Survivor: Game Changers - Survivor Jackpot

130 posts / 0 new
Last post

Just wanna say that I would of definitely killed the goats had I been there, I was extremley irritated by the hypocrisy shown during the episode, I even laughed my ass off when that one girl was like "we have chicken who are meant to be killed, so it doesn't make sense to kill the goats" it's like girl...do you even hear yourself.

Whats wrong with saying that? Just because they're both animals doesn't mean it's the same situation.. Chicken is a common type of meat in the US as opposed to goat. And the chickens were brought in strictly to be eaten or supply eggs, they weren't roaming around in their home like the goats were.

And the goat had a baby. Sure, chickens have babies too, but the goat and baby were together and killing the mother with the baby right there and knowing you're leaving it orphaned isn't easy on the mind.

DarkFights wrote:

Just wanna say that I would of definitely killed the goats had I been there, I was extremley irritated by the hypocrisy shown during the episode, I even laughed my ass off when that one girl was like "we have chicken who are meant to be killed, so it doesn't make sense to kill the goats" it's like girl...do you even hear yourself.

Whats wrong with saying that? Just because they're both animals doesn't mean it's the same situation.. Chicken is a common type of meat in the US as opposed to goat. And the chickens were brought in strictly to be eaten or supply eggs, they weren't roaming around in their home like the goats were.And the goat had a baby. Sure, chickens have babies too, but the goat and baby were together and killing the mother with the baby right there and knowing you're leaving it orphaned isn't easy on the mind.

"Chicken is a common type of meat in the US as opposed to goat" okay....and ? I don't get how this argument has any weight, the fact that goats aren't a common nourishment in a country is completely and entirely irrelvant to this situation.

"And the chickens were brought in strictly to be eaten or supply eggs, they weren't roaming around in their home like the goats were" I don't get how this argument has any weight either, they could easily just tie the goats as they did at one point, and benefit from its milk and meat. What exactly is the issue with that ? Especially when you're extremely early in a game with an environment such as survivor's.

"Sure, chickens have babies too, but the goat and baby were together and killing the mother with the baby right there and knowing you're leaving it orphaned isn't easy on the mind." - So by your logic, it is completely permissible to feed off of the chicken's eggs and not the baby goat ? You're pretty much ripping the "poor chicken's" babies out of her hands, so how is that easier on the mind than killing the goat or the baby goat ? 

A goat is killed and eaten every single day, whether its a baby or not, so it should be even more morally permissible to butcher an animal in the conditions of survivor if it wasn't before.

 

I also remember JT saying that he is okay with finding a buck and killing it, but not doing the same to a damn goat. Fuck me in the ear.

I love how Caleb tried throwing shade at hali but she flipped it right back at him. 

Also Sierra's hair looked amazing last night 

I thought they weren't allowed to hunt, isn't it against the rules?  Or does that only apply to native species. 

This episode was kinda...meh. I like Caleb a whole lot more on Survivor than I do Big Brother.

I hate that Troyzan found the idol.

Tai....ugh. Sandra irked me too.

Serious question: What seasons was Andrea on? I really can't remember lol.

she was on redemption island and fans vs faves 2. i think shes played basically the same game both those seasons. wouldnt shock me if she plays the same way again this time around.

"Chicken is a common type of meat in the US as opposed to goat" okay....and ? I don't get how this argument has any weight, the fact that goats aren't a common nourishment in a country is completely and entirely irrelvant to this situation."And the chickens were brought in strictly to be eaten or supply eggs, they weren't roaming around in their home like the goats were" I don't get how this argument has any weight either, they could easily just tie the goats as they did at one point, and benefit from its milk and meat. What exactly is the issue with that ? Especially when you're extremely early in a game with an environment such as survivor's."Sure, chickens have babies too, but the goat and baby were together and killing the mother with the baby right there and knowing you're leaving it orphaned isn't easy on the mind." - So by your logic, it is completely permissible to feed off of the chicken's eggs and not the baby goat ? You're pretty much ripping the "poor chicken's" babies out of her hands, so how is that easier on the mind than killing the goat or the baby goat ? A goat is killed and eaten every single day, whether its a baby or not, so it should be even more morally permissible to butcher an animal in the conditions of survivor if it wasn't before. 

Would you kill any animal you found there then ? Like a dog or cat ? 

DarkFights wrote:

"Chicken is a common type of meat in the US as opposed to goat" okay....and ? I don't get how this argument has any weight, the fact that goats aren't a common nourishment in a country is completely and entirely irrelvant to this situation."And the chickens were brought in strictly to be eaten or supply eggs, they weren't roaming around in their home like the goats were" I don't get how this argument has any weight either, they could easily just tie the goats as they did at one point, and benefit from its milk and meat. What exactly is the issue with that ? Especially when you're extremely early in a game with an environment such as survivor's."Sure, chickens have babies too, but the goat and baby were together and killing the mother with the baby right there and knowing you're leaving it orphaned isn't easy on the mind." - So by your logic, it is completely permissible to feed off of the chicken's eggs and not the baby goat ? You're pretty much ripping the "poor chicken's" babies out of her hands, so how is that easier on the mind than killing the goat or the baby goat ? A goat is killed and eaten every single day, whether its a baby or not, so it should be even more morally permissible to butcher an animal in the conditions of survivor if it wasn't before. 

