/lit/ - Literature

Wow, it's like I'm really on /rel/

>>5991338
How do baboons justify eating cute baby deer alive?

>inb4 speciesist answer

>>5991342
Nice to see you hold yourself to the same ethical standards as a baboon

How do Christians rationalize eating meat?

Didn't you have a noose to go look into, David?

>>5991349
They confess afterwards

Utilitarianism is obsolete and stupid.

On other note, animals are not people and shouldn't be treated or thought of as such.

The standard answer is:
>B-but Jesus ate fish

>>5991355
>Utilitarianism is obsolete and stupid.

Agreed, and Singer's views on charity are no more than the standard neo-liberalist fluff.

However, it's really hard to deny that animals have the capacity to suffer below that of humans. A horse is far more intelligent than a human baby, yet we don't torture babies in an effort to win baby races.

>>5991352
Yup, it's a pretty sweet deal.

>>5991345
As predicted, a nice speciesist answer. I suppose you also hold yourself to higher standards than blacks and women because you're so superior?

>>5991349
Animals are soulless machines made by God for us to do with as we please.

>>5991338
>How do Christians rationalize boiling lobsters alive for pleasure?

Them lobster eating motherfuckers aren't real Christians. They're this new breed of feel-good, gay sex is okay, neo-Christians, who are going straight to hell.


"10 But anything in the seas or the rivers that does not have fins and scales, of the swarming creatures in the waters and of the living creatures that are in the waters, is bdetestable to you. 11 You shall regard them as detestable; you shall not eat any of their flesh, and you shall detest their carcasses. 12 Everything in the waters that does not have fins and scales is detestable to you."

Leviticus 11:10–12

>>5991388
Ducks rape each other, that doesn't make rape ethical

>>5991338
They are not humans, God has created them for humans.

>>5991398
Maybe lobsters wrote the Bible and it's really humans who have rose-up and conquered the lobsters in a "Planet of the Apes" sort of way.

>>5991402
Yes, then Christians are heretics anyway, so them boiling lobsters still makes sense.

>>5991397
Doesn't make it unethical either.

>>5991409
Yes rape is unethical regardless of whether or not ducks or baboons do it

As is eating meat

>>5991338
>How do Christians rationalize being Christians?

FTFY. Lobsters are commentary.

>>5991338
Well, it's like, you know when you're driving a car in the summer, you don't really need to drive anywhere do ya? You do it for fun and just think of all those insects you thoughtlessly squished on the journey.

Red Wine isn't vegan, geese are bred in small cages and fed all sorts of weird things to make their organs swell, then they're cut open and some of their organs used in the filtration process.

tldr: taking part in communion is immoral

>>5991420
On which basis?

>>5991402
>you will never achieve the Gnosis of the Sea

>>5991440
And buying a cell-phone puts money in the pocket of literal slave drivers

>>5991338
How do non-religious people justify having children?

>>5991402
Yes, I think that's very probably what happened, let's write a thesis, I see PhD's ahead.

>>5991455
Most aren't edgy anti-natalists

>>5991447
An ethical basis.

>>5991455
Wanting more life in their life? Since this life is the only life that is for them?

>>5991461
>putting a person to the flawed earthly valley of tears without heavenly reward

now that's cruelty.

>>5991459
Please elaborate, I don't follow. You've yet to give any justification for your views.

>>5991461
Can't you achieve the same pleasure through adoption?

>>5991466
Wont heaven get kind of crowded?

>>5991377
Plants feel pain

>>5991452
You know, I think my network router was made in Pakistan. Oh my god, eveyone stop posting now, stop the slavery!

>>5991466

>putting a person on earth and thereby potentially dooming him or her to eternal hellfire

That's even more cruel

I like Peter Singer even if a lot of people here don't.

The thing I like about him is he is a practical ethicist and he has one system of ethics that he can apply to anything.

People always think they can catch Singer out in debates with some "what if..." scenario, but the thing is, Singer has thought of every scenario you can think of. And even if he hasn't, it only takes a moment's calculation in his head to weigh the choices.

You can take issue with his whole system, but you can't catch him out on any individual topic because he has complete consistency across the board.

>>5991471
>being a cuck

Christians don't think animals have souls. Rational people, atheists, don't care about maximising happiness for everyone, or whatever, we only care about our own personal pleasure.

