Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

vGC9XtnHSU0&

Seriously WTF?

I've seen the numbers claimed to be "almost a million", to 3 million.

Apparently it's to curb "hoof & mouth" disease, I have no idea why they're burying them alive unless it's because they think that's the cheapest way to do it.

Pretty fricken horrible though.

****ing disgusting. I understand if it's to stop the spread of disease, but spend the cost of a bullet first.

Eh, there's better ways to go about mass piggie extermination, but, really there's more where that came from. Not really all that tragic.

You're making baby-Jesus cry if you can't tell the difference between using an animal for food and torturing it to death(cos this is what being buried alive is).

It's how they're doing it is the disgusting part.

Originally posted by Robtard
You're making baby-Jesus cry if you can't tell the difference between using an animal for food and torturing it to death(cos this is what being buried alive is). Obviously there's a difference; shooting/mass firebombing/gassing the pigs would be much more humane than burying them all alive.

But at the end of the day; they're just pigs. I'd care if it was 3 million human babies, or even 3 million elephants or tigers or whales since they're endangered. But mass produced, dirty ass pigs? Not gonna shed a tear, honestly.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Obviously there's a difference; shooting/mass firebombing/gassing the pigs would be much more humane than burying them all alive.

But at the end of the day; they're just pigs. I'd care if it was 3 million human babies, or even 3 million elephants or tigers or whales since they're endangered. But mass produced, dirty ass pigs? Not gonna shed a tear, honestly.

Dogs are mass produced(kennels, breeders etc.) and they're "dirty" like a pig, they eat their own feces, they roll in mud. Would you be okay with 3 million dogs being buried alive?

Dogs wouldve boned the **** out

Originally posted by Robtard
Dogs are mass produced(kennels, breeders etc.) and they're "dirty" like a pig, they eat their own feces, they roll in mud. Would you be okay with 3 million dogs being buried alive? No, but I never said I was "okay" with 3 million pigs being buried alive, either. I said I wouldn't shed a tear. I also wouldn't shed a tear over 3 million dogs being buried alive, unless my own dog was one of them, I guess. I have an emotional attachment to my dog, though.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Obviously there's a difference; shooting/mass firebombing/gassing the pigs would be much more humane than burying them all alive.

But at the end of the day; they're just pigs. I'd care if it was 3 million human babies, or even 3 million elephants or tigers or whales since they're endangered. But mass produced, dirty ass pigs? Not gonna shed a tear, honestly.

Is that your final answer?

S4OkAYTgpp0

I watched my Mom accidentally run over a 6 month old golden retriever puppy a couple weeks ago; she was an emotional wreck for days, but I didn't even care. Your Youtube vids mean have no affect on me bro. uhuh

Thats horrible but there are alot worst things beside that.

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
Thats horrible but there are alot worst things beside that.

Name one!

Blax is not a Human, fact.

This is true. I am not a human. I am in fact, a black man.

Aborting babies.

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
Aborting babies.

Don't try and turn every thread into an "abortion is bad, it's bad" thread, okay. Think of the innocent pigs here.

I am not I am just saying that killing a human being is much more inporant then killing an animal.

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
I am not I am just saying that killing a human being is much more inporant then killing an animal.

Who would you rather have put to death?

A) 3 million innocent pigs

B) A man who is a rapist and murderer

A man should be killed if he murdered someone. But again you are changing the subject. People make a big deal about saving animals or the rain forest when they should be thinking about how babies die at the hands of there mother.
Don't you think Human life is better to be saved then an animal?You eat Meat to live so animals die because of that. There is no excuse why Babies have to be killed just because there mother is selfish and a murder.
\ Anyway got to go.

B and its a easy choice.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
I watched my Mom accidentally run over a 6 month old golden retriever puppy a couple weeks ago; she was an emotional wreck for days, but I didn't even care. Your Youtube vids mean have no affect on me bro. uhuh

hitler ^

You put on a tough act, but you're crying for those pigs. Inside.