Would you kill any animal you found there then ? Like a dog or cat ? 

Obviously not.

The Goat debate. Many people eat goat meat in America and drink their milk. They could've slaughtered both, the mom and kid. If you're truly starving, then go for it. They do have chickens, but you can't get a lot of meat from them. And it was around their camp. They are wild and could've ruined their crops. If they aren't endangered, I don't see anything wrong with killing them for food consumption.  

InternationalFan wrote:

DarkFights wrote:"Chicken is a common type of meat in the US as opposed to goat" okay....and ? I don't get how this argument has any weight, the fact that goats aren't a common nourishment in a country is completely and entirely irrelvant to this situation."And the chickens were brought in strictly to be eaten or supply eggs, they weren't roaming around in their home like the goats were" I don't get how this argument has any weight either, they could easily just tie the goats as they did at one point, and benefit from its milk and meat. What exactly is the issue with that ? Especially when you're extremely early in a game with an environment such as survivor's."Sure, chickens have babies too, but the goat and baby were together and killing the mother with the baby right there and knowing you're leaving it orphaned isn't easy on the mind." - So by your logic, it is completely permissible to feed off of the chicken's eggs and not the baby goat ? You're pretty much ripping the "poor chicken's" babies out of her hands, so how is that easier on the mind than killing the goat or the baby goat ? A goat is killed and eaten every single day, whether its a baby or not, so it should be even more morally permissible to butcher an animal in the conditions of survivor if it wasn't before. 

Would you kill any animal you found there then ? Like a dog or cat ? 

Obviously not.

So its fine killing goats but not dogs or cats ? So why can't it be fine for someone to kill chickens and not goats?

The goat thing is like seeing sausage made. It's easier when you don't see it die lol.

DarkFights wrote:

InternationalFan wrote:

DarkFights wrote:"Chicken is a common type of meat in the US as opposed to goat" okay....and ? I don't get how this argument has any weight, the fact that goats aren't a common nourishment in a country is completely and entirely irrelvant to this situation."And the chickens were brought in strictly to be eaten or supply eggs, they weren't roaming around in their home like the goats were" I don't get how this argument has any weight either, they could easily just tie the goats as they did at one point, and benefit from its milk and meat. What exactly is the issue with that ? Especially when you're extremely early in a game with an environment such as survivor's."Sure, chickens have babies too, but the goat and baby were together and killing the mother with the baby right there and knowing you're leaving it orphaned isn't easy on the mind." - So by your logic, it is completely permissible to feed off of the chicken's eggs and not the baby goat ? You're pretty much ripping the "poor chicken's" babies out of her hands, so how is that easier on the mind than killing the goat or the baby goat ? A goat is killed and eaten every single day, whether its a baby or not, so it should be even more morally permissible to butcher an animal in the conditions of survivor if it wasn't before. 

Would you kill any animal you found there then ? Like a dog or cat ? 

Obviously not.

So its fine killing goats but not dogs or cats ? So why can't it be fine for someone to kill chickens and not goats?

You asked me what I would do, not what I find fine or not.

Many people around the world feed off of dogs, cats etc...because of their culture, beliefs or religion, so what's considered fine to you is may completely differ from what I find fine or not which may also be considered absurd by another human being around the world, so "what's fine" is completely subjective.

And yes, I believe that it's fine to kill a goat, a chicken, a rabbit, a pigeon, a fish, a sheep etc...and not dogs or cats mainly because I view them as companions instead of food sources. Simple as that. It's fine to not want to kill a goat, but the arguments that were made by some of the contestants were hypocritical, that's where my issue lied.

InternationalFan wrote:

DarkFights wrote:

InternationalFan wrote:
DarkFights wrote:"Chicken is a common type of meat in the US as opposed to goat" okay....and ? I don't get how this argument has any weight, the fact that goats aren't a common nourishment in a country is completely and entirely irrelvant to this situation."And the chickens were brought in strictly to be eaten or supply eggs, they weren't roaming around in their home like the goats were" I don't get how this argument has any weight either, they could easily just tie the goats as they did at one point, and benefit from its milk and meat. What exactly is the issue with that ? Especially when you're extremely early in a game with an environment such as survivor's."Sure, chickens have babies too, but the goat and baby were together and killing the mother with the baby right there and knowing you're leaving it orphaned isn't easy on the mind." - So by your logic, it is completely permissible to feed off of the chicken's eggs and not the baby goat ? You're pretty much ripping the "poor chicken's" babies out of her hands, so how is that easier on the mind than killing the goat or the baby goat ? A goat is killed and eaten every single day, whether its a baby or not, so it should be even more morally permissible to butcher an animal in the conditions of survivor if it wasn't before. 

Would you kill any animal you found there then ? Like a dog or cat ? 

Obviously not.

So its fine killing goats but not dogs or cats ? So why can't it be fine for someone to kill chickens and not goats?

