Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - Will you date someone who eats dogs?

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Will you date someone who eats dogs?
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next

This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Off-Topic Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Will you date someone who eats dogs?

I eat dogs myself.

49%

[ 31 ]

I don't eat dogs my self but am happy to date someone who does.

22%

[ 14 ]

I will try to ask them not to eat dogs either, then date them

[ 3 ]

I won't date someone who eats dogs, but am happy to be friends with them

15%

[ 10 ]

I will not make friends with those who eat dogs.

[ 5 ]

Total Votes : 63

Author

Message

Homer
Guest

Posted: Sun May 06, 2007 2:44 pm Post subject:

Quote:

People who do that are cowards. If you admit it's cruel but do it anyway, then at least you're honest and that's something.

Allright pastis then by that logic...eating 90% of meats produced from cattle is the same and people who eat beef, pork or chicken, along with other meat derived products like foie gras are also cowards.

As long as you are consistent with that I for one have no problem at all with you condeming people who eat dog meat....just condem all meat eaters on the same basis or get off your moral horse.

pastis

Joined: 20 Jun 2006

Posted: Sun May 06, 2007 3:20 pm Post subject:

Homer wrote:

Quote:

People who do that are cowards. If you admit it's cruel but do it anyway, then at least you're honest and that's something.

Exactly. Unless they understand and admit it's derived from cruel practices, feel fine with it and do it anyway (in which case they are being honest about it). And some people are just ignorant - it's the rationalizers who are cowards. Out of sight out of mind.

Quote:

As long as you are consistent with that I for one have no problem at all with you condeming people who eat dog meat....just condem all meat eaters on the same basis or get off your moral horse.

I have been consistent. Duh. Go and check my comments on any of the previous dog meat threads.

The Bobster

Joined: 15 Jan 2003

Posted: Sun May 06, 2007 5:12 pm Post subject:

pastis wrote:

The Bobster wrote:

What people eat, it's their decision.

So by that logic, it would be simply a matter of choice if I were to chop you up and eat you. You are made of meat afterall. Rolling Eyes

You and I are the same species, so that was a silly little thing you just said - unless you think I might be more delicious than Col. Saunders' Original Recipe ...

Or at least I'm guessing we are the same species because you are posting on a keyboard ... but, hey, maybe you are a precursor of the cybernetic hive-mind foretold in that seminal work of fiction (or is it prophesy?) the rest of us know as The Matrix?

Agent Smith, is it you? Are you here among us?

Quote:

Said it before, dogmeat is just meat.

So are you.

Yes, I thought so. I seem to recall Agent Smith saying that to Neo in the first movie. Or something similar.

Do I have to give you this news? If you forget to feed fido long enough, know what? He will eat you. And he will not go on the internet and complain that the world is a bad place. Heck, he won't even feel bad about it later ...

Agent Smith, er, I mean, pastis, how can you possibly endure the smell we humans give off every day?

Quote:

SILKWORM FAETUSES DESERVE TO LIVE !!!! PLEASE, STOP BOILING THEM!!! ALSO, IT SMELLS BAD!!!!!!!

Your analogy is not very clever "the Bobster", or at least not in regards to humor.

Did you thjink I was just trying to be clever, or maybe trying to make a point?

The "humor" is just because I simply do not see the difference between boiling a dog in a private restaurant, and boiling a silkworm in a public place. People (like you) object to the former, but not the latter ... if anything is lacking in cleverness, Agent Smith, it is in that contradiction.

Quote:

Seriously, if you wanna eat meat, including dog meat, by all means go ahead. But quite trying to rationalise it. People who do that are cowards. If you admit it's cruel but do it anyway, then at least you're honest and that's something.

When did I rationalize anything? I was pointing to some hypocrisy, Agent Smith, and I'm not the first in this thread to do so. Everyone here is meat and it's foolish to think you can be better than others because you will only eat some meat and not others ... and if you go all the way to pure vegan life, you gotta toss and turn at night and wonder whether broccoli hurts when you pull it out of the ground.

Thank you for calling me honest. Eff you to effing HELL for calling me cruel, when I'm just a human like any other. I have not rationalized - I have described the world as it is. Let's all look at it as is together ...

