Joe Rogan and Bryan Callen talk a lot of ****

Men have been raping women and kids forever. You make it sound like a historical oddity. You should read about the Middle East. Do you even have a passport? Or are you one of these dumb Americans or Europeans who thinks that the customs and laws of his country are the global norm that everyone else strives for?

I didn't say it's a historical oddity, I asked whether you think it's wrong to do so. I guess I have the answer. If you think there's nothing morally wrong for women and children to be raped, then of course it makes sense for you to also have no compassion for non-human animals.

I don't find my self-interest enhanced by living in anarchy and so I advocate laws which deter it. Those laws govern men's wildest passions and channel them into more constructive pursuits, but there is no moral law, and nothing about recent progress in the West which can't be quickly reversed.

That's it? you only ever advocate things out of self interest? Charity and compassion for anyone other than your immediate family and friends have no place in your life? Then tell me, if you were ever in a time of need - say you went hunting and you fell and broke your leg, or a million other things, why should a stranger bother to help you? Why should anyone help anyone else unless if it carries immediate benefits to himself and his immediate family and friends?

If you believe that the entire world is one transactional interaction after another, you must live a pretty sad existence.

Because no one in modern society has. Why should you be the one exception?

And now you presume to speak for all of modern society? You know for a fact that nobody in the world is fighting against the North Korean regime, is that what you're saying?
 
Well, good to know you think there's nothing wrong with the killing and raping of your own family. I feel sorry for your parents to have raised someone so utterly devoid of compassion such as yourself.

Nothing *morally* wrong with it. That's just the little fiction you use to cover up your self-interest.

By your logic the few nuclear powers would have take over the world.

There's nothing logically about that. You haven't heard of the balance of power?

But we have the UN, we have peace treaties, we have powerful nations committing major resources towards humanitarian acts with little reciprocal benefit.

The UN does nothing. Peace treaties are temporary respites from conditions of war. And powerful nations contribute very little of their productive wealth to benevolent acts. Something on the order of one percent.

Who knew morality came so cheap?

No it does not.

Yes, it does.

Nukes? What about the million different conventional weapons we have?

They're a pretty effective deterrence as well against some folks. Certainly of more practical value than your fringe morality.

Plenty of countries don't have jail overpopulation, why don't the people all start shooting each other?

Depends on what country you're looking at. Japan has higher quality lower-class people than in the U.S., so there is less reason to lock people up. But that's not because of morality, mind you. Strict social customs and East Asian genetics explain it.

And so will you kill and eat another human's flesh if it keeps you and your family alive.

Absolutely, and so would you.

We know this from numerous unplanned social experiments in which normal people, when provided the stark choices of surviving on man meat or dying, choose the man meat.
 
I dont care if people hunt for food. I just think the reasoning some use to justify it is dumb. Ive heard the whole, "hunting helps keep animal numbers healthy". How does killing them help?

Just admit it, you hunt for food and you also enjoy it. Nothing wrong with that. If they worked hardand killed an animal themselves, then thats their celebration. I think its dumb how people say its cowardly and weak to shoot an animal with a rifle, its even weaker when u didnt wake up early, camp out, shoot it, carry it, skin it, prepare it and then eat it. Instead, u just went to the store and bought it.
 
I didn't say it's a historical oddity, I asked whether you think it's wrong to do so. I guess I have the answer. If you think there's nothing morally wrong for women and children to be raped, then of course it makes sense for you to also have no compassion for non-human animals.

Then why aren't you over in the Middle East fighting to end all those horrible things? The gender discrimination. The state-sanctioned killing of homosexuals. The underground slave trade.

Too busy moralizing on Sherdog? 15,000 posts in two years take up too much of your time?
 
Yeah camp out and shoot defenseless animals with high power rifles. I bet they feel real good about themselves. #Scumbag
It's pretty awesome actually, good exercise and healthy lean meat for pennies on the dollar.
 
Nothing *morally* wrong with it. That's just the little fiction you use to cover up your self-interest.

Well like I said, it's good to know you think there's absolutely nothing wrong with the rape of your own mother and sister.

There's nothing logically about that. You haven't heard of the balance of power?

What's not logical? There are numerous nations with inconsequential military forces that the few nuclear powers can easily divide up amongst each other. So why hasn't it?

