Who don’t you learn to walk, you’ve crawled around here for too long.
Ultimate Philosophy 1001: Jakob:The Earth is auto-cannibalistic like the Sun is - the Sun consumes itself, that is what causes its being as a fury - the Earth consumes itself, that is what causes its being as a paradise. And it only becomes a hell wherever humans start to pretend there is anything other than this consuming the old and bringing forth the new from the components. When humans proclaim a paradise away from Earth, this should be interpreted as an order to kill and bury them stante pede.
Why don’t we take a break from our psychopathy for a minute and think about this rationally, eh? If I can do it, so can’t you.
Who don’t you learn to walk, you’ve crawled around here for too long.
“Who” don’t you? Maybe “why don’t you” and a reply that isn’t shit and garbage.
Ahaha.
What would we do without you’re crawling around here, eh?
Ahaha.
What would we do without you’re crawling around here, eh?
Go on babbling, without a director?
I need to remind you who ended up being the final director in Eureka.
No idea what your talking about. Feel free to clarify if your prefer.
No idea what your talking about. Feel free to clarify if your prefer.
You’ll have to watch all 5 seasons of the show. I can’t explain it to you without spoiling it. I would send you a PERSONAL MESSAGE but the MILITARY MINDS who RULE these boards don’t allow me to.
I am only a director, not a dictator.
Eureka’s collapse was not the fault of the director, it was the fault of the inflexible military minds, and the corrupt traitorous politicians. In fact, the collapse occurred because THE DIRECTOR WAS NOT GIVEN ENOUGH POWER. The incompetent military minds who dealt heavy hands, were directly responsible for the downfall of Eureka, by their general incompetence, pigheadedness, and general refusal of the director’s advice. And in the end, the DIRECTOR gets blamed for it all.
Directors must have absolute creative and editorial control, yes.
This,
But only after running at least a 5k.
Eating meat is ur-godly.
But only the good meat. Leave your macdonald at the door, bitch.
I ate one of these for lunch today. It was good. This thread has been resolved.
Very nice.
“Who” don’t you? Maybe “why don’t you” and a reply that isn’t shit and garbage.
Now now.
time for the estrogen patch.
Ultimate Philosophy 1001:“Who” don’t you? Maybe “why don’t you” and a reply that isn’t shit and garbage.
Now now.
time for the estrogen patch.
Im not your local grammar nazi but still, your post was in of itself nothing.
Jakob: Ultimate Philosophy 1001:“Who” don’t you? Maybe “why don’t you” and a reply that isn’t shit and garbage.
Now now.
time for the estrogen patch.Im not your local grammar nazi but still, your post was in of itself nothing.
This, on the other hand, is Moby Dick. The Odyssey.
I bow to you, great Literatrix.
Will you now put on them patches?
This, on the other hand, is Moby Dick. The Odyssey.
I bow to you, great Literatrix.Will you now put on them patches?
I would put on the patches, so I can attain a great peace of mind, so much so that my posts will attain a post quality such that would incur the envy of even the gods.
Jakob:This, on the other hand, is Moby Dick. The Odyssey.
I bow to you, great Literatrix.Will you now put on them patches?
I would put on the patches, so I can attain a great peace of mind, so much so that my posts will attain a post quality such that would incur the envy of even the gods.
No, I have never envied you.
Blurry: UrGod:But a human society that placed the value of a cow as equal to…the value of a human would be irrational…
Why?
Because a human society must put human value on top of the value hierarchy. That is what it means to be rational as a human society. It would make no sense for a society of beings to elevate as highest something else other than themselves and their own good – such a society would simply degrade for lack of self-valuing consistency.
This is the historical struggle of human societies: they are attempting to learn how to posit humanity itself, its goods and its needs and its values, as the highest value. “Society” doesn’t mean anything except this.
We eat, as all life eats. You are free to choose to eat meat or not, that is up to you, since we are omnivores. Or you can subsist entirely on Soylent if you prefer. But meat is very good for us, it nourishes us deeply. Both in body and in mind. Countering this for the sake of some weird morality of “eating life is bad!” makes no sense, because you are required to eat life in order to… live. Even plants have existence, life, self-value. It comes down to how you are able to value some other lifeform: in what ways does it present itself to you to be valued by you? I have asked here in this topic in what greater ways does a cow present itself to us to be valued other than as our meal? So far I have not received any answers to what question, which is not surprising since I do not think there are any answers to be found. As I said, if you value a specific cow as a pet for some specific reason, then you will not want to eat it, and that’s just fine. But the cow on my plate was not my pet, was not my friend and did not present itself to be valued by me in any way other than to nourish me with its meat. That sounds harsh, sure, but that is how it works.
All life dies, and is ultimately eaten… by other life. It is not a question of some silly moralizing of “it is bad that life must die!”. Only cowards and religious moralists would feel that way. Anyone who feels this strong aversion to eating meat is a coward and/or a religious moralist. And cowardice and religious morality are stupid (un-philosophical). But most people cannot handle working with multiple levels of value and ranking them into a hierarchy, they can only make determinations in black and white, namely if one value is upheld then others must be rejected; this is the only way they are able to assert a single value, because they cannot deal with the contradictions between differing values-systems. And then they must find and follow a mere morality to stabilize this weakness of theirs into something livable, as a mode of life over time.
I fully acknowledge my respect for animal life, including for cows. Animals are alive, they self-value, they are sentient, they have thoughts and feelings. They do not want to suffer and die. These are all true statements. But what is forgotten is that there are no universal values, every value flows from a self-valuing, from a being itself who posits values to and for itself, in terms of itself. Religious moralists believe in universal values, therefore they are black and white thinkers who must state as Kant tried to do that if a value is good then it must be absolute-universal, and from this follows how they must reject any value that is at odds with whatever they think of as the universal value. In most cases the supposed universal value is “life is good” or “suffering/death is bad”; this is the position from which vegetarians and vegans come, although it is funny how they do not count plant life as being alive or as being able to suffer.
What do you think happens to a cell when it is damaged? It reacts. It tries to repair itself if possible, and if not possible then its components are violently torn apart and reconstituted by other cells – the cell dies. Every cell, including plant cells, acts to remain alive and structurally stable. Why do you think cells have cell walls that are configured to only allow certain molecules in while rejecting others? Why do you think cells pump out their waste products? Oxygen is a waste product of plant cells. CO2 is a waste product of animal cells.
All values exist only because a specific being produces them, values them. No value exists in a vacuum without the valuer. So the only question is: what is your value, and why? If you feel emotionally damaged and fragile enough to be so bothered by the concept of eating meat, then your value will be as a vegetarian or vegan. That’s perfectly fine, as your valuing. But such a valuing is by no means universal. It is not my own valuing, nor that of countless other humans not even to speak of all the carnivorous animals in nature who live only because they eat meat.
Thank you for this response. I asked “why” not to challenge you, but because I genuinely wanted to know your reasoning on the matter.
Personally, I am not a vegetarian, but I do value all forms of life. I value life, be it human or cow or insect or plant, because it is finite and full of possibility. I think that valuing the life of something you’re going to eat is perfectly reasonable, and leads to an appreciation of what you’re being given when you take that life.
Jakob:This, on the other hand, is Moby Dick. The Odyssey.
I bow to you, great Literatrix.Will you now put on them patches?
I would put on the patches, so I can attain a great peace of mind, so much so that my posts will attain a post quality such that would incur the envy of even the gods.
See thats what I like. Someone who is willing to work for it.
Made a 1/3 pound burger, grass fed local fresh beef grilled to medium well over a fire with melted cheddar on top.
Yeah, that’s what we call converting vegetarians.