Hunting...

[tonymctones]

Do I REALLY have to explain why the "You're a hypocrite!" is stupid statement to make AGAIN? Are people on here really that stupid? Good lord, I've done it 4 times in this thread I think and people are still using that line like it is some valid logical objection that proves the position of said hypocrite to be false. IT DOESNT.

If I was CONSISTENT then I wouldn't buy meat at all. I think it is morally desireable to not buy meat at all. Why? Because it prevents unnecessary pain and suffering. I shouldn't be eating meat at all. My personal actions have nothing to do with the truth/falsity of my argument.

first of all i didnt read the 7 pages, i have better shit to do during the day.

second a person who eats meat but is against hunting BC THE FEEL IT CAUSES AGGREGIOUS PAIN AND SUFFERING TO THE ANIMAL...IS BEING HYPOCRITICAL...

look at how animals raised for food live and how animals that live in the wild live...tell me which one is subject to unnecessary pain and suffering more.

if you disagree then just bump your old posts

[Mr. Magoo]

first of all i didnt read the 7 pages, i have better shit to do during the day.

second a person who eats meat but is against hunting BC THE FEEL IT CAUSES AGGREGIOUS PAIN AND SUFFERING TO THE ANIMAL...IS BEING HYPOCRITICAL...

look at how animals raised for food live and how animals that live in the wild live...tell me which one is subject to unnecessary pain and suffering more.

if you disagree then just bump your old posts

You're completely right in your entire post. 100% right. Everything you said is right on the money. But you know the real kicker? Nothing in your post disproves my argument that "It is immoral for a person to hunt" or "It is immoral for a person to eat meat". I personally don't see why you typed that post, I admitted to being a hypocrite while typing my previous post. But despite my hypocrisy, my argument still goes unchallenged. I myself, have been attacked. I've been called out (I called myself out) for being a hypocrite. But my argument still stands. See my point?

[tonymctones]

first of all i didnt read the 7 pages, i have better shit to do during the day.

second a person who eats meat but is against hunting BC THE FEEL IT CAUSES AGGREGIOUS PAIN AND SUFFERING TO THE ANIMAL...IS BEING HYPOCRITICAL...

look at how animals raised for food live and how animals that live in the wild live...tell me which one is subject to unnecessary pain and suffering more.

if you disagree then just bump your old posts

I should say they are against it and feel that other shouldnt hunt b/c it causes unnecessary pain and suffering for the animal...

[tonymctones]

You're completely right in your entire post. 100% right. Everything you said is right on the money. But you know the real kicker? Nothing in your post disproves my argument that "It is immoral for a person to hunt" or "It is immoral for a person to eat meat". I personally don't see why you typed that post, I admitted to being a hypocrite while typing my previous post. But despite my hypocrisy, my argument still goes unchallenged. I myself, have been attacked. I've been called out (I called myself out) for being a hypocrite. But my argument still stands. See my point?

what do you base your idea on?

arent you an atheist?

[Mr. Magoo]

what do you base your idea on?

arent you an atheist?

I won't go into religion but I will restate my argument in simpler terms so it's easier to understand.

Premise 1: Unnecessary pain and suffering is a bad thing
premise 2: If we can prevent unnecessary pain and suffering without sacrificing something morally relevant, we ought, morally, to do it.

Hunting (I should also add that "Eating meat" falls under this category too) is unnecessary in the sense that we do not NEED to kill animals in order to get protein, calories, etc etc. Yes it is ONE way, but it is not the ONLY way. So it is unnecessary.

I think most would agree that animals DO suffer pain. We CAN prevent unnecessary pain and suffering (by not hunting) without sacrificing something morally relevant (give up a little flavor enjoyment to prevent a great deal of pain and suffering).

Therefore, we ought, morally, to stop hunting.

[Mr. Magoo]

Well, religion is relevant b/c an atheist morals are not bound to anything other than opinion so....if youre an atheist your argument changes with perspective(culture, subculture, situation etc.)

your argument is not valid b/c we have a different idea of unnecessary.

Killing animals is necessary b/c in order to eat them and get the nutrients that you miss from meat substitutes which saves money and time.
hunting is a way of killing animals

therefore hunting is necessary...

I can make logical arguments as well

First of all, the first half of your post is making a philosophical argument that's very debateable which is moral relativism (as well as divine command theory which is another debatable issue). So don't accept moral relativism or moral subjectivism as objectively true (see the irony?)

Second of all, you need to differentiate between what is a necessary condition and what is a sufficient condition. What is necessary are things like calories and protein, etc. We need those to stay alive and grow, correct?. Now let's think about how we can get those. One way is meat. Therefore meat is a sufficient condition for calories, protein, etc. However there are other ways to get protein, calories, etc. Let's give the example of eating legumes. Now combining legumes results in the same amino acid profile that meat does (I can hunt (no pun intended) for my human nutrition textbook if you really want the data for this). So legumes is a different way of getting protein and calories etc. So animal meat is not a necessary condition. So hunting is not necessary.

[tonymctones]

First of all, the first half of your post is making a philosophical argument that's very debateable which is moral relativism (as well as divine command theory which is another debatable issue). So don't accept moral relativism or moral subjectivism as objectively true (see the irony?)

Second of all, you need to differentiate between what is a necessary condition and what is a sufficient condition. What is necessary are things like calories and protein, etc. We need those to stay alive and grow, correct?. Now let's think about how we can get those. One way is meat. Therefore meat is a sufficient condition for calories, protein, etc. However there are other ways to get protein, calories, etc. Let's give the example of eating legumes. Now combining legumes results in the same amino acid profile that meat does (I can hunt (no pun intended) for my human nutrition textbook if you really want the data for this). So legumes is a different way of getting protein and calories etc. So animal meat is not a necessary condition. So hunting is not necessary.

I modified the post but i think it got lost the disagreement in terms of "unnecessary" is in terms of pain and suffering not in terms of our bodies needs.

in regards to the first part, no its really not what we end up with is that atheist "morals" are based on individual situations ie culture and subculture. We can go round and round all day long but we will inevitably end up here.

[Mr. Magoo]

I modified the post but i think it got lost the disagreement in terms of "unnecessary" is in terms of pain and suffering not in terms of our bodies needs.

in regards to the first part, no its really not what we end up with is that atheist "morals" are based on individual situations ie culture and subculture. We can go round and round all day long but we will inevitably end up here.

I was using "necessary" in the sense of necessary for our survival. Up to the point of sacrificing something morally relevant was my threshold. For example, if a family of 4 in africa would starve unless they killed an animal to eat (because they, unlike us, don't have easy access to legumes, vegetables, etc etc) then it would be morally permissible because if they starved to death to save the animal, then they would have scarified something morally relevant, namely, their lives. Does that explain any better?

And I can disprove the 2nd part of your post by showing it to be logically inconsistent. You're accepting as objectively true, that all theories surrounding moral theories are subjective? Think about that for a minute. That in and of itself cannot be objectively true by definition.  There would have to be some moral truths (at least one) and that would defeat the argument "all theories of morality are subjective"

[tonymctones]

I was using "necessary" in the sense of necessary for our survival. Up to the point of sacrificing something morally relevant was my threshold. For example, if a family of 4 in africa would starve unless they killed an animal to eat (because they, unlike us, don't have easy access to legumes, vegetables, etc etc) then it would be morally permissible because if they starved to death to save the animal, then they would have scarified something morally relevant, namely, their lives. Does that explain any better?

And I can disprove the 2nd part of your post by showing it to be logically inconsistent. You're accepting as objectively true, that all theories surrounding moral theories are subjective? Think about that for a minute. That in and of itself cannot be objectively true by definition.  There would have to be some moral truths (at least one) and that would defeat the argument "all theories of morality are subjective"

give me one moral truth that is not subjective for an atheist...

ahhh I see so your moral objections are on a sliding scale then?

you mean like your morals change with the situation?

hmmm, where have I heard that before?