>>5991377
>and Singer's views on charity are no more than the standard neo-liberalist fluff.
not really. they are an extension of his philosophy. his philosophy came first and then his beliefs about charity. he cares so much because he believes in living your ethics.

>>5991466
Then you're kinda stretching the concept of cruelty. Yes, a part of life is suffering, doesn't mean it's not also joyous in one way or another.

>>5991471
>Can't you achieve the same pleasure through adoption?
Yah, sure.

>>5991338
>eating shellfish

They don't. Eating shellfish is an abomination before God.

>>5991486
Atheists aren't rational, they claim to know there is no God. Only Sketpicism/Pyrrhonism is rational.

Ayy wassup nerds, how's your big ethics talk going?

>>5991495
That would b a tasty abomination

>>5991496
>they claim to know there is no God

>>5991498
The usual, you know: let's burn our mobile phones, plants are sentient, you should read this guy.

>>5991482
The Utility Monster:

A popular politician who is capable of ushering a new era of world-peace is dying, because of simultaneous lung, liver, and kidney failures

In the same hospital are three homeless men, who were beat up by thugs the night before and are unconscious

One homeless man has lungs that would be compatible with the politicians body, another a liver that would work, and the third a pair of functioning kidneys that would fit nice and snug in the politician

All three homeless men are expected to make a complete recovery

The only way to save the politician's life would be to kill all three homeless men in their sleep and be un-consenting organ donors to the politician

Nobody will know about the operation

What is the ethical thing to do?

>>5991491
Contributing to an already over-populated world is unethical when you could either not have children or adopt

>>5991510
Kill the homeless men and sell their organs on the black market or to the politician for massive profit.

>>5991479
>potentially

Only if they're cunts by their own free will, in which case they deserve it.

>>5991512
This is why white and Japanese people are going extinct.

>>5991505
Atheism is absence of theism you stupid fucking fuck. Ask any self identifying atheist if they believe in Zeus or Allah and they say no.

They don't say I don't know. They say no.

Flamer retard go post your reaction pics somewhere else.

>>5991512
Sure, but that doesn't make one an anti-natalist, at least in the sense /lit/ understands it ("life is suffering, life is bad").

Science is going to discover that human minds are qualitatively different than animals'. Vegans will become anti-realists like the left did after all their facts vanished.

>>5991516
>free will

>>5991512
Adopting is even more cruel since most of the time you're raising the dumb third world kids of people not smart enough to not reproduce while they're starving themselves. You're creating a loophole for retarded Haitians and such to keep doing what they do.

Adoption is basically reverse social darwinism.

>>5991510
It's a crap hypothetical "A popular politician who is capable of ushering a new era of world-peace" it implies that he will effect world peace and that, that end is desirable. This is an example of flawless insight, which doesn't exist in reality, so you can say: let fucker die

>>5991521
Atheists do not believe, that is not the same as believing not.

>>5991395
>"10 But anything in the seas or the rivers that does not have fins and scales, of the swarming creatures in the waters and of the living creatures that are in the waters, is bdetestable to you. 11 You shall regard them as detestable; you shall not eat any of their flesh, and you shall detest their carcasses. 12 Everything in the waters that does not have fins and scales is detestable to you."
>Leviticus 11:10–12
I am starting to believe the Bible is as stupid as Qur'an.

>>5991527
If there is no free will, discussing what's ethical and not is in itself a futile exercise.

Not that we can help it, in that case.

>>5991517
Not that guy, but I personally couldn't give a fuck about overpopulation or other jewish myths. The only reason I'm not going to reproduce with my girlfriend is because I don't want my kid to suffer and therefore it is better for him to not be born.

>>5991532
>discussing what's ethical and not is in itself a futile exercise
Now you're getting it

>>5991349

Genesis 1:26

>Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

1:29-30

>Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food.
>30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so.

Man holds dominion over the animals. They are literally only here to serve our purposes according to God. One of those purposes includes being slaughtered and consumed.

>>5991510

I am already familiar with the Utility Monster. I never said that his whole system couldn't be disputed. In fact, I literally said you can take issue with his whole system.