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
A man should be killed if he murdered someone. But again you are changing the subject. People make a big deal about saving animals or the rain forest when they should be thinking about how babies die at the hands of there mother.
Don't you think Human life is better to be saved then an animal?You eat Meat to live so animals die because of that. There is no excuse why Babies have to be killed just because there mother is selfish and a murder.
\ Anyway got to go.

It was a simple A) or B) question and you decided to go with D) dodge.

Again, making this thread about 'abortion is bad.'

Originally posted by Robtard
Who would you rather have put to death?

A) 3 million innocent pigs

B) A man who is a rapist and murderer


Put the man at the bottom of the pig pitt. Easy. They both have reasons to be eliminated I'm sure.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Put the man at the bottom of the pig pitt. Easy. They both have reasons to be eliminated I'm sure.

You hate pigs cos you're a Muslim.

I'm a jew

Originally posted by Mairuzu
I'm a jew

Will you do my taxes for me? I hear your people are good with money.

This thread went from feeling sorry (or not so) for millions of pigs, to feeling sorry for dogs, to feeling sorry for humans and then to abortion fast....2 pages and its gone off topic...

And I wont shed a tear literally in any of those situations but it is a cruel fate.

**** the Humans.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Obviously there's a difference; shooting/mass firebombing/gassing the pigs would be much more humane than burying them all alive.

But at the end of the day; they're just pigs. I'd care if it was 3 million human babies, or even 3 million elephants or tigers or whales since they're endangered. But mass produced, dirty ass pigs? Not gonna shed a tear, honestly. If I may... and I say this from an unblemished record of staunch heterosexuality...


I love you, man.

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
A man should be killed if he murdered someone. But again you are changing the subject. People make a big deal about saving animals or the rain forest when they should be thinking about how babies die at the hands of there mother.
Don't you think Human life is better to be saved then an animal?You eat Meat to live so animals die because of that. There is no excuse why Babies have to be killed just because there mother is selfish and a murder.
\ Anyway got to go.
Those pigs are way smarter than a human fetus.

Originally posted by The Nuul
vGC9XtnHSU0&

Seriously WTF?




So much Bacon thrown away.


They should have given them to the North Koreans...because we all know socialist always need to be fed by the works of others.

Originally posted by Robtard
Who would you rather have put to death?

A) 3 million innocent pigs

B) A man who is a rapist and murderer

False dilema.


There are many other choices besides those two. Additionally, you strawmanned her point. She never talked about or mentioned the person being saved to be a rapist murderer: that's something you injected to prove a point about extreme exceptions to her point. That's not how you have an honest or proper dialogue when trying to convince someone. Here's a better and objective way to approach it:

You're saying that you would rather kill 3 million pigs; some of which are infected with a disease that could potentially kill many millions more of the livestock in gruesome and agonizing deaths, and jump to other species doing the same to them; is better than killing just one human?


The answer is obviously yes. It saves more livestock and human lives at the same time.


However, the HOW they were killed is the problem, not that they were killed.

How many humans would be negatively impacted by a sharp increase in food prices because we failed to exterminate an infestation of FMD and it destroys a crap ton of livestock (it would spread to other countries the worse the infestation got)? Just because Korea decided to kill 10-20% of their livestock, doesn't mean it is automatically horrendous. I think they should have ponied up the cash to buy the euthanasia drugs, myself.


This site says it would have cost $1,000,000 to do so.


http://vegan.com/blog/2011/01/12/millions-of-animals-buried-alive-in-south-korea/

It is obviously a biased site and that number may be low, but even if we triple the amount to $3,000,000 (just to be generous), that is still better than just dumping them into a WWII-esque jew-killing trench (seriously, this is how some Jews were killed: buried alive in mass trench graves). That $3,000,000 cost could be easily spread-out and not affect the overall costs of food in the market by very much.


Yes, by killing the livestock, you are saving even more. Why the hell would they want to destroy tens of millions of dollars in livestock UNLESS it saved them money in the long run by saving more of their investment? It makes no sense. It is in their best interest to NOT kill them. Does anyone think that they livestock industry enjoys killing large investments by the millions of dollars? NO! Of course not. They had no choice but to do that because it was government mandated: they were worried it would become an epidemic and not only destroy too much livestock, but spread to other countries.


