/lit/ - Literature

>>1370693
Well, I think his response was a good response to a point I had posited and furthermore I DID demonstrate the flaws in his argument, specifically that it cannot then be applied to any other person anywhere. Ever.

However he did aptly demonstrate that even in a world without objective morality, complete selfishness need not rule the day. I think he proved his point, and I proved that relativism is not a perfect way to guide moral questions.

I fail to see what your objection is.

>>1370682
> think it's an impossibly strange opinion to hold if your approach is "scientific".
You misunderstand me, and perhaps I simply wasn't writing clearly, but I'm saying that my approach to eating meat is more scientific and less moral. In some ways, yes, I do view it with morality and spiritualism, but I am a hunter and if anyone is able to take a life and feel nothing then you they truly a broken person.

I'm rambling. My overall point is that I generally approach eating meat in scientific terms, not morality itself. I'm trying to avoid a moral discussion because such things are impossible.

>Islamism
As to the treatment of women, homosexuals, etc. in predominantly Islamist countries I find it barbaric in the extreme. It is, quite demonstrably, a Middle Ages (Dark Ages) mindset. I am a historian, and this is actually provable. They are abhorrent ways to treat human beings.

That one human being could bury another to their waist and then beat them to death with rocks, for being the VICTIM of a rape, is so beyond any sense of morality that the people committing the act may as well be psychopaths.

>The Golden Rule
I simply find that to be a very simple and easy way to guide one's actions, when in doubt. It does not, by any stretch, cover all human experience or moral repercussions, it's merely a very simple compass. To me, that is, and one that I think most people can easily accept. Or at least, should.

>>1370675
An excellent argument. The only problem I see with it is that it is then impossible to apply it to other people. For instance, if your personal morality dictates you should not eat meat, in any form, but there is no objective morality, then it is never incumbent upon anyone else to adhere to your standards. Furthermore, it does not make any one person's moral code superior to another person's.

A good response to nihilism, though.

>>1370670
Well, keep in mind I actually do believe in morality and I believe that the simplest forms of morality a person can follow are to "Do unto others as they would do unto you". The Golden Rule, as it is.

However, that's barely skirting a very very very deep discussion and we both know that it could go on ad nauseum.

I'm completely unaware of what you mean by my "discussion of morality". I am only responding to (I assume they are yours) your pointed questions about my beliefs. I enjoy the repartee, but I'm not preaching anything except in this post
>>1370587
in which I rant against people who eat meat but deride hunting.

Morality isn't the subtext or point of my argument. If anything, I take a far more scientific approach.

>>1370655
I have no such need whatsoever. In the contexts of accepting that there are moral codes, specifically those within our own society, it is wholly acceptable to eat meat, as I have shown through the demonstration of drawing the line at sentience and self awareness.

However, accepting that there is no moral code whatsoever only strengthens my argument. Nature does not live by or abide moral codes, so in a world without morality eating meat is only further acceptable, and even further strengthens the argument that creatures with the ability to reason and be aware of the concept of self have risen above the morass of this pointless and futile world.

I shall quote again:

"Nature is neither kind nor cruel. Only indifferent." -Richard Dawkins

Accepting that as truth, for it is, one then comes to realize that if morality does not exist, one is a member of this indifferent world. And an indifferent world, one in ewhich only the needs of the self matter, then eating meat is, again, perfectly reasonable.

>>1370643
Yes you can, and I have been doing just that. You are obviously too set in your own ways to accept contrary arguments to your own beliefs, akin to a highly partisan conservative chanting about Obama is the antichrist. Essentially: you're the Glenn Beck of vegetarians.

>>1370620
Because if you don't, then animals of all types are no different than plant matter and there is, therefore, no moral difference between eating a fungus or eating your own children.

You are drawing your own argument down ad absurdem, and it's not really helping your case. If you are incapable of drawing a line at sentience, then you cannot draw a line anywhere.

It is an easily definable, easily proved, and easily accepted moral standard. If you choose to ignore it, then no line exists whatsoever. This means there is no difference between munching on a carrot or a person, as both are living things, and you foolishly accept that sentience means nothing. As no human being would possibly agree with you, your argument is muted and frail and not likely to convince anyone of anything.

More to the point ,however, you're undercutting your own silly argument that eating meat is immoral. You only take this stance because you overly anthropomorphize animals, but then fail to recognize animals who actually do share distinct human characteristics. I find that more than a bit amusing.

>>1370612
They are a member of a self-aware species, so no. Nor do we judge the value of a human life based upon intellect. Even a very stupid human is above most animals.

>>1370604
>to dismiss it when one human eats another.
Wholly incorrect. A human being is a sentient and self-aware being, a turkey is not.
The line is quite easily definable: observable and scientifically demonstrated self-awareness sets a species apart from others. Many species have demonstrated this capacity, but not the ones we eat in Western society.

>>1370602
I draw the same distinction that most people naturally do: animals with true, observable, and definable self-awareness deserve to be treated as fellow sentient beings.
I am only aware of apes, monkeys, elephants, dolphins, and whales falling under that definition, however.

