Do you understand what suffering is? Suffering still happens regardless of whether you feel their life was ended for a meaningful purpose or not. The very fact they try their best to avoid it shows they don't feel the same way you do, about it. If a lion was ripping you apart, your pain would be far greater than whatever satisfaction you get from feeling you are part of some circle of life.
It's fine that you think an animal serving the circle of life is okay and natural, I do too. But don't pretend they don't suffer in the process.
You don't do it out of respect, you do it because you enjoy meat. Stop larping, dude, it's cringe. Man buys some processed food where the source of meat comes from a factory farm and pretends he is some noble hunter that spent a lot of energy and respect on his prey.
Nope, I do it out of respect to let them fuel my body. And yes, I do buy and sometimes slaughter my own animals. Plenty of farms in my neck of the woods. Nobility is in appreciation of what you consume, you may have a different take on it, but that's your opinion.
Nah, suffering is a loose concept open to interpretation. I would be sure to carry a gun to deal with the lion, be a glorious hunter.
Nope, I do it out of respect to let them fuel my body. And yes, I do buy and sometimes slaughter my own animals. Plenty of farms in my neck of the woods. Nobility is in appreciation of what you consume, you may have a different take on it, but that's your opinion.
Might be loose but not as loose as you're pretending it is. You're being disingenuous.
I'm glad you slaughter and buy from what I'm assuming are free-range farms. I haven't slaughtered animals myself but plan on to, to see how I feel about it. Free range is pretty cool imo but there is little respect or greater purpose in factory farming and the freak show eugenics that come with it. I think meat is an essential part of the human diet and not convinced that vegan diets can replace meat. The circle of life involves great suffering, life takes from life, it's just the truth of the world, trying to twist it to keep the suffering away from your mind is just shitty. There are better ways to accept it.
Might be loose but not as loose as you're pretending it is. You're being disingenuous.
I'm glad you slaughter and buy from what I'm assuming are free-range farms. I haven't slaughtered animals myself but plan on to, to see how I feel about it. Free range is pretty cool imo but there is little respect or greater purpose in factory farming and the freak show eugenics that come with it. I think meat is an essential part of the human diet and not convinced that vegan diets can replace meat. The circle of life involves great suffering, life takes from life, it's just the truth of the world, trying to twist it to keep the suffering away from your mind is just shitty. There are better ways to accept it.
Might be loose but not as loose as you're pretending it is. You're being disingenuous.
I'm glad you slaughter and buy from what I'm assuming are free-range farms. I haven't slaughtered animals myself but plan on to, to see how I feel about it. Free range is pretty cool imo but there is little respect or greater purpose in factory farming and the freak show eugenics that come with it. I think meat is an essential part of the human diet and not convinced that vegan diets can replace meat. The circle of life involves great suffering, life takes from life, it's just the truth of the world, trying to twist it to keep the suffering away from your mind is just shitty. There are better ways to accept it.
I know people that run full marathons and have been vegan for a decade or two. I have been powerlifting for about 14 years now and the strongest I've been is now as a vegan and I rarely take proteine shakes. All non-vegans, when it comes to knowledge regarding nutrition speak from a place of ignorance.
The vitamine b12 you get from your meat comes from supplements mostly as though the cattle usually do not get sufficient b12 themselves. b12 is a bacteria won from rich soil. And then meat eaters call out vegans for taking b12 supplements.
Calcium comes from plants, the livestock is a medium. Omega3's come from algeas, the fish are a medium.
I'm just mentioning the most basic of basic facts here
I know people that run full marathons and have been vegan for a decade or two. I have been powerlifting for about 14 years now and the strongest I've been is now as a vegan and I rarely take proteine shakes. All non-vegans, when it comes to knowledge regarding nutrition speak from a place of ignorance.
The vitamine b12 you get from your meat comes from supplements mostly as though the cattle usually do not get sufficient b12 themselves. b12 is a bacteria won from rich soil. And then meat eaters call out vegans for taking b12 supplements.
Calcium comes from plants, the livestock is a medium. Omega3's come from algeas, the fish are a medium.
I'm just mentioning the most basic of basic facts here
Wow! I was initially afraid the thread was too obscure and so would fade away, but . . . 85!
Anyway. When talking about detailed topics, especially semi-specialised topics like global/saucer warming, energy sources and so on, you will sometimes disagree with others. When this happens, you will sometimes be 'refuted' with a statement like "what do you know", " who made you the expert" etc.
These refutations are weak because they are based on the idea that you have to know either everything (about the topic, which is automatically wrong because if anyone knew everything, the topic would not need to be discussed) or know more than the one you disagree with before you may speak against them (also automatically wrong because if that's how it worked, discussion would not existr and it would always come down to just one person talking since one should know more than others on any specific topic).
Not only does foundational common sense disprove this idea (the reality of discussions and how they work, why we have them etc necessitates that inouts don't need a perfect speaker), but the specifics of discussions do so as well.
The specific here is that we live in a world of things. This means there are parts to reality. These parts are connected, hence we speak of reality in the singular.
Working with the above 2 facts, we can reach several conclusions. Firstly, le person who made the initial assertion made it using several pieces of evidence. So you only need to know about any single one, find fault with it and the whole system of their assertion is proven wrong - because systems need all parts to work properly otherwise it doesn't work. Secondly, if just one part of their assertion is wrong, then the whole assertion can be wrong because parts connect together. Thirdly, if their conclusion has consequences that is somehow faulty, then you can be certain the conclusion itself is faulty because the continuity of reality makes it like a system as well, which means if one part doesnt work then others are faulty too, so if a consequence is faulty then the theories connected to it are faulty too.
Here's an example. If someone gives you a quantum equation that either includes a '1+1=5' or leads to that conclusion, then you can disprove the whole equation simply from knowing that 1+1=2, not 5. You dont need to know even 2 bits about quantum theory to disprove a quantum equation, just enough about the parts it works with or the reality it applies to.
So you don't need to know everything about something in order to contribute to the discussion on it
Wow! I was initially afraid the thread was too obscure and so would fade away, but . . . 85!
Anyway. When talking about detailed topics, especially semi-specialised topics like global/saucer warming, energy sources and so on, you will sometimes disagree with others. When this happens, you will sometimes be 'refuted' with a statement like "what do you know", " who made you the expert" etc.
These refutations are weak because they are based on the idea that you have to know either everything (about the topic, which is automatically wrong because if anyone knew everything, the topic would not need to be discussed) or know more than the one you disagree with before you may speak against them (also automatically wrong because if that's how it worked, discussion would not existr and it would always come down to just one person talking since one should know more than others on any specific topic).
Not only does foundational common sense disprove this idea (the reality of discussions and how they work, why we have them etc necessitates that inouts don't need a perfect speaker), but the specifics of discussions do so as well.
The specific here is that we live in a world of things. This means there are parts to reality. These parts are connected, hence we speak of reality in the singular.
Working with the above 2 facts, we can reach several conclusions. Firstly, le person who made the initial assertion made it using several pieces of evidence. So you only need to know about any single one, find fault with it and the whole system of their assertion is proven wrong - because systems need all parts to work properly otherwise it doesn't work. Secondly, if just one part of their assertion is wrong, then the whole assertion can be wrong because parts connect together. Thirdly, if their conclusion has consequences that is somehow faulty, then you can be certain the conclusion itself is faulty because the continuity of reality makes it like a system as well, which means if one part doesnt work then others are faulty too, so if a consequence is faulty then the theories connected to it are faulty too.
Here's an example. If someone gives you a quantum equation that either includes a '1+1=5' or leads to that conclusion, then you can disprove the whole equation simply from knowing that 1+1=2, not 5. You dont need to know even 2 bits about quantum theory to disprove a quantum equation, just enough about the parts it works with or the reality it applies to.
So you don't need to know everything about something in order to contribute to the discussion on it
If someone wants to benefit from your riches, say no to them, cus they don't deserve your help, they will ruin your life and then 2 will be miserable instead of one.
If someone wants to benefit from your riches, say no to them, cus they don't deserve your help, they will ruin your life and then 2 will be miserable instead of one.
People only learn from suffering, nobody knows what they have until it's gone.
If people are kind, then that kindness becomes something others take for granted and starts to abuse.
You have no obligation to help, so don't do it.
If you do, then that abuse turns your whole life upside down, suddenly normal laws and rules don't apply people make their own system of favours, they help each other and depend on each other like parasites, causing nothing but harm and trouble for the rest of society.
Life is supposed to get better. Not worse.
Some people have it worse but stop looking at them cus there is no bottom you can always find those with more pain that makes your life look luxurious, but you are not supposed to lose, you are supposed to win more and more, that's where the real struggle in life is, it's not to let poor people live like kings, it's for good people to be protected from monsters and get better and better.
Life is better now than it was before.
But it's not supposed to be like before, it's supposed to be even better.
That's nature.
That's normalcy.
That's good.
People only learn from suffering, nobody knows what they have until it's gone.
If people are kind, then that kindness becomes something others take for granted and starts to abuse.
You have no obligation to help, so don't do it.
If you do, then that abuse turns your whole life upside down, suddenly normal laws and rules don't apply people make their own system of favours, they help each other and depend on each other like parasites, causing nothing but harm and trouble for the rest of society.
Life is supposed to get better. Not worse.
Some people have it worse but stop looking at them cus there is no bottom you can always find those with more pain that makes your life look luxurious, but you are not supposed to lose, you are supposed to win more and more, that's where the real struggle in life is, it's not to let poor people live like kings, it's for good people to be protected from monsters and get better and better.
Life is better now than it was before.
But it's not supposed to be like before, it's supposed to be even better.
That's nature.
That's normalcy.
That's good.
Can you confirm the absolute claim? That people are completely encapable of learning outside of suffering? And even if true, doesn't it apply to everyone and not only gangsters?
