Meat Licence - hypothetical

P.S. Sorry everyone for such a long post it will be probably one of my last on this matter.

 

Woohoo. Go you! If you understand English, then the only other possibility is that you've deliberately misrepresented my original comments. Take your pick.

That's an entirely subjective opinion. What's inappropriate to you is not necessarily inappropriate to me.

Why? I enjoy swearing. It's part of how I express myself. I don't really fucking care if that bothers you.

I don't know what kind of domestic arguments you have, but that certainly doesn't resemble any domestic argument that I have. Come to think of it, I don't have domestic arguments. That's probably because my partner is an intelligent, rational individual, with whom it's possible to hold an adult conversation without either of us attempting to quote the other person out of context or misrepresent their argument.

As for the why, I've already explained that to you. Go back and read the thread more carefully.

That's a matter of perspective. You're obviously of a delicate disposition and take disproportionate offence at the use of expletives. Seeing as a swear word is, in fact, nothing more than a combination of vowels and consonants, I would suggest that accusing someone of something that they didn't do is actually much more offensive than the use of the word "fucking". If you don't feel the same, then you really need to take a long, hard look at your priorities.

Perhaps if you were as cautious with respect to your accusations as you are in your use of expletives, then we'd not be needing this conversation in the first place, eh?

Yay you. I've never needed to make false accusations in order to further my point in a discussion.

Look, I'm really sorry that you're such a sensitive little lily, but in the real world, people swear at each other. Many times over a pint, when faced with a controversial opinion, my friends and I have been heard to cry "fuck off!" or some other such slogan. Funnily enough, we're all still friends and respect each other. Like I said, if you have a problem with the use of expletives, then that's your problem and not mine. Personally, I've found many of the views expressed on these forums to be far more offensive than the use of expletives.... but then that's the kind of guy I am. Opinions and principles mean more to me that politeness and social decorum.

Dude, you really need to see a little more of the internet. These forums are tame by comparison to many message boards out there. Message boards are renowned for flaming, personal abuse, stalking, vengeance, war and famine. If you're not familiar with this, then you're a bit of a newbie. No offence.

Ummmm... "pay fucking attention"? Yeah, I really went overboard and lost my rag there, huh?

Try reading your own comments from an objective point of view, and see how offensive it sounds to falsely accuse someone of something that they haven't done.

Maybe in Surbiton. In my world, people punctuate their sentences with foul language. And guess what? We enjoy it!

You're entirely correct. I swear casually and socially. So do my friends. We enjoy it.

The majority of people read tabloid newspapers. Quoting majorities is a fool's game.

Again, that's a matter of perspective. For example, I happen to find a person justifying the killing of children in Iraq to be far more offensive than the use of expletives. Such a person is, in my opinion, a dick. And I won't hesitate to call them such.

I entirely I agree. Which is why I only insult people once it's become evident that they're single-mindedly advocating a position without any willingness to debate or consider an alternate point of view.

For example, on the one hand we have Treehouse. A dick who insists on posting his opinions without any intention of actually discussing the issues at hand. When contrary arguments are made, he ignores them and reposts an earlier comment. Not only are his opinions offensive, but they're also rigid. If you're not willing to enter into a discussion, you're just wasting people's time by posting on a discussion board. Such behaviour (as well as trolling etc) makes him a dick. And I'm not concerned about whether he finds that offensive. After all, he certainly isn't concerned about whether we find his trolling and child-killing justification offensive. But oh no! I swore!!!! I'm a terrible human being

On the other hand, you have Showmet. Showmet has some opinions which are exact polar opposites to my own. We've had heated disagreements and discussions, but we still debate politely. Showmet listens to my point of view and I listen to his. We discuss our differences. We usually continue to disagree with each other, but we're still listening. And neither of our points of view is usually inherently offensive. And guess what? I've never felt any inclination to call him a dick.

Absolutely. Surely you're not suggesting that I never act according to my opinions though? I'd never do anything then, because the whole of reality is ultimately subjective.

I didn't swear 'at' you. I swore in relation to you. There's a subtle distinction. And yet most people don't get so easily offended by the use of expletives, despite what you may believe.

And it's not your reaction to the use of expletives that makes your behaviour dick-like. What makes your behaviour dick-like is the fact that you assign more significance to the use of a single swear word than you do to the fact that you've made a false accusation towards somebody. As priorities go, that's pretty fucked up.

Funny you should say that. I've not noticed you expressing much concern regarding your original comment that provoked this debate - a comment that I found quite offensive. That, my friend, is hypocrisy.

You haven't asked me to. If you find the use of expletives to be particularly offensive, then I'll happily take that into consideration when replying to your posts in the future. However, you haven't yet made that request. Furthermore, I reserve the right to respond in any way that I see fit should you so easily resort to making false accusations towards me in the future. But of course, if you'd just taken the time to read and understand my post before leaping to unfounded conclusions in the first instance, then I'd have been less likely to have been using expletives to satrt with. Maybe you should spend some time considering how you end up provoking a particular response before being so quick to criticise that response.

 

Its from the bible or something ???

http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/lawofcon.htm



mmmm i have no idea , i just thought it meant when one statement conflicted with another but i guess lots of us are guilty of that....sometimes.

Meat eating is killing a living creature , their is no getting away from that..what i read into your posts was that you find it wrong and not a natural thing to do (eat meat)..so the obilition of it would not be against any liberties because it is non essential..we are not talking about smoking here you know.

Just clear up what you actualy find aceptable and unaceptable .... i have a problem with dodgy slaughterhouses that mistreat animals..but it is a minority not the majority .. plus it seems that slaughterhouses in general is the thing you have a problem with, thats fine.
What about meat eaters are they not allowed to eat meat ?? i only picked on roadkill and old animals because this is the only aceptable form of meat eating available to them (from what you have posted here)...this is why i said it was silly.

 

I think you missed the point. What did I say, exactly, that appears contradictory to you?

It's not a question of what I find "acceptable", since we have to accept many things in society, regardless of our personal feelings. I'd prefer to explain myself in terms of what I believe to be immoral. I find factory farming immoral, certainly. But I also find it immoral to kill animals just in order to satisfy a personal taste. We don't need meat, so the eating of it is an indulgence. We're killing in order to satisfy a sensory desire. If your only option for survival was to eat meat, then that'd be a different argument.

You seem to be fixating on the concept of "allowing" or not "allowing" something. I haven't at any point suggested that I think that people's diets should b forcibly controlled. However, if you want to talk in terms of rights, why should the right to eat meat be more important than the right of an animal to live?

Nothing silly about it. It's a reasonable illustration of the difference between killing something and eating it. It's the act of killing that I find immoral, not the act of consuming the consequences of the killing.

 

I understand your point of view perfectly now.
Thanks for clearing that up...i understand .