Dubstepforum.com

Terpit wrote:

Ferryman wrote:Don't mind veggies too much, but vegans - they do my head in a bit. Especially the ones that swallow jizz. Double standards or what.

sig worthy

I don't think I'm being over the top on that one and surprisingly it doesn't come challenged that often.

If you won't consume a product or bi-product of animals, then don't consume a bi-product of humans. Stick to your fucking guns.

Semi-

interestingly a lot of people out here don't regard chicken and pork as meat, try to feed a Thai buddhist some beef and they'll call you scum of the earth for making them go to Buddhist hell or whatever for breaking veggie but give them some chicken and they'll chuck together some rice and herbs and shove it down their fat white meating gullets faster than you can say 'that's fucking meat too!'

It's such a bizarre thought, it's never crossed my mind. Depends why they are veggies, swallowing cum doesnt involve any suffering animals (I hope)

a unicorn dies everytime someone swallows man fat

Masaman curry might be my favorite thing about thailand

comes from Malaysia

magma wrote:I can't really see the point in non-veggies hounding veggies about this. If we don't see a moral issue with eating meat, surely we don't see one with not eating it either?

I could see why a vegetarian that believed in a judgemental god might want to change meat-eaters' opinions, but vegetarians really are harmless. Gwa's eating no meat so I can eat a bit more. Thanks gwa!

i dont have a problem at all with veggies/vegans/carnivores whatever

doesn't mean i cant debate the pro's and con's of how someone rationalises their decision making does it?

jesus, the world would be a fucking shitty boring arsed place if everyone just went 'well, its your choice, and i like that you've made it, and for the sake of appearing diplomatic in spite of any particular view i may have on anything ever, i'll just say "its allllll gooooooood"

capo ultra wrote:comes from Malaysia

that's a lie by the way

capo ultra wrote:interestingly a lot of people out here don't regard chicken and pork as meat, try to feed a Thai buddhist some beef and they'll call you scum of the earth for making them go to Buddhist hell or whatever for breaking veggie but give them some chicken and they'll chuck together some rice and herbs and shove it down their fat white meating gullets faster than you can say 'that's fucking meat too!'

It's the hi-so chinese thai buddists who follow this, absolute nonesense if you ask me. The regular thais love a bit of beef.

capo ultra wrote:

capo ultra wrote:comes from Malaysia

that's a lie by the way

Phew

baron_von_carlton wrote:

capo ultra wrote:interestingly a lot of people out here don't regard chicken and pork as meat, try to feed a Thai buddhist some beef and they'll call you scum of the earth for making them go to Buddhist hell or whatever for breaking veggie but give them some chicken and they'll chuck together some rice and herbs and shove it down their fat white meating gullets faster than you can say 'that's fucking meat too!'

It's the hi-so chinese thai buddists who follow this, absolute nonesense if you ask me. The regular thais love a bit of beef.

Other way round in my experience. I don't know any hi-so chinese thais just backwoods barney and his mates from the north, uneducated thais that want to have faith but love meat. I would assume educated peoples would just say fuck it and eat what they want.

Terpit wrote:It's such a bizarre thought, it's never crossed my mind. Depends why they are veggies, swallowing cum doesnt involve any suffering animals (I hope)

Thinking more of vegans here - you know the types that won't wear leather etc... staunch vegans! If I ever catch them quaffing spaff... well, I won't be held responsible for my actions

capo ultra wrote:

baron_von_carlton wrote:

capo ultra wrote:interestingly a lot of people out here don't regard chicken and pork as meat, try to feed a Thai buddhist some beef and they'll call you scum of the earth for making them go to Buddhist hell or whatever for breaking veggie but give them some chicken and they'll chuck together some rice and herbs and shove it down their fat white meating gullets faster than you can say 'that's fucking meat too!'

It's the hi-so chinese thai buddists who follow this, absolute nonesense if you ask me. The regular thais love a bit of beef.

Other way round in my experience. I don't know any hi-so chinese thais just backwoods barney and his mates from the north, uneducated thais that want to have faith but love meat. I would assume educated peoples would just say fuck it and eat what they want.

I see, all the isaan and laos folk i know love beef and the thais i taught in BKK claimed the were chinese and couldn't eat it.

noam wrote:

magma wrote:I can't really see the point in non-veggies hounding veggies about this. If we don't see a moral issue with eating meat, surely we don't see one with not eating it either?

