Atheism

FlatEarthDenial be trippin' yo.

I enjoy killing them.

Then maybe you suffer from ASPD. It's strongly linked with cruelty to animals. Don't take it very personally, but I would advise you to visit a psychiatrist.

But then, their participation in the game is pretty much limited
to "ouch" and "dead".

And this is called broken window fallacy. No, the game lasts as long as they would have lived if they had been free and you hadn't killed them. Except that you don't see what pleasures in their life they would have had then. You can justify pretty much any behavior by this.

You are a dishonest poster.

Well, I think that someone who argues that plants feel pain, as you did, is very likely to be dishonest.

Just had a sandwich with some tasty salami. Dead animals are so fucking awesome.

Just had a sandwich with some tasty salami. Dead animals are so fucking awesome.

That's just you trying to rationalize murdering them.

I don't think you're getting the clear message right now: he doesn't care.

I don't think you're getting the clear message right now: he doesn't care.

What are you talking about?

Quote from: Symptom on June 28, 2016, 05:39:32 PM

Just had a sandwich with some tasty salami. Dead animals are so fucking awesome.

That's just you trying to rationalize murdering them.

I don't need to rationalize anything. Meat is tasty. You are the one with issues, not me.

Quote

I enjoy killing them.

Then maybe you suffer from ASPD. It's strongly linked with cruelty to animals. Don't take it very personally, but I would advise you to visit a psychiatrist.

Animals in the wild don't die of old age.
They get killed and eaten by something hungry.

Anthropomorphism is a Disney cartoon concept.

Quote

But then, their participation in the game is pretty much limited
to "ouch" and "dead".

And this is called broken window fallacy. No, the game lasts as long as they would have lived if they had been free and you hadn't killed them. Except that you don't see what pleasures in their life they would have had then. You can justify pretty much any behavior by this.

Hamburgers are made of cows, but nobody gives a crap about cows.



Quick joke . . .


"Dolphins are dying in tuna nets. OMG dolphins are dying!"

"What about the tons of tuna?"

"Fuck 'um, they taste good."

Well, dolphins are quite a bit rarer that tuna.

Well, dolphins are quite a bit rarer that tuna.

And they are very intelligent. I'm against eating intelligent people. We should eat only the dumb ones.

Well, dolphins are quite a bit rarer that tuna.

Not when cooked properly.

I don't need to rationalize anything. Meat is tasty.

Mostly it isn't. You have to cook it or bake it, add spices, and so on to hide the bad taste of raw meat.

You are the one with issues, not me.

Unless you are a complete idiot, you do have issues with killing animals. You just don't want to admit that.

Animals in the wild don't die of old age.

What do the scavengers eat then?

They get killed and eaten by something hungry.

So, you think it's right just because it's a part of nature? Well, guess what, homicide is also a part of nature. Lions kill other lions.

Hamburgers are made of cows, but nobody gives a crap about cows.

Most of the people do care about cows, they just don't think about how their dietary choices affect those cows.

And they are very intelligent. I'm against eating intelligent people. We should eat only the dumb ones.

Well, since the most intelligent animals, birds and mammals, are conscious and therefore sentient, I agree with you on that. But, as for fish, we should be more careful because many experiments done on them indicate that they also feel pain, even though there appears to be no strong scientific consensus about that.

This is one of your funnier posts

Quote

I don't need to rationalize anything. Meat is tasty.

Mostly it isn't. You have to cook it or bake it, add spices, and so on to hide the bad taste of raw meat.

So he doesn't know how things taste?  Cool. I guess all those people eating carpaccio for hundreds of years don't either. Is every plant delectable raw and unseasoned?

Quote

You are the one with issues, not me.

Unless you are a complete idiot, you do have issues with killing animals. You just don't want to admit that.

I like this game. My turn to rebut: unless you are an idiot you do believe eatin meat is good, you just don't want to admit it. I win right?

Quote

Animals in the wild don't die of old age.

What do the scavengers eat then?

You actually think scavengers only eat animals that die of old age?  This explains a lot.

Quote

They get killed and eaten by something hungry.

