Unconventional opinions

[The Valkyrie]

Get back to me with sapphires.

I'm not a fan of diamonds.

Meet me in the middle and take a blue diamond

Your offering is accepted.

[KUSA]

-Proper Distribution of Wealth

Define proper as it relates to this.

-Water and Food should be free

How can it be unless you live by a river and have natural growing vegetation to sustain you?

-Severely Reduce the slaughter of our fellow animals

What level is acceptable to you?

-Sufficiently sentient animals deserve person-hood

Why?

[MJ the Skeptical]

Define proper as it relates to this.

As it relates to what? it's a pretty straight forward concept.

How can it be unless you live by a river and have natural growing vegetation to sustain you?

Easy, you stop charging for it. But seriously, it's obviously not practical right now, so the fuck what? it's still an idea I'd like to see come true and most people in the U.S. anyway don't seem to be on board.

I mean, the internet is considered a right to life in Germany. And we can't figure out food and water being a right to life..

What level is acceptable to you?

I don't know buddy, I'm not dictator of the world.

What's with the baiting? If we could get it down to zero that'd be great and with genetic modifying we will likely reduce the slaughter severely in the future. But again, wrong time period for me to be wishing for that, I admit that.

Why?

Because you're a sentient animal with person-hood. Derp.

[KUSA]

As it relates to what? it's a pretty straight forward concept.

Not really. I am not sure what "proper distribution of wealth" is. Sounds kind of ambiguous without an explanation.

Easy, you stop charging for it.

So if you raised crops for food and your neighbors wanted them you would just hand it over?

What's with the baiting? If we could get it down to zero that'd be great

So asking qualifying questions is baiting?

If the slaughtering of animals stopped it would suck when it came time to eat.

Because you're a sentient animal with person-hood. Derp.

I am a specific kind of animal called Human. All others don't qualify as persons.

[*Deidre*]

Get back to me with sapphires.

I'm not a fan of diamonds.

Meet me in the middle and take a blue diamond

Beccs ...say yesss! SAY YES!

[BrokenQuill92]

I think Grumpy Cat should replace the bald eagle as a national animal!

[The Valkyrie]

[/quote]

Beccs ...say yesss! SAY YES!
[/quote]

I'll accept a blue diamond.

Saying yes depends what I'm saying yes to.

[Sedna]

I think that grass looks better uncut.

[MJ the Skeptical]

Wow this guy likes to argue about nothing.

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.

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.

So asking qualifying questions is baiting?

Why are hypothetical opinions up for debate?

In this case, yes, you are deliberately annoying.

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.

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?

[KUSA]

Wow this guy likes to argue about nothing.

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.

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.

So asking qualifying questions is baiting?

Why are hypothetical opinions up for debate?

In this case, yes, you are deliberately annoying.

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.

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?

For some reason you don't like it when someone debates with you on a debate forum.

Giving dolphins person-hood status is ridiculous. Damned cow worshiping Hindus. Now they can worship dolphins too.

Neanderthals, who knows how they would be veiwed. I doubt they would be considered equal to humans. They probably would be veiwed like a monkey is. I don't consider monkeys to be worthy of person-hood.

Space aliens, I'd have to ask Captain Kirk about that one.

As to suffering. I assume you mean that of an animal. I certainly would not torment an animal unnecessarily but if it had to feel a bit of discomfort in the process of being turned into food then so be it. The pleasure I get tasting it's flesh outweighs the discomfort it had to endure to get in my belly.