Singer is consistent and my point was simply that you can't catch him out with his own system. You can trick him. You have to dispute his system. You can't dispute him on individual issues because he's worked it all out according to his system.

>>5991529
Do you oppose any form of welfare or charity?

>>5991469
I'm obviously not the guy you started arguing with, but if you need to ask this you simply have no knowledge about ethics. This question has been answered many times, the logical framework of these ethics have been told over and over. There are of course also variations to it. I'm not going to explain all of them to you, same way I wouldn't explain Plato's Cave to everyone who asked: I would tell them to look it up.
Fuck it, here's a short question anyway: if it's wrong for a man to make another man his slave, or to kill him in order to eat him, in what way does it differ when you do it to a non-human being capable of emotion? Lack of knowledge about something doesn't change its ethics. An uneducated psychopathic killer is still capable of acting unethically, even if he doesn't understand ethics. A baboon is similarly acting unethically, even if he doesn't understand it. That nothing is done about it in the case of a baboon acting unethically towards fellow animals is simply because there's nothing ethical that can be done about it, and if something could be done about it, which is a ridiculous scenario, it's likely that nothing would be done since people generally have no idea about ethics and just act as they wish in accordance to circumstances. Either way, "ethics" is a framework of logic concerning right and wrong. A baboon killing another animal is unethical if you apply ethics to it, unless you have an ethical framework which can explain the difference, and those exist, but mostly there's just no reason to apply ethics where they can't be enforced. That doesn't mean you can't judge something in accordance to them.

>>5991543
Meant for
>>5991528

>>5991543
I am not Canute, I don't oppose anything my will can't affect.

>>5991542
*can't trick him

>>5991528
That makes no sense. If Haitians are starving and makes kids who starve, then how does adoption perpetuate that situation and how would ceasing to adopt prevent it?

>>5991543

www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpAMbpQ8J7g

>>5991544
>if it's wrong for a man to make another man his slave, or to kill him in order to eat him
>if it's wrong
>if

This is my problems with you lads. I need to ask this since your basic ethical assumptions are completely arbitrary. It's not so much a lack of knowledge on my part as a scepticism regarding your assumptions.

>>5991338
i was about to get my shoes on and go to work but thought, "hey i wonder if /lil/ has any interesting new threads since it has been a few days since i've last checked it." i click the link and lo and behold at the top page is this thread. i almost spilled my coffee from laughing.

/lit/ amor est, /lit/ vita est.

>>5991544
But there is L.I.T.E.R.A.L.L.Y. nothing wrong with enslaving weaker men or massacre and cannibalism you fruity faggot.

>>5991544
You gotta work on your conciseness, man

>>5991551
No, anon, see...if you stop adopting children from the Third World, they'll eventually get the message and stop fucking. Because if history has shown us anything it's that the poor hate the free entertainment of fucking, resultant children be damned.

In his landmark commentary on Leviticus, Jacob Milgrom argued that the reason for seemingly arbitrary dietary restrictions (the only animals that could be eaten were those that chew the cud and have split hoofs) was to effectively limit Israel's meat options to three domestic animals: cows, goats and sheep. He thinks that this regulation served precisely to reinforce the idea that animal life is sacred. Here is some other information:

In Leviticus, slaughtering animals outside of a carefully regulated ritual context was strictly forbidden, stating that anyone who kills an animal outside the camp will be "held guilty of bloodshed; he has shed blood, and he shall be cut off from the people (Leviticus 17:4)."
Livestock were also considered covenant members, and were obligated to rest on the Sabbath (Exodus 20:8-11).
Blood was restricted from consumption because it was seen as the life force of living creatures (Leviticus 17:12-13).
It was forbidden to touch the corpse of most dead animals, according to Milgrom, precisely in order to prevent Israelites from profiting off of the death of an animal.

I think it's hard to say that animal life is devalued in the Biblical texts, especially in the priestly tradition. In fact, the opposite is a consistent theme. All life, including animal life, was considered sacred, and killing an animal for food was not something the biblical authors took lightly.

Do u guys talk about anything not related to david foster wallace lol

>>5991543
I don't, but what I do oppose is welfare or charity that leads to exacerbation of the very problem that's trying to be solved, such as indirectly stimulating the breeding of people who aren't in a position to take care of their children.

