When a woman says no it means nu.
Why is it that ‘baby murder’ is considered the vilest of crimes, even by those of us who dismiss abortion as a victimless crime, because fetuses lack sentience? If you hold to the opinion that fetuses lack sentience, then how exactly do you reason that newborn infants are in fact suddenly sentient? If you contend that fetuses at some stage in development become sentient, then you must be willing to also call late-term abortions murder. Otherwise there’s few reasonable grounds to choose the arbitrary status of ‘born’ as a marker of the beginning of personhood and therefore the right to life.
Further, some support the right to abort severely mentally or physically handicapped late-term fetuses. Why then do they not extend that right to include the right to kill severely mentally or physically handicapped newborns?
Me: At some point you may wake up one morning and realize that you don’t have much time left. And you’ll stop caring. You’ll just stop caring.
Other person: About what? That’s exactly the thing- if I value every living being life, if I put myself in every set of shoes, than I don’t have just one life
Me: You’ll realize it’s just not so.
And you have only yourself.
And nothing matters.
Nothing matters at all.
Stupid depressing person making me step out of the elaborate framework of distractions I’ve constructed, called being busy.
I have heard some vegans complain about the extinction of certain wild animals, but simultaneously suggest that they want most if not all domesticated animals to become extinct. They say this is because domesticated ones(including cats and dogs) suffer immensely or have the potential to suffer immensely, by virtue of their very existence as dependents on man. Given this, these vegans should in fact be and even more so be in favor of slowly sending to extinction, ALL animals on land and sea(including humans), to thereby end all animal suffering. This is because in actual fact, the average non-domesticated wild animal like the gazelle inevitably suffers a far far darker fate, by virtue of struggling in nature, then the domesticated one like a cow. A gazelle lives day to day constantly fleeing from prey, constantly facing imminent starvation, and eventually most likely eaten alive by a predator. A cow suffers nothing for it’s next meal, has no immediate predators, gets medical treatment if it is injured, and eventually is anesthetized to some degree before being killed. Clearly, the animal facing nature inevitably suffers more by the virtue of it’s very existence. All the reason to drive it to extinction.
All the same, I think that first-world human beings have more or less stepped outside of nature. We are the first animals to have come together as societies, thousands of years ago and tacitly make an agreement with each other that we will work together to make our lives more comfortable and secure. We have been working on it since then, and went from the ancient world which was founded largely on slave labor, to the present one, fine-tuning it on its way, refining law and order and slowly developing our ability to treat each other more humanely. That being said, there are some collectivist argument for why we ought to stop eating meat, whether that be environmental externalities, or for other actual real reason rather than ‘because global swarming’.
A better thing to point out is that over the centuries a growing number of humans have developed a fondness for non-human animals, and a distain at seeing their suffering. That is why our western society has decided that it’s wrong to inflict needless suffering on even food animals. I think the best argument is simply to state that we need to redefine what we consider ‘needless suffering’.
Had an argument over a libtard who was overjoyed that a private company was sued for refusing to sell some product to gays. Because discrimination.
First of all
On discrimination in general:
A market economy wouldn’t work without discrimination. After all, choosing any one company over another is an act of discrimination. For example, it’s not discrimination against non organic farmers if I only buy from organic farmers ?
On discrimination in company hiring or service:
Businesses don’t discriminate in either service or hiring unless they are economically retarded(in which case they will soon cease to be an extant business, all on their own) or the high costs of discrimination are subsidized by the government thru policies like minimum wage, price floors or ceilings.
But discrimination is still a bad and dangerous thing!
So into the next point, it’s fine for a customer to discriminate and boycott gay or even non-organic products, but it’s not fine for a company to boycott, or refuse to sell to gays or hippies?
Maybe we could force everyone to purchase a monthly quota of progressive products
Even if you think it’s not okay for individuals to personally boycott gay companies, how could you ever enforce that? Force people to purchase a monthly quota of gay products? Actually, It’s perfectly easy to control who consumers buy from. With a big enough government It could conceivably be done. So why wouldn’t a libtard support doing that?
So again, as an individual you are allowed to boycott anti progressive companies, but individual say religious company owners aren’t allowed to boycott you?
An argument for fully free and legal economic discrimination
My argument is simple. If free individuals are freely allowed to participate in trade between eachother, then individuals should be allowed to refuse to buy from whomever they want, and individuals should be allowed to refuse to sell to whoever they want. The burden is on you to make a reasonable argument for why only buyers but not sellers ought to be free in their enterprise.
When I made this argument the libtard argued that there are in fact times when there are valid reasons for companies should be allowed to refuse service or boycott customers….Based on arbitrary opinions of what libtards think are valid reasons for refusing service. Like Im sure they would say it’s okay for companies to boycott homophobic customers for being homophobic, but it’s not okay to boycott gay or pro-gay customers for being homophilic(or homophalic?(hawhaw)).
And besides, ‘Valid reason‘ is completely subjective. For a person with a religious life view, their valid reasons may be different than yours. What gives you the right to force your life view and it’s implicit valid reasons on them, moreso than they have the right to force their life views and their implicit valid reasons, on you?
In other words, according to libtards, it should be a criminal offense to discriminate based on your religious beliefs. Unless said religious beliefs are those of the religion called progressivism. In which case, you are actively encouraged to discriminate.
Not protesting against china for animal cruelty because ‘we aren’t vegetarian’ is just as bad as not protesting against Muslims because ‘western culture isn’t perfect’.
In other words, saying a culture where zero animals have even small-scale animal rights cannot be criticized by one where several animals have some sort of honorary rights, because the latter does not have full animal rights, is like saying that a religion which still actively stones adulters cannot be judged by one which doesn’t allow gay people to marry…talk about a moral cop out.