[Natural Man]

Believing as an atheist that God doesnt exists, is just another belief.


Did you even read the Bible...or are you just like most of the atheists repeating like a parrot what your -now divorced- parents told you...  

[Mr. Magoo]

give me one moral truth that is not subjective for an atheist...

ahhh I see so your moral objections are on a sliding scale then?

you mean like your morals change with the situation?

hmmm, where have I heard that before?

You didn't notice the paradox did you? Imagine that it is true that "All statements regarding moral theories of subjective". Let's call that true statement, Statement A. Well let's see. Statement A is in and of itself a statement about moral theories. However, if statement A is true, then by definition of Statement A being true, Statement A has to be false. Get it yet? So the claim that moral subjectivism is objectively true cannot be possible.

[tonymctones]

You didn't notice the paradox did you? Imagine that it is true that "All statements regarding moral theories of subjective". Let's call that true statement, Statement A. Well let's see. Statement A is in and itself a statement about moral theories. However, if statement A is true, then by definition of Statement A being true, Statement A has to be false. Get it yet? So the claim that moral subjectivism is objectively true cannot be possible.

I understand your premise...but that doesnt change the idea that for an ATHEIST morals are based on situations like culture, subculture, situation etc....

for religious ppl their morals dont change or shouldnt I should say with situation, culture and subculture.

a christian in the US holds pretty much the same views as a christian in africa.

An atheists whos "morals" are embedded in their opinion which is imbedded very much in their culture can differ greatly from culture to culture...

[Mr. Magoo]

I understand your premise...but that doesnt change the idea that for an ATHEIST morals are based on situations like culture, subculture, situation etc....

for religious ppl their morals dont change or shouldnt I should say with situation, culture and subculture.

a christian in the US holds pretty much the same views as a christian in africa.

An atheists whos "morals" are embedded in their opinion which is imbedded very much in their culture can differ greatly from culture to culture...

Now you're moving into the divine command theory. Religious people get morals from religious text (Killing is wrong because the Bible says Killing is wrong and God wrote the Bible, etc). I could go into that for hours but I think it's important to remind ourselves that being an atheist does not disprove my argument in my previous post that I spelled out. Even if it did, I could just easily say I'm a christian to make it valid, right? If an atheist said that inflicting unnecessary pain and suffering on children is immoral, he wouldn't be wrong (and therefore the act would not be immoral) solely because he's an atheist, right? It could still be agreed upon by reason (not religion)

[tonymctones]

Now you're moving into the divine command theory. Religious people get morals from religious text (Killing is wrong because the Bible says Killing is wrong and God wrote the Bible, etc). I could go into that for hours but I think it's important to remind ourselves that being an atheist does not disprove my argument in my previous post that I spelled out. Even if it did, I could just easily say I'm a christian to make it valid, right? If an atheist said that inflicting unnecessary pain and suffering on children is immoral, he wouldn't be wrong (and therefore the act would not be immoral) solely because he's an atheist, right? It could still be agreed upon by reason (not religion)

but again an atheist in another culture may disagree with him b/c that culture doesnt deem it wrong...see my point?

You never qualified "unnecessary pain and suffering" we all may have different ideas of what that means...

I understand your use of it for the terms of our bodies but not in the first premise.

I dont see shooting an animal with a clean shot that kills it instantly as unnecessary pain and suffering.

Killing an animal with a well placed shot does not cause unnecessary pain and suffering.
when hunting you can make a well placed shot.

hunting does have to cause unnecessary pain and suffering...

you have to define the "unnesseary pain and suffering" in your premise or it leaves it open to THIS!!!

[Tito24]

how about these mother fuckers? I want to skin them alive.

hollyshit

[Dr Dutch]

Its weird, I had no problem watching the mexican chainsaw video, but I refuse to watch the above video.

x2 agree it's weird, maybe because animals are always innocent, people are not..

[Mr. Magoo]

but again an atheist in another culture may disagree with him b/c that culture doesnt deem it wrong...see my point?

You never qualified "unnecessary pain and suffering" we all may have different ideas of what that means...