But, again, they could have spent a load of cash to make things more humane. But was it really saving them money? Surely the euthanasia route would have saved them more money.

Think about the costs of what they are doing: the tarps for the mass graves, the machinery rental and/or upkeep costs. The costs to pay the personnel to corral the livestock to the mass graves. The electrical costs with lighting. Fuel costs for the machinery. Fuel costs and maintenance costs for transporting the livestock. Injury costs from the personnel for handling "alive" livestock.

All of those costs are quite a bit. Are they more than if they euthanized them while still at the "factory barn" while still in their cages? Maybe not. You still have to transport them to mass graves and you have to dig them. But there are several areas where money is saved.

Originally posted by Robtard
Who would you rather have put to death?

A) 3 million innocent pigs

B) A man who is a rapist and murderer

A

though I confess it is a hard position to defend logically

Originally posted by KharmaDog
I've seen the numbers claimed to be "almost a million", to 3 million.

Apparently it's to curb "hoof & mouth" disease, I have no idea why they're burying them alive unless it's because they think that's the cheapest way to do it.

Pretty fricken horrible though.

The thing is, animals with "hoof & mouth" NEED to be incinerated to make sure the disease is totally eliminated, reducing the risk of spreading.

I know that pit is lined with plastic but I would also imagine the lining would be damaged & torn apart in areas with all those pigs hooves scratching & digging in....once their corpses start to decay, the bodily fluids & hoof & mouth disease will leach into the ground contaminating not only the soil but only source of water in the area.

It is just such a backward idea to bury all those animals in one pit.

"Oh man the Americans are crying because of the potential hamburgers, bacons, etc. that couldve came from these pigs!!!!"

crylaugh

Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon
"Oh man the Americans are crying because of the potential hamburgers, bacons, etc. that couldve came from these pigs!!!!"

crylaugh

South Korea should make a Trojan Pig filled with carcasses & send it to the States.

I feel a Bong Joon-ho revenge-horror film in the works.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Those pigs are way smarter than a human fetus. Indeed.

Mass livestock slaughters to curb diseases are nasty but sometimes necessary. Though I imagine some of the people actually on site when they were buried lost their lunch from that screaming.
Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon
"Oh man the Americans are crying because of the potential hamburgers, bacons, etc. that couldve came from these pigs!!!!"

crylaugh
Hamburgers don't come from pigs, and I only eat beef franks. sneer

Actly I did not change the topic I just mention that there was worst things in the world happening other then a pigs dieing. And Robtard decided to start with me and ask why. If he did not then I would had not said anything.

Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon
"Oh man the Americans are crying because of the potential hamburgers, bacons, etc. that couldve came from these pigs!!!!"

crylaugh

Pigburger, bro?

Originally posted by inimalist
A

though I confess it is a hard position to defend logically

That's cos you're a socialist.

Pigs. Being buried alive.

There are far worse things in the world.

Also, America has so many hang-ups about animal cruelty, and that's fine, as long as you have the money to do something about those hang-ups.

But having grown up in such a society where Sarah Machclachlan sings "In the Arms of the Angel" while playing footage of abused pets... of course we're going to have a knee-jerk reaction when something like this happens. It's one of the heartstrings that ad people use to try and manipulate people into buying something or that people use in movies to make them more sympathetic. More "heartstring pullers" include the elderly, the sick, and the very young.

But how can throw a rock at South Korea's glass house when we have no idea what it's like to live there? You really think that South Korea has 1 million to three million just sitting around, not needed for anything else? These aren't endangered animals. They're massed produced for human consumption. It's better than letting the pigs die of starvation because there's no money to feed them...

I pick humans over pigs any day, any time.

Originally posted by siriuswriter
Pigs. Being buried alive.

There are far worse things in the world.

Also, America has so many hang-ups about animal cruelty, and that's fine, as long as you have the money to do something about those hang-ups.

But having grown up in such a society where Sarah Machclachlan sings "In the Arms of the Angel" while playing footage of abused pets... of course we're going to have a knee-jerk reaction when something like this happens. It's one of the heartstrings that ad people use to try and manipulate people into buying something or that people use in movies to make them more sympathetic. More "heartstring pullers" include the elderly, the sick, and the very young.

