President Assad gasses and Donald fiddles

[♪alt13]

Why do you care about kids or the poor then? What is your criteria for caring about an animal?

I reject the equivalence. I think it's silly to pretend that there is one. I think most people on some level know that there is not one. We don't eat people. We don't lock them in the garage/basement/backyard while we are at work. We don't purchase a new one to replace the old one when it dies.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

I reject the equivalence. I think it's silly to pretend that there is one. I think most people on some level know that there is not one. We don't eat people. We don't lock them in the garage/basement/backyard while we are at work. We don't purchase a new one to replace the old one when it dies.

Why not though? Just 300 years ago we did that ****. Hell through most of human history we that stuff. Only recently have we changed.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

I've been wondering the same thing. It was the pictures that got people. Trump changed his mind on a dime because of the pictures. Apparently suffering isn't real if we can't see it.

Sent from my HTC6535LVW using JazzFanz mobile app

That's why some states use to have to laws that made it illegal to expose factory farming.

And reasons to hate/be against factory farming go beyond animal rights.

 

[babe]

Like I said maybe I'm a heartless chicken hating sociopath. I really don't care what happens to chickens. Maybe I should be more enlightened and extend my morals to include chickens but I won't. I don't care about chicken suffering.

When I see images and video of giant factory farms full of chickens I see cheap protein that makes the lives of poor people better. If you can raise chickens just as cheap but in better conditions that's a good thing but mostly due to the end product being better for people. **** fighting doesn't bother me(though I know it's supposed to) neither does bull fighting. I think it's weird when people say their pets are their kids and try to convince you that there is an equivalence. I think its weird and kinda weak when adults cry when their pets die. I currently have a cat that I take care of and I enjoy its company but I don't love it. It's my pet it's not part of my family. When it dies I may get a new one if it suits me.

Obviously, you realize your position is absolutely antisocial, I suppose. How do you feel about modern human corrals like LA enforced by theoretical "fences" called "wilderness areas", "sensitive environments", "military training areas", and such. I suppose you do care, but it's just not an efficient way to feed morticians and worms.

Obviously, you hold irrational notions about Love imagining that just because a pet dies and you can get another it's somehow different form human marriage. Most of us change mates with less emotional baggage lost in the transition than changing pets. Throwing pets out of the car in the Mohave is punishable by a $1000 dollar fine plus whatever social credentials you may have. Dumping your mate on ZZyzx Road will give you time enough to clear the bank accounts and get all the way to Hong Kong. And everyone will admire you for your tactics and efficiency.

 

[LogGrad98]

One of the reasons for the chemical and biological weapons prohibitions in the Geneva convention was to give a stronger advantage to technologically superior forces. Bio and chem weapons are generally cheap and easy to produce. Put a limit on those and the more expensive, higher-tech weapons are just that much stronger. It is by no stretch the only reason, but it is part of it.

The primary reason was that, short of a nuclear weapon, chemical and bio weapons can have the most far-reaching effects on the general population. People are up in arms about the potential of 8 civilian casualties due to the surgical strike of the tomahawk missiles. Imagine if it were a biological agent that completely wiped out 3 cities while also decimating the main target.

Another reason was the terror aspect. During WWI chlorine gas was released over population centers in concentrations strong enough to drive everyone into a panic, and indeed kill many, but not high enough to just kill everyone outright. But the desired effect was the terror aspect. IED's and trucks driving into groups of citizens would pale in comparison to mustard gas being released into central London. Think of the ricin subway release or other such bio attacks. It may not kill that many, but it is highly disruptive and truly a form of terrorism, even if employed during all-out war.

There are more factors than these of course, but to think it is purely because chemical weapons kill slowly (which is not always true) and bombs kill fast (which is also not always true) is very short-sighted and shows a lack of understanding of the history of the subject.



edit: it was chlorine not mustard gas during WWI

 

[JimLes]

I'm not saying it's okay to kill them quickly. But surely suffering makes it worse. Most people would say that torturing someone before executing them is worse than simply executing them, regardless of where they stand on the death penalty.

But this is a ridiculous, arbitrary distinction. If there's a difference, surely it's not so significant as to make a large moral difference. You bring up the death penalty. It's a great example of this kind of hypocrisy. You have a situation where you're killing people, but then you ensure it's not cruel and unusual. They gotta die quickly, else it's cruel. Because apparently, killing people isn't cruel enough.

Same thing goes for chickens. If you're already killing them and eating them, what difference does it make if they suffer or not. Either have integrity and be a vegetarian or eat chicken without making these hypocritical distinctions based on how they're killed. It all just seems terribly facetious.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

But this is a ridiculous, arbitrary distinction. If there's a difference, surely it's not so significant as to make a large moral difference. You bring up the death penalty. It's a great example of this kind of hypocrisy. You have a situation where you're killing people, but then you ensure it's not cruel and unusual. They gotta die quickly, else it's cruel. Because apparently, killing people isn't cruel enough.

Same thing goes for chickens. If you're already killing them and eating them, what difference does it make if they suffer or not. Either have integrity and be a vegetarian or eat chicken without making these hypocritical distinctions based on how they're killed. It all just seems terribly facetious.

Facetious? I just think there are people our there who want a change but realize the change they want is impossible so they try to make a small victory.

Do some vegans/vegetarians want everyone to atop eating meat? Yeah. Is that possible? No. Could they get a lot of people to stop supporting factory farming by showing how unhealthy, inhumane, and environmentally damaging it is? Possible.

Sent from my A0001 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[LogGrad98]

Why do you care about kids or the poor then? What is your criteria for caring about an animal?

Sentience?

 

[♪alt13]

Why not though? Just 300 years ago we did that ****. Hell through most of human history we that stuff. Only recently have we changed.