So, you think it's right just because it's a part of nature? Well, guess what, homicide is also a part of nature. Lions kill other lions.

Glad we can agree killing is part of the natural order. You know what isn't? Compassion to foodstuff.

Quote

Hamburgers are made of cows, but nobody gives a crap about cows.

Most of the people do care about cows, they just don't think about how their dietary choices affect those cows.

I think if you did a quick poll, everyone who eats hamburgers know what that it results in the death of cows.

Quote

And they are very intelligent. I'm against eating intelligent people. We should eat only the dumb ones.

Well, since the most intelligent animals, birds and mammals, are conscious and therefore sentient, I agree with you on that. But, as for fish, we should be more careful because many experiments done on them indicate that they also feel pain, even though there appears to be no strong scientific consensus about that.

Thanks, I really enjoyed this post

So he doesn't know how things taste?

Well, I do. I only don't know how it tastes to a person who tries to convince himself that he has done a good thing by killing an animal.

Is every plant delectable raw and unseasoned?

Well, many of them are. Some people think that we should only eat them, since that's what first humans probably ate. To me, that doesn't make a lot of sense. Is any animal delectable raw? I don't think so.

You actually think scavengers only eat animals that die of old age?  This explains a lot.

No. Oh, for God's sake, how can an animal die in nature if not eaten by a predator. Yes, it can die by a predator or of old age. Then it can die of illness. Or starvation. Or dehydrtion. Or poisoning. Or drowning. How do you know what percentage of animals dies which way? And how is that even relevant?

Glad we can agree killing is part of the natural order. You know what isn't? Compassion to foodstuff.

Well, we don't know how carnivorous animals feel when they kill, do we? Anyway, we can be pretty certain that great population of predators, like humans are, according to you, supposed to be, isn't a part of natural order and that it probably destroys nature by itself. But there are some stuff about humans that also aren't a part of natural order, yet very few people would argue are bad, like medicine. I don't know how so many people find those appealing to nature arguments convincing.

I think if you did a quick poll, everyone who eats hamburgers know what that it results in the death of cows.

Well, probably some of them think it's chicken. I meant, most of them just don't think about it.

Thanks, I really enjoyed this post.

I'll try to be more clear: many people have that idea that only more intelligent animals can feel pain. And, for the most part, it's true, but, in case of fish, probably not.

Quote

So he doesn't know how things taste?

Well, I do. I only don't know how it tastes to a person who tries to convince himself that he has done a good thing by killing an animal.

I see what you did there.  Anyway, you admit to not knowing how things taste to him, so why are you trying to tell him how things taste to him?

Quote

Is every plant delectable raw and unseasoned?

Well, many of them are. Some people think that we should only eat them, since that's what first humans probably ate. To me, that doesn't make a lot of sense. Is any animal delectable raw? I don't think so.

Cows are.  You may have noticed that one of the preferred ways to eat steak is crispy on the outside and warm and raw on the inside.  Its delicious.  Beef carpaccio is also delicious.  People also love them some runny egg yolks.  Then there is this thing called sashimi...

Quote

You actually think scavengers only eat animals that die of old age?  This explains a lot.

No. Oh, for God's sake, how can an animal die in nature if not eaten by a predator. Yes, it can die by a predator or of old age. Then it can die of illness. Or starvation. Or dehydrtion. Or poisoning. Or drowning. How do you know what percentage of animals dies which way? And how is that even relevant?

I didn't bring it up, just calling you out on you inconsistencies.

Quote

Glad we can agree killing is part of the natural order. You know what isn't? Compassion to foodstuff.

Well, we don't know how carnivorous animals feel when they kill, do we?

Probably not guilty or remorseful?

Anyway, we can be pretty certain that great population of predators, like humans are, according to you, supposed to be, isn't a part of natural order and that it probably destroys nature by itself.

If a titanic asteroid impacting at thousands of kms/h can't do that job, I am pretty sure the Earth will bounce back from humans man.  Don't sweat it, Gaia won't.

But there are some stuff about humans that also aren't a part of natural order, yet very few people would argue are bad, like medicine. I don't know how so many people find those appealing to nature arguments convincing.

