I hate this obsessive puritanical attempt to control what we do with our bodies, to the point that there’s an entire rent-seeking middleman “prescription” system. Anything to increase profits, right? “War on drugs” proponents are authoritarian shitbags.

These people get paid $300/month working at a plant that generates $12 billion / year. Samsung has always been evil, a shit company that makes shit products, spreading pollution everywhere it goes.

And the dark ages?

Look, any non-natural human-caused suffering I can think of can be linked to cults. And religion is just a super popular cult.

I’m pretty sure they mean human-caused catastrophes. Although if we count meat consumption as a sort of quasi-religious behavior then maybe you’re right.

Which is like 95% of all war. Mein Kampf mentions god literally dozens of times. No secular democracies have ever gone to war with each other, and virtually all autocratic regimes are religious.

Daily reminder that religion is a monstrous evil.

I’m against the death penalty, so I’m not sure what “moral position” of mine you’re attacking exactly. Our only point of friction so far has been over the use of basic logic when formulating strong opinions.

Here, let me help you.

1. Intending to kill a person is always wrong.
2. The death penalty involves intending to kill a person.
3. Therefore, the death penalty is always wrong.

This argument is valid. It is not sound.

I’m actually against the death penalty. But I am also against forming strongly held beliefs for no reason and occasionally stumbling on the correct conclusion by accident.

I’m not vegan, by the way. I just find hypocrisy kind of gross.

1. Killing innocent people is wrong.
2. The death penalty has a chance of killing innocent people.
3. Therefore, the death penalty is wrong.

Versus:

1. Killing innocent people is wrong.
2. Driving a car has a chance of killing innocent people.
3. Therefore, driving a car is wrong.

Clearly, this argument is not sound. You’ll need to come up with another.

For a more nuanced discussion on this topic I’d recommend a modern Ethics textbook, such as Shafer-Landau’s Living Ethics, which breaks down arguments over the death penalty to their syllogistic form.

EDIT: more examples.

1. Killing innocent people is wrong.
2. Practicing medicine has a well known chance of killing innocent people.
3. Therefore, practicing medicine is wrong.

Etcetera

Like I said, I’m not vegan. I just enjoy acknowledging when huge numbers of people reach grossly irrational conclusions.

The idea that minorities automatically become religious conservative zealots because of racism is an insult and it’s racist as fuck.

Language is only a tiny part of integration. Authoritarian and conservative ideology is a much bigger issue.

Daily reminder that religion is a monstrous evil.

??? You’re so far off topic I don’t even know if you’re replying to the right comment.

I’m not vegan. But I’m also not a hypocrite.

War is bad because it consigns millions of innocent creatures to death and suffering.

Factory farming is bad because it consigns BILLIONS of innocent creatures to death and suffering per year.

How do you wrap your tiny morally imbecilic mind around the former but not the latter?

I’m trying to help meat eaters out of their dilemma. They murder innocent animals but complain about killing evil animals. They eat the former but not the latter.

• Do you believe it can ever be moral to take an innocent person’s life?

Absolutely not. But you’ll agree this guy is not innocent.

• Do you believe that our judicial system has never wrongly convicted an innocent person and sentenced them to death?

That line of reasoning would be paralyzing. There’s a high chance that you’ll kill an innocent person while driving, but you’re still driving. I suppose the alternative is even worse.

Also not veganism

Eating meat is the opposite of veganism, fyi

Also, I’m not vegan.

Removed by mod