>>5991555
I wasn't arguing for any particular ethics, just for how you apply ethics to your surroundings, and what ethics you can expect from them.
>>5991558
According to many ethical frameworks, it is. And according to some of these, you can judge, if you're so inclined despite its practical futility, any situation in which there's no justification NOT to do so according to them.

>>5991551
Adoption is like a safety valve that allows them to have less consequences to their actions. If you can give your superfluous children away to rich first world people you can justify your reproductive behaviour more easily and don't have to deal with starving children as you would normally. Ceasing adoption would bring spawning children haphazardly back to its normal risk, which may be the only incentive for them to stop doing so.

Also, adoption the offspring of people who are dumb enough to engage in such behaviour basically means fostering shitty genes and allowing them to thrive in the first world, thereby in the long run fucking up everything for everyone.

>>5991568
What would you propose instead, letting people in the Third World starve to death slowly?

You don't want a country full of pissed off, hungry peasants who are fighting for their survival, anon, even putting aside the humanitarian ramifications and strictly considering the practicality of that proposal.

>>5991543
I make 10 billion dollars using invisible sweatshops in Sri-Lanka; I give 5 billion to starving African Children; I save the rest and buy a private jet; and dumb consumerist neo-liberals label me as a living Saint.

Philanthropy is an attempt to justify the exploration inherent in the capitalist system

"Isn't wealth inequality great, look at all the money I'm giving away to poor people"

>>5991576
Communism is a better solution than being stupidly content with merely keeping the poor alive

>>5991575
But that's wrong in every way.

>>5991572
>I'm a soft faggot who believes in muh ideologies and is green in the face with slave morality.

Go hunting when you're hungry and you'll see bloodthirst within yourself you never knew possible. Maybe that will man you up.

MIGHT IS RIGHT

>>5991583
I'd rather fully automate and kill the poor.

>>5991576
>What would you propose instead, letting people in the Third World starve to death slowly?
They would reset themselves within a generation. The reason the third world is perpetually starving is because their population is kept at artificially high levels.

>You don't want a country full of pissed off, hungry peasants who are fighting for their survival, anon, even putting aside the humanitarian ramifications and strictly considering the practicality of that proposal.
Why, do you think they'll form a serious threat? This isn't 1930s Germany we're talking about.

>>5991583
Oh, you're THAT guy.

Communism didn't feed the peasants. The only way you can care for the poor is through excess and Communism leaves no room for excess whatsoever. Whosoever needs shall have delivered.

But keep telling yourself that poverty is an affectation of Global Capitalism alone and it would disappear if we only eradicated class from the planet if that fairy tale makes you feel better.

>>5991584
No it isn't, adopted third world kids have lower IQ and generally do worse in school, even if they're adopted at an early age and raised by an intelligent upper middle class family.

Adoption is literally the fostering of stupidity.

>>5991586
Thereby creating a world where the remaining rich have no remaining market, essentially creating communism with just fewer people.

>>5991585
I just told you that I'm not arguing for any ethics. I'm explaining how unless there's a logical argument within your ethical framework that tells you when they DON'T apply, then they ALWAYS apply.

>>5991594
Communism for capitalists?

>>5991572
>I wasn't arguing for any particular ethics, just for how you apply ethics to your surroundings, and what ethics you can expect from them.
My point is that that very process is nonsensical if you start out with some arbitrary catchphrase or gut feeling.

>>5991593
So in short, the intellectual elite has every right to stop the less intelligent from procreating? I'm down with that, according to your precious I.Q. I'm part of the 1 P.P.M.. I'm fine with not having you ignorant rabble make more stupid children.

>>5991590
If we include them in our system we wouldn't consider the food we provide for them "excess" now would it?

And to bring it around back to the point of the thread the food we use to raise live-stock for our pleasure could easily feed all of Africa

>>5991596
You can't have capitalism without a large group of exploitable poorfags. Full automatisation would be the end of capitalism.

>>5991602
Capitalists are those who own the capital. That would mean they own the machines that make everything.

>>5991587
>They would reset themselves within a generation.

Reset themselves to what? Being poor again? How are they suddenly going to turn the oil tanker of ancestral poverty around in a generation on their own?

