So Anon have you decided to give up your evil barbaric ways? You know killing animals is just like killing people right?
>>25296445
I'd totally eat humans if human flesh wouldn't fuck up my body.
Human meat not healthy, yo.
>survival of the fittest
If I'd end up being eaten, well shit, but fair is fair, right? Just means that someone was better.
>>25296445
the thing vegans fail to understand is that I just don't care kek
Was this supposed to be extremely arousing?
>>25296593
This. I'd buy human meat if it was healthy and sold in my butchery. I want to try out other animals too, dogs, cats, insects etc..
>>25296445
Killing is not inherently wrong.
>You know killing animals is just like killing people right?
it's not.
Man why is every arguement for veganism fucking retarded. If you're religious then God literally says we're better than animals and are allowed to eat the, and if you're not religious then circle of life bitch.
>>25296621
this.
vegfags think that we eat meat because we don't understand that it's wrong. the truth is, we acknowledge the horrible conditions that those animals are put in their entire lives before they are slaughtered - we just don't give a shit.
I cooked a steak for Christmas and it was fucking AMAZING.
>>25296639
There are worse things out there. Fap away
>>25296647
It's nature. The strongest get's to decide who get's eaten and who get's to live.
Humans are the apex predator. The only reason not to eat something that can be eaten should be to stop a race from going extinct and there are plenty humans around...
>dogs
I wouldn't eat a German Shepherd or a Huskey or any of the good loyal cute ones.
Chihuahua? Grill the thing, I don't care.
Why the fuck do vegans like to compare humans to the rest of the animals?
They view themselves as nothing but worthless animals with no sense of kinship.
Vegans are worse than cucks
>>25296445
this is a good point, will start eating humans
#refugees welcome
>>25296759
/thread desu senpai
>>25296740
>implying nignogs are worth more than a dog
>implying mudslimes are more worthy of loyality and love than dogs
Not all human subspecies are alike, anon, some can't understand basic things that animals learned tenthousand years ago.
>>25296759
>#refugees welcome
I'm white, but I'd also rather only eat other white people.
The thought of eating mudslimes is pretty gross.
>tying someone up before you kill them
whats the point? takes all the sport out of it.
>>25296901
It's what usually follows
>let's not turn this rape into a murder
Hey OP, can you do a version of this but for the dairy industry?
I think if you made an analogous comic about women being forced to lactate, it would help the vegan cause a lot as well.
>>25296445
Life is pointless.
Morality is meaningless.
Hedonism is the only truth.
Come up with an argument now vegan fags
>>25297012
The point of life is to gain supremacy over as many other life-forms as possible.
Morality is the tool you use to make others follow your flag.
>>25296445
I assume that the human tied up on the left was bred for the explicit purpose of being slaughtered for meat. Otherwise this comic doesn't make sense.
If vegans and vegetarians win... what are they going to do with the billions of livestock animals that we use in the meat industry? Entire species of animals bred for 10,000 years in captivity, completely incapable of living without human care.
The only choice would be to kill them.
>>25296593
>not eating the organs
what an amateur
>>25296709
How much did the steak cost and you got any tips? Just asking because im thinking of cooking my own steak
>>25296866
Fuckin top kek
"Sorry, do you serve White People here?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCCfCVs_D9E
What OP sounds like.
![Max_stirner[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/R6BTcTO.jpg "Max_stirner[1].jpg")
I use my own might over weaker beings and make them my property
Fuck you OP
>>25296693
Beause most vegans are retarded. This is because most people are retared. Especially online. I mean, ever read arguments for atheism? Libertarianism? Feminism (both for and against)? Literally anything is riddled with retards because there are always more of them, they are always louder and more persistent and they are also not at all concerned with actual deliberation - which means they don't have to follow the rules of debate or logic. Now, full disclosure, I'm a vegan myself and I have my reasons for this, but I do not operate under the illusions that ALL or even MOST vegans have any reason beyond "gets me attention" or "makes me feel special/superior". Most of these posers will go back to eating meat as they have no true belief or dedication; they'll just move on to the next thing.
>>25296709
No, this is well understood by most who actually use their brains. The question which leaves me perplexed is why society places some animals in the category of "I don't give a shit about their suffering" while others are put in the category "their suffering is horrible!". Especially since what goes in what box varies by culture; indians won't eat cows but westerners will; some asians will eat dogs but westerners won't. And so on.
>>25296739
>It's nature.
Naturalist fallacy. Also fails to explain why most people eat a select group of about half a dozen animals when there are thousands upon thousands of animals which we COULD eat. I mean by all means enjoy your meat, but be honest about it being a (socially and culturally constructed) habit; you didn't use science or logic on this one, you eat it because you always have and so has everyone you know and it tastes good. Your 'reasoning' is just an ex post justification; but why do you even need a justification?
>>25297012
>"Ethical hedonism is the idea that all people have the right to do everything in their power to achieve the greatest amount of pleasure possible to them, assuming that their actions do not infringe on the equal rights of others."
If "others" includes animals, ethical hedonism would contradict eating animals. If "others" does not include animals, the burden or proof is on you to explain A) why not and B) who ought to be included in "others" and for what reason.
>>25297084
>If vegans and vegetarians win... what are they going to do with the billions of livestock animals that we use in the meat industry? Entire species of animals bred for 10,000 years in captivity, completely incapable of living without human care.
As a vegan I find that most other vegans don't pay enough attention to crucial questions such as this one. What indeed? And if hunting stops, what happens when populations get out of control and wreck havoc on the environment? This is why I maintain that most vegans are attention-whores and not actually trying to be as ethical as possible.
>>25297261
>>25297261
Buddy, buddy.
>you didn't use science or logic on this one,
I did. Not clear enough obviously, but I did.
>>25296739
>I wouldn't eat a German Shepherd or a Huskey or any of the good loyal cute ones.
Might gives humans the right to decide what to eat and what to leave alive. That's why you will find that different cultures have different views on eating certain animals.
Unless you believe that cultures are just a lie made up by evil old cis white males.
I fully acknowledge that I can eat literally anything that lives and isn't poisonous to me.
I just consciously choose not to eat some animals.
Others might be a bit harder to come by here so I don't have to chance to eat them. But I would if I could and so would most other predators once they know that they can eat something.
Nature btfo's militant vegan logic constantly and for literally billions of years.