You asked me what I would do, not what I find fine or not.Many people around the world feed off of dogs, cats etc...because of their culture, beliefs or religion, so what's considered fine to you is may completely differ from what I find fine or not which may also be considered absurd by another human being around the world, so "what's fine" is completely subjective.And yes, I believe that it's fine to kill a goat, a chicken, a rabbit, a pigeon, a fish, a sheep etc...and not dogs or cats mainly because I view them as companions instead of food sources. Simple as that. It's fine to not want to kill a goat, but the arguments that were made by some of the contestants were hypocritical, that's where my issue lied.

Well there you go. What is considered fine is subjective. So just because you are fine with something doesn't automatically mean other people have to be. If people think it's fine to kill chickens but not goats it's their own choice. Nothing hypocritical, just different opinions. 

DarkFights wrote:

InternationalFan wrote:

DarkFights wrote:
InternationalFan wrote:
DarkFights wrote:"Chicken is a common type of meat in the US as opposed to goat" okay....and ? I don't get how this argument has any weight, the fact that goats aren't a common nourishment in a country is completely and entirely irrelvant to this situation."And the chickens were brought in strictly to be eaten or supply eggs, they weren't roaming around in their home like the goats were" I don't get how this argument has any weight either, they could easily just tie the goats as they did at one point, and benefit from its milk and meat. What exactly is the issue with that ? Especially when you're extremely early in a game with an environment such as survivor's."Sure, chickens have babies too, but the goat and baby were together and killing the mother with the baby right there and knowing you're leaving it orphaned isn't easy on the mind." - So by your logic, it is completely permissible to feed off of the chicken's eggs and not the baby goat ? You're pretty much ripping the "poor chicken's" babies out of her hands, so how is that easier on the mind than killing the goat or the baby goat ? A goat is killed and eaten every single day, whether its a baby or not, so it should be even more morally permissible to butcher an animal in the conditions of survivor if it wasn't before. 

Would you kill any animal you found there then ? Like a dog or cat ? 

Obviously not.

So its fine killing goats but not dogs or cats ? So why can't it be fine for someone to kill chickens and not goats?

You asked me what I would do, not what I find fine or not.Many people around the world feed off of dogs, cats etc...because of their culture, beliefs or religion, so what's considered fine to you is may completely differ from what I find fine or not which may also be considered absurd by another human being around the world, so "what's fine" is completely subjective.And yes, I believe that it's fine to kill a goat, a chicken, a rabbit, a pigeon, a fish, a sheep etc...and not dogs or cats mainly because I view them as companions instead of food sources. Simple as that. It's fine to not want to kill a goat, but the arguments that were made by some of the contestants were hypocritical, that's where my issue lied.

Well there you go. What is considered fine is subjective. So just because you are fine with something doesn't automatically mean other people have to be. If people think it's fine to kill chickens but not goats it's their own choice. Nothing hypocritical, just different opinions. 

You're not getting it. They were all fine with killing the goat until their "conscious" changerd their minds, just because it's a baby/female goat then it's immoral, JT even said that he is willing to find a buck and kill it instead, that's where the hypocrisy sits. And plus, we're dealing with western civilisation where goats and chicken are pretty much in the same category when it comes to the food insudtry.

InternationalFan wrote:

DarkFights wrote:

InternationalFan wrote:
DarkFights wrote:
InternationalFan wrote:
DarkFights wrote:"Chicken is a common type of meat in the US as opposed to goat" okay....and ? I don't get how this argument has any weight, the fact that goats aren't a common nourishment in a country is completely and entirely irrelvant to this situation."And the chickens were brought in strictly to be eaten or supply eggs, they weren't roaming around in their home like the goats were" I don't get how this argument has any weight either, they could easily just tie the goats as they did at one point, and benefit from its milk and meat. What exactly is the issue with that ? Especially when you're extremely early in a game with an environment such as survivor's."Sure, chickens have babies too, but the goat and baby were together and killing the mother with the baby right there and knowing you're leaving it orphaned isn't easy on the mind." - So by your logic, it is completely permissible to feed off of the chicken's eggs and not the baby goat ? You're pretty much ripping the "poor chicken's" babies out of her hands, so how is that easier on the mind than killing the goat or the baby goat ? A goat is killed and eaten every single day, whether its a baby or not, so it should be even more morally permissible to butcher an animal in the conditions of survivor if it wasn't before. 

Would you kill any animal you found there then ? Like a dog or cat ? 

Obviously not.

So its fine killing goats but not dogs or cats ? So why can't it be fine for someone to kill chickens and not goats?

You asked me what I would do, not what I find fine or not.Many people around the world feed off of dogs, cats etc...because of their culture, beliefs or religion, so what's considered fine to you is may completely differ from what I find fine or not which may also be considered absurd by another human being around the world, so "what's fine" is completely subjective.And yes, I believe that it's fine to kill a goat, a chicken, a rabbit, a pigeon, a fish, a sheep etc...and not dogs or cats mainly because I view them as companions instead of food sources. Simple as that. It's fine to not want to kill a goat, but the arguments that were made by some of the contestants were hypocritical, that's where my issue lied.

Well there you go. What is considered fine is subjective. So just because you are fine with something doesn't automatically mean other people have to be. If people think it's fine to kill chickens but not goats it's their own choice. Nothing hypocritical, just different opinions. 

You're not getting it. They were all fine with killing the goat until their "conscious" changerd their minds, just because it's a baby/female goat then it's immoral, JT even said that he is willing to find a buck and kill it instead, that's where the hypocrisy sits. And plus, we're dealing with western civilisation where goats and chicken are pretty much in the same category when it comes to the food insudtry.