>The reason the third world is perpetually starving is because their population is kept at artificially high levels

Uh, what? The reason they starve is because they're technologically behind the Western world, often used as a source of cheap labor, uneducated, further exploited by their own politicians who adhere to the West's agenda for their own benefit, and generally given a raw deal from cradle to grave. You can't tell me that the average Haitian has as good a chance of "making it" in their country as the average American in ours.

>Why do you think they'll form a serious threat? This isn't 1930s Germany we're talking about.

No, it's 1990s Darfur where one ethnic group gains the upperhand over another in a war over limited resources and attempts to eradicate them from the planet. Meanwhile there's no stable government to prevent it and the peasants run roughshod over everything, leaving a trail of bodies in their wake and irreparable damage. Who wants to deal with unstable states on a global scale, especially murderous ones? That's not a blueprint toward stability.

You're fucking delusional mate.

>>5991597
And what does that have to do with what I'm saying, even assuming you understand the massive implications of your reasoning?

>>5991564
>In his landmark commentary on Leviticus, Jacob Milgrom argued that the reason for seemingly arbitrary dietary restrictions

Did he say why God hates people who wear cotton/polyester suits, or ties made from silk/cotton?

"'Keep my decrees. "'Do not mate different kinds of animals. "'Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. "'Do not wear clothing made of two kinds of material." (Leviticus 19:19)

>>5991577
People aren't equal, so why should wealth be?

>>5991598
I wasn't talking about rights at all. All I'm saying is that the smart successful people adopting the dumb losers will fuck over everyone in the long run.

>>5991611
And from my supposed intellectual pedestal, allowing the dumb rich masses reproduce will fuck everyone else over in the long run. Why would I draw the line at Haitians?

>>5991609
"Equal" is just a social construct, however the only way to end corporeal suffering is equality

>tfw born in a first-world country

>>5991595
lol what? This fuckin guy

Learn to properly convey your thoughts

>>5991611
Yeah, fuck them for being born in the wrong place. Let them eat cake, or whatever rotten potatoes they can pluck from the ground.

>>5991620
So the eradication of all life? Because that's the only way to achieve full equality.

>>5991620
of opportunity I hope?
otherwise you're aiming for absolute parity

>>5991607
What you're saying is merely a long condescending derailment about how a particular type of ethical stance is formed once the basic premises are agreed upon.

I was originally responding to an anon who said "rape is unethical because of ethics" without elaborating.

>>5991539
these excerpts say literally nothing about letting humans eat animals

>>5991479
>potentially
Only if they don't do what God expects them to do.

>tfw you were born just in time to die before the end of global white dominance

>>5991633
>Only if they don't do what God expects them to do

You mean "commands" them to do. They're called Commandments, not Expectations. You have the free will to follow God's rules or fuck off to an eternity without salvation.

>>5991620
That's wrong. There's no doubt suffering caused by social inequality exists, but there's plenty of suffering which has nothing to do with class.
>>5991628
Please phrase your questions more carefully in the future, since your question "on which basis" was directed to a post which specifically mentioned the ethics of rape baboons. I'm assuming that the ethics in the case of of rape baboons are the same as those of all others rape, since he made it quite clear there was no difference, ethically speaking.

>>5991615
I don't see why you would, really. Haitians were just an example of a particularly fucked up demographic.

>>5991624
It's not even 'fuck them', that makes it sounds dramatic, personal and hostile. I don't hold anything against them, but I also don't have a Messiah complex where I feel like sacrificing myself in order to 'right the wrongs' of fate.

Apart from that, I do think that in a lot of ways leaving third world places to their own devices is the best thing you can do for them in the long run. Our interference is often counter-productive even with the best intent.

>>5991624
What's "rotten"?

>>5991641
>Please phrase your questions more carefully in the future, since your question "on which basis" was directed to a post which specifically mentioned the ethics of rape baboons.
No, it mentioned rape and meat eating in general as being unethical.

>>5991635
I would really prefer to have a few extra years being an old rich still privileged old man and look how everything changes from afar.

>>5991651
You still have time anon, the peak won't occur for a long time now

>>5991635
The only comfort is that humanity will enter its first true dark ages once the white man isn't around to run things.