>inb4 'But it's evil to lord your supremacy over animals and to decide who lives just based on what's cute/usefull'
Yeah, it is. What you gonna do? Cry on your blog about it and throw some paint on ladies in pelts?
Let's meet in the wild when we both haven't eaten in a while. I'll go to sleep with a full stomach that night.
>>25297252
Striner seems a wierd choice for that kind of attitude. His egoism is universial; that is it applies to everyone - everyone is justified in being an egoist and no one is to just accept the way of things (compare this to the 'egoism for those above, obedience for those below' kind of reasoning of Rand). That is, you would be justified and harboring your belief but the "weaker beings" and their allies would, in Stirner's view, be equally justified in uniting and using their might on you in turn.
>>25297207
Not the guy you replied to but I've cooked a lot of steaks at different restaurants.
Basically, in regards to quality of steak, you get what you pay for. That's not to say you can't make a cheaper steak enjoyable but you'll never reach the same point of flavour on an eye of round cut as you will with the good cuts.
If you buy expensive cuts, they're good with just salt and pepper, if you like extra butter go ahead but I don't so I just use enough to cook it with. With cheaper cuts you'll want to look into marinades to soften them up. If you don't they get tough as fuck and taste like shit desu.
When you actually cook it stick with a medium rare unless you're sure you like rare, the texture is a bit gross if you go into it blind and it'll ruin an otherwise good steak. Generally the hotter the grill the more rare the steak, which seems counterintuitive but makes sense if you realise the only part you really need to cook is the outside.
This vegansidekick guy makes the worst comics.
>>25297371
As a vegetarian (which I'm fully aware is a vegan who can only half be bothered with the effort) I often get the question of why I support the culling of pest animals, since that's killing animals too. I answer that it amounts to a lesser total suffering of animals, since the pest animals will invariably fuck up the ecosystem and cause the deaths of many many more animals and possibly whole species. I'm Australian for context, so there's many native species that are just not evolutionarily prepared to deal with a feral cat, for example. So I absolutely support killing feral cats.
>>25297490
Amazing, thanks a lot for that reply mate.
>>25296445
>humans are exactly the same as animals, but must also be held to a higher moral standard
>>25297409
>you didn't use science or logic on this one,
>I did. Not clear enough obviously, but I did.
Excuse my being unclear. I mean that you did not apply it ex ante; you did not abstain from meat and then consider science and logic, change your mind and began eating meat. You began with eating meat; when the issue later on came up you justified your actions ex post - but your reasoning did not inform your decision to begin eating meat because such a decision was never made. You eat it for the same reason most people do and the same reason I ate it for the better part of my life; everyone else does and it's "normal". It is CULTURE, HABIT and TRADITION, and not science/logic, that makes us eat meat. Now that does not mean that meat-eating is wrong - quite the contrary one could argue that it is an important aspect of human culture. I'm just trying to set the record straight and encourage honesty - you eat burgers and bacon because you consider them delicious and not because science tell you to.
>I just consciously choose not to eat some animals.
And you just happen, purely by accident, to make the same choice as everyone else in your particular time and place? No, you don't actualy believe that because you are very clearly a reasonable person. And no, I don't believe culture to a lie or bad; see above. It just isn't the same as science or logic and I think we ought to be honest about the fact that we eat the way we do because of culture. Again, noy a critique, just a clarification.
>Let's meet in the wild...
You are arguing the general point based on a specific case. To give another example: I could well give you an example of a situation where stealing something is justified and right; this does not mean that stealing is ALWAYS justified and right but merely that the general rule of "don't steal shit" has exceptions on the specific level; you will find this to be the case with most ethical/moral rules.
>>25296445
>eating animal meat = cannibalism
k
>tfw all my beef comes from my dad's farm
It's hormone/antibiotic free, free roaming, organic, grass-fed beef like 99% of small farms; but since it's an expensive pain in the ass to get the label to appease the hipsters, it's sold as regular beef.
Either way I get it dirt cheap so I'm happy.
>>25297555
Exactly. And I, despite being vegan, support hunting, medical experimentation on animals (including using snakes to get anti-dote) and any other thing where there is no alternative. To me being vegan is just doing your best; don't kill or harm if you don't have to and if you have to then try to work to find a different way. Fundamentalism in anything is mentally stiffening and counter-productive.
>>25297606
Seems contadictory until you consider that comparions are being made in different ways. Humans are similar (clearly not EXACTLY the same) in the only way that matters when it comes to inflicting pain or killing: in our capacity to suffer. The way a cow feels pain is not too different from the way you feel it; it suffers in the situation it is in like you would (again, to clarify - similar, that is COMPARABLE, not exactly the same!). On the other hand, we are superior in our capacity for ethics - a tiger killing a man does no wrong because they have no sense of ethics, but a man who kills a tiger might do wrong. Lastly, we are also superior in our capacity to inflict pain and suffering; predators in the wild indeed kill but none at the same scale as mankind nor with the same methods; something that actually harms us as well by damaging the environment.
>you can't eat meat because animals are the same as humans
>you can't eat meat because humans are different from animals and can make the choice
>>25296445
eating meat != cannibalism
veganfags are retarded, as usual.
>>25297439
Yes, and if the chickens for a union of egoists and start slaughtering meat eaters I would not condemn them for being "morally wrong"
But I would act in my own interest and birdproof my house and shoot them as necessary
>>25297877
Again, see above; we are the same in our capacity to suffer but we are superior in our capacity for ethics. Not a difficult concept. (Consider a similar case: a child is not held to the same moral standards as an adult, but harming a child is, if anything, considered worse that harming an adult.)
I too, enjoy eating pesticides with mild nutritional value and drinking diluted fluoride with no nutritonal value. It is the healthiest way to live.
Anyone else not eat meat or animals because the thought of doing so seems weird and gross?
Its a weird feel, don't care about animals and still wear leather.
>>25297933
but a child is still human tbqh
>>25297654
So humans have caninesall be it not as strong ones as a dog for examplebecause their evil culture fooled their bodies into developing them?
Humans fall into the group of omnivores. If you don't know that, or try to deny it, you are a fool.
I'd like to give you the burden of proof: Show me a scientifically significant number of different cultures that all completely abstained from eating meat and I will admit that eating meat is not part of our normal biological needs/abilities, but that it instead is just a social construct that humanity got used to over the years like some kind of cultural peer pressure.
