The best way to skin a cat
People eat dogs in Korea
In Indian cattle are considered sacred I think. People all over the world eat beef, same agument I guess.
Ive heard some stories of muslim guerilla's eating the flesh of hindus they killed
MR_BOGAN
Veteran
Joined: 5 Mar 2008
Age: 124
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,479
Location: The great trailer park in the sky!
^ I wouldn't be getting ideas D1nk0
That response just about speaks for itself. Your evaluation of the morality of the idea of eating a cat is hopelessly subjective. You do not seem to have any means of making it something interpersonally binding.
I have not seen any arguments in this thread which could be considered more than sentimentalism as to why this should be regarded negatively. Don't hate, people!
_________________
* here for the nachos.
Last edited by twoshots on 01 Jun 2008, 10:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Second, if you think Fred's malicious, honestly, an animal is an animal. If you're not a vegetarian, you're a hypocrite.
Third, you're all much sicker than Fred. D1nko, I'm looking at you.
The 2nd statement is an Opinion and Not a fact twoshots! I DO NOT consider all animals to be equal AND I regard Humans as animals.
That would depend entirely on whether your evaluation of an animal's moral worth was based on a consistent and intelligent system rather than an ad-hoc rationalization of your cultural conditioning. We eat very intelligent animals and no one objects (pigs and octopuses come readily to mind).
Changing the subject, since you claim to be interested in psychology twoshots, why is it that some people derive excitement and even sexual pleasure from harming other Human beings?
asking for causality in this case is pretty futile since it's more of an individual basis and you're looking at a few million different environmental and genetic potentials. sadism comes from a number of sources. one of the most common one seen is the power-hungry archetype, though. it's a way of exercising power and control over one's environment. it's the same reason that many politicians and priests are pedophiles...it's an unhealthy attraction to power and control over one's world.
People eat dogs in Korea
In Indian cattle are considered sacred I think. People all over the world eat beef, same agument I guess.
Ive heard some stories of muslim guerilla's eating the flesh of hindus they killed
claims of cannibalism is much more frequent than actual acts of cannibalism and is normally used as a political device to dehumanize an enemy. not saying that it never occurs but stories like your own seem to be more likely political than it is actual fact.
To a certain extent it IS subjective but at the same time I honestly dont think that that's necessarily a bad thing!
How is it NOT in my best interest to think that way? I DONT care about people I dont know! Its a simple as THAT.
Why the Hell should I? WHAT will I gain from that other than the false promise of social approval?
That response just about speaks for itself. Your evaluation of the morality of the idea of eating a cat is hopelessly subjective. You do not seem to have any means of making it something interpersonally binding.
I have not seen any arguments in this thread which could be considered more than sentimentalism as to why this should be regarded negatively. Don't hate, people!
People eat dogs in Korea
In Indian cattle are considered sacred I think. People all over the world eat beef, same agument I guess.
Ive heard some stories of muslim guerilla's eating the flesh of hindus they killed
claims of cannibalism is much more frequent than actual acts of cannibalism and is normally used as a political device to dehumanize an enemy. not saying that it never occurs but stories like your own seem to be more likely political than it is actual fact.
What about Jeffrey Dahmer?
I admit that I have a world view which is based almost entirely on power and the struggle for it and has very little room for empathy. But since WHEN are you a psychiatrist skafather84? Same for YOU twoshots?
I honestly am very cynical towards psychology and have FAR more respect for neurology and neuropsychiatry which seeks to understand how the brain directs behaviour and uses PHYSICAL EXPERIMENTATION rather than just statistical analysis.
Last edited by D1nk0 on 01 Jun 2008, 10:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
How is it NOT in my best interest to think that way? I DONT care about people I dont know! Its a simple as THAT.
Why the Hell should I? WHAT will I gain from that other than the false promise of social approval?
Perhaps, and I view it as good that you are willing to dish out value at your discretion, but nonetheless using such a blatantly sentimentalist viewpoint does not tell anyone else why they should hold your opinion in any particular regard (any more than saying blue is a pretty color), or why you should think that your opinion is anything more meaningful than the product of your conditioning. Since morality is being suggested here, I would hope that you could bring something more interpersonally substantial to the table.
For the purposes of moral discussions, we like to pretend there is some kind of objective "truth" which we can access, but you seem to have eschewed this entirely for a "ME SAY NO" approach. Good for guiding your own actions, but gives no indicator there is any reality anyone else should care about backing your opinion up.
To discuss why I think your position is ridiculous further, we would need to get into a more deep philosophical discussion not appropriate to this thread.
_________________
* here for the nachos.
For the purposes of moral discussions, we like to pretend there is some kind of objective "truth" which we can access, but you seem to have eschewed this entirely for a "ME SAY NO" approach. Good for guiding your own actions, but gives no indicator there is any reality anyone else should care about backing your opinion up.
To discuss why I think your position is ridiculous further, we would need to get into a more deep philosophical discussion not appropriate to this thread.
People use "morality" as a cover to aspouse ideas that they see as being in their self-interest. People tend to AGREE on such because they often have common interests. Since I have VERY little in common with other people I tend to scoff at such moral concepts and values because often I derive NO personal benefit from them. If you want to convince me otherwise you're going to HAVE to demonstrate to me that it is in my self-interest to reconsider my beliefs!Period. What you have said so far is a pretense of intellectual superiority because you dont like what I have to say. Why should I be concerned for those who have no conern for me? That you mention my "conditioning" shows me that you have a fallacious understanding of peoples motivations and behaviour. People act in their self-interest and when I think about my conditioning I have picked and chosen what things are in my self-interest to follow and what things to reject.
