Right?! One guy is literally like "I hope someone doesn't take it out of context that I'm okay with others torturing cats." I decided to respect their wishes because somehow the context was *actually worse.*
sometimes rationality is just "starting from horrifying axioms and then getting upset when people do not want to have extended good faith discussions about whether the similarly horrifying conclusions you get from them are conditionally justified"
To be fair, you have to have a very high iq to understand that there is literally zero difference between "being in consensual relationship with someone of the same gender" and "flying across the world to kill a lion with an arrow". The meta-ethics is very subtle and without a solid grasp of moral nihilism, most of the nuances will go over a reader with a baseline sense of ethics's head.
There's also the deft way that Palmer's first arrow shot and wounded Cecil, who managed to move up to 250 metres before being killed by a second arrow the next morning. The Rationalists understand this stuff; they have the epistemological capacity to truly appreciate the depths of big game hunting, to realize that they're not just instrumental, they say something deep about LIFE.
the wise man bowed his head solemnly and spoke: "theres actually zero difference between hunting big animals for fun & being gay. you imbecile. you fucking moron"
Do these chumps know we live in an ecology? That we kind of need to survive? And so "is it legal?" isn't a valid question because what is legal doesn't necessarily equate with what is good or rational?
OP here, I *am* a vegan, actually. And given your lovely chats with people calling PETA "[delusional radlibs](https://www.reddit.com/r/stupidpol/comments/j7555w/mfw_i_have_to_spend_an_hour_and_a_half_defending/g83rv2k/?context=3)", I'm gonna kindly tell you to fuck off.
Pity, if you weren't just trying to "gotcha" people here with cheap insinuations at virtue signalling, we could've had an interesting conversation about the nature of hypocrisy and humanity's moral fortitude! But hey, if I thought *that* could happen, I probably wouldn't be on Sneerclub
>we could've had an interesting conversation about the nature of hypocrisy and humanity's moral fortitude!
Yes, I totally believe you. That's why you combed through 4 months of post history (even *I* don't find myself that interesting) before your first reply to a one liner.
Truly those in bad-faith cannot help but see bad-faith everywhere, for the only solace in their hearts is knowing that all others are just as awful as they are.
Open invitation to anyone who isn't /u/techpriest to learn why I combed through their post history and why this reason is 100% reflective of good faith. Just DM me! : )
Unfortunately, /u/tekkpriest I don't trust people who argue in bad faith with info about how I think. If you really care about the truth, you'll have to do it with someone you haven't defected three times against in a row.
yes going to another country and personally killing an entire endangered animal for bragging rights is personally and morally equivalent to eating part of a previously killed farm animal. like i'm not fully justifying eating meat but this is an absurd comparison imo
edit: like some "you shouldn't oppose antebellum-style chattel slavery if you own a license plate made with prison labor" type shit
Remember though, even if you are actually on the moral high ground, tekkpriest *doesn't care*! This guy will say you're in bad faith *anyway*! They're just opposed to conversations that actually give a fuck about morality I guess.
also plot twist, did you know you actually *don't* need to have the moral high-ground to shit on people who are actively rejecting the moral high-ground? tekkpriest is actually wrong about this. After all, people without the moral high ground *talking about it* is one of the many ways society can actually be made *better*.
\[EDIT: apologies for tone, you're not tekkpriest and you don't deserve that. I'm still kinda riled up. But yeah, if you don't have the moral high-ground, it's definitely not your place to punish other people from talking about moral high-grounds regardless of hypocrisy. Most people don't have the moral high ground in anything (even I don't) and the only effect of this kind of bad-faith whataboutism is to silence people from talking about moral stuff.\]
It is an absurd comparison. Thankfully, nobody was making it. Neither this thread not the linked one is about that. But if you're going to mock them for legalism, yeah then you'd better be on that moral high ground. If you're going to mock them for considering "suffering, having emotions or otherwise feeling things" to be an insufficient criterion, then hell yes you better be at least someone who doesn't eat anything you reasonably believe to have that kind of inner life. Of course, you're free to be the guy who draws the line on wife-beating at 3 slaps per week if you want to be, but it's not a good look.
edit: Sorry, I won't be able to continue our good faith argument. :P The "Sneer club" turns out to (to nobody's surprise) be the most fragile little snowflakes of all and can't handle even 1/10 of the mockery they dish out.
tl;dr- I'm perma'd
[removed]
[deleted]
“gone anon” is 100% a sociopath.
Animals are fargroup
To be fair, I hold similar opinions not about lions but about certain persons involved in the technology sector of our economy.
This devolved into a discussion if morality based purely on “personal impulse” is or is not evil.
Holy shit.
This is so far from “rationale” I can’t even believe what I’m reading. How do they have any pretense to “rationality” if they accept that definition?
I’m assuming everyone in this thread is vegan, right?