Nah' man I disagree.
It's like me selling you a high end PC and filling it with low end components, then fucking around with the reporting systems in the operating system.... and you only finding out when you're running benchmark software on it.
( G/PP 💩💩💩💩💩&#128, Mon 11 Feb 2013, 12:15, 2 replies, latest was 13 years ago)

this is the second point, description of goods.
the moral point would be "I ordered a Toshiba annd got a compaq, this is immoral"
( CQ Knows the truth, all of it., Mon 11 Feb 2013, 12:18, Reply)

Kindda...
It's more like you've ordered a 3.2ghz quad core processor, and they've given you a 2.6ghz duel core, and the operating system is reported as a 3.2ghz.... and you only use 2ghz anyway so don't really notice the difference. BUT, then, one day you run a benchmark on it, and it's reported at a 2.6ghz duel.
( G/PP 💩💩💩💩💩&#128, Mon 11 Feb 2013, 12:24, Reply)

But you running a 2.6Ghz processor isn't immoral, you've just been ripped off.

(Bazongaloid, Mon 11 Feb 2013, 12:27, Reply)

See my reply lower, I got the wrong end of the stick from your objection to their objection.

( G/PP 💩💩💩💩💩&#128, Mon 11 Feb 2013, 12:44, Reply)

but that's my point gonz
a horse is not a slower processor, it's just a different brand, it's an intel, not an AMD. there is a legitimate argument about mislabelling the product, that aregument could even be said to be a moral argument.

however "it's immoral to eat horsies" is just bollocks.
( CQ Knows the truth, all of it., Mon 11 Feb 2013, 12:27, Reply)

The situation as it stands is similar to that scenario, yes.
But what I'm saying is that you can say it's okay to be annoyed that you bought a low end system when it was labelled as a high end system, but you can't be annoyed because you feel that using low end components is somehow morally objectionable compared with high end components. They are all components at the end of the day.
(Bazongaloid, Mon 11 Feb 2013, 12:20, Reply)

You can take your point further by saying "You didn't even notice that it was a low end component until someone told you"....
... but I disagree, you've bought it under false pretences.
( G/PP 💩💩💩💩💩&#128, Mon 11 Feb 2013, 12:26, Reply)

You're right, I'm not defending the use of horse meat
what I'm saying is that you can be annoyed that you bought horse meat thinking it was beef, but I don't think you can be upset that you ate horsemeat because you think it's wrong to eat horses while thinking it's okay to eat cows.
(Bazongaloid, Mon 11 Feb 2013, 12:28, Reply)

Ahhhh, i get what you mean now.
I still disagree though, in the respect for some people. To some people, a horse to them is how I'd see a dog. Jockeys and mounted police, for example, would regard a horse as an almost equal, and would be horifide that someone was using their species as food; and worst, cheap food.

Although there is no religion that I know of that regards a Horse as a superior/inferior animal (such as a hindu would a cow, or a jew would a pig)... would you say the same if it turned out to be meat from an animal held in that regard?
( G/PP 💩💩💩💩💩&#128, Mon 11 Feb 2013, 12:43, Reply)

nah, you're still wrong
just because we label one animal "pet" and another "food" has no moral significance, it's just convention.

edit: I also don't care what "some people think", some people are fucking stupid.
( CQ Knows the truth, all of it., Mon 11 Feb 2013, 12:47, Reply)

I would actually, I don't see why religions get to say anything about your life
from what you should wear on your head, to how you have your beard, to how you treat women, let alone what animals you should eat.

Back in the dark ages it made sense to tell people not to eat pork or shellfish because it stopped people getting ill, but that's no longer the case.
(Bazongaloid, Mon 11 Feb 2013, 12:49, Reply)

In the same way you have the choice not to live by a religion, they have the choice to live by that religion... and that choice is both respected and protected in law.
If I threw a pig corpse at a mosque, it would have a far different meaning than if I threw a chicken corpse.

For those who chose to hold the animal in high regard, they're not saying nobody else can do what they want, but their choice should be respected for that individual.
( G/PP 💩💩💩💩💩&#128, Mon 11 Feb 2013, 12:57, Reply)

I know they can live by religion if they want to
but I don't agree with their views and I don't agree that they should be treated differently by virtue of their belief in nonsense.

Selling someone pork when it should be beef should be considered to be as bad as selling someone horse meat when it should be beef. I don't see that it's any worse because some people have decided that pig is bad but beef is okay. I don't think that is a justifiable position to take.
(Bazongaloid, Mon 11 Feb 2013, 13:04, Reply)

I think we're arriving at the same point from different views.
I agree that it should be treated no goodly/badly, but I disagree that it should be disregarded as a non-issue.
( G/PP 💩💩💩💩💩&#128, Mon 11 Feb 2013, 13:23, Reply)

I think there's a distinction to be made between respect and toleration.
I am morally bound to tolerate your religion, provided it does not hurt others. I am not bound to respect other people's silliness, just their right to be silly.
( CQ Knows the truth, all of it., Mon 11 Feb 2013, 13:05, Reply)

It sounds like reverse of tradition here, you're inflicting your athiest views on them, rather them inflicting their religious views on you.

( G/PP 💩💩💩💩💩&#128, Mon 11 Feb 2013, 13:22, Reply)

I don't think anyone is saying it's not wrong to sell one thing and say it's something else
only that it's not immoral to eat/sell horse.
( CQ Knows the truth, all of it., Mon 11 Feb 2013, 12:29, Reply)