I could see why a vegetarian that believed in a judgemental god might want to change meat-eaters' opinions, but vegetarians really are harmless. Gwa's eating no meat so I can eat a bit more. Thanks gwa!

i dont have a problem at all with veggies/vegans/carnivores whatever

doesn't mean i cant debate the pro's and con's of how someone rationalises their decision making does it?

jesus, the world would be a fucking shitty boring arsed place if everyone just went 'well, its your choice, and i like that you've made it, and for the sake of appearing diplomatic in spite of any particular view i may have on anything ever, i'll just say "its allllll gooooooood"

No, it shouldn't stop you, but it should probably colour the tone of the discussion. There are certain debatable moral differences I have with people that I actually think are worth calling them out on (pollution, war, abortion, badger-culling...)

Either way, I'm yet to meet anyone that's not been able to "rationalise" a moral decision. Our brains spend our entire existences rationalising our beliefs and actions - if it didn't, we'd be constantly depressed. People are able to internally rationalise that killing humans is both the most evil act possible or pefectly acceptable depending on circumstance... our morality on a lot of issues isn't particularly consistent, but I'm almost certain it's almost always "rational" since the rationalisation is done internally by the individual's brain, not through a collective hive decision. One mans logic doesn't necessarily equal another man's logic.

nonsense view either way

eggs are meat imo

magma wrote:

noam wrote:

magma wrote:I can't really see the point in non-veggies hounding veggies about this. If we don't see a moral issue with eating meat, surely we don't see one with not eating it either?

I could see why a vegetarian that believed in a judgemental god might want to change meat-eaters' opinions, but vegetarians really are harmless. Gwa's eating no meat so I can eat a bit more. Thanks gwa!

i dont have a problem at all with veggies/vegans/carnivores whatever

doesn't mean i cant debate the pro's and con's of how someone rationalises their decision making does it?

jesus, the world would be a fucking shitty boring arsed place if everyone just went 'well, its your choice, and i like that you've made it, and for the sake of appearing diplomatic in spite of any particular view i may have on anything ever, i'll just say "its allllll gooooooood"

No, it shouldn't stop you, but it should probably colour the tone of the discussion. There are certain debatable moral differences I have with people that I actually think are worth calling them out on (pollution, war, abortion, badger-culling...)

Either way, I'm yet to meet anyone that's not been able to "rationalise" a moral decision. Our brains spend our entire existences rationalising our beliefs and actions - if it didn't, we'd be constantly depressed. People are able to internally rationalise that killing humans is both the most evil act possible or pefectly acceptable depending on circumstance... our morality on a lot of issues isn't particularly consistent, but I'm almost certain it's almost always "rational" since the rationalisation is done internally by the individual's brain, not through a collective hive decision. One mans logic doesn't necessarily equal another man's logic.

see i understand what you're talking about, but its just wrong

people dont 'always rationalise' their decisions, thats a load of tosh! people regularly, neh... habitually, act irrationally and dont think at all about their actions/decisions/lives

and secondly, one mans logic doesn't equal another mans logic? logic is logic, just because you see the world differently from someone else doesn't mean that the rules change

thats like saying one mans mathematics doesn't equal another mans mathematics - unless you start delving into mathematical/logical languages and different forms, you are entirely incorrect in that point.

im being argumentative in this thread, but you're just arguing moot points from a really bizarre position...

1 + 1 = 2 in all possible worlds ever.

noam wrote:see i understand what you're talking about, but its just wrong

people dont 'always rationalise' their decisions, thats a load of tosh! people regularly, neh... habitually, act irrationally and dont think at all about their actions/decisions/lives

I didn't say they did. I said they rationalised anything that they felt "morally" about.

and secondly, one mans logic doesn't equal another mans logic? logic is logic, just because you see the world differently from someone else doesn't mean that the rules change

thats like saying one mans mathematics doesn't equal another mans mathematics - unless you start delving into mathematical/logical languages and different forms, you are entirely incorrect in that point.

im being argumentative in this thread, but you're just arguing moot points from a really bizarre position...

1 + 1 = 2 in all possible worlds ever.

Language error by the non-philosopher, I fear. Perhaps "rationale" would've been a better word to use? Two men can rationally make two different decisions in the same situation and be morally happy with them.... when faced with a gunman one may moralise that it's best to shoot the gunman to protect everyone else, another may moralise that it's never ok to kill a human. Same situation, two 'rational' responses... entirely different morality.

Gwa and I were raised in the same society - he's rationalised that killing animals and spoiling the environment for the sake of meat is wrong. I've rationalised that since it's the "natural order" (whatever that means) it's fine. Both are rational, but neither reaches the same conclusion.

But yeah, I'm not a philosopher, so you'll be able to get me on semantics all day if you really want to live your life that way.

i would say that people always rationalise their moral position even if they don't think too hard about if their rationale stands up to logical debate

I don't eat cats and dogs because they're my friends. Just because cows and pigs aren't my friends, doesn't mean I would eat them.