{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
10/4/2014 2:51:06 PM
1
It just seems so much different looking at a Dog's eyes vs something thats obviously meant to be eaten
English
-
Are you religious?
-
Nope. Just logical
-
You do realize dog is a delicacy in some parts of the world?
-
Yeah... people also kill women for wearing skirts in other places too. Moot point
-
And you think it's okay to kill women for that?
-
You have to read all the text above. You misunderstood
-
Edited by Pendulate: 10/6/2014 10:33:14 AMA quick recap, then: You: "I can't see emotion in a cow's eyes. Therefore they don't have emotions." Me: "There's an explanation for that, and cows certainly have emotions." You: "But their eyes look so much different to a dog's. Therefore, cows are meant to be eaten." Me: "Are you religious?" You: "Nope. Just logical" Me: "Dog is eaten in many parts of the world. Clearly your "logic" is nothing more than culture bias." You: "But women get killed for wearing skirts in some cultures." Clearly you were trying to imply that just because a culture does something, doesn't mean it's right. The problem here is that this makes your own culture vulnerable of the same mistakes -- like eating cows. Your logic only extended as far as you wanted it to.
-
Nah, logic is logic. Eating dogs is -blam!-ing stupid. Killing women for wearing skirts is -blam!-ing stupid. Not eating eating meat is -blam!-ing stupid.
-
[url=http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic]Some research.[/url]
-
Yep, sounds about right. You really shouldn't have to research logic though. You're born with it. I have teeth made for eating meat, so thats what i do. Dont need Wikipedia for that