But how can throw a rock at South Korea's glass house when we have no idea what it's like to live there? You really think that South Korea has 1 million to three million just sitting around, not needed for anything else? These aren't endangered animals. They're massed produced for human consumption. It's better than letting the pigs die of starvation because there's no money to feed them...

I pick humans over pigs any day, any time.

No one is saying killing pigs is wrong. It's how they went about doing it that people are upset about.

Also, you aren't saying it's bad to be sympathetic to children, elderly and sick people, right? It kinda came off that way to me.

Originally posted by TacDavey
No one is saying killing pigs is wrong. It's how they went about doing it that people are upset about.

Also, you aren't saying it's bad to be sympathetic to children, elderly and sick people, right? It kinda came off that way to me.

No, not at all. I'm just saying that it's easy to be sorry for children, the elderly, the sick, and animals, because those groups go straight the core of humanity. I watched a documentary on the making of "The Day After Tomorrow" and it said that they specifically used those groups in short shots to garner more emotional response to the film.

Just because it's easier doesn't mean it's wrong. Sorry I gave off that vibe.

And I understand why people are upset at the way the pigs are killed. I'm just playing devils advocate - for the people in South Korea, who may not have the money to buy ammo to kill that many pigs... who can't afford to feed them or house them anymore... it may not be as taboo.

I think there were other alternatives, such as turning out the pigs into the 'wild,' whatever that may be in S.K., and it doesn't cost anything to slaughter pigs with knives. But maybe they were worried about the massive number of pig carcasses, and how are they supposed to get rid of all of that? I think that there could have been a lot more thought put into the idea of "we need to get rid of these pigs," but maybe they didn't have time... we don't know the reason behind it, not the whole reason anyway.

You would not want to turn pigs into the wild because they are VERY destructive creatures. It would also be more cruel because the vast majority would starve very quickly. They would live horrible short lives as they were torn apart by predators.


Lastly, they would be carrying the disease with them into the wild which is the whole reason they are killing them: to get rid of the disease epidemic.


Releasing them into the wild would spread it faster than poooop.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Obviously there's a difference; shooting/mass firebombing/gassing the pigs would be much more humane than burying them all alive.

But at the end of the day; they're just pigs. I'd care if it was 3 million human babies, or even 3 million elephants or tigers or whales since they're endangered. But mass produced, dirty ass pigs? Not gonna shed a tear, honestly. You do realise that Pigs are far more intellegent than Elephants, Whales and Tigers?

Killing pigs this way (to prevent the spreading of a disease) is far worse than if they did it to those less intellegent animals for the same reason. There is actually evidence to suggest that pigs feel emotion in a similar way to humans.

Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon
"Oh man the Americans are crying because of the potential hamburgers, bacons, etc. that couldve came from these pigs!!!!"

crylaugh Hamburgers aren't made with ham, you realize that, right?

Originally posted by Mindset
Hamburgers aren't made with ham, you realize that, right?

http://www.tasteofhome.com/Recipes/Beef--n--Pork-Burgers



There's also pure pork hamburgers but I have never had those.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Why should I care about their intelligence? I said endangered species; didn't mention intelligence. Dead chimps and dolphins don't mean shit to me, really. But these animals were being killed to stop the spreading of a disease. Therefor your logic makes no sense. Killing these animals saves more.

It's the the way they're being killed that is the issue, not the fact that they are.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
There is nothing wrong with torturing animals to death, objectively. There is only a moral quandary. Therefore, when someone asks me "Hey Blax, how come you don't have a moral issue with pigs being killed inhumanely?" I tell them that it's because my moral outcries are reserved for animals that I either have an emotional attachment to or that are endangered, because to my moral code the killing of endangered species is always unfortunate, regardless of wither their deaths were necessary or not.

When the discussion takes on a moral flavor there is no logic that makes sense, because morality is relative. That's just silly.

You have to take the reason an animal is being killed in to consideration.