>>5991650
And if all you want is an explanation of how rape is unethical then there are plenty of such ethical frameworks to be found online. It might be true that one should ideally explain the entire logical framework of one's ethics before bringing them up, but that's simply asking too much. Like I said, if someone wants to understand Platon, then I will tell them to read Platon, because I'm not going to explain it to them online.

>>5991665
it's not really complex, you own your body so you have the right to not be raped, stolen from, murdered or assaulted
also it's not preferable for people to rape, murder etc. it is preferable for people to passively avoid those activities

>read and agree with Stirner's work
>now free of ethics
Just let go anons, it's so relaxing

>>5991665
>then there are plenty of such ethical frameworks to be found online.
Which are all arbitrary nonsense, which was my secret point veiled by my Socratic ignorance in an attempt to lead the other anon to the dissembling of his own unwarranted assumptions until you interrupted the whole endeavour.

That's the conclusion I wanted to arrive at. Saying 'murder is wrong because of this complex 3000 page treatise based on an arbitrary axiom' or say 'murder is just wrong' are essentially the same statements. The only difference is that in the former case you get to entangle yourself so seriously in your sophisms that you forgot your premises were arbitrary in the first place.

>>5991671
>the right
Let's not get too crazy

>>5991643
You sound like Stalin and his bullshit about a million deaths being a statistic. You say you don't have a messiah complex but you want to play God and leave people on an island, quite literally, where they can play out a modern Colosseum. And what is this bullshit about "righting the wrongs of fate." There is no fate. Fate didn't consign these people to a shitty life, we did. There's just us and what we can do for the betterment of all, especially those who are the most needy.

Our interference CAN be counterproductive. It often is when we set up sweatshops which hardly elevate the status of the workers in that country who get paid pennies to stitch Nike swooshes. But it is also the only lifeline in beginning a process that counteracts many of the structures that lead to poverty in the first place. Living conditions are slowly improving the world over and that's not by mistake, it's because Western countries have interceded to build infrastructure and assist poor populations rather than just stealing resources and boogeying out at the first sign of darkies.

You want to turn this into an argument about economics, or politics, or anything except what it is, the livelihoods of people who have no defense and no hope beyond the assistance they desperately need. It's not about the macrocosm of statistics, it's about the small tragedies that would unfold without our help, as patronizing as that might sound. Like it or not we're too far down the path of dependency to cut off these nations cold turkey.

>>5991683
so what are rights?
whatever you can claim while sticking to non-aggression, whatever is agreeable?

>>5991690
Rights are whatever you can squeeze out of the system

>>5991682
Interrupt how? He stopped answering on his own accord. This isn't a real conversation where two people talking simultaneously makes both of them unintelligible. And even within arbitrariness there's a difference between "X and Y because I say so" and "this is why X and Y."Ethical logic may rely on an arbitrary core, but it's different from arbitrary opinion in that it strives for internal consistency.

>>5991686
>set up sweatshops
I always think of Dickensian England when i hear this.
>>5991697
what system? the market?
so it's anything you can trade for

>>5991697
Jesus Christ, you're so plainly a Marxist that we could probably bend you over and you'd fart out an overture that inspires the laborers to march.

>>5991686
>You sound like Stalin and his bullshit about a million deaths being a statistic. You say you don't have a messiah complex but you want to play God and leave people on an island, quite literally, where they can play out a modern Colosseum.
Acting on your preferences isn't playing God, anon. Not adopting Haitians is no more playing God than not welcoming mosquitos in my room to feed on my blood. It's a simple, pragmatic, personal decision.

Interestingly though, Haiti is only half an island and the other half is noticeably less fucked up. Haiti is also the only place in the Western Hemisphere to have a successful slave revolution. It's an interesting place all around, basically a piece of misplaced West-Africa on another continent.

>And what is this bullshit about "righting the wrongs of fate." There is no fate. Fate didn't consign these people to a shitty life, we did. There's just us and what we can do for the betterment of all, especially those who are the most needy.
Not all circumstances are caused by humans. If you want to blame someone though, blame their parents who keep breeding under disadvantageous circumstances.