Changing your mind isnt hypocrisy. They realised afterwards that they werent comfortable with it. Hunger can do that to you. If not killing a mama and its baby is where they stand in terms of what they consider fine or not, that their opinion. I eat chicken all the time but if i had to kill it myself everytime i would go vegan. Whereas many people would be fine with doing it. As you said, it's subjective. So while you may be fine with killing a mama goat and its baby (which you wouldn't necessarily be a bad person for doing) it doesn't mean everyone else in western civilisation should as well.

take this shit elsewhere holy fuck

take this shit elsewhere holy fuck

Lol it has direct relevancy to this episode. Let us figure it out.

DarkFights wrote:

InternationalFan wrote:

DarkFights wrote:
InternationalFan wrote:
DarkFights wrote:
InternationalFan wrote:
DarkFights wrote:"Chicken is a common type of meat in the US as opposed to goat" okay....and ? I don't get how this argument has any weight, the fact that goats aren't a common nourishment in a country is completely and entirely irrelvant to this situation."And the chickens were brought in strictly to be eaten or supply eggs, they weren't roaming around in their home like the goats were" I don't get how this argument has any weight either, they could easily just tie the goats as they did at one point, and benefit from its milk and meat. What exactly is the issue with that ? Especially when you're extremely early in a game with an environment such as survivor's."Sure, chickens have babies too, but the goat and baby were together and killing the mother with the baby right there and knowing you're leaving it orphaned isn't easy on the mind." - So by your logic, it is completely permissible to feed off of the chicken's eggs and not the baby goat ? You're pretty much ripping the "poor chicken's" babies out of her hands, so how is that easier on the mind than killing the goat or the baby goat ? A goat is killed and eaten every single day, whether its a baby or not, so it should be even more morally permissible to butcher an animal in the conditions of survivor if it wasn't before. 

Would you kill any animal you found there then ? Like a dog or cat ? 

Obviously not.

So its fine killing goats but not dogs or cats ? So why can't it be fine for someone to kill chickens and not goats?

You asked me what I would do, not what I find fine or not.Many people around the world feed off of dogs, cats etc...because of their culture, beliefs or religion, so what's considered fine to you is may completely differ from what I find fine or not which may also be considered absurd by another human being around the world, so "what's fine" is completely subjective.And yes, I believe that it's fine to kill a goat, a chicken, a rabbit, a pigeon, a fish, a sheep etc...and not dogs or cats mainly because I view them as companions instead of food sources. Simple as that. It's fine to not want to kill a goat, but the arguments that were made by some of the contestants were hypocritical, that's where my issue lied.

Well there you go. What is considered fine is subjective. So just because you are fine with something doesn't automatically mean other people have to be. If people think it's fine to kill chickens but not goats it's their own choice. Nothing hypocritical, just different opinions. 

You're not getting it. They were all fine with killing the goat until their "conscious" changerd their minds, just because it's a baby/female goat then it's immoral, JT even said that he is willing to find a buck and kill it instead, that's where the hypocrisy sits. And plus, we're dealing with western civilisation where goats and chicken are pretty much in the same category when it comes to the food insudtry.

Changing your mind isnt hypocrisy. They realised afterwards that they werent comfortable with it. Hunger can do that to you. If not killing a mama and its baby is where they stand in terms of what they consider fine or not, that their opinion. I eat chicken all the time but if i had to kill it myself everytime i would go vegan. Whereas many people would be fine with doing it. As you said, it's subjective. So while you may be fine with killing a mama goat and its baby (which you wouldn't necessarily be a bad person for doing) it doesn't mean everyone else in western civilisation should as well.

I stated that stating that you are willing to kill a buck but not a goat or a baby goat is whats hypocritical, not the act of changing your mind or not wanting to kill an animal. Also the fact that they're willing to kill the chicken but not the goat, is also hypocritical in my eyes, what's the diffrence between the two ?

take this shit elsewhere holy fuck

You can just easily avoid this thread...

you 2 can just as easily take it to PM to discuss what you deem is fine to kill and eat for food and what isnt. 

InternationalFan wrote:

DarkFights wrote:

InternationalFan wrote:
DarkFights wrote:
InternationalFan wrote:
DarkFights wrote:
InternationalFan wrote:
DarkFights wrote:"Chicken is a common type of meat in the US as opposed to goat" okay....and ? I don't get how this argument has any weight, the fact that goats aren't a common nourishment in a country is completely and entirely irrelvant to this situation."And the chickens were brought in strictly to be eaten or supply eggs, they weren't roaming around in their home like the goats were" I don't get how this argument has any weight either, they could easily just tie the goats as they did at one point, and benefit from its milk and meat. What exactly is the issue with that ? Especially when you're extremely early in a game with an environment such as survivor's."Sure, chickens have babies too, but the goat and baby were together and killing the mother with the baby right there and knowing you're leaving it orphaned isn't easy on the mind." - So by your logic, it is completely permissible to feed off of the chicken's eggs and not the baby goat ? You're pretty much ripping the "poor chicken's" babies out of her hands, so how is that easier on the mind than killing the goat or the baby goat ? A goat is killed and eaten every single day, whether its a baby or not, so it should be even more morally permissible to butcher an animal in the conditions of survivor if it wasn't before. 