Humans evolved the way we did because all the other subspecies that were similar weren't as good at surviving as we were. We can survive solely from plants or solely from meat, but work best when we get a proper mix of both. If you completely disregard meat and animal products, you have to make use of supplements or else you will lack important stuff in your diet. Suer, you will still live without a problem, but you can no longer compete in the game of life that is 'Survival of the fittest'.
I'd like to propose a different point of view:
Being vegetarian/vegan is the cultural thing that you can get raised as and that is something that has to be taught/learned. Why? Because, right now, humanity can afford it. And that's good.
The ability to decide to actively work against the mechanics that we used for hundreds of thousands of years to get to the top just shows that we have reached a pretty good point in our evolution.
If we want to, we can decide to discard unpleasant parts of our evolution, like the ability to eat meat, by not using them over many many generations.
So, yes, being vegetarian/vegan is, under all definitions, the right and good thing to do.
Cont. incoming
vegans are scum, you have to actually have something fucking wrong in your brain for you to override evolutionary protocol and try to protect animals that can be eaten
we're literally the only species autistic enough to create funds and groups to not harm other species that aren't us, even though the brain has been cultivated and trained through millions of years to only look out for itself
>>25297084
> If vegans and vegetarians win... what are they going to do with the billions of livestock animals that we use in the meat industry?
> The only choice would be to kill them.
If vegans win magically and suddenly in one moment, than yes, the only choice is to kill most of livestock last time and don't breed any new animals (no more suffering and deaths). More realistic pro-vegan scenario is more people becoming vegans -> lower demand for meat and animal products -> less animals bred and killed. And also stricter animal welfare laws for farms.
>>25298002
>inb4 that weird island of 100 year old inbred asians that eat nothing but grass and live in caves
>>25297926
We have. But, being, moreally opposed to slaughter, we have instead opted to conduct or battles in other ways. Arguments, dissimination of information, protests, direct-action hits on animal farms, attempts to influence policy, etc. etc.
My point was that in a world that follows Stirner, the 'union of egoists' that considers themselves strong and enjoys tormenting the weak will always find itself massively outnumbred by those same 'weak' - and should the 'weak' form their own union of egoists they will no longer be weak. Just a sidenote, really; mostly I'm happy that smart people who actually read stuff like Stirner occasionally visit 4chan. Makes arguing more fun:)
>>25298052
>smart people
>reading Stirner
AYYYY
nice meme
-t. /lit/
>>25298002
cont.
>>25297654
> because you consider them delicious and not because science tell you to.
Partially, yes. Actually science tells us that most of that stuff is more or less literally poison because of the shitty way it's produced, but I choose to indulge in it anyway because I can. It's tasty and as long as I limit myself the damage to my body will be neglectable and can be repaired by modern medicine.
On the other hand, science does tell us, that, for example, fish is very very healthy. Not every fish, of course, but some.
Next there's the whole white vs. red meat thing.
Eaten in moderation, the benefits of red meat overshadow the cons, and white meat tends to have very very minor cons.
Basically: Science does not tell us to be vegan. Science says that we should eat both, because there's good stuff in both a herbivore diet and a carnivore one. Being an omnivore is the healthiest way for a human without utilising modern medicine to replace one or the other.
>And you just happen, purely [...]
Nah, I'm perfectly aware that those are cultural values. If I had been born in thailand I probably wouldn't have arachnophobia instead I would eat those fuckers. In the same vein I know that it's a totally european/western thing to consider some animals as pets instead of food. But, ever since I realised that, I decided that I actually don't mind eating horses or cats or, like I said, those cruelly overbred rat-dogs. As long as it's not total poison and tastes good.
At the same time you have to realise that this cultural view on some animals is based on the usefulness of each animal. Dogs are loyal guards and companions with not much meat. So we don't eat them. Cows give milk, so we only eat them when they stop that.
Different cultures experienced different circumstances and made use of different animals, that's why germans value dogs so much while chinese people eat them.Bad example, I know.
cont.
>>25297982
Yeah kinda. I mean I do care about animals but even if you gave me the corpse of the piglet equivalent of Hitler, or a braindead pigled, I'd still be like "dude that's a carcass I'm not eating a carcass". I seems... ghoulish, no?
>>25297998
Indeed, I was merely trying to use an example to illustrate how one can be both the same and not the same without it being a contradiction.
>>25298002
Strawman. I clearly stated that culture is not "evil"; it just IS. And we don't eat meat because we have canines; we evolved canines because our diets to some degree contained meat. But this it moot; another naturalist fallacy. Humans evolved lots of stuff for lots of different reasons that we don't really give a shit about. We don't live our lives according to what nature dictates; shitty philosophers have tried to make that claim in a million different ways but it's a fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature
>Being vegetarian/vegan is the cultural thing that you can get raised as and that is something that has to be taught/learned.
This is absolutley right and in fact the point I was trying to make. In the past, eating meat was often a neccessity but it no longer is. For the first time in history we have a CHOICE not to eat it. Some make that choice. Others do not. My point is that you are not CHOOSING to eat meat, YOU are just continuing on as we have always done; there is no active choice on your part (merely an ex post justification of that which you where aleady doing). I made the choice and switched.
You seem to be labouring under the illusion that I am what this site calls a 'cultural marxist' and making a lot of assumptions about my views that I have given you no reason to have. Please stop as it is ruining an otherwise pleasant exchange of ideas.
>>25297933
If people shouldn't eat meat because meat eating is a bad thing, how can you morally justify not stopping all meat eating? Would you use science and technology to make carnivores into herbivores and just genetically modify plants to never run out of soil? If you can comprehend suffering to the same degree that people can, why can't you also comprehend ethics to that effect?
>>25297236
>four inches
>>25297236
>vegan meat
just eat real fuckin meat holy shit they're so desperate to be better than other people they would shovel down processed chink replicas of FOOD
>>25298052
>mostly I'm happy that smart people who actually read stuff like Stirner occasionally visit 4chan.
lol
>>25296445
Now, imagine the dude on the left is unable to speak.
This is what being vegan really is.
>>25298268
last cont.
>>25297654
>You are arguing the general point based on a specific case
let me be clear about this exampe of eating you.
If there weren't any laws against eating humans and if human flesh wasn't mostly just bad for us, people would regulary eat humans.
My point wasn't about being forced into a specific situation where it's the only choice, but a situation where it is without legal repercussions.
I said
>in the wild
because that's where that scenario could take place in this modern society. Might be a tad sociopathic/psychopathic but I do not value human lifes much higher than those of, say, a loyal dog.
