15K posts - Ferguson97 AMA

[Ferguson97]

What makes it moral to kill animals for meat but not moral for humans to kill meat?
This assumes it's properly cooked, you aren't going to receive any diseases, there's no social stigma, and it tastes really good.

Because human beings posses a certain level of intelligence that makes it immoral to kill them for food.

Would you say this is because humans are superior to animals? Therefore it is justified to slaughter the animal but not the human. Is this based on economic value? What if they were all humans but they didn't experience pain or had a severe mental disorder not allowing them to think? Or they wanted to be eaten?

Or it's just the Ick factor, something based on emotions? Would it be OK to eat other primates similar to humans? Chimpanzee farms? What about Neanderthal farms (if that species still existed today, maybe we kept them around for the sole purpose of eating them)?

Where do you draw the line?

Yes, human beings are superior to animals. It is for this same reason that, given a binary choice between saving a human being an an animal's life, you should always choose the human.

On that note, to what extent would you ban others from eating human meat, monkey meat, chimpanzee meat, Neanderthal meat?

The consumption of human meat should be illegal. I don't know enough about the intelligence of other primates to formulate an opinion on whether or not the consumption of their flesh should be made illegal or not. Neanderthals don't exist anymore, but if they were somehow resurrected, yes the consumption of their flesh should be made illegal due to the level of intelligence they displayed.

I'm not much of a cannibal (or a vegetarian!) myself anyway, and I think any questions on whether or not it's moral to kill animals or humans for meat has already been made clear by God, but obviously you aren't going from this angle.

In fact, if you have some good secular moral arguments for eating meat that'd be even better.

Is this vegetarianism question actually earnest, or is it just a surrogate for "where do irreligious people get their values from if not from a 2000 year old book?"

To be clear, are you suggesting that the only reason you find cannibalism to be immoral is because God says so? Without religion, someone would have no reason to stop themselves from eating another human being?

[Ferguson97]

PING

I retain interest on your thoughts on the ethicality of consuming human infants.

I'm going to take the brave stance and come out against cannibalism.

Now that I've said that, ask me what you actually want to ask me, since you're obviously not really asking me about cannibalism and are just using that question as a starting point to go "ahaha! well if you oppose cannibalism, then logically you must also oppose [common thing that liberals support]"

So just go ahead and ask me the question you really want to ask me

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Abdullah effectively pointing out the problems with pro-meat-eating arguments is quite something.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Abdullah effectively pointing out the problems with pro-meat-eating arguments is quite something.

I have two friends who subscribe to a philosophy called "Utilitarianism" and are a vegans for "moral reasons".
Their arguments are very effective to use on ultra-liberal atheists who eat meat like Ferguson97.

They don't work on me though because I believe in God. 

Yes, these arguments aren't effective on people dumb enough to use scripture quotes as an excuse to believe whatever they wanted to believe anyway.

[President of the great nation of 🏳️‍⚧️]

If you want to see people who are slaves to their desires and society, you should look no further than yourself after you went through your gender surgery. 🤣

While I shouldn't speak for Scarlet, if I don't go through my gender surgery I'm gonna be a slave to deez nuts and also still society, and in the end, isn't that far worse?

[darklordoftech]

Where do you stand on marijuana and civil forfeiture?

[Ferguson97]

Abdullah effectively pointing out the problems with pro-meat-eating arguments is quite something.

I have two friends who subscribe to a philosophy called "Utilitarianism" and are a vegans for "moral reasons".
Their arguments are very effective to use on ultra-liberal atheists who eat meat like Ferguson97.

They don't work on me though because I believe in God.  

Is your argument that you don't have to come up with a defense for meat eating beyond "God says it's okay" but I do since I don't believe in God?

This whole "I only know things are bad because God tells me they're bad" is frankly horrifying. It suggests that you wouldn't know that rape and murder are bad unless God told you.

[Ferguson97]

Yes! Duh! For me if God says it's OK, it's OK simple as!

You're having real trouble though!
Again: What's the difference between eating babies and eating chickens in your worldview?

I noticed you are sidestepping every single question asked of you. You ignore them all. No answers? You are repeating yourself too!

Human beings inherently have a higher moral value than other animals.

Three options for you bro

Be cannibal
Be vegan
Leave your ideology for something like John Dule's

Which one?

Why are those my three options?

[John Dule]

Three options for you bro

Be cannibal
Be vegan
Leave your ideology for something like John Dule's

Which one?

Now I'm curious to hear why you think I wouldn't eat a baby.

[Ferguson97]

So what about someone who is mentally ill enough that he is less "intelligent" than an animal? Or if there was a farm animal who became smarter than humans? What about children who stopped experiencing brain development?

Let's say there was a whole group of humans being farmed, all of them being less "intelligent" than dolphins or chickens. Or is it suddenly about preventing pain for you for these individuals?

Intelligence is a sufficient, but not necessary, criteria for moral value. Now of course there are human beings who have severe moral deficiencies, but human beings have a very wide range of intelligence. we have everything from super geniuses to vegetables. Non-human animals are different in that there is very little variation in intelligence within individual species (ie, there is a very small gap between the smartest cow and the dumbest cow). The reason that it would be problematic to eat a member of a species whose members vary in intelligence is that the decision to designate which ones are acceptable to eat and which ones are not would be very arbitrary.

Do you now support abortion for young babies who are already born and have extreme Down's syndrome making them less intelligent (or even having less potential for intelligence) than a cow? Or even worse, killing the baby for food? (Once again, there's no social stigma in this society, it tastes good, there's no risk of disease)

If they're already born, it's not abortion. It's murder.

*Added: Also, I understand you think that euthanasia should be allowed as long as a person gives their "consent". What about if a fully intelligent, functional human requests their euthanasia in the form of being slaughtered like an animal and eaten by another human, and both parties "consent" to do this? What is the appropriate action that a government or society should undertake to discourage this? (or maybe you'd consider this fine, IDK)

No, I don't think that it should ever be legal to consume human flesh.

(similarly, your average person with no prior exposure would be disgusted by the LGBT unless they're socially conditioned to think it's OK, cue liberal screeching).

You're an imbecile.

On a related note, from your worldview, do you actually find anything wrong with infanticide? I know that you are fine with abortion up to birth (you actually celebrate this as being such an important choice women must have to be truly "free"), but what about say, one day or two days after birth? Is there a really big difference between a fetus that's not born yet and an infant that is? They're pretty much the same levels of intelligence, they both can independently survive outside the womb (and will succumb to the elements if they are left alone), they won't even know or care what's happening, so they both work the same way when it comes to your "consent" liberal paradigm. They can equally consent to being aborted, murdered, terminated, whatever you want to say.

Once born, a human being becomes a person in their own right. That is the difference between a 8 month, 29 day fetus and a 1-hour hold newborn baby. Logically speaking, there has to be a point at which someone obtains personhood. And I think that birth is morally and logically the point that makes the most sense. 

By the way, you can say what you really think. Plenty of your intellectual masters (as in the liberal philosophy hedonist ideology who the media and folks like you directly get their views from) are already embracing this idea, and talking about how it is incorrect to "condemn" people from these other ancient (and some modern!) cultures for infanticide when actually it's just as rational as abortion. This is what they're saying these days! (ex: Peter Singer, I don't really need to bring up examples though since this is going to be mainstreamed very soon by the big media and soon, if you don't step off your current path, you'll be arguing vehemently for it whether you like it or not)

This is a separate question that was independently thought of from the veganism thing and I wasn't aiming for originally, but I'd like to hear your thoughts on this as well.

At this point, I have my doubts that you're engaging in good faith, but I'll address this nonsense conspiracy theory anyway.

Nobody else tells me what to believe. All of my beliefs stem from my own internal moral compass and my personal experiences. Contrary to what you may believe, I don't sit glued to my television set waiting to get my talking points from Rachel Maddow.

I don't know exactly what figures you're referring to who are supposedly defending infanticide on grounds of cultural relativism, but these people are idiots and extremists. I firmly reject cultural relativism. Remember, you're talking to the guy who argues with OSR that we should hold the founding fathers morally accountable for owning slaves during a time when there was not yet a societal consensus.

If you think that infanticide is going to be "mainstreamed by big media very soon", then I would advise to touch some grass.

You are failing to present a fourth one.
I seriously think you should talk to a kindred spirit such as omegascarlet and turn vegan.
At least then your views will be internally consistent.

I'm not sure why you are framing my views as distinct from Dule's anyway.

Within the context of this debate, we are aligned every step of the way.
1. We are both irreligious.
2. We both eat meat.
3. We are both pro-choice on the issue of abortion.
4. We both find cannibalism to be wrong.

Where specifically do you see the contradiction between our views, or more specifically why do you believe that my broad progressivism and his broad libertarianism supersede any of the above 4 points on this issues specifically?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Why are you hostile to progressive Christianity?

Do you consider Furnace Fest to be an inherently problematic fest that it's immoral to attend? Being almost entirely white cis musicians, and promoting Christianity on some level?

[Ferguson97]

Why are you hostile to progressive Christianity?

I don't think that I am.

Do you consider Furnace Fest to be an inherently problematic fest that it's immoral to attend? Being almost entirely white cis musicians, and promoting Christianity on some level?

No, why would I?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Why are you hostile to progressive Christianity?

I don't think that I am.

I made some comment once about how Christianity brings freedom over oppression and you said something like "Tell that to all the LGBT people oppressed by Christianity", but obviously they aren't by progressive Christianity. And many are progressive Christians themselves.

Do you consider Furnace Fest to be an inherently problematic fest that it's immoral to attend? Being almost entirely white cis musicians, and promoting Christianity on some level?

No, why would I?

Because people of your style do seem to be big on hating on people for listening primarily to white cis musicians and thus that not listening to rap for example is inherently racist.

[Ferguson97]

I made some comment once about how Christianity brings freedom over oppression and you said something like "Tell that to all the LGBT people oppressed by Christianity", but obviously they aren't by progressive Christianity. And many are progressive Christians themselves.

I was obviously making a broad statement, since the majority of Christians do oppress LGBT people. Progressive Christians are a minority. I respect them, but they're a minority.

Because people of your style do seem to be big on hating on people for listening primarily to white cis musicians and thus that not listening to rap for example is inherently racist.

You have a very inaccurate understanding of "my style" then.

[Dr. MB]

your average person with no prior exposure would be disgusted by the LGBT unless they're socially conditioned to think it's OK, cue liberal screeching).

Conditioning goes both ways my friend. Biases are learned, they aren't ingrained.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Yes! Duh! For me if God says it's OK, it's OK simple as!

You're having real trouble though!
Again: What's the difference between eating babies and eating chickens in your worldview?

I noticed you are sidestepping every single question asked of you. You ignore them all. No answers? You are repeating yourself too!

Human beings inherently have a higher moral value than other animals.

We really don't.

[ꙮ]

Because people of your style do seem to be big on hating on people for listening primarily to white cis musicians and thus that not listening to rap for example is inherently racist.

You assert this almost constantly, yet have never provided any evidence for this supposedly widespread view. The rap gestapo works in secret, it would seem.

[Ferguson97]

And this leaves other questions, like let's say that some aliens came and landed on Earth, and they all were so intelligent that they could just zap us and eat us with their 1000000 IQ brains. What protest could we make against this? After all, you're just treating animals the same way these aliens would treat us?

I don't even know what you're asking. What protest could we make? "We are an intelligent species, please do not eat us." I'm talking about an absolute level of intelligence, not a relative level.

Ah, so basically you're saying that the reason you don't eat humans is totally arbitrary. If you were born in a society that it was normalized I've got no doubt you'd be OK with it under this mindset.

And you're basically saying that the only reason you find cannibalism to be morally wrong is because your religion says so.

If you were a) given irrefutable proof that God does not exist or b) heard God speak directly to you and told you that cannibalism was morally acceptable... you're telling me that you would have no reason to find cannibalism wrong?

The only reason why you find things right or wrong is because of your religion? You don't have any sense of your own internal moral compass?

What makes it murder one second after it's born and not one second before it's born?
That's when life begins? These are largely the same exact creatures with the same exact proportions and characteristics. In fact, it's less dangerous for someone to give childbirth than to have an abortion at that stage in their pregnancy.

It doesn't matter where the cutoff is, it's always going to be arbitrary. If you want to completely ban it after the 1st trimester, then you're still making that decision. What's the difference between a fetus on the last day of the 1st trimester and the first day of the 2nd trimester?

Unless you believe that life begins at conception, the cutoff is going to be arbitrary since you're inevitably going to have to do a hardline decision "yes it's okay at 11:59 but not at 12:00" when writing laws.

There are very few valid secular criticisms of infanticide under a consent-based worldview, and you (predictably) are failing to come up with one.

I've addressed this numerous times, you're just too stupid to read.

Once born, they become a person in their own right.

Then why can't you come up with an actual reason how it's different than eating chimpanzee meat? You can just give up BTW and just say that's the way you irrationally feel, that you have a taboo against cannibalism that's a phobia and completely irrational.

I personally do not think that opposition to cannibalism is "irrational", but if you have a deep desire to consume human flesh, then I suggest you consult a therapist.

What's the difference between them though? What makes this logical? Or moral? They have the same characteristics, once again.
Neither of them can consent either. At least the point of viability has some logic to it instead of pure emotion.

BTW are you seriously gonna stop a woman from killing her already born-one day old infant baby with down's syndrome who wanted an abortion but couldn't get it because of monetary reasons? That's going against the woman's choice. And the woman's choice matters! (as you say)

See, this is why I don't think you're arguing in good faith. I don't believe that someone could possibly be this stupid.

"It goes against the woman's choice" is a nonsensical critique that you're making. I will say this for a fourth time, since it's clearly not getting through to you: once born, they become a separate human being in their own right. They are separate from the mother.

IDK man, you have said before that your "party" and "ideology" are exactly the same.
You don't sit glued to your television set, but what you do is sit glued to social media and take on whatever the latest liberal zeitgeist of the day is. I don't think you've ever disagreed with it once.

Have you ever examined your beliefs, or do you just unconditionally accept whatever the Quran tells you to believe?

It's pretty tough to argue the moral and logical argument for infanticide being prohibited while late-term abortion is allowed. That's why the separation between the two is gonna be seriously debated in the Western world in a few decades (if late-term abortion actually becomes accepted en-masse by society).

No it's actually very easy to argue.

For the fifth time: once born, they become a human being in their own right.

I disagree with you strongly. This is the natural bias of every human society everywhere at large, to be intolerant of LGBT and cannibalism. And if it's a bias, it's a bias from God, and not men. Which is why I am confident in taking that position.

Another thing to realize is that societies where it is normalized and promoted are destroyed, or these elements within them disappear within a few decades or centuries, such as the people of Lot, Ancient Greece, and Ancient Rome (usually in combination with other heavily correlated factors). Since it's not a sustainable way to live; it destroys family values, and even the very idea of what a family is, leading to infertility and an aged and shrinking population. We know that LGBT is (at least) 75% caused by non-genetic community and environmental influences, which is what is leading to its recent rise in American society, but it isn't likely to stick around for centuries due to the way it destroys itself. So we can determine that very few people are born gay, rather, they are indoctrinated into it, and even under an entirely secular worldview, it's tough to argue against evolution making Homo sapiens averse to homosexual behavior.

To say that there is no "secular reason for opposing cannibalism or infanticide" is just nonsensical, because it suggests that the only reason you oppose those things is because your religion says that it's wrong. The logical implication of what you're suggesting is that if you were given irrefutable proof that God does not exist, there would be nothing stopping you from killing and eating newborn babies.

To say that "God says so" is a sufficient argument against something, and that irreligious people must come up with a dissertation for why something is wrong, is a major cop-out and suggests to me that you have never once critically examined your own belief system.

The only reason you're a Muslim is because you were born into a Muslim family. If you were born into a Christian or Hindu family, you'd be just as confident that your beliefs are correct.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Because people of your style do seem to be big on hating on people for listening primarily to white cis musicians and thus that not listening to rap for example is inherently racist.

You assert this almost constantly, yet have never provided any evidence for this supposedly widespread view. The rap gestapo works in secret, it would seem.

https://li-charmaine-anne.medium.com/was-i-racist-for-hating-rap-adb8e206d2e2

[ꙮ]

Because people of your style do seem to be big on hating on people for listening primarily to white cis musicians and thus that not listening to rap for example is inherently racist.

You assert this almost constantly, yet have never provided any evidence for this supposedly widespread view. The rap gestapo works in secret, it would seem.

https://li-charmaine-anne.medium.com/was-i-racist-for-hating-rap-adb8e206d2e2

Anyone can write an article for medium.com, you might as well have linked a YouTube comment for evidence of this view being widespread.

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

Congratulations to Abdullah (and to Ferguson who keeps taking the bait) for shaping a thread where BRTD complaining about mythical wokesters who oppose all music made by cis white men and want to force him to listen to rap to not be racist is not the most tedious part, takes some effort.

[fhtagn]

Well, at least Fergie openly admits he's Islamophobic now.

[Torie]

your average person with no prior exposure would be disgusted by the LGBT unless they're socially conditioned to think it's OK, cue liberal screeching).

Conditioning goes both ways my friend. Biases are learned, they aren't ingrained.

I disagree with you strongly. This is the natural bias of every human society everywhere at large, to be intolerant of LGBT and cannibalism. And if it's a bias, it's a bias from God, and not men. Which is why I am confident in taking that position.

Another thing to realize is that societies where it is normalized and promoted are destroyed, or these elements within them disappear within a few decades or centuries, such as the people of Lot, Ancient Greece, and Ancient Rome (usually in combination with other heavily correlated factors). Since it's not a sustainable way to live; it destroys family values, and even the very idea of what a family is, leading to infertility and an aged and shrinking population. We know that LGBT is (at least) 75% caused by non-genetic community and environmental influences, which is what is leading to its recent rise in American society, but it isn't likely to stick around for centuries due to the way it destroys itself. So we can determine that very few people are born gay, rather, they are indoctrinated into it, and even under an entirely secular worldview, it's tough to argue against evolution making Homo sapiens averse to homosexual behavior.

I assume the 75% figure comes from this bit of a sentence:

"We performed a genome-wide association study (GWAS) on 477,522 individuals, revealing five loci significantly associated with same-sex sexual behavior. In aggregate, all tested genetic variants accounted for 8 to 25% of variation in same-sex sexual behavior, only partially overlapped between males and females, ... ."

Assuming that the study was well done, what would be accurate to say is that systematic differences in sexual attraction based on genetic differences have not been documented to account for more than 25% of such behavior based on the research to date. That does not mean that one can conclude that genetics does not account for a higher percentage, it is just that studies looking for smoking gun gay genes have not yet found evidence for more. The combination of genetic patterns may be more subtle and complex, and if so, have not been teased out to date. Be patient.

Your sentence that the balance is "caused by non-genetic community and environmental factors" seems reasonable, but then  characterizing such factors as "indoctrination" into being gay is anything but reasonable. Unless you think people going gay due to their life experiences, their relationships with their family, who they meet in life that they want to spend time with, is "indoctrination," which would be a gross distortion of what the word means. So is the bit about "destroying family values," making heterosexual behavior a synonym for family values. That is also tendentious and a butchering of the term "family values." I am not letting those who think my choices in life a fail due to my sexual attraction and with whom I want to be, take exclusive ownership of that term, and away from me. I also believe in family values.

Anyway, if gays (LGBTQ) is on its way out of its own accord due to natural selection, why don't you all leave us alone in the meantime? We are self liquidating. Be happy.