Would you kill any animal you found there then ? Like a dog or cat ? 

Obviously not.

So its fine killing goats but not dogs or cats ? So why can't it be fine for someone to kill chickens and not goats?

You asked me what I would do, not what I find fine or not.Many people around the world feed off of dogs, cats etc...because of their culture, beliefs or religion, so what's considered fine to you is may completely differ from what I find fine or not which may also be considered absurd by another human being around the world, so "what's fine" is completely subjective.And yes, I believe that it's fine to kill a goat, a chicken, a rabbit, a pigeon, a fish, a sheep etc...and not dogs or cats mainly because I view them as companions instead of food sources. Simple as that. It's fine to not want to kill a goat, but the arguments that were made by some of the contestants were hypocritical, that's where my issue lied.

Well there you go. What is considered fine is subjective. So just because you are fine with something doesn't automatically mean other people have to be. If people think it's fine to kill chickens but not goats it's their own choice. Nothing hypocritical, just different opinions. 

You're not getting it. They were all fine with killing the goat until their "conscious" changerd their minds, just because it's a baby/female goat then it's immoral, JT even said that he is willing to find a buck and kill it instead, that's where the hypocrisy sits. And plus, we're dealing with western civilisation where goats and chicken are pretty much in the same category when it comes to the food insudtry.

Changing your mind isnt hypocrisy. They realised afterwards that they werent comfortable with it. Hunger can do that to you. If not killing a mama and its baby is where they stand in terms of what they consider fine or not, that their opinion. I eat chicken all the time but if i had to kill it myself everytime i would go vegan. Whereas many people would be fine with doing it. As you said, it's subjective. So while you may be fine with killing a mama goat and its baby (which you wouldn't necessarily be a bad person for doing) it doesn't mean everyone else in western civilisation should as well.

I stated that stating that you are willing to kill a buck but not a goat or a baby goat is whats hypocritical, not the act of changing your mind or not wanting to kill an animal.

Then im stating you being willing to kill a goat but not a dog is hypocritical as well. 

you 2 can just as easily take it to PM to discuss what you deem is fine to kill and eat for food and what isnt. 

A lot of people were talking about this. Let me know when group chats start on vevmo. 

DarkFights wrote:

InternationalFan wrote:

DarkFights wrote:
InternationalFan wrote:
DarkFights wrote:
InternationalFan wrote:
DarkFights wrote:
InternationalFan wrote:
DarkFights wrote:"Chicken is a common type of meat in the US as opposed to goat" okay....and ? I don't get how this argument has any weight, the fact that goats aren't a common nourishment in a country is completely and entirely irrelvant to this situation."And the chickens were brought in strictly to be eaten or supply eggs, they weren't roaming around in their home like the goats were" I don't get how this argument has any weight either, they could easily just tie the goats as they did at one point, and benefit from its milk and meat. What exactly is the issue with that ? Especially when you're extremely early in a game with an environment such as survivor's."Sure, chickens have babies too, but the goat and baby were together and killing the mother with the baby right there and knowing you're leaving it orphaned isn't easy on the mind." - So by your logic, it is completely permissible to feed off of the chicken's eggs and not the baby goat ? You're pretty much ripping the "poor chicken's" babies out of her hands, so how is that easier on the mind than killing the goat or the baby goat ? A goat is killed and eaten every single day, whether its a baby or not, so it should be even more morally permissible to butcher an animal in the conditions of survivor if it wasn't before. 

Would you kill any animal you found there then ? Like a dog or cat ? 

Obviously not.

So its fine killing goats but not dogs or cats ? So why can't it be fine for someone to kill chickens and not goats?

You asked me what I would do, not what I find fine or not.Many people around the world feed off of dogs, cats etc...because of their culture, beliefs or religion, so what's considered fine to you is may completely differ from what I find fine or not which may also be considered absurd by another human being around the world, so "what's fine" is completely subjective.And yes, I believe that it's fine to kill a goat, a chicken, a rabbit, a pigeon, a fish, a sheep etc...and not dogs or cats mainly because I view them as companions instead of food sources. Simple as that. It's fine to not want to kill a goat, but the arguments that were made by some of the contestants were hypocritical, that's where my issue lied.

Well there you go. What is considered fine is subjective. So just because you are fine with something doesn't automatically mean other people have to be. If people think it's fine to kill chickens but not goats it's their own choice. Nothing hypocritical, just different opinions. 

You're not getting it. They were all fine with killing the goat until their "conscious" changerd their minds, just because it's a baby/female goat then it's immoral, JT even said that he is willing to find a buck and kill it instead, that's where the hypocrisy sits. And plus, we're dealing with western civilisation where goats and chicken are pretty much in the same category when it comes to the food insudtry.

Changing your mind isnt hypocrisy. They realised afterwards that they werent comfortable with it. Hunger can do that to you. If not killing a mama and its baby is where they stand in terms of what they consider fine or not, that their opinion. I eat chicken all the time but if i had to kill it myself everytime i would go vegan. Whereas many people would be fine with doing it. As you said, it's subjective. So while you may be fine with killing a mama goat and its baby (which you wouldn't necessarily be a bad person for doing) it doesn't mean everyone else in western civilisation should as well.