Hey, know what? I just took another look. It's still a beautiful place, with all it's flaws. Think I'll hang out here a while more. If that's okay with you, Agent Smith. You wanna unplug me out of The Matrix, please make sure you take to some place better, though ...

I don't think I have any illusions. I think the world I see is the real one, and it's not so bad at all. We can make it better, but dissing on each other's dietary preferences is WAAAAY down the list of ways to make that happen ...

But, hey, maybe that's just me. I been wrong before, but tell the truth, I don't think I'm wrong this time ...

If I'm wrong, don't just tell, though. Show me.

Whenever I get the chance to choose, by the way, I always take the red pill ... And it hasn't always made me happy. But next time it's offered, I'll choose it again.

pastis

Joined: 20 Jun 2006

Posted: Sun May 06, 2007 11:31 pm Post subject:

The Bobster wrote:

pastis wrote:

The Bobster wrote:

What people eat, it's their decision.

So by that logic, it would be simply a matter of choice if I were to chop you up and eat you. You are made of meat afterall. Rolling Eyes

You and I are the same species, so that was a silly little thing you just said - unless you think I might be more delicious than Col. Saunders' Original Recipe ...

Somehow I doubt it. Maybe if you cut down on your pork intake and got some freaking exercise...

Quote:

Yes, I thought so. I seem to recall Agent Smith saying that to Neo in the first movie. Or something similar.

Yeah? Well I guess he was right.

Quote:

Do I have to give you this news? If you forget to feed fido long enough, know what? He will eat you. And he will not go on the internet and complain that the world is a bad place. Heck, he won't even feel bad about it later ...

If I'm starving I'll eat fido - hell I might even chow down on my neighbors if things get bad enough... Point is I'm not starving. Never have been. Neither is anyone who eat dogs. Nice try "the Bobster". Rolling Eyes

Quote:

Agent Smith, er, I mean, pastis, how can you possibly endure the smell we humans give off every day?

I just do. Not like I have a choice.

Quote:

Did you thjink I was just trying to be clever, or maybe trying to make a point?

I dunno. But you failed on both accounts.

Quote:

The "humor" is just because I simply do not see the difference between boiling a dog in a private restaurant, and boiling a silkworm in a public place. People (like you) object to the former, but not the latter ... if anything is lacking in cleverness, Agent Smith, it is in that contradiction

Dogs are intelligent mammals with emotions and capable of feeling a great deal of physical and emotional pain, not unlike humans. Worms are primitive, brainless, spineless lifeforms with nothing but a few ganglia and no emotions. This is elementary.

Quote:

When did I rationalize anything?

When you said dogs were "just meat" and ignored the rest. Obviously.

Quote:

Everyone here is meat and it's foolish to think you can be better than others because you will only eat some meat and not others ... and if you go all the way to pure vegan life, you gotta toss and turn at night and wonder whether broccoli hurts when you pull it out of the ground.

Broccoli doesn't think or feel pain. It doesn't have anything even remotely resembling a brain or nervous tissue. Duh.

Quote:

Thank you for calling me honest. Eff you to effing HELL for calling me cruel, when I'm just a human like any other.

Waaahh! Poor little "the bobster" I didn't mean to make you cry...

Quote:

I have not rationalized - I have described the world as it is. Let's all look at it as is together ...

You rationalized. Think about it, it'll come to you.

Quote:

I don't think I have any illusions. I think the world I see is the real one, and it's not so bad at all. We can make it better, but dissing on each other's dietary preferences is WAAAAY down the list of ways to make that happen ...

Then quit dissing my preference for human flesh (specifically yours).

Quote:

But, hey, maybe that's just me. I been wrong before, but tell the truth, I don't think I'm wrong this time ...

You are definitely wrong.

Quote:

If I'm wrong, don't just tell, though. Show me.

Cruelty is immoral. Get it?

Quote:

Whenever I get the chance to choose, by the way, I always take the red pill ... And it hasn't always made me happy. But next time it's offered, I'll choose it again.

The fact that you're still using the matrix metaphor shows how daft and predictable you are. It wasn't clever at the get go, and extending it throughout your entire post just makes you look like a complete nunce, which figures. Way to go "the Bobster" Rolling Eyes

The Bobster

Joined: 15 Jan 2003

Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 5:10 am Post subject:

pastis wrote:

Quote:

When did I rationalize anything?