The UN does nothing. Peace treaties are temporary respites from conditions of war. And powerful nations contribute very little of their productive wealth to benevolent acts. Something on the order of one percent.

"The UN does nothing" - that is as baldfaced lie. It's a collective global effort to establish conduct on a scale that has never been done before. Humanitarian spending is both foreign and domestic. Money spent on education, welfare, and foreign aid among 1st world nations are increasing. It's not perfect, and it never will be, but thing are moving in the right direction, contrary to what you're claiming.

Yes, it does.

No it does not.

They're a pretty effective deterrence as well against some folks. Certainly of more practical value than your fringe morality.

So you're saying people are not killing each other because they don't want to be shot themselves? Does that apply to you as well? Are you're only not killing people because you don't want to be killed yourself, but not for any morals of killing people is wrong?

Depends on what country you're looking at. Japan has higher quality lower-class people than in the U.S., so there is less reason to lock people up. But that's not because of morality, mind you. Strict social customs and Eats Asian genetics explain it.

Strict social customs and East Asian genetics? But isn't that morals and human nature? I thought you said there are no morals and human nature do not change?

Absolutely, and so would you.

We know this from numerous unplanned social experiments in which normal people, when provided the stark choices of surviving on man meat or dying, choose the man meat.

And the point of this is? Are you advocating for the legalization of cannibalism since "we all do it under extreme conditions"? What is your point here, exactly?
 
Then why aren't you over in the Middle East fighting to end all those horrible things? The gender discrimination. The state-sanctioned killing of homosexuals. The underground slave trade.

Too busy moralizing on Sherdog? 15,000 posts in two years take up too much of your time?

Because I'm focusing my efforts on Xiwanggongcheng http://www.cydf.org.cn/

But you wouldn't know that, would you? You just make random assumptions on others you know nothing about in order to justify your morally bankrupt position.
 
Well like I said, it's good to know you think there's absolutely nothing wrong with the rape of your own mother and sister.

Like I said, vegans are dishonest liars.

I said there was nothing *morally* wrong with it, but defended the status quo by way of self-interest. If we both have a self-interest in not seeing our families massacred, then we have a mutual interest in passing laws which prevent this by way of stringent punishments. Moralism doesn't need enter the equation.


What's not logical? There are numerous nations with inconsequential military forces that the few nuclear powers can easily divide up amongst each other. So why hasn't it?

I told you. Because of the balance of power. When one great power tries to upset this balance, the other great powers usually team up against it.

Why doesn't Russia invade Poland? Clearly, moralism has nothing to do with it. The Russians do not want to hurt their own security by trying to devour a population who don't want to be ruled over by Russians. And this would be true even if Poland wan't part of NATO.

If the Russians were to act recklessly, not only would the U.S. act in concert with Europeans to counter those moves, thus making Russia much less secure, but it's possible that even the Chinese would see Moscow's action as needlessly provocative.

"The UN does nothing" - that is as baldfaced lie. It's a collective global effort to establish conduct on a scale that has never been done before.

The UN does nothing. It provides fig leaves for great power actions.

Collective international action has been going on since the Boxer Rebellion, which is more than four decades before the UN became a reality.


Strict social customs and East Asian genetics? But isn't that morals and human nature? I thought you said there are no morals and human nature do not change?

It doesn't change. But humans evolve. And thus humans in different parts of the world have slightly different moral codes that are a result of their respective cultures which in turn are derived in part from their DNA.

So you're saying people are not killing each other because they don't want to be shot themselves? Does that apply to you as well?

Of course. I've been talking about "self interest" since the beginning of this discussion, haven't I? What better represents self-interest than a society in which my self-interest is protected.

But I don't lose any sleep over, say, the Syrian civil war or Mexican beheadings.

And the point of this is? Are you advocating for the legalization of cannibalism since "we all do it under extreme conditions"? What is your point here, exactly?

My point is that your morality is strictly conditional. If conditions change, your morality will need to change.
 
Because I'm focusing my efforts on Xiwanggongcheng http://www.cydf.org.cn/

But you wouldn't know that, would you? You just make random assumptions on others you know nothing about in order to justify your morally bankrupt position.

If you're posting over 15,000 times here in the last two years, you can't be too focused on anything in real life.

你是中國人嗎?你會說國語嗎?
 
Back
Top