I'd do what would be best for my survival/situation in that scenario. If that includes eating a human... Well, yeah, no problem.
What that was meant to show you is that in the whole game of evolution and survival, you would loose with the 'harm nothing that can be avoided' atitude. You would end up being eaten by someone like me, who doesn't care about good and evil.
On the issue of stealing, well, I like to go with: If you acutally manage to get it and get away with it, you kind of deserve it. That's how war works as well, after all, and it's a fairly recent thing for people to argue against the right of a conqueror to keep what he took by force or wits.
>>25297862
You're imputating this based on a need to reduce suffering -- your entire argument is inherently utalitarian. Not everybody abides by this. And moreover, the part of you that cares about suffering in others comes from the fact that man is a social animal; ascribing it to animals is a misfiring of what is meant to be for humans (and possibly domestication; who knows how evolution dictates).
Saying that a tiger has no ethics is false: a tiger can have a set of ethics detailing how to be a tiger, in which I am taking right or wrong to correspond to how best it fufils its telos. If you are saying that a tiger has no ethics in that a tiger does not accept or follow the principle that suffering must be reduced, how does this differ from a human who does the same?
>>25298198
Beats Rand. Shit at this point I'm happy there's people reading books period...
>>25298268
Science tells us what we can eat, and how much, of course; but it too has evaluated our habits after they where already formed. Cavemen didn't debate meat-eating nor analyse it scientifically; they where hungry and it tased good.
Science does indeed not tell us to be vegan. It tells us we CAN be. Just as it tells us we can be meat-eaters or whatever else. It gives us FACTS. What choice we make is a matter of ETHICS; my only disagreement with you was on the matter of using science as a reason for eating meat because it is clearly not (though it may influence your choice of meat and the frequency of you eating it).
>Nah, I'm perfectly aware that those are cultural values.
Exactly. My only point, really. Whether they are GOOD values or BAD; whether we ought to change them or not is another matter. I'm not discussing that right now. But we COULD change if we wanted to; we are not bound today to what cavemen did or did not do.
>At the same time you have to realise that this cultural view on some animals is based on the usefulness of each animal. Dogs are loyal guards and companions with not much meat. So we don't eat them. Cows give milk, so we only eat them when they stop that.
Clearly. "Cultural" does not mean "made up bullshit"; most cultural habits have real, actual causes behind them. For instance, Moslems don't eat pork because it could spoil easily in the region where islam originated. But a set of behaviours that originates in one set of cicrumstances may not be valid in another circumstance; as you pointed out we live for the first time in a world where one can choose veganism. The circumstances have changed.
So what becomes of livestock if everyone stops eating meat?
Draw on a computer that used animal products, with a tablet that used animal products, sitting on a desk that used them, while sitting in a chair used them, while the chair is sitting on a floor made of wood that used them, while sitting on a foundation that used them, while driving a card that used them, while..
You get the point, vegans are retards that don't understand shit.
Not really arguing for either side here, just throwing this out: appeal to nature is a logical fallacy.
"It's natural, therefore, it's right".
The above is a ridiculous claim. A claim made explicitly and implicitly by people on both sides of this argument. Constantly worrying about the next meal, shitting in the woods and dying at 30 is what natural life is like. The reason we have such great lives compared to the rest of the animal kingdom is because we live so unnaturally.
>>25298540
Hobbes pls go
people living a hunter-gatherer lifestyle spent most of their time fucking around because they didn't have to do much work to support themselves
they knew the reliable ways to get food and moved around to manage the ecosystems
shitting in the woods is liberating tbqhwy
>>25298294
>Humans evolved lots of stuff
That is not how evolution works, my friend.
You are working from the Lamarck point of view, that evolution is a result. It is not.
Humans did not suddenly gain canines because they tried eating meat.
Some distant ancestor of ours just happened to be born mutated enough to have canines and to be able to digest meat and he survived while all the others died because those traits were superior to solely herbivoric ones.
You could argue the other way around as well, with humans having been solely carnivorous and those who happened to be able to digest plants had a better chance at survival.
Thing is: Long ago some ape ended up with the ability to eat meat and that gave him the upper hand. That's why we have canines. Not because we kept trying until we got them.
>My point is that you are not CHOOSING to eat meat,
You are, once again, implying that we did not infact stand at the same crossroad.
I, just like you, realised that eating meat is not something we have to rely on anymore. But I actively choose to keep doing it because
1) I like meat, simple as that.
2) I believe that the ability to eat meat is pretty damn neat and useful.
I can change my mind whenever I want and so can you, thanks to the wonders of our modern society.
Perhaps you will start eating meat again. or maybe I will stop. Right now, we both make conscious decisions and mine is to keep eating meat.
To imply that i have no choice in the matter, is to lift yourself above other humans solely because you decided to act differently. That claim would be based in ignorance.
My apologies if you should not fall into the same pattern as so many others but the majority of those who are loud outspoken vegans tend to easily fall into all these other categories as well. A usual case of the loud obnoxious minority, perhaps, in which case you would be one of the few who decide not to let those idiots speak for all of you. A rare sight.
>>25298630
The computer you're using to access this Chinese cartoon imageboard and, also, to send me stupid messages is so far from natural that our ancestors would mistake it for magic. If you love nature so much ditch all your technology and hunt down a meal yourself.
>>25298336
Because animals don't have ethical capacity in the same way humans do. Because humans don't eat meat the way most predators do (for us it is an industry; we don't hunt, we shop) and the suffering in human factory farms in far greater for the animal then being hunted to death by it's natural predator in it's natural habitant. Because predators serve an immensly imporant role in any eco-system. Etc. etc. Mostly because I understand what the Nirvana fallacy is and don't expect perfection.
>>25298406
WORD. I'm vegan, BTW; I find that shit to be disgusting...
>>25298465
I undertood the example. I'm just saying that the fact that my attitude would fail in a situation where the Law of the Jungle operates does not disprove my attitude since said Law DOES NOT operate within civilized society. What you are doing is proving that I am wrong under a very specific situation; I do not dispute this but merely point out that this does not mean that I am wrong in general.
Not to commit ad hominem but you do seem slightly sociopathic (by your own admission), and while arguing ethics with someone who does not truly comprehend ethics is interesting, I realise that it is ultimatley pointless. A final question: if someone stronger than you attempted to dominate you in some way, would you object or simply accept your fate?