Killing any animal in this way is ethically wrong, but these animals were being killed for the right reason. Killing foot and mouth infected animals is an attempt to stop it spreading to other animals, thus killing these animals is to preserve life.

You don't just ignore logic when choosing what you believe to be morally right and wrong.

Logically, torturing an animal with a higher capacity to think and feel is worse than torturing an animal which doesn't. The rarity of an animal shouldn't mean a damn thing; if it's killed to save animals of the same species.

You're fully within your rights to say: "Meh, they're only pigs, I'd be sad if it was a tiger.". Doesn't mean you're not talking shit though.

Originally posted by Robtard
That's cos you're a socialist.

here we were having a nice conversation about pig-murder and you have to go on and bring up my afflictions...

Animal Cruelty is everywhere.

Though this is extreme and tragic simply due to the numbers, living nextdoor to a military state and the existence of diseases makes situatuations like this unfortunately an inevitable circumstance.

Nature of the beast.

seriously though, why not air-lift, or even catapault these pigs into north korea? the starving people would eat them, end of problem.

How about no extra money?

Originally posted by truejedi
seriously though, why not air-lift, or even catapault these pigs into north korea? the starving people would eat them, end of problem.

Wasn't disease brought into the picture? No doubt those pigs were mass exterminated for a reason.

Originally posted by Robtard
Don't try and turn every thread into an "abortion is bad, it's bad" thread, okay. Think of the innocent pigs here. Lol, innocent pigs.

Originally posted by Robtard
Who would you rather have put to death?

A) 3 million innocent pigs

B) A man who is a rapist and murderer Given the choice, I'd weigh up the pros and cons of each outcome. A rapist/murderer has the potential to be rehabilitated and could possibly end world hunger (even though it should have already ended by now), however, the worst things I can think of that would result in 3 million pigs is damaging environmental effects, hindered pig evolution and a bunch of humans weeping (all of which are potentially bad effects).

I really hate to take ADSJ's side, but yeah, killing a human is worse that killing an animal.

Humans have consciousness, language, and fantastic tool capabilities. Pigs just shit everywhere and sometimes look cute.

Pigs are very basic and do what pigs do. Pigs are perfect in Gods eyes. The people are the **** ups in Gods eyes. People commit crimes, some are worth death for their crimes. People also have other sins where as pigs do not.

So yeah, **** Humans.

"sin" and "crime" are to describe immoral behaviour, and morality is also a human concept, so I don't understand how humans are bad because some of them don't do what others think they should.

Just because humans disagree doesn't mean pigs are necessarily better, either.

"pigs do what pigs do" how informative. They shit everywhere and their only redeeming qualities are cuteness and food.

Get real.

At the moment, the best animals are humans as we're the closest to fully understanding our environment, and the goal of life has always seemed to be adapting to and consuming the environment.

I guess I'm one of those people that doesn't give a shit how a diseased pig spends the last few minutes of its life.

Originally posted by lord xyz
"sin" and "crime" are to describe immoral behaviour, and morality is also a human concept, so I don't understand how humans are bad because some of them don't do what others think they should

You don't see how a murderer is bad? Or you don't see how human's in general are bad?

It's okay. Jesus died for the pigs. They're in Heaven now. No problem. No wait, they're unclean. Must be in Hell. Pig Hell. lol

To be honest...I laughed at the part where the woman was weeping over the kids...I mean pigs. It was more of a "roll eyes at this obvious propaganda" laugh. Not laughing because she was hurt by it.




Originally posted by Deja~vu
It's okay. Jesus died for the pigs. They're in Heaven now. No problem. No wait, they're unclean. Must be in Hell. Pig Hell. lol




Oh shit!


Well, based on Christianity, they'd be innocent and saved by Jesus' grace and atonement, even if they are unclean. Unclean was just to avoid disease, not sin, so they are not eternally unclean. It was a sin because it was an commandment from Moses/God. It was a commandment because they were not the best of food to eat back in the day.

Originally posted by TacDavey
You don't see how a murderer is bad? Or you don't see how human's in general are bad? I don't see how humans in general are "immoral" since we're the ones who came up with what "immoral" is, and change it every second.