When you said dogs were "just meat" and ignored the rest. Obviously.

No, you are confusing the word "rationalizing" with "describing the world as it is."

Quote:

Then quit dissing my preference for human flesh (specifically yours).

Eat me.

Quote:

If I'm wrong, don't just tell, though. Show me.

Cruelty is immoral. Get it?

Cruelty exists in the world every minute of every day. Look at it. Deal with it. Change those parts of it that you can control personally and effect yourself and the people nearby.

Morality, though is a construct of the mind. The only morality that makes sense to me is : "Try not to hurt people, and do not attempt to imprison, coerce or control other beings who don't want to be imprisoned, coerced and controlled."

Quote:

Whenever I get the chance to choose, by the way, I always take the red pill ... And it hasn't always made me happy. But next time it's offered, I'll choose it again.

What's this fixation you have with cleverness? Does being clever really work for you? The only point is to look at the world as it is and not how you'd wish it to be, then make up your own mind about how to behave in it and let other people make up THEIR minds.

Your argument about morality is just a clever way to try to control other people ... though, oddly, you yourself are not clever enough to realize that is what you are doing.

Bramble

Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Location: National treasures need homes

Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 5:14 am Post subject:

Quote:

do not attempt to imprison, coerce or control other beings who don't want to be imprisoned, coerced and controlled

Does anyone here have the patience to spell out the obvious?

Rolling Eyes

pastis

Joined: 20 Jun 2006

Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 12:35 pm Post subject:

Quote:

No, you are confusing the word "rationalizing" with "describing the world as it is."

No, "the Bobster". There is nothing inevitable about eating dog meat. It's way, way beyond obvious that it's cruel, but you choose to ignore it, writing it off as "just meat", as though said meat were without moral conseqence. People who commit any other kind of immoral act such as stealing do the same thing. "Oh, everyone steals in some way or another", therefore it doesn't matter. Rolling Eyes

You are rationalizing. Big time. Not rationalizing would be admitting it's morally wrong, but doing it anyway (or not doing it).

Quote:

Eat me.

Maybe I will. Not in any figurative sense, however.

Quote:

Cruelty exists in the world every minute of every day. Look at it. Deal with it. Change those parts of it that you can control personally and effect yourself and the people nearby.

Ha. Gotcha "the Bobster". "Change those parts of it that you can control", you say. Such as eating dog meat or any meat (which entails cruelty). Looks like I win the debate, thanks to you.

Quote:

Morality, though is a construct of the mind. The only morality that makes sense to me is : "Try not to hurt people, and do not attempt to imprison, coerce or control other beings who don't want to be imprisoned, coerced and controlled."

Where the hell did you come up with such a contrived definition? Did you used to be a hippie or something? Keep it simple, stupid. Willful, unnecessary cruelty is immoral. Always.
(see bold): Yes, well your definition applies to dogs anyway. Man you make losing debates look easy. Laughing

Quote:

You think you're awful smart, that you're just looking at the world realistically. You're not. From what I can gather you're just another chicken-*beep* making excuses for himself.
As for being "clever", I was simply pointing out that you were trying to be but failed. Deal with it.

Quote:

Your argument about morality is just a clever way to try to control other people ... though, oddly, you yourself are not clever enough to realize that is what you are doing.

Really "the Bobster", you come off as just another run-of-the-mill pseudo-intellectual yuppie who's watched the matrix and maybe read an Orwell novel once and thinks he "gets it". Cut the *beep* mate, I made it clear as day that I don't care what you do. Morality is simply about what's right and wrong, I'm not interesting in "controlling" anyone. Murder is certainly wrong, but I'm not the one who said "thou shalt not". It's not my decision what other people do.

Scott in Incheon

Joined: 30 Aug 2004

Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 3:45 pm Post subject:

Quote:

Morality is simply about what's right and wrong

Morality is not just about right and wrong. Morality deals with how human beings interact with other human beings. Things that are morally wrong hurt other humans. Animals are not part of the equation except for when our treatment of them hurts other humans.