>>25298733
our ancestors thought literally everything was magic, but the computer's still made out of natural resources and it still functions according to natural laws
you're the one who thinks things are magic and no longer follow the rules of science anymore when they're made by people, ooga booga
>>25298540
>birds build nests
>prehistoric human sees nest
>builds crude stick hut
250,000 years of uninterrupted free to do whatever we want big dick apex predator time later
>stick huts are more complex, but also logically where the skill would evolve to
houses are natural
agriculture is natural
plumbing is natural
>>25298750
But if animals don't run on the same ethics that we do, why should we treat them like pseudo-citizens with rights? Capitalism is a shit but that has nothing to do with the morality of eating meat, just the lack of morality of capitalist production. Life on a factory farm is also probably way worse for the workers than the animals you know.
Being a vegan is obviously morally superior. I'm not but its because I lack the self discipline. I understand what I am doing is immoral(though I do try to minimize the immorality). Hopefully eventually I will become full vegetarian at least, I would easily do it for a vegan gf who made my food.
>>25298473
Good point. I have no answer, as I am continutally struggling with these same questions. While I accept the label "vegan" I also criticise it for not being precise enough nor broad enough (does not require humanism nor environmentalism, for example).
I would like to clarify that I meant that a tiger has no CAPACITY for ethics in the way humans do. Humans have different forms of ethics, and some forsake it altogether. I do not demand that humans follow MY ethics for them to have ethics. I acknowledge that they mostly do not; my point is precisely that we can have different ideas and debate them. Tigers do not do this. There is no proof that tigers have the mental capacity to reason to consider ethical questions; they have thoughts, feelings and so but they are not capable of conversing as we do, changing their minds and adapting their behaviour based on philosophy.
>>25298816
>but the computer's still made out of natural resources and it still functions according to natural laws
I agree with this line of thinking, but it renders the word 'natural' totally meaningless. If computers are natural by that logic, everything that exists is natural.
So for the word natural to be of any use, you have to give it a meaningful definition.
"existing in or derived from nature; not made or caused by humankind" is the first result on google for "natural definition", and it's what I mean when I use the word natural.
Who fucking cares? Food is food. Be grateful you fucking pieces of shit, there's people starving in Africa.
So do vegans think plants aren't alive or do they just not care since a plant can't express sentience in the same manner as an animal?
>>25298925
when people say natural, most often they mean sustainable or something that doesn't have a negative effect on nature
>>25298514
Seems like we finally reached that common ground. Thanks for not running off before this discussion reached that point.
I may have been unclear when I brought science into this, I was trying to make that very same point:
Science tells us that both, eating meat and not are valid, because it has provided us with the tools necessary to replace what we loose when we don't eat meat.
If we reach a truly globalised societyIt's more likely that we get 'enriched' back into the dark ages by Islam first. A shame.we might just manage to have a whole race that can make the decision we can right now.
And yes, it would be the morally right decision to stop eating meat. Perhaps future generations will take that step, but I'm comfortable sitting back and leaving that decision up to them.
>>25298750
>would you object or simply accept your fate?
Interesting question. The answer is of course that I would defend myself, if I fear for my well being. In a life or death situation one should never ever just accept their fate. If you are weaker, you might turn out to be smarterA trait that is responsible for our place at the very top of the food chain., if you are slower you might be stronger, and so on. even a simple stroke of luck can save your life.
In a situation where someone stronger simply desires to control me/my land?
If there is no threat to my well being, I would accept it. They proved themselves to be superior so I can only gain from working with/under them. If they turn out to be a fluke I can always revise that decision and fight for independence.
>who does not truly comprehend ethics
I wouldn't say I don't understand them. I can understand the reasoning and beliefs perfectly well, I just don't feel bound to them like most people do. I will follow it as long as it is the smart thing to do. If it turns out to be more of an annoyance, I don't mind leaving it behind. But perhaps that is the part I don't comprehend, right?
I actually feel healthier being vegan, you should give it a try
>>25298832
Depends on your definition of natural. If your definition is 'came from nature', then basically everything is natural. The definition I was going with was 'before human civilisation'.
>>25299086
A compelling argument!
>you can get protein from plants!
I'd rather not eat 50 pounds of beans, rice, and soy every day, shooting my carb and phytoestrogen intake through the roof so I can match the protein levels of a simple steak, thanks
i'll stop eating meat once we've got synthetic meat that has been tested on the chinese for 50 years
until then vegans can go eat a peach
>>25298533
Ad Hominem. That a person who makes an argument is imperfect does not disprove the argument. Another example: that taxes payed for a persons education does not mean that said person is automatically wrong when they argue for the reduction or even abolition of taxes.
You get the point. Calling people retards is a poor substitue for actually understanding the way debate works (see above; plently of anti-vegans who actually know who to argue).
>>25298540
Indeed. As a vegan nothing pisses me off more than vegans using appeals to nature. Sometimes I get the feeling a lot of them just throw shit out just to see what sticks. Irresponsible, seeing as they represent a wider movement.
>>25298701
Not Lamarckian, just wasn't clear enough. You are of course right, and I shall refrain from oversimplifyng in the future. My point is the same as made here >>25298540. The fact that some distant common ancestor to man and ape (NOT an "ape", friend:) ) suddenly found themself with an evolutionary advantage has nothing to do with ethics today. Why we evolved something says nothing about how we should live our lives today.
>>25298701
Alright, I will half-concede this: you are the exception, then, and HAVE considered it. Most people have not. I also still find it curious that you, after having considered it, came to the same conclusion that is normative for your time and place. Are you SURE you have truly considered it and that you are not just justifying ingrained behaviour? Can one even ever be sure?
>My apologies... A rare sight.
Far too rare on all sides of all arguments. Idiots ruin everything...
>>25298872
Should we only show kindness to those capable to reciprocating? Should we let animals set the standard for what is acceptable behaviour? Seems a waste of our capacity. Petty even.
>>25296445
Well lad, I always dreamt to taste human flesh.
But I've never did it because it's illegal and a lot of people eat shit.
But I'm sure a vegan that takes care of his body and eat bio organic stuff should be tasty.
Hmm, just thinking about it makes me drool!
And aroused, it happens sometimes when I want to eat something strongly.
I want you inside me, anon!