I wonder if swinicide is immoral...

Originally posted by lord xyz
I don't see how humans in general are "immoral" since we're the ones who came up with what "immoral" is, and change it every second.

I wonder if swinicide is immoral...

I think you are phrasing this wrong

what you are saying is A) "people can create moral categories but I don't see how others can be categorized within them", when I think you mean B) "Because all moral categories are made by man I don't understand why they apply to others"

In a situation, lets say people come up with an axiom that says "don't murder", in A), it would seem that you don't know what a person would do to be put in that category, as in, you are questioning how you can define something as murder, or any specific category people can come up with, whereas in B) you are questioning whether or not that category is applicable to someone who doesn't believe in it.

A) is very easily reconcilable, in that as soon as we define what is or isn't immoral, it is easy to put people into either camp, as they either did or did not do the thing that is classified as immoral. B) is essentially the moral relativist argument, which suggests that it is the moral axioms themselves that are impossible to justify without either appealing to anthropic principles or some unfalsifiable absolute moral system.

The folly of B) is that all knowledge is victim to that type of deconstruction. The colour "blue" is only defined through anthropic means, as there is no universal justification for why we call that specific wavelength of light "blue" and there is no clear demarcation between where blue becomes green or violet, unless we look to anthropic definitions (for instance, the ability of our colour receptors in the eye to be sensitive to different wavelengths plays a major role in why we classify colours in the way we do).

So, if the argument is that we cannot come up with moral principles where we can say certain actions are immoral, you are essentially saying we cannot come up with principles of colour, species, or really, any other scientific concept. The position (I think) you are asserting is one that is the antithesis of reductionism and the entire scientific method.

In science, the term is "operational definition", which means a concept as it is defined for a specific theory. Essentially, society is able to operationally define morality. Not that this always leads to beneficial outcomes, as moral systems (equivalent to theories in this use) can have some vastly different operational definitions and especially different attitudes toward what violates that moral system, but I don't think it is accurate to suggest that because we can't point to some absolute justification for our moral system that we have to say no moral systems can ever by produced, or to suggest that enforcing a moral system on someone is any more problematic than forcing them to use the standard definition of "blue" if they want to participate in social interactions.

Originally posted by inimalist
So, if the argument is that we cannot come up with moral principles where we can say certain actions are immoral, you are essentially saying we cannot come up with principles of colour, species, or really, any other scientific concept.
Those things are tangible, though. Morality isn't.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Those things are tangible, though. Morality isn't.

how is colour tangible?

Originally posted by lord xyz
Lol, innocent pigs.

Given the choice, I'd weigh up the pros and cons of each outcome. A rapist/murderer has the potential to be rehabilitated and could possibly end world hunger (even though it should have already ended by now), however, the worst things I can think of that would result in 3 million pigs is damaging environmental effects, hindered pig evolution and a bunch of humans weeping (all of which are potentially bad effects).

I really hate to take ADSJ's side, but yeah, killing a human is worse that killing an animal.

Humans have consciousness, language, and fantastic tool capabilities. Pigs just shit everywhere and sometimes look cute.

Can you name me one crime where they're not innocent of?

That's cos you're a silly asshat and one of this "don't kill murderers; but abortion is fantastic" libtards.

I didnt know there still is a south Korea. Pigs happen to be very clean they roll around in mud all day to stay cool.

Originally posted by inimalist
I think you are phrasing this wrong

what you are saying is A) "people can create moral categories but I don't see how others can be categorized within them", when I think you mean B) "Because all moral categories are made by man I don't understand why they apply to others"

In a situation, lets say people come up with an axiom that says "don't murder", in A), it would seem that you don't know what a person would do to be put in that category, as in, you are questioning how you can define something as murder, or any specific category people can come up with, whereas in B) you are questioning whether or not that category is applicable to someone who doesn't believe in it.

A) is very easily reconcilable, in that as soon as we define what is or isn't immoral, it is easy to put people into either camp, as they either did or did not do the thing that is classified as immoral. B) is essentially the moral relativist argument, which suggests that it is the moral axioms themselves that are impossible to justify without either appealing to anthropic principles or some unfalsifiable absolute moral system.