You can argue that killing animals is cruel. But you can't argue that it is immoral. Having said that, I do think the way dogs are killed is cruel and wrong. And I probably will never eat dog meat. But there is nothing immoral about it, and I would definitely date someone who ate dog. It is their choice, not one that I agree with, but still theirs.

pastis

Joined: 20 Jun 2006

Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 4:09 pm Post subject:

Scott in Incheon wrote:

Quote:

Morality is simply about what's right and wrong

Morality is not just about right and wrong.

Yes, it is, by definition. Look it up any dictionary. It's quite simple.

Quote:

Morality deals with how human beings interact with other human beings. Things that are morally wrong hurt other humans. Animals are not part of the equation except for when our treatment of them hurts other humans.

Your exclusion of animals from the equation is completely arbitrary, and quite absurd by my reckoning. Where did you come up with this?

I will perhaps pre-empt you and add that even if moral rules do not apply to animals, they still apply to us either way. It's part of the responsibility that comes with being a human.

Quote:

You can argue that killing animals is cruel. But you can't argue that it is immoral. Having said that, I do think the way dogs are killed is cruel and wrong. And I probably will never eat dog meat. But there is nothing immoral about it, and I would definitely date someone who ate dog. It is their choice, not one that I agree with, but still theirs.

Okay, you're gonna have to do a lot better than this... You say torturing/killing intelligent animals like dogs is cruel, but not immoral??? That makes no sense. Cruelty is immoral. Always.

Scott in Incheon

Joined: 30 Aug 2004

Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 7:10 pm Post subject:

Dictionary or no dictionary...you can't say just because an action is wrong, that it is morally wrong. That would be equating jaywalking across an empty street at night as morally wrong. Sure it might be 'wrong' in the legal sense, but I doubt many people would call you immoral for doing it. Morality has a context. For me, morality comes humans learning through history what is good or not good for the community. Things that that hurt the tribe/community were bad and later became codified in laws and developed into a sense of morality. In my opinion, therefore, morality is based on 'rightness' and 'wrongness' of my actions in relation to how they affect people. I exclude animals because they are not humans. How we treat them rarely affects the community. When it does, it would become morally wrong. Again, I am not disagreeing with you about the treatment of dogs being horrific...I just don't agree with it being a moral problem. If I did, I would have to think of everyone who deals with animals in almost any meat-related way as immoral...and I just don't think it is true.

pastis

Joined: 20 Jun 2006

Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 7:33 pm Post subject:

Scott in Incheon wrote:

Dictionary or no dictionary...you can't say just because an action is wrong, that it is morally wrong.

Actually, I maintain that it is, given the context of this discussion.

Quote:

That would be equating jaywalking across an empty street at night as morally wrong. Sure it might be 'wrong' in the legal sense, but I doubt many people would call you immoral for doing it.

Yes well, we're not talking about legality here per se. In the first place laws are not always moral (and no I don't consider jaywalking immoral). And anyway the discussion is about willful cruelty commited by humans to animals. Stay focussed.

Quote:

Morality has a context. For me, morality comes humans learning through history what is good or not good for the community. Things that that hurt the tribe/community were bad and later became codified in laws and developed into a sense of morality. In my opinion, therefore, morality is based on 'rightness' and 'wrongness' of my actions in relation to how they affect people.

You really haven't thought about this enough, I can tell... we accept that morality has nothing to do with 'communal consensus'. Slavery and public execution was once socially acceptable, but never was it moral. Again, don't confuse law with morality.

Quote:

I exclude animals because they are not humans. How we treat them rarely affects the community. When it does, it would become morally wrong.

Because they're not human? That's not a real reason, you would first have to explain why other intelligent beings besides humans should not we worth our moral consideration. You haven't done this. And really man, you're thinking too hard - it's quite simple: all cruelty is immoral. Always.

Quote:

Again, I am not disagreeing with you about the treatment of dogs being horrific...I just don't agree with it being a moral problem. If I did, I would have to think of everyone who deals with animals in almost any meat-related way as immoral...and I just don't think it is true.

All you're doing is contradicting yourself. You call it cruel and horrific, but not immoral. That makes no sense. Your definition of morality is also completely contrived, sorry to say. Your saying animals don't deserve moral consideration doesn't make it so.