Can you confirm/prove that nobody can know things while they exist? That they must be gone first? And if true, how does it apply here? The gangster already doesn't have anything in this scenario, so you're not taking anything from them but rather blocking a route for them to gain something.
Again, confirm the absolute claim that they take kindness for granted. Not just the gangster, but absolutely everyone. And once they do, confirm the abuse as a guaranteed thing.
How do you know/confirm the obligation to help doesn't exist? And on what basis/principle do you say that if no obligation exists, a counter-obligation to NOT ACT therefore exists?
Confirm the abuse turns everything upside down. And once you've done that, confirm it directly leads to legal and moral rules no longer applying. Then confirm the reliance, as well as that it is parasitic and not symbiotic. Also confirm this is necessarily bad. Finally, confirm that something ''people" do is trouble for all 'other' people.
Define better in such a way that it agrees with your idea that helping a gangster is opposed to it.
Confirm there is bo bottom. Confirm the counter-obligation to not look at them if your first claim is true. Explaining losing such that . . . all your claims.
And once youve done all these confirmations, confirm their direct relevancy to both your immediate claims and your overall claim.
See how much trouble there is just from asking questions. I have not even directly scrutinised or provided counter evidence. Take your time, this is important stuff.
Can you confirm the absolute claim? That people are completely encapable of learning outside of suffering? And even if true, doesn't it apply to everyone and not only gangsters?
Can you confirm/prove that nobody can know things while they exist? That they must be gone first? And if true, how does it apply here? The gangster already doesn't have anything in this scenario, so you're not taking anything from them but rather blocking a route for them to gain something.
Again, confirm the absolute claim that they take kindness for granted. Not just the gangster, but absolutely everyone. And once they do, confirm the abuse as a guaranteed thing.
How do you know/confirm the obligation to help doesn't exist? And on what basis/principle do you say that if no obligation exists, a counter-obligation to NOT ACT therefore exists?
Confirm the abuse turns everything upside down. And once you've done that, confirm it directly leads to legal and moral rules no longer applying. Then confirm the reliance, as well as that it is parasitic and not symbiotic. Also confirm this is necessarily bad. Finally, confirm that something ''people" do is trouble for all 'other' people.
Define better in such a way that it agrees with your idea that helping a gangster is opposed to it.
Confirm there is bo bottom. Confirm the counter-obligation to not look at them if your first claim is true. Explaining losing such that . . . all your claims.
And once youve done all these confirmations, confirm their direct relevancy to both your immediate claims and your overall claim.
See how much trouble there is just from asking questions. I have not even directly scrutinised or provided counter evidence. Take your time, this is important stuff.
And i somewhat figured, hence the first reply, hence my style of replying.
Post automatically merged:
See, even if youre just memeing, these thoughts are exactly those that dominate and make us tip over when we become morally weakened.
So it is important that we deal with them now while our hearts and minds are somewhat clear.
Think of this: how often do we hear a rape case come down to 'she asked for it by wearing a mini-skirt'?
Yes, this case connects directly to those serious, real life cases
Post automatically merged:
Recently, i was doing research into oriental picture books.
Particularly the koreans, manhwa. While they were perhaps not as bad as the Japanese where you'll see girls literally asking or wanting to get r*ped, they still portrayed people and events in such a way that things like r*pe were somehow normal or excusable.
In fact, it can be argued that is even worse. See, when something bad is shown directly, that it is bad is never a question - although the nature of this topic is such that mere portrayal is influential. However, when it is implied in a scenario that does not directly condemn it, then it is implied as a good thing, as a part of that scenario. So now even basic morality is questioned.
And it is such cynicism and fallacious thinking that is used to blur it.
You don't have to use fancy words like " factor", "element", "phenomenon" or somesuch.
If your audience is sincere, they will care more about the meaning of your expression and not how fancy it is. Use the language you are most comfortable with because any conversation that forces you out of it is probably not worth the effort.
Quite seriously, confessions are really beneficial.
It could be said that if you know youve done something wrong, the confessing doesn't change that. I have my own beliefs but can also argue from other perspectives why it does change things.
But none of that is the point. There is a difference that confessing, explicitly, makes to you as a person. It strikes deep to the soul itself and reaps out many benefits.
As such, i thoroughly encourage confessions. You could do it to your own self, while taking walks, or to strangers or however (i encourage confessing to the people wronged, if any) you want, but i encourage confessing.
Trust in your own perspective, but do not forget that there are others.
The first part is because you can be sure of it. That is not to say it is infallible - theoretically people can hallucinate, have blurred vision etc - but you at least know that what you see, hear and feel is real. Even the rule of fallibility works both ways in that just as you cannot be 100% sure of something, you also cannot be 100% sure it isn't there when you have sensed it.
The second part is the simple result of living in a physically
multi-dimensional world - there are different sides to anything. This combines with the fact that no two objects can occupy the exact same space to mean that others will always have seen something that you have not, simply because they are not you. Even if you once stood in their position, time . . .
So trust what you have, but also respect what others have.
