So I’m getting banned...

[chamber]

If you do get punished, it wasn't because you are religious, it's because you hold a horrible opinion about homosexuality. Being religious, or getting that belief from your religion doesn't absolve you of guilt on that count.

[chamber]

first of all, it's not my job to deprogram cult members. i'm not participating in this thread or a member of this forum to deprogram cult members. for whatever reason i just like exploring and evaluating arguments about what is the case.

imo having the wrong beliefs can make you a bad person! thinking you're doing god's will or even genuinely trying your best just doesn't absolve you of moral responsibility for the bad you do. it sure helps your odds of not being trash when you try your best not to be, but sometimes you're trash all the same.

Do you believe in free will?

[chamber]

Vigorously defending yourself, those like you, or just anyone being unfairly discriminated against is laudable. Please don't let the message you take from the push back you are getting be that you shouldn't be defending yourself, or that you can't get angry when doing so. With that said, you seem to equate defending yourself, and attacking / villianizing others. Going so far as to follow them around the site and attack them when they are making unrelated points on other topics. This is why I think you are getting the push back that you are getting. I'm even hesitant to say that's 'wrong', hearing Martin Luther King Jr's "White Moderate" quote playing in my head, but to Mr King's point, it is very uncomfortable.

[chamber]

i want to underline that
ur not a good person if you can be vegan but won't

LOOOOOOOOL

Laughing at people who are being serious is always a bad look.

[chamber]

I sometimes wonder when people go against the meat industry, they realize they are just campaigning for the deaths of the animals they are "trying to save". Most animals that end up in PETA shelters are euthanized.

like realistically all you do is save a future generation of farm animals from being created and killed. You kill the current generation to stop it though. What happens once it ends? All the animals aren't just going to be let free and prosper in the wild. They will all die either right after the industry ends or upon any "release". I often wonder what do people think happens to animals in the real sense of when it ends. It will end I am certain of it but like I don't think the end of story is any amazing peaceful graceful story anyone actually imagines it will be.

Seems more like a silent end to a deathly cycle of animal cruelty with one last scream and then complete silence.

It's not realistic to assume it would end with the snap of fingers. More likely its a slow trickle away from meat consumption, and reduced production as consumption declines.

[chamber]

But Vonflare, like, what is your point?

PEDIT:
Aren't there entire fields of study devoted to the question of what ethics even is?

Yes, it is called meta-ethics. It is quite dry, and pretty boring. Its pretty hot right now though: https://philpapers.org/browse/meta-ethics Enjoy...

Chamber is correct about the way that most vegans argue. It isn't

supposed

to be an over night, flick-of-the-switch change. My main argument against veganism is the destruction of culture and the enjoyment of traditional dishes which have been passed down since time immemorial and the value that being a part of that cultural heritage has. I mean, giving up milk and egg products? Really guys? I think that might be a bit too far. Basically all Italian food is out the window. Most of baking is out the window. American cuisine, to the garbage bin. Chinese and Japanese foods, gone. Does yeast count as vegan btw? I was always unclear on that. I can't think of a single food tradition which does not make use of some sort of animal product as a central component. Maybe some Indian cultures only ate plant based diets, but to my knowledge they still eat milk and eggs. You simply cannot sustain human life on only plants without a relatively high level of technology and some serious industrialized agriculture.

There has to be a better solution to climate change than going full vegan and upscaling iron supplement production which doesn't throw out the majority of the human diet heritage.

A lot of food tradition is surprisingly ephemeral. Tomatoes didn't take off in Italy until the 1800s.

[chamber]

You would agree that human life matters more than animal life, right?

I think it's really hard to say that about other great apes or cetaceans at the very least.

[chamber]

I don't get it.

[chamber]

I still don't get it.

[chamber]

Cetaceans are whales and dolphins and porpoises.

[chamber]

You have to draw a line somewhere based on something.

[chamber]

That isn't directed at you specifically psyche I just find it HILARIOUS how wide the baseline is for 'bad person' in this thread, not to mention the world.

It's so SUBJECTIVE and that's what makes this debate hilarious

If someone is calling you a good person over your world views, they mean to say "good dog".

The concept of good person is just used to make people adjust to one's group's views.

What an extremely warped view.

[chamber]

probably because the only one who sounds truly hateful in this conversation is you. Persivul has an unpopular opinion but doesn't appear to actually hate anyone. Not approving of homosexuality doesn't equal "I hate all gays" or "I want all gays to die" or "gays don't have the right to exist" or whatever you want to insert.

I feel like that has been explored so much that you should get that.

It more or less does though. Him claiming otherwise doesn't change that.

[chamber]

It also completely lacks the historical context of religious based persecution of homosexuals.

[chamber]

race isn't an intrinsic identity.

[chamber]

race isn't an intrinsic identity.

Is it not intrinsic, or is it not an identity?

Anything can be an identity.

[chamber]

race isn't an intrinsic identity.

Is it not intrinsic, or is it not an identity?

Anything can be an identity.

Ok, so race isn't intrinsic?

It's not an intrinsic identity. Race is a social construct. Identities around race exist. These identities are almost always within minority populations as push back against erasure of their culture or prejudice against them. I can't say that I think my whiteness is relevant to my identity in anyway. If racial identity was intrinsic it would have to be. On the other hand, straightness is absolutely relevant to my identity.

[chamber]

If you're saying race shouldn't be a big deal I agree.

I'm saying if you removed historic and present contexts that race could be like hair color or eye color or handedness. I don't think the same is true for gender or sexual orientation.

[chamber]

If you're saying race shouldn't be a big deal I agree.

I'm saying if you removed historic and present contexts that race could be like hair color or eye color or handedness. I don't think the same is true for gender or sexual orientation.

Why?

Why am I saying it, why do I think race could be like those, or why do I think the others couldn't be?

[chamber]

Like, as far as intersectional politics goes, it's been grilled into my head that race matters a lot.

Intersectional politics are about how the group is treated externally, not about identity.

[chamber]

race isn't an intrinsic identity.

Is it not intrinsic, or is it not an identity?

Anything can be an identity.

Ok, so race isn't intrinsic?

It's not an intrinsic identity. Race is a social construct. Identities around race exist. These identities are almost always within minority populations as push back against erasure of their culture or prejudice against them. I can't say that I think my whiteness is relevant to my identity in anyway. If racial identity was intrinsic it would have to be. On the other hand, straightness is absolutely relevant to my identity.

Ok, but by this interpretation of intrinsic identity, then how is it different from gender?
Gender is also a social construct.

The way gender is expressed is a social construct, I don't think gender itself is. I'm also not a scholar on this subject, so could be full of shit.

[chamber]

I think Psyche already made a good argument for why sexual orientation is different. Do you disagree with his points? Maybe my statement about removing context was more broadly encompassing than I intended it to be in your interpretation.

[chamber]

Let me try to say it this way. Imagine for me that there is no history, and a large group of people wake up on an island. There are lots of different characteristics that these people have, subsets with the same skin color, eye color, hair color, handedness, sex, gender, sexual orientation, height etc. I can imagine in such a case any of [hair color, eye color, skin color, handedness, height] never mattering socially, I can also imagine them developing in an ingroup-outgroup way like they did historically for some on earth and mattering. I can't imagine gender, sex, and sexual orientation not having impacts on the social relationships that develop.