NOOOOOOOO! NOT THE HECKIN' PUPPERINO!

Explain in moral terms why left is objectively morally wrong while right is objectively morally permissable. If you say Bibble, basically the opposite is the case there.

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 5 months ago
    Anonymous
    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >muh trannies
      Meds!

  2. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    neither of those are halal

  3. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Objective morality is a spook.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      That's the point. That or veganism.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      I've never known a pig to act like a dog. That's just me personally. If I had a pet pig, and it acted affectionate towards me and seemed to miss me when I left it, I might feel differently about pigs

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        >its okay to cannibalize psychopaths and the developmentally disabled

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          Where did i mention anything about canabalism or any of the nonsense you're talking about? My point was that most people in the western world who aren't farmers or in agriculture in general, myself included, don't have enough experience with pigs when they're alive to create the same kind of emotional connections that we have with our dogs. That's also alongside thousands of years of western culture that's said that pigs are meant to be eaten and dogs are meant to be treated like pets/beasts of burden for hunting. The chinese don't have that same kind of mentality towards dogs (or really any creature), so they don't see a problem with OP's picrel.
          TL;DR:

          Objective morality is a spook.

          is right in saying Objective Morality isn't something concrete or "a given", but I'd add that morality in general, usually has cultural reasonings that vary worldwide. "UH WHY ONE OK TO EAT AND NOT THE OTHER?!?!?!" Because we don't do that shit here, chang. do you need more of a reason?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Okay, so it has to do with feelings and thus is completely SUBJECTIVE. Thanks for playing!

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yes, and the feelings come from culture, not necessarily the individual's own un-primed conscience. Even if someone in America or Europe felt it was ok to kill a dog and eat it, most of their neighbors would be shocked and appaled since it's against the cultural norm.
            Why did you make this thread to begin with, though? What do you gain from asking an edgy question and people giving you answers that you already know? Did a thread really have to die for this?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yes, you're describing moral relativism.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Ok. cool. Have a living dog as eye bleach.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            I don't approve of eating dogs but if anything the question just makes me feel like a huge hypocrite.

  4. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Cannibalism isn't inherently wrong. See

    Objective morality is a spook.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      This thread is directed at people who uphold objective morality, particularly those who say eating meat is okay, like Abrahamics.

  5. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    I think both pig and dog are fair game so long as you aren't a soulless chink who boils them alive because it "tastes better"

  6. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Because .gov says so and the state is god.

    Damn Statism is so fricking easy, really solves all these dumb little moral nuances

  7. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Both are morally wrong but I still eat pork because it tastes good, simple as

  8. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    The western civilization has a deep yet secular History with canines. Our relationship goes back tens of thousands of years, our two species shared a bond that goes deeper than with any other, one of trust and care.
    Any form of abuse is therefore seen as taboo, a crime, by those of the western world aware of our shared History, of our special relationship. They are to be put above all others and those threatening them are to be seen as enemies.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      "Western values" are subjective therefore irrelevant

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        The popularity of “subjective meaning nothing” as an idea on this board is testament to the high rates of autism spectrum disorder. I’m not trying to be funny it’s actually true.

  9. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    in islam both are haram

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *