>I'm a vegetarian but I'm pro-choice >I'm

>>129584986
>Humans are animals.
>Therefore animals are people, too!
You lose. Thanks for playing.

Maybe because people see a difference between humans and animals?

>>129585041
>>129585129
Maybe you're both retarded? I bet you're against abortion but for eating animals that are more intelligent than a human fetus.

>>129585222
I'm only against abortion when the brain starts to develop. Also, I don't eat babies.

>>129585222
If you think that animals mater as much as human you are wrong. Animals don't care about you at all, unless you give them free food. Animal as a meal will be more useful to the world then going around and shitting everywhere. An unborn baby has way bigger potential actually do something useful in the future.

>>129585358
>>129585498
Again, we come back to the false dichotomy of morality. Why do you think any of those outcomes are more desirable than the other?

>>129585705
>It's a false dichotomy!
No, there is no dichotomy. You've been mixing apples and oranges from the get-go. I doubt you even know what "subsets" are.

>>129585784
You're the one who seems to value human lives more so than those of other species. Could this be because you a so spiritually advanced or could it be due self-interest?

>>129585940
Does it matter?

>>129584986
>I'm a vegetarian but I'm pro-choice
This one is clearly retarded

>I'm a meat-eater but I'm pro-life
This one is not necessarily retarded because you can be pro-life for pragmatic reasons (i.e. we need more taxpayers) and disregard the muh suffering of the innocent creatures argument entirely.

>>129586078
Now you're getting it.

>>129586281
No, it's you not getting it. Your own argument isn't even self-consistent.

If you want to make people accept your argument as fact you have to (dun dun dun) make it objective. Dumbass.

>>129585222
>eating animals that are more intelligent than a human fetus
"intellegent" is not the same as "sentient". Just like how the homeless are "humans" but not "people" or "all men are created equal" but blacks are "3/5ths of a person"

>>129586399
Okay, let's carry out a thought experiment. How would you argue my position?

>>129585222
Animals aren't aware of their own mortality

>>129586542
>Argue my position for me!
How about instead of playing pretend you actually try to argue?

>>129586644
I've grown tired of people who chose shit over shinola. I may be a moral relativist, but I'm no factual relativist. You seem unable to recognise that we are in fact retarded animals.

>>129586820
>We're retarded animals.
Well, "subjectively," speaking speak for yourself. Thanks for playing.

>>129584986
Well someone like me, would call you a complete idiot.
btfooooooooooooooooo

>>129586970
ha ha gottem

>>129584986

>By being a moral relativist, you are suggesting that morality is not absolute.

>However, the claim "All morality is relative" is an absolute claim about morality.

>Given this contradiction, it is apparat that moral relativism is false.

KYS

>>129584986
How can you be pro-life when you're constantly stomping on bacteria?
Fucking monsters

I'm vegetarian and pro-life. Do I win the consistency prize?

>>129587231
Idiot. A statement about the existence lr lack thereof of morality is not a "moral statement" in that sense. A claim about morality is different from the moral fact itself.

As Nietzsche says, "there are no moral facts, only moral interpretation of facts".

File: jaguar.png (574KB, 689x569px) Image search: [Google]

574KB, 689x569px

>>129584986
potato posters are some of the worst on pol
why did my great-great-grandparents have to be leprechauns
this thread is cancer
kys op

File: 1380145120214.gif (804KB, 238x165px) Image search: [Google]

804KB, 238x165px

>>129586820
>You seem unable to recognise that we are in fact retarded animals
Is that a quote from Darwin? I seem to have skipped that specific definition.

>>129586644
>Btfo

File: Sam_Harris_01.jpg (834KB, 2393x3000px) Image search: [Google]

834KB, 2393x3000px

>>129584986

Moral relativism is a bit daft.

There are actions that are objectively morally wrong. If an action diminishes wellbeing and violates freedom of body it is morally wrong.

The measure of morality is not as objective as, say, temperature but it can be asserted confidently that there are peaks and valleys in the moral landscape. Take for example, if you were to go around and blind every newborn you could get your hands on. This action clearly diminishes wellbeing and violates bodily rights. So choosing not to do this would by extension be a moral choice as sum wellbeing is increased and bodily autonomy is not infringed.

We don't need deity's to determine decency. The human capacity for logic is all we have so we had better use it.