>>1370547
see
>>1370560

There's nothing defensive about it. Eating meat is as natural as not. In the end, whatever road you choose to secure your sustenance, the origination is all sunlight. It's just a matter of how that reaches our frail little bodies.

Quite frankly, if you see something immoral about eating meat, you essentially know nothing of nature, have never lived amongst it in any meaningful way, and are anthropomorphizing it to the point of absurdity.

"Nature is neither kind nor cruel. Only indifferent." -Richard Dawkins

What I DO find annoying, and I do get very into people's faces, are those who eat meat but then go on some petty little tirade about the inhumanity of hunting. Oh the cruelty! Please. If you eat meat, as far as I am concerned, you are of weak character if you never do hunt. To put a packaging company, butcher, etc. between you and what you eat and then claim some moral high-ground because you lack courage to do the killing yourself is absurd. When you hunt, you learn the price that is paid in taking the life of a creature for your own survival. You learn what nature truly is, you see it as it really is. Rather than pretending that packaged turkey grows on a fucking tree and is plucked down and given to your plate at no cost to another living thing.

Only when you understand what it is to take a life for the sake of your own do you truly understand the natural world.

>>1370532
>The idea is that Rhaegar and Lyanna got married sometime after the tourney at Harrenhal.
Yeah, that's been my thought all along. I know there is no evidence of it, but it is not a stretch, at all. The way those two were madly in love with each other, and eloped, essentially causing the downfall of the Targaryens...it'd be more surprising if they hadn't been married, I think.

>>1370530
That's true, but I still have a very difficult time seeing her go through with actually killing Jaime.

Only if the future of mankind is to all become giant pussies.

>>1370500
I would 'like' a romance between the two, or rather would have back when I first was reading the books as they came out, but it's slowly come to seem pretty impossible, and it would be quite a fanboy-appeasing stretch.

It is entirely possible he could essentially have them "meet" and drop some hint at a future relationship in a final chapter (should they both survive) but really, they've BOTH already their "true love" to this point so I don't see them suddenly falling over each other like lovesick children.

My best guess is that, should they ally, it would be as siblings, knowing the truth of one another.

>>1370188
>Victarion Greyjoy / Strong Belwas

Oooo, I hadn't thought of that. It will entirely depend upon how Danny reacts to his desire to drag her off to Westeros. It's possible she could see it as her chance to conquer, but I really don't think so, she didn't seem to think it was the right time during ASoS.

So yeah, probably a fight.

>Also, what word do you think Brienne screamed to save their lives?
Oh I think that's obvious. Catelyn gave her the choice, the sword or death, as she put it, something like that.

Basically, Brienne screamed "Sword!" which meant she would take up her sword against Jaime.

That makes me sad, because it's rather obvious the two of them are, insanely, spiraling towards some doomed romance. It's all too likely that one of them is going to kill the other. I honestly can't decide which it will be, if it comes to that. Jaime is crippled physically, but Brienne basically loves him and that would be quite a hinderance to her ability to fight him.

>>1370023
Oh, neat! I saw the tv series and enjoyed that, but I have never actually read the books.

What is this series?

>>1369973
Think what you like, he's essentially written the entire series about Jon and somewhat Danny as well. If they both die, it'd be a rather pointless story.

>>1369967
I lol'd.

>>1369953
I agree completely. I've been stunned by some character deaths (nothing beats my shock at Eddard's execution, in any book by any author, before or since) but killing Jon at this point, especially if I turn out to be right, would just...I don't even know. It would literally ruin the series for me.

It was painful watching Eddard, Robb, and other favorite characters die, and seeing Joffrey die of simple poisoning seemed to bittersweet. It was far easier than he deserved, and didn't feel like true justice.

But it still felt...right. As though it was acceptable within the context of the series as a whole.

To simply wantonly off Jon would make me just...dislike the series. It wouldn't be rage, or anything, it would be simple disappointment.

>>1369955
I dont' think so. Characters I can see making it right to the end:
Tyrion, Dany, Jon, Arya. Yes they're my favorites, but so is Davos, and I've grown to like Jaime and Brienne. However, I can see basically any other character dying.

I have a scary thought that Arya will complete her assassin training and actually be the one that kills off either Danny or Jon. That would be fucked.

What I really want to know is what's in store for Bran. I'm hoping he ends up the new lord of Winterfell.

>>1369932
I could see Jon dying, quite frankly, but not bot him and Daenerys. One of them will survive to the end. While Martin does stick pretty close to real history (you'd be stunned at how much less bloody this whole affair is compared to things like the Wars of the Roses) he does have a few "heroes" that seem rather untouchable.He has built the whole series around Jon Snow, and while I'm all for destroying fantasy tropes, that would be a bit silly.

>>1369924
Total, 7 books. He really is, finally, finishing the fifth, and has already started the sixth. He's dead-set, 100%, no wiggle-room going to make it only 7 long.

His blog post yesterday said he was finishing the last ... waht.... 5 chapters of Dance of Dragons. Something liek that. So I can't imagine it won't be published within the year. Sixth book, who knows?

>>1369907
Oh, and the full context is Rhaegar is saying this to a child in a vision Daenerys has.