And yes, while I won't go so far as to call them immoral people, those in affluent nations who unnecessarily eat meat are committing an immoral act. Some people are ignorant and think food simply comes from the grocery store and give no more thought to its actual origins. If you're hungry and kill an animal yourself to eat to survive, then fine. But given the well-known existence of factory farms etc. and the unending cruelty involved, it is definitely immoral.

Scott in Incheon

Joined: 30 Aug 2004

Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 8:00 pm Post subject:

I am staying on focus. You made the statement the morality is about right or wrong when responding to Bobster. I just continued down that path and remarked how I didn't believe it was the simple. You need it to be simple for your point to hold...it isn't...so your position is weakened I think.

I have thought it through. I was not talkng abot communal concsnsus...I was talking about biological morality. Things that are considered to morally wrong are thought as such because humans have learned through the ages that they harm the community. Therefore, slavery would be morally wrong because it does harm a community.

Public execution is not consider immoral by many communitties. In some places, there is a thought that the excuetion of people helps the community.

I have explained why I have excluded animals. It is my belief that moral codes pertain to how humans interact with each other. Animals are not part of the picture unless in some way the community is affected.

Quote:

Your saying animals don't deserve moral consideration doesn't make it so.

And you saying that they do...doesn't make it so either.

As I said your position needs a simplistic definition of morality...without it...you don't really have a leg to stand on. All meat-eaters become immoral...all pet owners are immoral...all zoos are immoral....catch and relesae fishermen are immoral...every hunter is immoral...anyoe who uses animals in any way becomes immoral...dariy farmers...sheep herders....if animals are included in our moral code then we shouldn't utilize any animal in any way...

pastis

Joined: 20 Jun 2006

Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 8:42 pm Post subject:

Scott in Incheon wrote:

Not at all. When I said "right and wrong", I obviously meant "morally". You went off on some meaningless tangent about jaywalking, which had nothing whatsoever to do with this discussion, and did not affect my overall point in the least.

Quote:

I have thought it through. I was not talkng abot communal concsnsus...I was talking about biological morality. Things that are considered to morally wrong are thought as such because humans have learned through the ages that they harm the community. Therefore, slavery would be morally wrong because it does harm a community.

1) You were (and are) talking about communal concensus.
2) I am aware of the evolutionist view of morality (the "Selfish Gene", altruism, and all that). But you are incorrect to say that slavery and other immoral acts do harm to the community - it is often quite the opposite in fact. Exploitation of minorities by the majority usually benefits society as a whole. Without the immense wealth generated by the trans-Atlantic slave trade and slavery, for example, Europe and the U.S. would likely never have reached the level of affluence they have today. The reason we stopped it is because it is morally wrong. There exist moral imperatives that transcend your relativist approach.

Quote:

Public execution is not consider immoral by many communitties. In some places, there is a thought that the excuetion of people helps the community.

Yes, well nevertheless it is immoral. I could waste my time explaining why to you, but I suspect you already know, so why bother?

Quote:

I have explained why I have excluded animals. It is my belief that moral codes pertain to how humans interact with each other. Animals are not part of the picture unless in some way the community is affected.

Your explanation is, as I explained, contrived and full of holes. Did you read about this in a magazine once or something? I ask because your understanding of morality appears quite limited. Try reading some basic philosophical works on the subject. You mights start with Kant's Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals and go from there.

Quote:

Your saying animals don't deserve moral consideration doesn't make it so.

And you saying that they do...doesn't make it so either.

Here, you can start with this simple wiki blurb:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_rights.

Quote:

As I said your position needs a simplistic definition of morality...without it...you don't really have a leg to stand on.

Nice try. It's quite the opposite in fact: your position requires an incomplete, contrived and yet overly complex definition of morality - without it you have no leg to stand on.

Quote:

All meat-eaters become immoral...all pet owners are immoral...all zoos are immoral....catch and relesae fishermen are immoral...every hunter is immoral...anyoe who uses animals in any way becomes immoral...dariy farmers...sheep herders....if animals are included in our moral code then we shouldn't utilize any animal in any way...

I already wrote:

while I won't go so far as to call them immoral people, those in affluent nations who unnecessarily eat meat are committing an immoral act

In a sense, yes, we all do immoral things, myself included. The point is to admit it, that's the only chance there is for things to get better.