We are the moral actors. If you feel a compunction to treat animals as equivalent to people than by all means do it. Hell even advocate for it. I won't feel that compunction. You cannot make me extend my empathy to every creature under the sun. You may not understand why I can't but I wouldn't understand how you could.

 

[♪alt13]

Obviously, you realize your position is absolutely antisocial, I suppose. How do you feel about modern human corrals like LA enforced by theoretical "fences" called "wilderness areas", "sensitive environments", "military training areas", and such. I suppose you do care, but it's just not an efficient way to feed morticians and worms.

Obviously, you hold irrational notions about Love imagining that just because a pet dies and you can get another it's somehow different form human marriage. Most of us change mates with less emotional baggage lost in the transition than changing pets. Throwing pets out of the car in the Mohave is punishable by a $1000 dollar fine plus whatever social credentials you may have. Dumping your mate on ZZyzx Road will give you time enough to clear the bank accounts and get all the way to Hong Kong. And everyone will admire you for your tactics and efficiency.

I don't think it's antisocial. What I said about being a "chicken hating sociopath" is tongue in cheek.

How can you walk into a grocery store see a wall full of animal body parts and not feel terror? If I felt empathy for animals I think I would. I would be shocked and revolted by the brutality of it. If I had ever truly loved even one animal I don't think I could bear it and I certainly would not participate.

I do think it is antisocial to be more emotionally prepared to lose a mate than a pet. Are you saying that you would trade your wives life for that of your dog?

I try to take people and their feelings toward animals at face value but honestly I mostly think that you are all full of ****. If most people had the empathy for animals that they claim then I can't imagine things would be the way they are.

 

[JimLes]

Facetious? I just think there are people our there who want a change but realize the change they want is impossible so they try to make a small victory.

Do some vegans/vegetarians want everyone to atop eating meat? Yeah. Is that possible? No. Could they get a lot of people to stop supporting factory farming by showing how unhealthy, inhumane, and environmentally damaging it is? Possible.

I just don't buy the idea that there is a right way to kill an animal or a human and a wrong way. It's either wrong to kill or it's not. If Assad killing people with sarin merits US involvement, then surely Assad killing people by other means does too. Just seems crazy any other way.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

I just don't buy the idea that there is a right way to kill an animal or a human and a wrong way. It's either wrong to kill or it's not. If Assad killing people with sarin merits US involvement, then surely Assad killing people by other means does too. Just seems crazy any other way.

Well that is a pretty unique view point that most people disagree with. Why do you think boy shot Old Yeller?

 

[♪alt13]

I just don't buy the idea that there is a right way to kill an animal or a human and a wrong way. It's either wrong to kill or it's not. If Assad killing people with sarin merits US involvement, then surely Assad killing people by other means does too. Just seems crazy any other way.

Go back and read Log's post. We don't tolerate the use of biological weapons because if we did everyone would be frightened all the time.

Siro talked a bit about Israel earlier. It should not be ignored that the reason middle eastern countries have biological weapons is because it is a deterrent to Israel and its nuclear weapons.

 

[JimLes]

We don't tolerate the use of biological weapons because if we did everyone would be frightened all the time.

Not sure where you live, but isn't everyone frightened all the time anyway? Isn't security and safety why Trump won? Aren't people in small town America terrified of terrorist attacks even though they live in places that you would actually be a doing a favour if you set off a bomb in the middle of them?

 

[JimLes]

Why do you think boy shot Old Yeller?

Uh, because he was fulfilling some deeply rooted Oedipal desire to replace his father as the head of the family while he was off to war? Duh, did you even watch the movie?

 

[♪alt13]

Not sure where you live, but isn't everyone frightened all the time anyway? Isn't security and safety why Trump won? Aren't people in small town America terrified of terrorist attacks even though they live in places that you would actually be a doing a favour if you set off a bomb in the middle of them?

I live in SLC proper. I mostly worry about car accidents. I do get nervous letting my kids ride with other people sometimes. That's about it.

 

[LogGrad98]

I just don't buy the idea that there is a right way to kill an animal or a human and a wrong way. It's either wrong to kill or it's not. If Assad killing people with sarin merits US involvement, then surely Assad killing people by other means does too. Just seems crazy any other way.

Please Google human flaying and see if you can't see the gradients.

 

[Siro]

I reject the equivalence. I think it's silly to pretend that there is one. I think most people on some level know that there is not one. We don't eat people. We don't lock them in the garage/basement/backyard while we are at work. We don't purchase a new one to replace the old one when it dies.

Hmmm. Many animals possess subjective experiences and can experience the range of emotions that humans do, if at a simpler level (say like a baby). There is obviously some equivilance between the two. You can buy another pet when one dies, but you can also have another child if one dies.

I don't think they're exactly the same as we are humans and we identify with humans better. But I don't think it is a morally consistent argument to care about the suffering of humans but not the suffering of other animals.

 

[♪alt13]

Hmmm. Many animals possess subjective experiences and can experience the range of emotions that humans do, if at a simpler level (say like a baby). There is obviously some equivilance between the two. You can buy another pet when one dies, but you can also have another child if one dies.

I don't think they're exactly the same as we are humans and we identify with humans better. But I don't think it is a morally consistent argument to care about the suffering of humans but not the suffering of other animals.

Then why is it OK to eat animals(even if only because you like it)and not OK to eat people? I think that I'm being way more consistent than you are.

I care about people. I don't think they should suffer or be eaten. You care about both but are OK with eating a whole bunch of the creatures you empathize with.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

Then why is it OK to eat animals(even if only because you like it)and not OK to eat people? I think that I'm being way more consistent than you are.

Because we are higher on the food chain. There is a natural cycle of life that requires predatory animals to kill prey.

That is a different thing than what factory farming is.