of them being OF models is honestly pretty sex negative. Y'all should support the idea of sex workers having control of their own content.

view more: next ›