>You want to turn this into an argument about economics, or politics, or anything except what it is, the livelihoods of people who have no defense and no hope beyond the assistance they desperately need. It's not about the macrocosm of statistics, it's about the small tragedies that would unfold without our help, as patronizing as that might sound. Like it or not we're too far down the path of dependency to cut off these nations cold turkey.
Regardless of this all, you would certainly agree that the wrong thing to go about this is to systematically export third world children into the families of first world people as a solution? Adoption doesn't help these nations, and it makes our nations worse. Hell, adoption even leads to the creation of adoption farms where poor women are paid to be bred and sell their children to gullible white folk who think they're doing something noble.

>>5991714

>>5991704
System being anything that can grant or be affected by authority. Mostly legal.

Belief is right insofar as it can overcome might.

>>5991699
>Interrupt how? He stopped answering on his own accord.
You're right, probably because he already realised his claims were baseless.

>and even within arbitrariness there's a difference between "X and Y because I say so" and "this is why X and Y."Ethical logic may rely on an arbitrary core, but it's different from arbitrary opinion in that it strives for internal consistency.
That difference doesn't make one superior to the other though, nor does it make it more convincing to anyone really paying attention.

>>5991714
Marxism is reality?

:)

>>5991732
Wrong thread, retard.

>>5991722
what do you accept as law?
the edict of a king, the consensus of a democracy or common law in an anarchist society...?

>>5991727
Nobody's suggesting that ethics are something other than an idea (sometimes implemented). They have a purpose, there's a goal behind them. If that goal involves removing a person's or system's or faction's ability to arbitrarily impose their will over some in one way and over others in another, then a logically consistent ethical framework is indeed superior. But you seem to be talking about how pointless all arbitrariness is. In that case, what are you doing bringing up ideas like "superior," which is merely an arbitrary value judgment?

>>5991531
You do know that Leviticus is a book containing old Jewish laws right?

>>5991629
If you are a vegan without cognitive ability.

>>5991531
Are snakes something scaly in the seas and rivers? Can you eat snakes?

>>5991377
The thing is suffering isn't the basis for ethics. A baby doesn't get value on the basis of suffering, it gets it because it is human. And it was believed that humans have intrinsic value.

>>5991388
Nope. All humans have equal value when it comes to rights and responsibilities.

>>5991761
Law is all of those as long as they can be enforced

>>5991395
>You are to think this but I am not going to give you a rational reason as to why you should think this because I'm God

>>5991397
>Ducks rape each other, that doesn't make rape ethical
yea ? so why do you we resort to our natural tendencies in trying to justify our behaviours and laws ?

-bonobos shag all day long => we must liberate our sexuality to become like us

-social animals like chimps are generous, almost egalitarian, so must do the same

-animals do not kill out of necessity, so we must do the same

you seem to be the typical guy cheery picking what he likes in the animal kingdom to justify his life but disregards what he does not like from it. At least take the high roads and assume fully your deeds and opinions.

>>5991586
Kill the poor? congratulations, you're a communist, cos that's what they spend most of their time doing.

>>5991852
>missing the point of the thread

>>5991859
How does any of that relate to what he said?

>>5991482
1/10
Thought you were serious for about a half of a second.

>>5991495
Really? My parents are both Catholic, dad had lobster last night.

If everyone who did not follow every single one of the 600+ commandments in the bible was to be considered not Christian, there would be no Christians.

>>5991671
You only own your body if you can defend it

>>5991521
Lack of belief =/= claiming to know that what one does not believe in is false

>>5991764
>But you seem to be talking about how pointless all arbitrariness is. In that case, what are you doing bringing up ideas like "superior," which is merely an arbitrary value judgment?
I'm merely stressing the arbitrariness of the arbitrary. That's all. A lot of people seem to think a lot of arbitrary value judgements are something more than arbitrary value judgements. That's how you get silly situations where people think their value judgements are actually right or truth-apt in general.

People generally seem to need constant reminders that their preferences are just that.

>>5991539
The passage distinguishes that plants are to be consumed as food, even says that God gives the plants to the other animals as food. Nowhere does it state that animals are givdnbto humans as food. If God specified that plants are food, why wouldn't he do the same with animals if they are meant to be food?

>>5991872
Get ur facts straight retard. Communists were the most egalitarian movement ever and saying they were killing poor is a total bullshit you capitalist pig.
They were killing everyone, poor and rich alike. Zero bias.

This thread is infested with faggotness holy fuck

>ethics R real
>adopting niggers is gud
>rights are reap cuz I said

Gross