The folly of B) is that all knowledge is victim to that type of deconstruction. The colour "blue" is only defined through anthropic means, as there is no universal justification for why we call that specific wavelength of light "blue" and there is no clear demarcation between where blue becomes green or violet, unless we look to anthropic definitions (for instance, the ability of our colour receptors in the eye to be sensitive to different wavelengths plays a major role in why we classify colours in the way we do).

So, if the argument is that we cannot come up with moral principles where we can say certain actions are immoral, you are essentially saying we cannot come up with principles of colour, species, or really, any other scientific concept. The position (I think) you are asserting is one that is the antithesis of reductionism and the entire scientific method.

In science, the term is "operational definition", which means a concept as it is defined for a specific theory. Essentially, society is able to operationally define morality. Not that this always leads to beneficial outcomes, as moral systems (equivalent to theories in this use) can have some vastly different operational definitions and especially different attitudes toward what violates that moral system, but I don't think it is accurate to suggest that because we can't point to some absolute justification for our moral system that we have to say no moral systems can ever by produced, or to suggest that enforcing a moral system on someone is any more problematic than forcing them to use the standard definition of "blue" if they want to participate in social interactions.

This is similar to an argument in another thread. Basically, everything can be reduced to silly human constructs.

Some argue that things such as "math" are not objective universal truths, either. We created it and the symbols that represent it. We find such similarity in other things because the system we created. Of course, that has quite logical counters, but it still stands the same: even math is anthropic and the parallels we find from it (laws) are only due to creating a system that works for our universe rather than the universe working by that system.

And it is a deep hole: everything is reduced to nothing or nonsense.


In fact, did not you and I argue this? I argued that everything can be boiled down to being "anthropic" and it is a spiral to a deep hole? This happened when we were arguing about something...what was it...


Regardless, I still agree with XYZ. You must first define "why" and then support why it is closer to objective than arbitrary.


You COULD argue that killing them that way was bad because it does more harm than good. But that is not true. So where is the objective answer to XYZ's criticism?

Some people argue that math isn't universal? We didn't create the fact that 2 plus 2 equals 4. We just gave each piece in the puzzle a name.

Originally posted by dadudemon
In fact, did not you and I argue this? I argued that everything can be boiled down to being "anthropic" and it is a spiral to a deep hole? This happened when we were arguing about something...what was it...

I can't imagine we did... I haven't believed in anything close to moral relativism since highschool... It might have been in my earliest days of KMC GDF? or maybe I was trolling....

unless it was about some absolute sense of things, where we can't actually know anything.... ? idk

Originally posted by dadudemon
Regardless, I still agree with XYZ. You must first define "why" and then support why it is closer to objective than arbitrary.

sure. I imagine you've seen one of the multiple threads where I've defended my stance on objective morality, which is specifically about identifying objective standards for what it moral.

my point was that XYZ wasn't actually making that point, what he said actually was closer to "I don't know what murder is" rather than "I don't feel we can apply murder to others"

Originally posted by dadudemon
You COULD argue that killing them that way was bad because it does more harm than good. But that is not true. So where is the objective answer to XYZ's criticism?

afaik, I agree with XYZ about the morality of killing animals vs the morality of killing humans

I admited in this thread that it is a very difficult position to defend from a logical or pragmatic standpoint (ignoring the specific things in this scenario, as Robtard's question was just about killing lots of animals vs one evil human), but morally, I don't think killing pigs is evil, but I do think killing humans is, and I don't think quantity changes this.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Some people argue that math isn't universal? We didn't create the fact that 2 plus 2 equals 4. We just gave each piece in the puzzle a name.

but if you deconstruct far enough, it can be argued that the concept of discrete quantities itself is anthropic

its not something I would argue in favor of, but I imagine that is where the position comes from

Originally posted by inimalist
how is colour tangible? Sorry. Perceptible.

How is killing a rapist or murder evil? No **** them, they deserve to die. Saying they will do rehab and be great at it to the point where they are doing great deeds its 100% speculation. Once the society finds out they will never have a good job again and will be flagged.

