Search results

"When you have him in this hold, squeeze this way - you want to hurt him so he doesn't want to fight anymore" "Hit him so he doesn't want to get back up" as opposed to "Punch her, pull her hair." It's about context. Sorry if that makes you uncomfortable.

Either way it's just as dead as a dog that died for sport. There's no real difference in the two - just a difference we've manufactured so that we can be ok with the one but not the other. Which is also fine. As there is no absolute morality from which to gauge, we are free to do as we like.

Obviously the answer is yes, there are alternatives. So we are ok with killing animals, as long as we eat it, or do it in a certain context (sport/trophy hunting - which we find more palatable if we also eat that meat, too - but it's not necessary) - but we aren't ok with it in other contexts...

Why? Are there no alternatives to killing for food?

No it just seems irrelevant. Feel free to explain your implication. As I don't understand the feeble point you're trying to make, I'll allow you to expound rather than project my own interpretation on you.

I don't see what that has to do with anything.

Yes I believe that because I have the intellectual capacity for challenging and complex thought, and realize that the world isn't black and white. You, otoh...

They are similar. Just like hunting and dog fighting are similar, or killing cows for food but being aghast at slaughtering dogs for any reason. But they are not "the same", which is the position you idiotically tried to assign to me. Try that crap on someone whose intellect doesn't dwarf...

Fixed that for you. I was initiating a conversation on what the degree of difference was. You took that to imply that I was saying they were (to quote you) "the same". Don't project your ignorance on me.

It's not surprising that you don't understand, and are unable to articulate upon, moral relativity. But that doesn't mean that it's nonsense. It's just means you lack the capability for that sort of critical thought. Which isn't my problem, so don't lash out at me.

"how much different?" = "the same"? :fern

yeah man thats totally what I said totally totally

You are terrible at analogies.

which is where he draws most of his Parcells criticism from. omg Parcells didnt want ware.

k

oh really? the primary Dallas "source" for all things negative about HOFer Bill Parcells might not know what he's talking about? ya don't say

I refuse to donate money to the Catholic Church.

Beats me. I just think about that stuff sometimes. Like, we will get all up in arms about the pussification of football, because we are *gasp* trying to keep players from getting their brains knocked sill and going all retarded later in life. And even now, we can look back on things we did...

From the pictures it doesn't look like these girls were forced to do anything. Egged on, yes. Coerced maybe. But You can say the same thing about any sport.

Isn't that the funny thing though? We put some gloves on these girls and make a few rules about where they're allowed to hit each other and suddenly we can egg them on all we want - it's just a couple kids learning to box/mma. But in this context it disgusts us.