I stated that stating that you are willing to kill a buck but not a goat or a baby goat is whats hypocritical, not the act of changing your mind or not wanting to kill an animal.

Then im stating you being willing to kill a goat but not a dog is hypocritical as well. 

It's not, due to historical, philosophical and logical reasons, and if I get into them it would just take forever, and it would be a waste of time, because even you know the answer to your question. Just ask yourself the same thing. Why are you willing to eat a chicken but not a dog.

InternationalFan wrote:

DarkFights wrote:

InternationalFan wrote:
DarkFights wrote:
InternationalFan wrote:
DarkFights wrote:
InternationalFan wrote:
DarkFights wrote:
InternationalFan wrote:
DarkFights wrote:"Chicken is a common type of meat in the US as opposed to goat" okay....and ? I don't get how this argument has any weight, the fact that goats aren't a common nourishment in a country is completely and entirely irrelvant to this situation."And the chickens were brought in strictly to be eaten or supply eggs, they weren't roaming around in their home like the goats were" I don't get how this argument has any weight either, they could easily just tie the goats as they did at one point, and benefit from its milk and meat. What exactly is the issue with that ? Especially when you're extremely early in a game with an environment such as survivor's."Sure, chickens have babies too, but the goat and baby were together and killing the mother with the baby right there and knowing you're leaving it orphaned isn't easy on the mind." - So by your logic, it is completely permissible to feed off of the chicken's eggs and not the baby goat ? You're pretty much ripping the "poor chicken's" babies out of her hands, so how is that easier on the mind than killing the goat or the baby goat ? A goat is killed and eaten every single day, whether its a baby or not, so it should be even more morally permissible to butcher an animal in the conditions of survivor if it wasn't before. 

Would you kill any animal you found there then ? Like a dog or cat ? 

Obviously not.

So its fine killing goats but not dogs or cats ? So why can't it be fine for someone to kill chickens and not goats?

You asked me what I would do, not what I find fine or not.Many people around the world feed off of dogs, cats etc...because of their culture, beliefs or religion, so what's considered fine to you is may completely differ from what I find fine or not which may also be considered absurd by another human being around the world, so "what's fine" is completely subjective.And yes, I believe that it's fine to kill a goat, a chicken, a rabbit, a pigeon, a fish, a sheep etc...and not dogs or cats mainly because I view them as companions instead of food sources. Simple as that. It's fine to not want to kill a goat, but the arguments that were made by some of the contestants were hypocritical, that's where my issue lied.

Well there you go. What is considered fine is subjective. So just because you are fine with something doesn't automatically mean other people have to be. If people think it's fine to kill chickens but not goats it's their own choice. Nothing hypocritical, just different opinions. 

You're not getting it. They were all fine with killing the goat until their "conscious" changerd their minds, just because it's a baby/female goat then it's immoral, JT even said that he is willing to find a buck and kill it instead, that's where the hypocrisy sits. And plus, we're dealing with western civilisation where goats and chicken are pretty much in the same category when it comes to the food insudtry.

Changing your mind isnt hypocrisy. They realised afterwards that they werent comfortable with it. Hunger can do that to you. If not killing a mama and its baby is where they stand in terms of what they consider fine or not, that their opinion. I eat chicken all the time but if i had to kill it myself everytime i would go vegan. Whereas many people would be fine with doing it. As you said, it's subjective. So while you may be fine with killing a mama goat and its baby (which you wouldn't necessarily be a bad person for doing) it doesn't mean everyone else in western civilisation should as well.

I stated that stating that you are willing to kill a buck but not a goat or a baby goat is whats hypocritical, not the act of changing your mind or not wanting to kill an animal.

Then im stating you being willing to kill a goat but not a dog is hypocritical as well. 

It's not, due to historical, philosophical and logical reasons, and if I get into them it would just take forever, and it would be a waste of time, because even you know the answer to your question. Just ask yourself the same thing. Why are you willing to eat a chicken but not a dog.

I don't eat anything apart from chicken and turkey. It has more to do with taste though. We all have different morals. Some morals overlap, like eating dogs is a no no to almost everyone. Then you have other morals such as eating no meat, or only eating specific meat or only eating eggs etc etc. If somebody doesn't want to leave a baby goat motherless, its not hypocritical or stupid. Over sensitive ? Maybe. There's no definite right or wrong. Just different morals and choices. 

DarkFights wrote:

InternationalFan wrote:

DarkFights wrote:
InternationalFan wrote:
DarkFights wrote:
InternationalFan wrote:
DarkFights wrote:
InternationalFan wrote:
DarkFights wrote:
InternationalFan wrote:
DarkFights wrote:"Chicken is a common type of meat in the US as opposed to goat" okay....and ? I don't get how this argument has any weight, the fact that goats aren't a common nourishment in a country is completely and entirely irrelvant to this situation."And the chickens were brought in strictly to be eaten or supply eggs, they weren't roaming around in their home like the goats were" I don't get how this argument has any weight either, they could easily just tie the goats as they did at one point, and benefit from its milk and meat. What exactly is the issue with that ? Especially when you're extremely early in a game with an environment such as survivor's."Sure, chickens have babies too, but the goat and baby were together and killing the mother with the baby right there and knowing you're leaving it orphaned isn't easy on the mind." - So by your logic, it is completely permissible to feed off of the chicken's eggs and not the baby goat ? You're pretty much ripping the "poor chicken's" babies out of her hands, so how is that easier on the mind than killing the goat or the baby goat ? A goat is killed and eaten every single day, whether its a baby or not, so it should be even more morally permissible to butcher an animal in the conditions of survivor if it wasn't before. 