No homo tho
>>25296445
>you can get protein from plants
lmao I'd LOVE to see a vegetarian 2500+ calorie bulk diet with a cost similar to one that includes meat
I'm no cannibal or anything, but does anyone else sometimes wonder what a cooked human would taste like?
>>25298967
Appealing to emotions is also a logical fallacy.*Tips fedora*
>>25299481
I'd like to think it'd be the same as eating pork.
>>25298980
The latter. For me at least. It's about sentience and not life; hence, for instance, unlike most vegans I enjoy oyster-sauce because the little fuckers are basically just animal-plants and have no sentience.
>>25299019
>might is right
If you wish to fight, you don't truly believe that might makes right. Might simply CAN do things; it doesn't mean those things are morally acceptable.
>They proved themselves to be superior so I can only gain from working with/under them.
Human chattel slavery proves that wrong. You can lose, big time, by being 'conquered' or controlled by someone who is 'stronger'.
>But perhaps that is the part I don't comprehend, right?
Yeah. If it's opitional you are a well-adapted sociopath; ethics aren't supposed to be like clothes where you toss them away when you grow tired of them or they no longer fit. I'm not criticising you, BTW, just being honest.
>>25299445
http://ftw.usatoday.com/2015/08/chicago-bears-david-carter-vegan-diet
There you go. No "fake meat" either. Also you can just get hemp protin powder or whatever.
>>25299331
> (NOT an "ape", friend:) )
Ah yes, oversimplyfication is such an easy thing to fall into here. Especially with the character limit and the constant fear that the thread just might end up 404ing. Alas, we'll have to make due.
>Can one even ever be sure?
Now you are asking the real questions and the answer is: Maybe?
If we start going down that road, we'll be here for a long while and I did not switch my major from philosophy to computer science just to go back to this kind of mindfuckery existentialism questions in my free time, as much as I may enjoy trying to twist my mind around concepts like that.
>not just justifying ingrained behaviour?
I have to admit that a small part of it is that it would be too much of a hassle to go to all these lengths in order to eat vegan, especially with a very limited budget.
Like I said, maybe some day in the future I will decide to go vegan, and it's just as likely that you might decide to eat meat again, because always in motion is the future, mh?
>>25299580
>just being honest.
I appreciate that and no worries, feeling offended or attacked over something like this would be pretty petty and should have no place in a civilised discussion.
>If you wish to fight, [...]
Might itself is not everything, yes. It has to be in the right hands in order to be used properly. You need both the ability and right character traits to utilise 'Might makes Right'.
Give an RPG to a toddler and it might just end up activating it, but any reasonable person could easily disarm the toddler, now matter how much power it holds.
>You can lose, big time,
Yeah, indeed. That's where the fight for indepence should come in. If it fails, well, sucks to be me, I guess.
I live by the principle that one should accept the cards life has dealt him, but not without trying to get a better hand.
Wether one should accept defeat or keep on trying has to be decided based on the situation and the consequences.
>>25299580
if you don't mind, would you try and explain why ethics should be binding even in a situation where they are only detrimental?
>>25299800
Nice talking to you, brah. Honestly the first vegan vs. meat-eater arument I've had that wasn't retarded, so thanx for that.
>>25299849
Detrimental to whom?
>>25297371
If you need an explanation, I've got two.
One: we do not include animals in the mutual entitlement contract of positive and negative rights. They are excluded from this contract because they cannot willingly join in or do not have equals to represent them in garnering these rights.
Two: If we must include animal rights representatives, the proposal to inclusion to their rights is guarantee that we are all animals. If we are all animals, then adherence to predatory hierarchy is natural, so being predatory towards other animals is natural, and non-condradictory. OR we are not animals, and we do not have to adhere to predatory hierarchy, but we also do not need to guarantee animals equal treatment under our rights and laws, as they do not fulfill the contract of being in the group that it extends to.
>>25299849
I do not believe they should be, nor do I understand what gave you that idea. Ethics need, in my view, to be flexible. Hence I would, as a vegan, get anti-venom even though it is produced from a snake because that context changes things; I would not abandon veganism but I understand that like any other ethical position it is limited and cannot account for any possible situation one might encounter. Without flexibility there is no ethics, only dogma.
>>25299849
I can't think of any ethical system that would bind you to a rule even if it's detrimental. Most of them argue that, although it might seem beneficial to do X right now, in the long run it's gonna do more harm than good.
>>25296693
Veganism works, from a Christian POV anyway.
Garden of Eden was vegan (every herb bearing seed and every tree shall be for food) and it's implied the New Earth will be vegan (the lion shall eat straw like the ox. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain).
God has allowed us to eat meat in this sinful state at the moment, but it's not ideal.
>>25300007
>mutual entitlement contract
If this is how we derive our ethics, this argument might hold. I however argue that we ought to derive ethics from compassion rather than be calculative; and that we all to some degree do this. There are plenty of humans who are also, for various reasons, not able to enter into any contract that we nonetheless care for. Or, put in another way: I don't think that in the human-animal relationship it should be the ethical capacity of the animals that sets the bar for what is acceptable since animals have no ethical capacity. We ought to do right by them because we can; they cannot.
>If we must include animal rights representatives, the proposal to inclusion to their rights is guarantee that we are all animals.
It does not. Not any more than the care adults give to children means that we are all children. What happens is we accept that we are superior in some aspects (capacity for ethics, reason, responsibility, etc.) but equal in others (experience of suffering and joy, etc.) and decide to care for those 'lesser' our of compassion.
That feel when this thread even with the first several responses alone is proving veganism to be as completely right as it obviously is
>>25299924
And you were one of the first vegans who did not base everything on childish and naive logic but actually put some thought into it instead of just doing it cause it's hip. So yeah, thanks for giving me back some hope that there are reasonable people out there.
Especially if it means that I get a nice and proper discussion out of it. On /r9k/ of all places.
>Detrimental to whom?
Well, how bout some classic ethical dilemma? Sacrifice the few for the sake of the majority.
Someone bound by ethics would be stuck with a really shitty decision, while someone who doesn't really care about ethics would come to a much easier conclusion based on other factors.
If you always have to do what's best for the majority at the time, ethics become extremely limiting.
>>25300042
This, I can understand.
Flexibility has to be kept, else you will be forced to sacrifice possibilities that would allow for great things to happen/keep bad things from becoming worse.
>>25300145
What about this:
You can go back and kill Baby Hitler andfor the sake of simplicitytherefor prevent WW II and millions of deaths.
Would you?
