- Thread starter JBond
- Start date
Bob Sacamano
All-Pro
- Messages
- 26,436
- Reaction score
- 3
superpunk must have caught something from that terrible rape fuzzy handed to him. He's starting to sound like him.
I don't see what that has to do with anything.
- Messages
- 5,614
- Reaction score
- 0
Bob Sacamano
All-Pro
- Messages
- 26,436
- Reaction score
- 3
lol yes, superpunk is now taking the position fuzzy took during the great Michael Vick debate on CZ! I knew it.
He espouses such ego-maniacal thoughts while ripping off another's thought and ideas.
He espouses such ego-maniacal thoughts while ripping off another's thought and ideas.
Why? Are there no alternatives to killing for food?
- Messages
- 2,633
- Reaction score
- 0
You do realize for something to be able to eat, something has to die. Right? Or should every animal on earth become a vegetarian, including humans?
- Messages
- 5,614
- Reaction score
- 0
WTF does that have to do with it? But, to answer your question, no, to fit my diet something has to be killed. And fuck off if you disagree. You live your cock sucking vegan life and I will live mine.
- Messages
- 5,614
- Reaction score
- 0
Bob Sacamano
All-Pro
- Messages
- 26,436
- Reaction score
- 3
I don't think she's funny. She tries too hard. Like Midswat.
Obviously the answer is yes, there are alternatives.
So we are ok with killing animals, as long as we eat it, or do it in a certain context (sport/trophy hunting - which we find more palatable if we also eat that meat, too - but it's not necessary) - but we aren't ok with it in other contexts. Either way the animal is just as dead, and in some cases the only reason we've killed/abused it is for our own entertainment.
Similar to this thread. We are ok with violence among children, as long as it's in a context we've all agreed to as a society. But our standards change constantly. What we're ok with now is tame compared to what we used to be ok with. And it's different than what people in other countries are ok with. And 100 years from now what we're ok with will be even tamer.
Moral relativity. it's not a difficult concept, it's just introspective which makes less educated people uncomfortable once the dissonance sets in, which causes them to lash out and get angry (see: You, in this thread). It makes me uncomfortable too, because when I consider it, it confronts me with my own hypocrisy, but that's no reason to throw a fit or stop thinking about it.
- Messages
- 5,614
- Reaction score
- 0
Moral relativity is stupid. What was considered socially moral 100 years ago is not the same as today, so comparing the two is an act in futility.
And, btw, eating the food from an animal that I killed is not an exercise to make it palatable. The meat that I eat from the carcass of a dead animal is what makes the dead animal palatable. Yum, motherfucker.
And, btw, eating the food from an animal that I killed is not an exercise to make it palatable. The meat that I eat from the carcass of a dead animal is what makes the dead animal palatable. Yum, motherfucker.
- Messages
- 10,636
- Reaction score
- 0
Everything's alive bro. Neil de Grass Tyson told me that
- Messages
- 5,614
- Reaction score
- 0
We are teaching violence, asshole!
Either way it's just as dead as a dog that died for sport. There's no real difference in the two - just a difference we've manufactured so that we can be ok with the one but not the other.
Which is also fine. As there is no absolute morality from which to gauge, we are free to do as we like.
Bob Sacamano
All-Pro
- Messages
- 26,436
- Reaction score
- 3
I'm going huntin' guys.
With my AR-15.
With my AR-15.