Would you kill any animal you found there then ? Like a dog or cat ? 

Obviously not.

So its fine killing goats but not dogs or cats ? So why can't it be fine for someone to kill chickens and not goats?

You asked me what I would do, not what I find fine or not.Many people around the world feed off of dogs, cats etc...because of their culture, beliefs or religion, so what's considered fine to you is may completely differ from what I find fine or not which may also be considered absurd by another human being around the world, so "what's fine" is completely subjective.And yes, I believe that it's fine to kill a goat, a chicken, a rabbit, a pigeon, a fish, a sheep etc...and not dogs or cats mainly because I view them as companions instead of food sources. Simple as that. It's fine to not want to kill a goat, but the arguments that were made by some of the contestants were hypocritical, that's where my issue lied.

Well there you go. What is considered fine is subjective. So just because you are fine with something doesn't automatically mean other people have to be. If people think it's fine to kill chickens but not goats it's their own choice. Nothing hypocritical, just different opinions. 

You're not getting it. They were all fine with killing the goat until their "conscious" changerd their minds, just because it's a baby/female goat then it's immoral, JT even said that he is willing to find a buck and kill it instead, that's where the hypocrisy sits. And plus, we're dealing with western civilisation where goats and chicken are pretty much in the same category when it comes to the food insudtry.

Changing your mind isnt hypocrisy. They realised afterwards that they werent comfortable with it. Hunger can do that to you. If not killing a mama and its baby is where they stand in terms of what they consider fine or not, that their opinion. I eat chicken all the time but if i had to kill it myself everytime i would go vegan. Whereas many people would be fine with doing it. As you said, it's subjective. So while you may be fine with killing a mama goat and its baby (which you wouldn't necessarily be a bad person for doing) it doesn't mean everyone else in western civilisation should as well.

I stated that stating that you are willing to kill a buck but not a goat or a baby goat is whats hypocritical, not the act of changing your mind or not wanting to kill an animal.

Then im stating you being willing to kill a goat but not a dog is hypocritical as well. 

It's not, due to historical, philosophical and logical reasons, and if I get into them it would just take forever, and it would be a waste of time, because even you know the answer to your question. Just ask yourself the same thing. Why are you willing to eat a chicken but not a dog.

I don't eat anything apart from chicken and turkey. It has more to do with taste though. We all have different morals. Some morals overlap, like eating dogs is a no no to almost everyone. Then you have other morals such as eating no meat, or only eating specific meat or only eating eggs etc etc. If somebody doesn't want to leave a baby goat motherless, its not hypocritical or stupid. Over sensitive ? Maybe. There's no definite right or wrong. Just different morals and choices. 

It is hypocritical to me when you say the reason for not killing the baby goat and a goat is because of your conscious, but then later on butcher the chicken and benefit from its eggs.

InternationalFan wrote:

DarkFights wrote:

InternationalFan wrote:
DarkFights wrote:
InternationalFan wrote:
DarkFights wrote:
InternationalFan wrote:
DarkFights wrote:
InternationalFan wrote:
DarkFights wrote:
InternationalFan wrote:
DarkFights wrote:"Chicken is a common type of meat in the US as opposed to goat" okay....and ? I don't get how this argument has any weight, the fact that goats aren't a common nourishment in a country is completely and entirely irrelvant to this situation."And the chickens were brought in strictly to be eaten or supply eggs, they weren't roaming around in their home like the goats were" I don't get how this argument has any weight either, they could easily just tie the goats as they did at one point, and benefit from its milk and meat. What exactly is the issue with that ? Especially when you're extremely early in a game with an environment such as survivor's."Sure, chickens have babies too, but the goat and baby were together and killing the mother with the baby right there and knowing you're leaving it orphaned isn't easy on the mind." - So by your logic, it is completely permissible to feed off of the chicken's eggs and not the baby goat ? You're pretty much ripping the "poor chicken's" babies out of her hands, so how is that easier on the mind than killing the goat or the baby goat ? A goat is killed and eaten every single day, whether its a baby or not, so it should be even more morally permissible to butcher an animal in the conditions of survivor if it wasn't before. 

Would you kill any animal you found there then ? Like a dog or cat ? 

Obviously not.

So its fine killing goats but not dogs or cats ? So why can't it be fine for someone to kill chickens and not goats?

You asked me what I would do, not what I find fine or not.Many people around the world feed off of dogs, cats etc...because of their culture, beliefs or religion, so what's considered fine to you is may completely differ from what I find fine or not which may also be considered absurd by another human being around the world, so "what's fine" is completely subjective.And yes, I believe that it's fine to kill a goat, a chicken, a rabbit, a pigeon, a fish, a sheep etc...and not dogs or cats mainly because I view them as companions instead of food sources. Simple as that. It's fine to not want to kill a goat, but the arguments that were made by some of the contestants were hypocritical, that's where my issue lied.

