â„–4191623[Quote]
>>4191620 (OP)Everyone who hates you is objectively correct
â„–4191626[Quote]
>>4191623Alright so we eliminated the top half of the normal distribution. Let's narrow it down
Why is it objectively morally bad to eat a dog as opposed to a pig
â„–4191630[Quote]
>>4191626>animal that we bred for millenia specifically to enhance traits that remind us of our own infant childrenGee, I wonder why people aren't comfortable eating them
â„–4191632[Quote]
>>4191630chinks dont seem to mind
â„–4191638[Quote]
>>4191632That's because they all have slant eyes so the dogs don't actually remind them of their children
â„–4191639[Quote]
>moral reason
Dogs are companions and they are aesthetically pleasing, morality can have an aesthetic criteria
â„–4191640[Quote]
>>4191633only one of those ever wins a fight…
â„–4191641[Quote]
>>4191630That's not a moral argument, you're just justifying their delusion.
An animal being bred for neoteny doesn't mean it's objectively any less moral to kill and eat it. It might not make sense in terms of yield (like i specified in the FUCKING thread retard) but it's not actually different
â„–4191643[Quote]
>>4191638i really dont know what youre on about with this "reminds you of your kids" thing.
â„–4191645[Quote]
>>4191639So your morality weighs the value of a life based on its personal usefulness to you?
>either sub 110 iq or trying to be edgy â„–4191651[Quote]
>>4191633>more rounded head than a wild wolf>softer, more rounded ears>overall more juvenile behaviorPack bonding is most likely a result of our instincts for protecting our own offspring being overtuned. We like dogs and cats because they remind us somewhat of human children.
â„–4191653[Quote]
>>4191645Morality isn't universally applicable. If a dog is a companion in a particular culture, it would be morally reprehensible to kill and eat it in that context. In other cultures they aren't and are eaten. Meanwhile muslims find it reprehensible to eat a pig. I think what you're not understanding is morality isn't universally applicable to a single world group, not that eating whatever animal is somehow worse than another
â„–4191654[Quote]
>>4191651They have neotenous features
this does not mean it's objectively less moral to kill and eat one
â„–4191657[Quote]
>>4191645Also no that doesn't make sense. From a White perspective we value dogs because they're companions and are cute.
>so you only value it because of its use to you?That's exactly what constitutes value in the world, I know you think ur smart asf but ur actually low iq. We value the lives of humans for the exact same reasons 😂😂🤦
â„–4191661[Quote]
>>4191654It's because it's beyond just simple morality at that point. You're asking why people think it's wrong to eat something that their slightly-more-advanced ape brain is at least partially recognizing as a child. Of course they're not going to want to eat something if their instincts are screaming at them to protect it instead.
Overall your entire argument is retarded and you should kill yourself.
â„–4191665[Quote]
>>4191653>Morality isn't universally applicable. If a dog is a companion in a particular culture, it would be morally reprehensible to kill and eat it in that contextThis is simply due to popular ignorance though, not based on intelligent, objective rulings. Something being socially unacceptable does not mean it's actually immoral.
> other cultures they aren't and are eaten. Meanwhile muslims find it reprehensible to eat a pigIt's reprehensible due to perceived sanitary reasons, not moral ones. A better parallel to draw would be Hindus not eating cows, because to them, that's a moral ruling, based on made-up religious principles, not based on natural law
â„–4191670[Quote]
>>4191665Retarded brown baby realizes that morality isn't objective and can't be measured objectively or universally 😂😂😬
â„–4191671[Quote]
well if the chef can make dog yummy then i have no problems with it
â„–4191673[Quote]
>>4191657>Also no that doesn't make sense. From a White perspective we value dogs because they're companions and are cute.That's just an illusion in your mind though. What you and others personally like should not dictate your morality
>we like trees therefore it's objectively bad to cut down trees>we like pizza therefore it's objectively bad if we don't get free pizzaThis is the type of nonsense that happens when you equate personal values with objective morals.
>That's exactly what constitutes value in the world, I know you think ur smart asf but ur actually low iq. We value the lives of humans for the exact same reasons>That's exactly what constitutes value in the world, I know you think ur smart asf but ur actually low iq. We value the lives of humans for the exact same reasons 😂😂🤦That's how the retarded masses constitute value, based on their personal feelings.
â„–4191675[Quote]
What is this brownoid obsession with the IQ metric, you hear it a lot from the indian communities and among other people from the most polluted and low iq populations on earth.
IQ is a british invention, just like the language you are polluting with your third world drivel. Does this not lean anything to you? Surely not.
â„–4191676[Quote]
>>4191665>It's reprehensible due to perceived sanitary reasons, not moral ones. A better parallel to draw would be Hindus not eating cows, because to them, that's a moral ruling, based on made-up religious principles, not based on natural lawIt's really not, idek if you've read the Quran but there's no given reason for it being prohibited. Pigs aren't somehow dirtier than any other animal. Only Jews give a "sanitary reason" for prohibiting it in the Torah
"Sanitary" and moral are also analogous. Moral just means right or wrong, laws of sanitation fall within that category which is why these hall monitor rules are so popular in mysticism
â„–4191681[Quote]
>>4191673Wow ur a moron
Are you like 15? Or just brown
â„–4191682[Quote]
>>4191673There are VERY few things that can truly be considered as objectively moral or immoral, and even those are very debatable. "Objective morality" is not the gotcha you think it is.
â„–4191683[Quote]
>>4191661>It's because it's beyond just simple morality at that point. You're asking why people think it's wrong to eat something that their slightly-more-advanced ape brain is at least partially recognizing as a child. Of course they're not going to want to eat something if their instincts are screaming at them to protect it instead.I would also feel repulsed at the thought of eating a dog, purely due to social conditioning and their neotenous features, but not realizing that it's literally just due to social conditioning and the fact that they happen to look a certain way is retarded.
â„–4191686[Quote]
>>4191683Morals and social conditioning go hand in hand nigga
â„–4191688[Quote]
>>4191682Objective morals are based on natural rights.
Property rights, self-ownership and the NAP for adult humans
when it comes to animals is where it gets foggier, same thing with children, as their agency is not seen as full
â„–4191690[Quote]
>>4191688>>4191683Shutup faggot, you will eat your words when you leave your debt slave colony and are working amongst your fellow indians in the labor trenches. You will never be accepted by white society.
â„–4191692[Quote]
>>4191688>NAPAh, lolbert. That explains it.
Look, the issue here is that we could go on and on about the philosophy of objective morality, but that discussion has been going on for eons, and some random autists on a fuckass imageboard aren't going to be the ones who magically come up with the answer.
â„–4191695[Quote]
>>4191676It literally is, as pork is forbidden alongside blood and carrion. It was perveiced sanitary reasons, not necessarily correct, but those things were seen as filthy and therefore bad to eat. Are you gonna tell me carrion is holy in islam?
>sanitary and moral are the same thingYou should have been aborted and turned into mayonnaise like the white jizzrat you are.
Is it immoral to eat shit? Or is it just perceived as immoral, because it's disgusting, in turn because it's dirty, in turn because it can cause disease, in turn because it can kill you?
There is nothing objectively morally incorrect about eating your own shit, it doesn't violate any natural law, but it seems so because it's counterproductive to human existence
â„–4191700[Quote]
There's nothing objectively morally wrong about killing yourself, as it doesn't violate natural law, slthough most religions make up a rule forbidding it purely for self-preservation.