Last edited by D1nk0 on 01 Jun 2008, 11:03 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Second, if you think Fred's malicious, honestly, an animal is an animal. If you're not a vegetarian, you're a hypocrite.
Third, you're all much sicker than Fred. D1nko, I'm looking at you.
The 2nd statement is an Opinion and Not a fact twoshots! I DO NOT consider all animals to be equal AND I regard Humans as animals.
That would depend entirely on whether your evaluation of an animal's moral worth was based on a consistent and intelligent system rather than an ad-hoc rationalization of your cultural conditioning. We eat very intelligent animals and no one objects (pigs and octopuses come readily to mind).
Changing the subject, since you claim to be interested in psychology twoshots, why is it that some people derive excitement and even sexual pleasure from harming other Human beings?
I do not understand the relevance of this post, although sadism is not a topic I am familiar with. Moreover, beyond empirical correlates, many "whys" in psychology tend to be psychoanalytic BS which I do not regard as scientifically valid. Why do you ask?
_________________
* here for the nachos.
For the purposes of moral discussions, we like to pretend there is some kind of objective "truth" which we can access, but you seem to have eschewed this entirely for a "ME SAY NO" approach. Good for guiding your own actions, but gives no indicator there is any reality anyone else should care about backing your opinion up.
To discuss why I think your position is ridiculous further, we would need to get into a more deep philosophical discussion not appropriate to this thread.
People use "morality" as a cover to aspouse ideas that they see as being in their self-interest. People tend to AGREE on such because they often have common interests. Since I have VERY little in common with other people I tend to scoff at such moral concepts and values because often I derive NO personal benefit from them. If you want to convince me otherwise you're going to HAVE to demonstrate to me that it is in my self-interest to reconsider my beliefs!Period. What you have said so far is a pretense of intellectual superiority because you dont like what I have to say. Why should I be concerned for those who have no conern for me?
Well, you're an egoistic sentimentalist. No arguing with that I suppose But then again, the intent of ridicule is invariably to demonstrate to those who deep down agree with me that they really do agree with me. Unlike many here, I do not regard debates on axioms as meaningful Know that our differences are irreconcilable.
And no, applying some measure of actual reasoning to one's views on the world is the core of philosophy. You may disagree, but accusing me of having pretensions to superiority is silly.
Egoism is either normative, tautological, or highly debatable. It is inexpedient given the evidence of animals and evolutionary psychology to suppose that our moral impulses are entirely the product of a rational cost/benefit analysis, and if they were it seems odd that they are introspectively so distinct. It is not at all my intuition that a simple crude egoistic picture minus social conditioning is at all a very good explanation for moral cognition.
_________________
* here for the nachos.
I prefer to "skin" them rather than "scald" them
because it doesnt parboil the meat, which in my
opinion should be either baked or deep fried.
okay so like do you live in the deep south or china
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=PF0OjrFIVWY
I like that band.
People eat dogs in Korea
In Indian cattle are considered sacred I think. People all over the world eat beef, same agument I guess.
Ive heard some stories of muslim guerilla's eating the flesh of hindus they killed
claims of cannibalism is much more frequent than actual acts of cannibalism and is normally used as a political device to dehumanize an enemy. not saying that it never occurs but stories like your own seem to be more likely political than it is actual fact.
What about Jeffrey Dahmer?
I admit that I have a world view which is based almost entirely on power and the struggle for it and has very little room for empathy. But since WHEN are you a psychiatrist skafather84? Same for YOU twoshots?
I honestly am very cynical towards psychology and have FAR more respect for neurology and neuropsychiatry which seeks to understand how the brain directs behaviour and uses PHYSICAL EXPERIMENTATION rather than just statistical analysis.
quit being a troll, as*hole.
edit: done under the analyst of you asking questions unrelated then expressing a negative opinion and redirection (the cannibalism one and then asking about psychology just so you can say that you don't believe in it).
Last edited by skafather84 on 02 Jun 2008, 12:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
This is true. But there is a difference between a raw assertion and a reasoned assertion. Moral debates are essentially absurd, but it is the central conceit of philosophy that we should be able to actually have them rather than yelling out or perspective and expecting everyone else to care.
Although it is my stance that strong emotions need the absence of thought to thrive, and I find strong emotions distasteful. The act of eating a cat, though one may dislike it, is ambiguous when one accounts for the particular way that different people arrive at the morality of the situation, and as it is (generally) a more ad hoc moral opinion, it is also therefore less central to people's moral systems and therefore highly unstable. As constructs go, it's a pretty lousy one.
_________________
* here for the nachos.
I don't eat meat. As an AS I find myself, in general, much easier with animals than with people. I don't consider animals a inferior creatures. But I am aware of the nature of life and do not hide from myself the perennial cruelties imposed on life by the natural order of things. On that basis I compliment Fred on his thread to expose the way we live. Domesticated farm animals raised for food are no less living creatures than cats. It is important we understand what we do and how we live. Hypocrisy has its uses and I appreciate that it has saved the lives of many wonderful creatures but, on occasion, it is wise to look at reality.
Last edited by Sand on 02 Jun 2008, 12:17 am, edited 1 time in total.