There is nothing out of the natural order, by definition.

Quote

I think if you did a quick poll, everyone who eats hamburgers know what that it results in the death of cows.

Well, probably some of them think it's chicken. I meant, most of them just don't think about it.

That is seriously one of the most reaching and ridiculous comments you have made.  Unless you have some sort of polling to suggest otherwise, you can assume that people know that hamburgers are made from ground beef considering its prevalence in grocery stores, butchers, and in marketing for hamburger restaurants. 

Quote

Thanks, I really enjoyed this post.

I'll try to be more clear: many people have that idea that only more intelligent animals can feel pain. And, for the most part, it's true, but, in case of fish, probably not.

You said the science was unclear. On what basis are you now saying fish probably feel pain?

The OP is an ass. Fact.

Quote

Animals in the wild don't die of old age.

What do the scavengers eat then?

Leftovers from a kill.

Quote

They get killed and eaten by something hungry.

So, you think it's right just because it's a part of nature? Well, guess what, homicide is also a part of nature. Lions kill other lions.

Lions are bad, bad people?

Quote

Hamburgers are made of cows, but nobody gives a crap about cows.

Most of the people do care about cows, they just don't think about how their dietary choices affect those cows.

Everyone knows a steak is made of cow.



We keep a baseball bat on the boat to smack tuna on the brain.
Then we cut a notch down behind its head and forward to expose
its spinal column. Then we drive a thick piano wire down the spinal column
to destroy the nerves and cause the muscles to relax.
Then we rip out the gills and let the still beating heart pump out the blood.

If you want to live on asparagus pudding, have at it.

Anyway, you admit to not knowing how things taste to him, so why are you trying to tell him how things taste to him?

Well, I am probably more objective than he is.

Cows are.  You may have noticed that one of the preferred ways to eat steak is crispy on the outside and warm and raw on the inside.  Its delicious.  Beef carpaccio is also delicious.  People also love them some runny egg yolks.  Then there is this thing called sashimi...

Well, most of the people do consider raw eggs yucky. And if raw fish or beef tasted so good, why would they hide its taste with spices and sauces? I haven't done much research on the subject though. I assumed that only people in some exotic far-away lands do that.

I didn't bring it up, just calling you out on you inconsistencies.

True, Bullwinkle did.

Probably not guilty or remorseful?

Makes some sense, but how do you know?

If a titanic asteroid impacting at thousands of kms/h can't do that job, I am pretty sure the Earth will bounce back from humans man.  Don't sweat it, Gaia won't.

Maybe not. The species die out, today mostly due to human activity, way faster than they evolve, you know.

There is nothing out of the natural order, by definition.

I don't understand. You said: "Glad we can agree killing is part of the natural order. You know what isn't? Compassion to foodstuff."

Unless you have some sort of polling to suggest otherwise, you can assume that people know that hamburgers are made from ground beef considering its prevalence in grocery stores, butchers, and in marketing for hamburger restaurants.

Don't bet on it. Many people I've talked to in real life don't know what factory farming is.

You said the science was unclear. On what basis are you now saying fish probably feel pain?

The number of scientists believing that. Look, you need to understand that pretty much everything science says is somewhat controversial, like the shape of the Earth is. And the best you can do is simply to follow the majority of the scientists. Even if what they say doesn't make a lot of sense to you. They have done way more research than you did.

Leftovers from a kill.

Like I've said, I haven't done much research on the subject, I didn't think it was necessary. And a quick search on Wikipedia doesn't let me evaluate your statement.

Lions are bad, bad people?

So, why copy them?

Well, I am probably more objective than he is.

Oh yes, you have no bias at all. 

Well, most of the people do consider raw eggs yucky. And if raw fish or beef tasted so good, why would they hide its taste with spices and sauces? I haven't done much research on the subject though. I assumed that only people in some exotic far-away lands do that.

You think sushi is hidden behind spices and sauces?  It is literally raw fish on a bite size roll of rice wrapped in seaweed.  The most sauce that is used is a bit of soy sauce with wasabi. I used neither.  Ditto for a good steak: salt... thats it.  Are you from a small town?