A sick animal needs to die anyways but its how they do it is the problem. A choice between a healthy animal and a very bad criminal, I will pick the animal every time.

Originally posted by The Nuul
How is killing a rapist or murder evil? No **** them, they deserve to die. Saying they will do rehab and be great at it to the point where they are doing great deeds its 100% speculation. Once the society finds out they will never have a good job again and will be flagged.

if you think taking another person's life is immoral, how do their actions change that?

If they dont commit a major crime then they dont deserve to die via death penalty.

Originally posted by The Nuul
If they dont commit a major crime then they dont deserve to die via death penalty.

ok, but what if you think the death penalty is immoral itself?

like, I get YOU don't agree with the position, but you don't actually see how someone COULD be against the death penalty in a moral sense?

Pig>>>Robert Pickton.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Pig>>>Robert Pickton.

my friends brought me back a bunch of rocks from his farm....

Originally posted by inimalist
ok, but what if you think the death penalty is immoral itself?

like, I get YOU don't agree with the position, but you don't actually see how someone COULD be against the death penalty in a moral sense?

If someone thinks its immoral then ok thats their opinion and thats it.

Originally posted by The Nuul
If someone thinks its immoral then ok thats their opinion and thats it.

alright then!

Originally posted by inimalist
I can't imagine we did... I haven't believed in anything close to moral relativism since highschool... It might have been in my earliest days of KMC GDF? or maybe I was trolling....

unless it was about some absolute sense of things, where we can't actually know anything.... ? idk

It was recent like...within the last year. I was the one arguing that invoking "it's anthropic!" is a slippery slope, though.



Originally posted by inimalist
sure. I imagine you've seen one of the multiple threads where I've defended my stance on objective morality, which is specifically about identifying objective standards for what it moral.

TBH, that's drawing a blank in my brain. I lack the necessary synapses to access the memory stored with the grouping associated with that memory. 313

Originally posted by inimalist
my point was that XYZ wasn't actually making that point, what he said actually was closer to "I don't know what murder is" rather than "I don't feel we can apply murder to others"

Really? I thought his point was: "The application of morality is arbitrary as you are invoking it. Explain "why" here and here...then we can talk. Until then, this shit is just arbitrary morals and unjustified whining." XYZ, feel free to correct me.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Pigburger, bro?
http://www.nekoguchi.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/japan_pork_burger/japan-pork-burger-01.jpg
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_W-pG7tUmJk0/S3jkXzeR48I/AAAAAAAABIo/CB0kbRxz7nI/s400/mcpork_01.jpg

I don't trust anything McDonalds thinks is meat or pork.

The people of the East do not have the same set of morals and values that we do. They can scarcely be classified as humans in some regards.

Cuz that makes sense.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
The people of the East do not have the same set of morals and values that we do. They can scarcely be classified as humans in some regards.
Ah, the good ol' "white man's burden" clause.

Typical Western ignorance.

Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon
Ah, the good ol' "white man's burden" clause.

Typical Western ignorance.

white man's burden only refers to situations where we feel it is our duty to civilize other nations.

Zeal appears more callously indifferent imho

Originally posted by inimalist
white man's burden only refers to situations where we feel it is our duty to civilize other nations.

Zeal appears more callously indifferent imho

"We"? You're Canadian.

Originally posted by inimalist
white man's burden only refers to situations where we feel it is our duty to civilize other nations.

Zeal appears more callously indifferent imho
Pretty way of saying he's a bigot.

Originally posted by Robtard
"We"? You're Canadian. Canadians persecuted black people too. We called Harriet Tubman fat.

Originally posted by Robtard
"We"? You're Canadian.

white man's burden was initially an english/european thing more than anything, iirc

more associated with their colonialism than american expansion or north american treatment of natives

what's shakin' bacon?

They're sending signs to the world that they plan to go to war and decimate mass numbers of a population.

I watched a man getting his head chainsawed off...This video does not make me care...The only thing that came to mind is that someone should use the audio in some freaky horror movie.

Originally posted by jaden101
I watched a man getting his head chainsawed off... Lawl link?

This is ridiculous