where is enzyme when we need him?
i thought a moral was a guideline or belief and therefore people can have their own set according to them. if that moral means that they can't eat a baby animal but they can eat it once it's over 2 years old, for example, then fine for them.

it doesn't mean they aren't idiotic. but it's their own belief.

all meat sucks and tastes disgusting. this is the only moral anyone needs.
( rachelswipe with a fork, Mon 11 Feb 2013, 12:15, 1 reply, 12 years ago)

You can't abitrarily set your own rules about what is moralistic.
It's defined by human behaviour and beliefs, not the actions of an individual. And, yes, your age one is fine (if odd) because it's making a distinction that could be seen as morally valuable (allowing baby animals more time to live). There's no morality in distinguishing between two species simply on the basis you think one is cuter. It'd be a bit like saying it's OK to exploit Chinese people but not anyone else.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Mon 11 Feb 2013, 12:18, Reply)

i don't know the answer, i am just speculating
but if it's something you believe in intensely and you live by it, why can that not be a "moral", if a "moral" is a belief? does it have to apply to a wider group than an individual? that seems Wrong, as just because other people are as dumb as you are doesn't make it moralistic. it just means more of you are Wrong.

or right on better examples than eating one animal but not another, like not fingering babies or something.
( rachelswipe with a fork, Mon 11 Feb 2013, 12:24, Reply)

Just because you believe in something intensley doesn't make it "moral" or "right"
otherwise being gay would be immoral, as would being black.
(Bazongaloid, Mon 11 Feb 2013, 12:25, Reply)

we definitely need enzyme

( rachelswipe with a fork, Mon 11 Feb 2013, 12:27, Reply)

no we don't.
Just think about what you're saying. You can't "choose" a set of morals. They are property of our species, pretty much, not individuals.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Mon 11 Feb 2013, 12:29, Reply)

There is no situation when that statement is ever true.
Except for when his brother is selling Olympics tickets.
(Bazongaloid, Mon 11 Feb 2013, 12:29, Reply)

i liked him when i met him
albeit i forcefed him neon orange aftershock. i don't think he's ever been quite the same.
( rachelswipe with a fork, Mon 11 Feb 2013, 12:34, Reply)

He did look a bit strange at the Olympics.

(Bazongaloid, Mon 11 Feb 2013, 12:35, Reply)

"not eating animals"
is a moral stance

"not eating some animals purely because you think they are cute"

is hypocritical.

Forgetting law, morality would stay that rape is wrong. Morality doesn't say rape is wrong, unless they are ugly, at which point it's OK. Does it?
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Mon 11 Feb 2013, 12:27, Reply)

No, it's okay to rape uggos because they would never get any otherwise

(Bazongaloid, Mon 11 Feb 2013, 12:29, Reply)

well, of course

( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Mon 11 Feb 2013, 12:29, Reply)

where i am confused is: who defines what is a moral?
can you define that for yourself?
( rachelswipe with a fork, Mon 11 Feb 2013, 12:33, Reply)

I think you're missing the point, sweetie. The problem with the not eating horse example
is not whether eating animals per se is moral or immoral. It's that it's selective, which would be moral hypocrisy.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Mon 11 Feb 2013, 13:15, Reply)

no, practicality says it's wrong to rape an uggo
because you wouldn't be able to get it up
( rachelswipe with a fork, Mon 11 Feb 2013, 12:35, Reply)

That's why god invented pencils and sellotape.

(Bazongaloid, Mon 11 Feb 2013, 12:36, Reply)

But I thought it was okay to exploit chinese people?
How else do we get cheap electronics?
(Bazongaloid, Mon 11 Feb 2013, 12:25, Reply)

I know, that was a shit example.

( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Mon 11 Feb 2013, 12:28, Reply)