Makes some sense, but how do you know?

Just an educated guess.

Maybe not. The species die out, today mostly due to human activity, way faster than they evolve, you know.

99% of all species ever are extinct.

Don't bet on it. Many people I've talked to in real life don't know what factory farming is.

So what does that have to do with the ingredients in hamburgers?

The number of scientists believing that. Look, you need to understand that pretty much everything science says is somewhat controversial, like the shape of the Earth is.[.quote]

The shape of the Earth is not controversial. 

Quote

And the best you can do is simply to follow the majority of the scientists. Even if what they say doesn't make a lot of sense to you. They have done way more research than you did.

So if the science is not clear, then you have no basis for your claim.  Got it.

Quote

Like I've said, I haven't done much research on the subject, I didn't think it was necessary. And a quick search on Wikipedia doesn't let me evaluate your statement.[.quote]

Great.

Quote

Quote

Lions are bad, bad people?

So, why copy them?

Because you don't understand sarcasm.

You think sushi is hidden behind spices and sauces?  It is literally raw fish on a bite size roll of rice wrapped in seaweed.  The most sauce that is used is a bit of soy sauce with wasabi. I used neither.  Ditto for a good steak: salt... thats it.  Are you from a small town?

Yes, I am from a small town. Well, I don't know now. From what I knew before, the notion of it being natural for humans to eat meat seemed totally ridiculous. But now, there are people who consider raw meat tasty. There could be something more to it than I thought. I mean, there are still obvious problems with that. OK, they didn't have to use fire. But how could a natural human, that is, before the tools were invented, hunt and slaughter animals? It could eat insects though, but that's not what you are advocating for.

Just an educated guess.

Educated in what?

99% of all species ever are extinct.

Yes, but it occurred over an extremely long period of time, and they were replaced by new ones. And if anthropogenic extinction of species continues at this rate, about a half of all the existing species would go extinct this century.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction#Modern_extinctions
Do you think the new ones will evolve that fast? And when do you think the Earth will have a chance to recover? Do you think that human beings will soon disappear or something? Why bet on it when we can do something about it today? Do you think it is right to kill humans just because the great majority of humans ever existing are dead by now?

The shape of the Earth is not controversial.

How? There are still a few scientists who believe the Earth is flat.

So if the science is not clear, then you have no basis for your claim.  Got it.

No, it's not.
http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Temp/KEY/Key_Brown2.01.12.15.pdf
So, only 3 commentaries out of 34 of them supported the notion that fish don't feel pain. So, that's 31/34=91% consensus that fish do feel pain.
The most honest position could still be I don't know, but to behave as if fish didn't feel pain is, well, risky.

Yes, I am from a small town.

So, how did you think the hunters hunt for money?!

But how could a natural human, that is, before the tools were invented, hunt and slaughter animals?

Now you use personal incredulity to disagree with the scientific consensus.

Do you think that human beings will soon disappear or something?

Well, you know, the probability of that happening, as estimated by scientists, is not so low. Some say it's 50% chance we will disappear in this century.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_extinction#Probability_estimates

So, only 3 commentaries out of 34 of them supported the notion that fish don't feel pain. So, that's 31/34=91% consensus that fish do feel pain.

I am not really sure if that's a random sample. Look at this article:
https://scientiasalon.wordpress.com/2015/02/05/why-fish-likely-dont-feel-pain/
He cites many scientists supporting what he says.
Do fish look like they have feelings to you?
And do you think it's a scientific consensus that it's wrong to eat meat?!

The most honest position could still be I don't know, but to behave as if fish didn't feel pain is, well, risky.

Well, what can we do about it? We have found methods of ecologically raising, like aquaculture, and humanely harvesting fish, like electrofishing, you know.

So, how did you think the hunters hunt for money?!

Well, I am pretty sure there are no professional hunters here for me to know such things. Anyway, I was a victim of the biased sample fallacy. I saw that game meat could be ordered in restaurants and that it is very expensive, so I assumed that it is how most of the animals after being hunted end up. Obviously that line of reasoning is very fallacious.