Scott in Incheon

Joined: 30 Aug 2004

Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 10:17 pm Post subject:

from the article you so generously told me to read...

Quote:

It is a radical social movement [2] insofar as it aims not only to attain more humane treatment for animals, [3] but also to include species other than human beings within the moral community [4] by giving their basic interests � for example, the interest in avoiding suffering � the same consideration as those of human beings

So animals are not in the moral community right now. As I said...and some people want to include them...and not just any sort of people...radical people....

So you pointed out the article to me to show me I was right. Thanks for the help.

So your sentence should have read. "Morality is about what is morally right and wrong." Nice. That certainly clears things up for me.

And I am not talking about communal concensus....which implies that we are consciously decidng what is morally wrong and right rather than it being hard wired into our conscious. If morality did come from human experience, where did it come from?

Slavery certainly harmed the community that the slaves came from. This would be enough to consider it morally wrong. And later on, it was partly responsible for breaking apart the states. If you think slavery was abolished in the states because of moral concerns, you should look a little deeper into the subject. Not that some didn't thinkit was morally wrong, but there were many other principles at work.

You have to show how public executions are any morally different from slightly less private ones. It is not even accepted that executions are morally wrong.

My understanding of morality is different from yours. If there are holes you haven't really pointed them out. Did you think that someone just handed down a universal moral code that we are all suppose to live by?
I would say that people who believe that morality was some how handed down from above have a fairly big hole in their argument.

pastis

Joined: 20 Jun 2006

Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 10:44 pm Post subject:

Scott in Incheon wrote:

from the article you so generously told me to read...

Quote:

So animals are not in the moral community right now. As I said...and some people want to include them...and not just any sort of people...radical people....

Of course it's "radical" - most people eat meat. Slave abolitionists were once radicals too, but guess what - they were right.

Quote:

So you pointed out the article to me to show me I was right. Thanks for the help.

Not in the least. The article still shows why animals deserve moral consideration. Try actually reading it for your own benefit, with an open mind.

Quote:

So your sentence should have read. "Morality is about what is morally right and wrong." Nice. That certainly clears things up for me.

Yeah, I could've written that, but it would've been redundant and obvious. I guess I just expect a certain level of intelligence and discerning from my audience. And unlike you I'm not big on meaningless tautologies.

Quote:

If morality did come from human experience, where did it come from?

Huh? Is that another of your tautologies?

Quote:

Slavery certainly harmed the community that the slaves came from. This would be enough to consider it morally wrong.

Ha. Your argument is incoherent. That it harmed the community the slaves came from would make it immoral for them, but not for us (whom it benefited). The reason we abolished it is because it was morally wrong for us (as well as them).

Quote:

And later on, it was partly responsible for breaking apart the states. If you think slavery was abolished in the states because of moral concerns, you should look a little deeper into the subject. Not that some didn't thinkit was morally wrong, but there were many other principles at work.

No. You've got nothing. Slavery was abolished because people stopped being ignorant and clued in to the immorality inherent to the system. If all white people had really believed it to be moral and acceptable, it would have certainly been in our collective power to keep it going. We chose to stop it for reasons I've already explained.

Quote:

You have to show how public executions are any morally different from slightly less private ones. It is not even accepted that executions are morally wrong.

Okay, so a woman in the Middle East is "unfaithful" to her husband and is stoned to death. This is considered socially acceptable to them. Yet it is obviously immoral. Your cultural relativist crap isn't going to cut it. Look up "moral imperative" and get back to me.

Quote:

My understanding of morality is different from yours. If there are holes you haven't really pointed them out. Did you think that someone just handed down a universal moral code that we are all suppose to live by?
I would say that people who believe that morality was some how handed down from above have a fairly big hole in their argument.

Yes, your understanding is different in that it is naive and incomplete. I have pointed out the holes, go back and read. Yes there are universal moral codes. That cruelty is immoral is one of them.

Anyway, I'm gonna stop being your monkey here, and instead offer you this simple and entirely logical syllogism (for about the 5th time):

1)Torturing and killing intelligent animals like dogs is cruel.
2)Cruelty is always immoral.
3)Therefore torturing/killing animals is immoral.

Take that one on if you please.

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Off-Topic Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next
Page 5 of 7

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe