preppy/avi don't look

it's socially acceptable here to eat cows, NOT dogs. that is why one seems to have personality and the other doesn't. even my dad admits this, and he eats meat. cows are smarter than cats, pigs are nicer, cleaner and friendlier than dogs... and smarter! so why? because people are socialized. some people are cannibals for the same reason.

either way, i just dislike tofu and you dont have to eat it if you're vegan / vegetarian (unbeknownst to so many people)
 
coming on the heels of my rabbit post, i nevertheless agree with preppy. pigs are SUPER smart, and supercute when they're not all sowed out, yet they are OK to eat (and even in cultures they're not, it's not because they're cute/smart!)
 
I'm not talking about subjectivity, and emotional relations. You can also make a utilitarian argument that, for example, dogs are so much more useful for things other than food, because of their special bond with humans (sheepherding, drugsniffing, companionship, guarding, whatever). But I was talking about objectively.
 
is socialization a bad thing? it's a moral judgment call. i mean, who do you know that ISNT a social conformist? i don't know anyone outside of insane asylums that are not conformists in one sense or another. but i am just giving you the real plausible psychological explanation, plain, truth... simple... to the point, of why people here think it's okay to eat cows and not dogs. it's because of how we learned to socially interact with them. it's our mind's way of working out what would otherwise be an impossible contradiction.
if you think closely, you will realize that we all do this very often, how else do we rationalize working our lives away or dating certain people or doing drugs or living in a certain place etc etc? we rationalize our existence and our actions with socially acceptable behavior that is either acceptable on a huge level (for things that are taboo especially) or we find acceptance in subcultures.
 
also, i mean, if you want to get into semantics, i could say 'you are just using words, why should i listen to you or believe you are telling the truth or believe that you are saying what i think you are saying and not using attributions to those words that i do not agree with? etc etc etc' down the long twisting road of philiosophical ass talk... so you have to keep the discussion on a relative level or you bury yourself in your own word play paradoxes.
 
I read this textual analysis of "The Murders in the Rue Morgue" (by Barthes, actually, I think!) that was like 600 pages long. EVERY SINGLE WORD CHOICE was analyzed. It was really cool. :)
 
I only remembered because as I posted I was thinking about the length he spent discussing the reason for choosing "m." not "Mr.", in fact "M." not "Monsieur", and "Valdemar" instead of "Smith", and...

whatever, you get the point.
 
i hear you.

that sort of thing during an argument drives me mad tho, like someone trying to distract you from their lack of knowledge. like, if i want to play word games i'll do a crossword with my grandma.
 
okay, how many people have their own feelings? everyone, right? are you saying they are NOT INFLUENCED AT ALL by outside social forces? well, then, you live in a bubble and you are the most strong willed person in the world.

or you're fooling yourself.
 
Originally posted by Xtokalon
yet we live in a society that adore cats, not that I would eat cats.

where do you live--the Middle East? I am mad pissed how Western society values dogs over cats...it's soooo rare for cartoons or movies to portray the cats as the good guys and the dogs as bad. when that stupid Cats & Dogs movie came out, i was like "i guarantee the cats are evil and the dogs are good". and so it was.
 
fags.bmp