When I asked this of my teachers back when I still went to school, the answer was: Yes, the ethical and right decision is to stop him.
But I would advise against it because
a) I would effectively eradicate myself because I would likely not be born
b) WW II brought forth many many good things for science, medicine and the like.
c) The lesson taught will be of great value for at least a few generations until we reach the point where it has to be repeated unless humans have reached a stage where it is no longer necessary even if no one remembers it.
d) some more stuff I can't quite remember because it's 4am and all that.
>>25300222
4chan is slowly becoming more lefist/marxist/queer/vegan/liberal/hippie/feminist. It is the final contradiction, the ultimate troll. Heed my word: it is inevitable.
These comics are dumb because they ignore the primary problem with meat farming which is the torture-like condition that most farm animals live under.
plants dont provide every essential amino acid and are incomplete proteins
>>25300222
Morally right, certainly.
But from an objective, evolutionary point of view?
Right now it's just not worth it. In a few centuries maybe, when there's a bit more peace and quiet in the world...
>>25300263
A prophecy, eh? Remember that 4chan seems to be a bastion of contrarians. If 4chan turns completely left, the rest of the western world will turn right again.
>>25300259
>classic ethical dilemma?
In my view ethics requires flexibility and never has a final "correct" answers but needs continious thinking. Everything else is not ethics but dogma. Think of it like this; if it is only a set of rules that an unthinking robot could be programmed to obey, does that robot have ethical capacity? I think not. So, in your example, one could argue that the non-giver of shit is actually being more ethical: he is not letting rules fetter him but uses his own reason to analyse a unique and complex situation and tries to do what is best.
>>25296693
>capture a few people in your basement
>make them breed (either just let them have sex or jack the guys off and inseminate the girls)
>give them a couple of square feet per person to live on
>cut open their bodies to put sensors into their body with wires sticking out of them
>kill them whenever you want a tasty snack (while having a full cupboard)
Circle of life bitch
>>25300286
Individual plants, yes. That's why eat several in combinations. Have you ever... like, had food?
>>25300329
I make the same one in every thread where I see the tendecy. I've been on 4chan for a long ass time and I just feel this shit in my bones: it will happen precisely because it shouldn't.
>>25296709
No, 4chan isn't the real world. Most meat eaters pretend like eating normal meat from a store or a normal restaurant isn't edgy as fuck.
I eat meat btw.
I'll stop eating animals as soon as other animals stop trying to eat me.
I've got mosquitos trying to drink my blood, venomous spiders trying to live in my shoes, parasites trying to get in my sushi, a dog would literally snap my ankle in half if its owner pointed at me and said "sick em!" bears and sharks wouldn't hesitate to spare my life, earthworms are going to eat my body when I"m dead and buried, and even my own house cat wouldn't hesitate to eat my face if it had the opportunity. But oh no I have to be nice to the precious little animals because they're our fwiends!
>>25300418
You don't have to be nice to them, just don't torture them for fun.
>>25300416
>that thing normies do is absolutely edgy if you think about it
only on /r9k/ can you get this kind of truth...
>>25300329
Judging by the rise of right-wing parties in Europe, I'd say 4chan isn't necessarily contrarian, it just reflects to an extent what average people feel comfortable thinking when anonymous.
>>25296445
I don't see anything wrong with giving animals a decent life while growing up and a quick and painless death to harvest them.
I have a problem with animals being kept in bad conditions but there are a million more problems with the world as well.
>>25300418
Literally basing your ethics on the actions of animals. Who have no ethics. Really? I mean would you say "I'll stop shitting and pissing on other people when this baby right here stops doing the same to me?" No, because you understand that you as a responsible adult with the capacity for ethics and reason cannot be compared to someone who is NOT that, and you OUGHT to be held to a higher standard. You're just making a shitty excuse, man, you don't really belive what you said....
>>25300418
you have more intelligence than those animals you just listed, so act like it.
>People eat plants
Jesus christ people its 2015
Plants have feelings too, they live and breath, have families and children.
Just because they're not self-aware doesn't mean we should eat them god
>>25300372
Yeah sure, but I'd probably end up arrested, and human meat supposedly isn't as tasty as cow, pig an chicken meat, which you can get without any kind of trouble and legally, so that comparison doesn't really works...
>>25300507
But doesn't that mean that 4chan is essentially contrarian-central-base-command-HQ?
The political climate changed direction and a select group of more or less average people feel that the change isn't good so they ask for the opposite. Lather, rinse, repeat.
>>25300216
>If this is how we derive our ethics
This is how we derive our RIGHTS. The rights we have aren't something you can touch or hold or see in anything other than lettering. Rights are absolutely ethical contractualism.
But there's no way to hold a contract agreement with animals. Not even animal rights representatives can make that position. Our rights and the mutual benefit they provide to human society cannot extend to animals.
> I however argue that we ought to derive ethics from compassion rather than be calculative
In ethics, maybe. In establishing society organizing principles, it becomes harder to say compassion is a better organizer for societal rules than objective treatment.
Essentially, rights do not exist. Compassion provides for subjective treatment, but establishing rights to provide a baseline objective treatment using humans as the criteria of the builders and beneficiaries of the treatment of the society they organize.
>>25300364
I feel like I'm on the edge of a realisation here, but I can't really put my finger on it.
What exactly *is* ethics?
Do we all decide for ourselves or is it something we, as a culture, agree on?
>>25300676
It's the basic question
Is ethics objective, or subjective? If they're subjective, how subjective are they? Is what is ethical determined by the individual, the culture, or do they even exist at all.
If they're determined by the individual, then any individual can say "what is good for me is ethical," even if what they think is good for them is killing another.
If they're determined by the culture, then the culture dictates the ethics of the people identifying within the culture, but also no culture has a "wrong" ethic. So the ethics of a culture, say Islam, dictate what is good for the people adhering to it, and the ethics of another culture, say America, dictate what is good for them. But if their ethics come in conflict with one another, neither culture is wrong, and...??? It's nonsense.
The only really universally agreeable and equal conclusion is that ethics or morality exist and are objective, but ethics are learned through the culture whether or not the culture is right, and the objective ethics or morals are not definitely knowable.
>>25300259
>What about this:
>You can go back and kill Baby Hitler and for the sake of simplicity therefor prevent WW II and millions of deaths.
>Would you?