I understand your use of it for the terms of our bodies but not in the first premise.

I dont see shooting an animal with a clean shot that kills it instantly as unnecessary pain and suffering.

Killing an animal with a well placed shot does not cause unnecessary pain and suffering.
when hunting you can make a well placed shot.

hunting does have to cause unnecessary pain and suffering...

you have to define the "unnesseary pain and suffering" in your premise or it leaves it open to THIS!!!

I still don't understand your point. I think we as humans can, by reason, agree to premise #1 and premise #2 in my argument I spelled out earlier. I don't see how religious belief can affect the truth/falsity of accepting those premises. It seems irrelevant. Not all Christians agree to certain morals beliefs. For example, I know some that think gay marriage should be legal, others think it should be outlawed (depending upon their views about the role of government, not about the morality of the marriage itself). Also, some Baptists may be against certain kind of christian music that other Christians do not find objectionable. I think we can find moral truths by reason and accept those reasons upon reflection. I reject the idea that religion is somehow relevant to the truth of premises. If person B in, say, Germany rejected my premises for my argument, I would try to spell out my argument more clearly, give examples, etc etc. It does not matter if person B is a christian or not or religious or not. Yes person B may originally disagree with my premises intuitively (whether he is a baptist, methodist, buddhist, etc) but if my reasons are good enough for accepting premises #1 and #2 in my argument, then, by reason, he can come to accept them. Him, originally objecting, does NOT disprove the truth of my premises. Understand?

This post is getting too long, I'll reply in a different one about what I mean by unnecessary pain and suffering

[Mr. Magoo]

You never qualified "unnecessary pain and suffering" we all may have different ideas of what that means...

I understand your use of it for the terms of our bodies but not in the first premise.

I don't see shooting an animal with a clean shot that kills it instantly as unnecessary pain and suffering.

Killing an animal with a well placed shot does not cause unnecessary pain and suffering.
when hunting you can make a well placed shot.

hunting does have to cause unnecessary pain and suffering...

you have to define the "unnesseary pain and suffering" in your premise or it leaves it open to THIS!!!

Premise 1 of my argument was my anchor to the entire argument. "Unnecessary pain and suffering is a bad thing". I think most people would accept this as true. The premise that takes a big jump is premise#2 which most might find difficult to accept. First I'll talk about pain and suffering being unnecessary. This is pain and suffering that is contingent, and not required in order to preserve the conditions for my own existence. For example, the mental pain and suffering of coming to grips that hunting animals is immoral might be necessary in order for me to grow as a person or in order for me to exist as a rational being (coming to grips with certain beliefs through mental anguish is entailed in my existence as a rational person).

 I'll also give a more basic example of necessary pain and suffering. Imagine a 3 year old child who stepped on a nail and had to get a shot (or any scenario where something happened and as a result the child had to get a shot). The shot is needed in order to preserve the condition of the child. The condition of existence and being. If the child did not get the shot, then they would get infected or die (which would cause a lot more pain and would be a sacrifice of something morally relevant, his life). So we give the child the shot to save his life, most would agree the shot is necessary to preserve the condition of existence and being as a rational (in this case future rational) human being. So the mere fact that the child receives pain and suffering from the shot is not in and of itself a sufficient condition to not do the act that would result in pain and suffering.

Now consider the scenario in the above paragraph to this one. Imagine I went over to the child and kicked him in the face. Let's say I didn't kick him extremely hard. Let's imagine that we could quantify pain levels. The shot (we imagine) resulted in, say, 100 units of pain. The kick resulted in say, 100 units of pain also. Although both actions resulted in the same amount of quantified pain, the former (the shot) was not deemed impermissible because in an important sense it was necessary to preserve the condition of existence. However the kick to the face which resulted in 100 units of pain IS deemed impermissible. Why? Because those 100 units of pain was not needed to preserve any condition of existence. The kick was unnecessary. That is why act A (The shot) is permissible while act B (the kick) is impermissible, although the result in both was the same (100 units of pain).