Natural selection and evolution may not be as effective as you might wish. You see, gays often are care givers to others, and support them, because perhaps they do not have issue of their own to worry about, so can help others in the clan to survive and prosper, so their survival rate is better, with say a recessive gay gene.

And then there are all those lesbians and gay men who are having kids now through surrogates and artificial insemination to consider as well.

My opinion is that the case against gays that you adduced badly needs a tuneup. It is outdated and stale*, and increasingly impeached by facts on the ground.

*The bit about Greece and Rome going down the tubes due to the gay is just embarrassingly a non factual statement. That one is even worse than the one that the Romans were all poisoned to death and went insane during to excessive lead consumption from drinking out of goblets made out of lead, and not much better than the claim that allowing excessive immigration that degraded the purity of the race, leading to its switching out its alpha status for beta status, and thus vulnerable to the alpha barbarians at the gate.

Finally, the mods should not delete your post, wrong that it is. That is my request. I do not have that much confidence that my request will be honored, but maybe since I embedded it in my response to it. Keep hope alive.

Cheers

[Ferguson97]

If God spoke to me directly and told me that cannibalism was morally acceptable, yes, I would take that. Who am I to go against the word of God. I still wouldn't do it (I'm averse to eating humans already), but I wouldn't be able to condemn people who do.

Why wouldn't you be able to condemn it?

Let's say God spoke to you and told you that cannibalism was OK. What would you do? Would you still reject that?

Of course I would reject that. Creating the universe does not make him an authority on morality.

So eating humans is irrational but eating chimpanzees is rational?
What did the chimpanzees ever do to you?

What does "rational" mean in this context?

You could have told me this initially, how you think that separation from the mother is your main criteria for something being "life". IDK though, this is more a cop-out than anything else.

You're pretty young and are probably gonna be around in 2050. I guess you'll just have to see what the world looks like then.

If literal infanticide is accepted in Western society in 2050, I will wire you my entire life savings. Feel free to contact me, assuming these severs are still active then.

Yes, very much. That's why I'm a Muslim today. I have had struggles and doubts with my faith in the past, but upon critical examination I came to believe that Islam was the most logical, simple, and consistent religion.

And it just so happens to be the religion that you were born into? Aren't you lucky.

This is possibly the most bigoted and islamophobic post I've read on this website. You're saying that if someone is going to follow Islam completely and actually be a faithful Muslim who believes that the actions of the LGBT movement is wrong, they have to become terrorists who kill innocent random people. This is as dumb as saying well you believe alcohol is wrong and is bad for society, why don't you go and start killing everyone who drinks alcohol?

I think that the stuff that goes on towards LGBT people BTW like bullying, harrassment, that's wrong too. If I have a friend who's LGBT, I'm not gonna be bullying or harrassing him, instead I'll treat him with compassion and the same way I treat everyone else (and I have one so this isn't a hypothetical).

ISIS and other terrorist groups BTW are condemned by every group of Islamic scholars in the world, and do things such as suicide bombing (which is not allowed in Islam), impressing people into slavery, torturing people, burning people alive etc. etc. etc.. Most people who join ISIS were irreligious before they joined it as well. Most of its victims are actual Muslims.

It's a damn terrorist group and should not be associated with Islam.

Read this: https://rissc.jo/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Letter_to_Baghdadi-EN.pdf

You have previously compared homosexuals to pedophiles, so forgive me if I don't believe you when you say you don't hold radical beliefs on this subject. 

It's rich of you to call anyone bigoted when you say the horrific things you say about LGBT people.

Well, at least Fergie openly admits he's Islamophobic now.

I'm not Islamaphobic. There are many Muslims who don't despise gay people. But Abdullah despise gay people, so I view him with the same contempt that I would for a homophobic Christian or a homophobic Hindu.

BRTD is very religious and is not bigoted. They should take a page out of his book.

[John Dule]

Well, at least Fergie openly admits he's Islamophobic now.

Abdullah is providing a very useful service on this site. He's helping braindead progressives understand that Islam is the enemy of free and liberal societies.