Non-applicable: the question was not for an ethical dilema but for a situation which is unquestionably detrimental but is still required under a law of the ethical system. I can't considered any system with this, mainly because the exsitence of such a case would be proof that the system/law is flawed.
lmao i love these vegan threads because meatfags get so butthurt
please keep eating meat so you all get cancer and i don't have to deal with your bullshit anymore. yes, it's well known that vegetarians/vegans have lower risk of cancer.
there's literally every counter argument for what meat fags are spouting in this thread, yet they plug their ears and go LALALALA.
why wouldn't you go vegan?
>no digestive issues
>more energy
>lose 10-20 lbs of "bloat weight" in the first two months
>going vegan reduces water waste and climate change
>your body doesn't have a shit time trying to digest a carcass
i'm not surprised though, everyone on this board is fat or at least chubby food addicts. in b4 fatties or skeltalfags are mad at this reply lmao.
>>25300966
skeltalfag reporting in
What's wrong with fish?
>>25300676
Fuck if I know. I'm not arguing for what type of ethics we ought to have because I'm not really sure myself. All I am saying is that, clearly, we have the CAPACITY to talk about and decide about these things. Animals cannot do that. Therefore we can take animals into consideration when debating ethics; animals cannot do the same. We cannot justify killing them on the grounds of "they'd do the same"; so how to we justify it? I can find no rational way of doing so, so I chose to be vegan.
>>25300933
>The only really universally agreeable and equal conclusion is that ethics or morality exist and are objective, but ethics are learned through the culture whether or not the culture is right, and the objective ethics or morals are not definitely knowable.
>Doubt.jpg
Who /moral skeptic/ here?
Thank you all for this pretty civilised and proper discussion. It was fun, this is the kind of mental shit that I strive for.
A good night, fellas, try not to murder anybody and if you do at least do it right.
>>25301108
>>25300933
Fair enough. I guess it is a question men have tried to answer for literally hundreds, possibly thousands of years.
>>25301108
>I can find no rational way of doing so, so I chose to be vegan.
Ah, so you admit that being vegan is completely irrational!
I jest, of course.
>>25296445
>leaf eaters
>>25300966
Oh yeah, I'm the one butthurt here. Imma go eat some bacon, you sit here and try to get validation for your faggot life.
Those animals only exist because we want to eat them. Not allowing to live is much worse than killing them because one encapsulates the other.
As a vegan, I honestly have nothing against meat-eaters who have considered ethics and made the choice to eat meat. I think they made the WRONG choice, but we can agree to disagree - I understand that my own view on ethics will not be universial and that we are bound to disagree.
What pisses me off is all the edgelords who just commit logical fallacies (ad hominem and appeal to nature, mostly) or just spew worrying levels of illogical hatred (why hate someone over what they EAT? fuck, spend that energy elsewhere, dude...), make unfunny anti-vegan "jokes", or just say that we don't have to show animals compassion because they don't do that to us or themselves. And the reason it pisses me off isn't because I'm vegan but because I LIKE ARGUING. I enjoy discussing stuff with people and I feel like I learn from it and develop as a person. I think we can all grow from it and that society benefits from a healthy exchange of ideas. When people shit on that for any reason I get pisses (and yes, the same applies to vegans who make the same shitty remarks in reverse).
>>25296693
>circle of life bitch
if you aren't religious, it's obvious that animals exist in a fucking predator prey format, and that things on top murder things below it.
You don't blame a bird when it eats a spider
>>25301380
>I LIKE ARGUING. I enjoy discussing stuff with people and I feel like I learn from it and develop as a person
Well, look at this thread.
That one guy and me did just that. It was really fun. Quite enjoyable.
>>25301160
I suppose I should say, assuming that any form of morality or ethics exist. The alternative is that absolutely none exist which is, for me, more comfortable than any kind of subjective morality.
>>25301381
But surely you are not saying that you are incapable of besting a bird in the matter of ethics? It has sentience, but not reason or moral capacity, in the way you do. Surely you can do better, or at least justify yourself better? After all, lions eat the cubs of rivals and apes throw feces when agry; I am willing to bet you have not done either.
>>25300466
I don't torture animals, I buy their hides from the grocery store.
>>25300519
Being more ethical wont save me from being eaten alive, will it?
>>25300555
I'm intelligent enough to know life isn't fair and no one, human or animal, is looking out for me. I'm not going to be nature's bitch because of some "be the better man" rhetoric. "Being the better man" gets you nowhere in life.
I've been a vegetarian for about 4.5 years. I don't eat animals for ethical reasons. I dont want to be a part of society which takes numerous lives in order to fill their bellys when there are plenty of vegetarian options out there. I believe that animals are conscious being which experience love, fear, compassion just like people. Only difference is that in general people are more intelligent and developed much more sophisticated languages which improves communication. I'm going to bed so don't bother replying I won't read your hurr durrr we are top of food chain hurrrr durrrr survival of the fitest idiotic barbarian responses. No I don't eat eggs ether, only poser vegetarians eat eggs. Also know the difference: vegans also don't eat dairy products where as vegetarians do. Fuck you meat eaters, you are all greedy selfish vermin.
>>25301774
>Being more ethical wont save me from being eaten alive, will it?
No, and if you are ever in danger of being eaten alive I fully endorse that you defend yourself. But let us count the times you have been in that danger in your life. Is it zero? It's zero, don't lie. You don't live in the jungle, you don't take part in any stuggle or 'war all against all'; you live in a civilization and get your meat in the supermarket. The ethical dilemma of what you would do when your life is in peril has nothing to do with your choice to buy and devour the carcass of once living, thinking, feeling being (and this support the industry that kills them and also wrecks havoc on the environment). Which, BTW, ethics aside is kind of ghoulish, no?
>>25301936
>not reading the amazing, civilised discussion that went down here
>just spouting your hate-propaganda
Aaaaand congrats. You are part of the reason why noone wants to asociate with militant/loud-mouthed vegans/vegetarians.
>>25300519
>childrearing and predation are the same under ethics
nah. The ethics of bringing up children are arguably more in the park of virtue ethics, what is good for the survival of the child and bringing them up to be objectively effective according to human capacities is the most simple "ethical" measure of it.
Adherence to predatory hierarchy is a natural practice, that no application of ethics can subvert.
>>25302051
>Not understanding examples are examples for sake of clarification
>Naturalist fallacy again
Thanx alot to those who had actual intelligent things to say, on both sides of the debate. I'm off to bed before the idiots take over again.
