RE: Unconventional opinions
April 15, 2014 at 8:37 pm
(This post was last modified: April 15, 2014 at 8:45 pm by MJ the Skeptical.)
Wow this guy likes to argue about nothing.
Really though, do you honestly give a shit..it's a hypothetical opinion. Anything's better than what we have now.
Obviously there would be structural differences within society and politics. Not the best example but for example communes, where everyone volunteers everything for their services.
But again, do you really care about this? it's a "utopic" hypothetical, so really, this conversation is moot.
Why are hypothetical opinions up for debate?
In this case, yes, you are deliberately annoying.
Straw man, I never said stop eating meat, it's not practical yet. But your statement is still untrue. I even go into the genetic modification of food which would reduce the number of animals eaten by a huge number. Before you go into the predictable reply talking about how it's not practical yet, yes, I understand this. That's why it's still an unconventional and impractical idea. Is that what you were fishing for? debating hypotheticals, kind of weird. Why not show some support instead of debating.
Did you even read the last reply? Did you miss the part about India giving Dolphins person-hood in 2013? Why the fuck would only humans get person-hood for the rest of history? are you a speciesist? How would you treat neanderthals if they were alive? probably like crap huh? or would you rethink that? Or how about an alien of any intelligence, would you treat them the same? probably not in correlation to what you've been saying. If you do reply, just answer this. Do you care about their suffering?
(April 15, 2014 at 5:04 pm)KUSA Wrote: Not really. I am not sure what "proper distribution of wealth" is. Sounds kind of ambiguous without an explanation.
Really though, do you honestly give a shit..it's a hypothetical opinion. Anything's better than what we have now.
(April 15, 2014 at 5:04 pm)KUSA Wrote: So if you raised crops for food and your neighbors wanted them you would just hand it over?
Obviously there would be structural differences within society and politics. Not the best example but for example communes, where everyone volunteers everything for their services.
But again, do you really care about this? it's a "utopic" hypothetical, so really, this conversation is moot.
(April 15, 2014 at 5:04 pm)KUSA Wrote: So asking qualifying questions is baiting?
Why are hypothetical opinions up for debate?
In this case, yes, you are deliberately annoying.
(April 15, 2014 at 5:04 pm)KUSA Wrote: If the slaughtering of animals stopped it would suck when it came time to eat.
Straw man, I never said stop eating meat, it's not practical yet. But your statement is still untrue. I even go into the genetic modification of food which would reduce the number of animals eaten by a huge number. Before you go into the predictable reply talking about how it's not practical yet, yes, I understand this. That's why it's still an unconventional and impractical idea. Is that what you were fishing for? debating hypotheticals, kind of weird. Why not show some support instead of debating.
(April 15, 2014 at 5:04 pm)KUSA Wrote: I am a specific kind of animal called Human. All others don't qualify as persons.
Did you even read the last reply? Did you miss the part about India giving Dolphins person-hood in 2013? Why the fuck would only humans get person-hood for the rest of history? are you a speciesist? How would you treat neanderthals if they were alive? probably like crap huh? or would you rethink that? Or how about an alien of any intelligence, would you treat them the same? probably not in correlation to what you've been saying. If you do reply, just answer this. Do you care about their suffering?
If the hypothetical idea of an afterlife means more to you than the objectively true reality we all share, then you deserve no respect.