Now you use personal incredulity to disagree with the scientific consensus.

Well, personal incredulity isn't always wrong. And how do you know what's the scientific consensus on the issue?

Well, you know, the probability of that happening, as estimated by scientists, is not so low. Some say it's 50% chance we will disappear in this century.

I have heard of those stories, I just assumed that's all nonsense.

I am not really sure if that's a random sample.

I think it doesn't really have to be. These are scientists informed about the issue. I could have chosen to show the consensus of the veterinarians, who are thought that fish feel pain and what anesthetics to use when operate them and probably don't know about the controversy, then the consensus will probably be even higher.

He cites many scientists supporting what he says.

Well, that's exactly that article that got those 34 commentaries, 91% of which don't support it. The logic behind that article is fundamentally flawed. I could prove that same way that crickets don't hear by explaining in agonizing details how human ears work and citing the experts saying those details and the experts saying that crickets don't have anything similar to that. Of course, crickets do hear using their antennas. Then he goes on refuting the reasons for believing that fish feel pain, and what he is saying makes no sense to me and it didn't make sense to most of the other scientists in the fields either. That's probably similar to this:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=58309.0

Do fish look like they have feelings to you?

Well, a common response from vegans to this is that fishes didn't evolve to show their feelings because there was no pressure from sexual selection in their evolution, but that that doesn't mean they don't have them.

And do you think it's a scientific consensus that it's wrong to eat meat?!

Well, 60% of ethical professionals think so.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics_of_eating_meat#Morals
But I don't think that could count as a scientific consensus. I know a few ethical professionals, and they are completely ignorant of science. Also, I know many of them accept deontology or virtue ethics, which allows them to basically make arbitrary rules without worrying about consequences. And, since most of them eat meat, they are biased.
If you eliminate such problems, the percentage will be much higher.

Well, what can we do about it?

Well, don't buy fish. Most of the fish today comes from unsustainable fishing, which painfully and stressfully kills five times as much fish as it catches, as a by catch. Needless to say what it does to the environment. Stop supporting it with your money. Fishers catch fish for money, and if we stop giving them money, they will stop doing that. I know you can't do the same for game meat, since hunters will almost certainly continue hunting even if you don't buy their products, but you can do that with fishers.

We have found methods of ecologically raising, like aquaculture, and humanely harvesting fish, like electrofishing, you know.

So, you think that just because scientists have found out how to use aquaponics, that means that fish you buy comes from it? LOL! Look, I know that what I am about to say may be hard to swallow, but everyone is an idiot. Including you and me. And whenever you think about something, keep that in mind. Scientists are not idiots when they talk about something in their field of expertise, but, otherwise, they are. It's not my glee to say that, but that's the conclusion from what I've learned being on forums and researching Wikipedia about what people do.

Why does every thread get turned into one about vegans? 

OK, they didn't have to use fire. But how could a natural human, that is, before the tools were invented, hunt and slaughter animals? It could eat insects though, but that's not what you are advocating for.

Humans have used tools and fire for 100 000s of years. We inhereted this feature from our ancestor Homo erectus. It is not an invention of Homo sapiens at all. Also the Inuit eat raw meat all the time, so it does not seem to be a problem. By the way insects were eaten a lot here in Borneo until recently.

Good God. This discussion, as stupid as it is, is STILL going on! Well, at least I have computer again. So I can make our retarded boy from the Balkans look stupid faster than previously, at least.

Good God. This discussion, as stupid as it is, is STILL going on! Well, at least I have computer again. So I can make our retarded boy from the Balkans look stupid faster than previously, at least.

Lacum aperuit, et effodit eum, et incidit in foveam quam fecit.

Tu vis, fellator.

O, en una lengua mas moderna, vos deseas, joto.

Tu vis, fellator.

O, en una lengua mas moderna, vos deseas, joto.

Moderator, I would encourage you to use Google Translate. Nice parsing though. Profanity in foreign and classical languages so that a moderator doesn't understand.

And O, if they both don't apply so well.