Well there you go. What is considered fine is subjective. So just because you are fine with something doesn't automatically mean other people have to be. If people think it's fine to kill chickens but not goats it's their own choice. Nothing hypocritical, just different opinions. 

You're not getting it. They were all fine with killing the goat until their "conscious" changerd their minds, just because it's a baby/female goat then it's immoral, JT even said that he is willing to find a buck and kill it instead, that's where the hypocrisy sits. And plus, we're dealing with western civilisation where goats and chicken are pretty much in the same category when it comes to the food insudtry.

Changing your mind isnt hypocrisy. They realised afterwards that they werent comfortable with it. Hunger can do that to you. If not killing a mama and its baby is where they stand in terms of what they consider fine or not, that their opinion. I eat chicken all the time but if i had to kill it myself everytime i would go vegan. Whereas many people would be fine with doing it. As you said, it's subjective. So while you may be fine with killing a mama goat and its baby (which you wouldn't necessarily be a bad person for doing) it doesn't mean everyone else in western civilisation should as well.

I stated that stating that you are willing to kill a buck but not a goat or a baby goat is whats hypocritical, not the act of changing your mind or not wanting to kill an animal.

Then im stating you being willing to kill a goat but not a dog is hypocritical as well. 

It's not, due to historical, philosophical and logical reasons, and if I get into them it would just take forever, and it would be a waste of time, because even you know the answer to your question. Just ask yourself the same thing. Why are you willing to eat a chicken but not a dog.

I don't eat anything apart from chicken and turkey. It has more to do with taste though. We all have different morals. Some morals overlap, like eating dogs is a no no to almost everyone. Then you have other morals such as eating no meat, or only eating specific meat or only eating eggs etc etc. If somebody doesn't want to leave a baby goat motherless, its not hypocritical or stupid. Over sensitive ? Maybe. There's no definite right or wrong. Just different morals and choices. 

It is hypocritical to me when you say the reason for not killing the baby goat and a goat is because of your conscious, but then later on butcher the chicken and benefit from its eggs.

It's not the same whatsoever. The situation was entirely different with the goats because there was a mother and a baby and thats where certain people's nurturing instinct comes into play. They were fine killing any other goat. As JT said if they can catch one thats not a baby or a mother then he'll kill it. Our conscious isnt as simple as you might be thinking. 

DarkFights wrote:

InternationalFan wrote:

DarkFights wrote:
InternationalFan wrote:
DarkFights wrote:
InternationalFan wrote:
DarkFights wrote:
InternationalFan wrote:
DarkFights wrote:
InternationalFan wrote:
DarkFights wrote:
InternationalFan wrote:
DarkFights wrote:"Chicken is a common type of meat in the US as opposed to goat" okay....and ? I don't get how this argument has any weight, the fact that goats aren't a common nourishment in a country is completely and entirely irrelvant to this situation."And the chickens were brought in strictly to be eaten or supply eggs, they weren't roaming around in their home like the goats were" I don't get how this argument has any weight either, they could easily just tie the goats as they did at one point, and benefit from its milk and meat. What exactly is the issue with that ? Especially when you're extremely early in a game with an environment such as survivor's."Sure, chickens have babies too, but the goat and baby were together and killing the mother with the baby right there and knowing you're leaving it orphaned isn't easy on the mind." - So by your logic, it is completely permissible to feed off of the chicken's eggs and not the baby goat ? You're pretty much ripping the "poor chicken's" babies out of her hands, so how is that easier on the mind than killing the goat or the baby goat ? A goat is killed and eaten every single day, whether its a baby or not, so it should be even more morally permissible to butcher an animal in the conditions of survivor if it wasn't before. 

Would you kill any animal you found there then ? Like a dog or cat ? 

Obviously not.

So its fine killing goats but not dogs or cats ? So why can't it be fine for someone to kill chickens and not goats?

You asked me what I would do, not what I find fine or not.Many people around the world feed off of dogs, cats etc...because of their culture, beliefs or religion, so what's considered fine to you is may completely differ from what I find fine or not which may also be considered absurd by another human being around the world, so "what's fine" is completely subjective.And yes, I believe that it's fine to kill a goat, a chicken, a rabbit, a pigeon, a fish, a sheep etc...and not dogs or cats mainly because I view them as companions instead of food sources. Simple as that. It's fine to not want to kill a goat, but the arguments that were made by some of the contestants were hypocritical, that's where my issue lied.

Well there you go. What is considered fine is subjective. So just because you are fine with something doesn't automatically mean other people have to be. If people think it's fine to kill chickens but not goats it's their own choice. Nothing hypocritical, just different opinions. 

You're not getting it. They were all fine with killing the goat until their "conscious" changerd their minds, just because it's a baby/female goat then it's immoral, JT even said that he is willing to find a buck and kill it instead, that's where the hypocrisy sits. And plus, we're dealing with western civilisation where goats and chicken are pretty much in the same category when it comes to the food insudtry.

Changing your mind isnt hypocrisy. They realised afterwards that they werent comfortable with it. Hunger can do that to you. If not killing a mama and its baby is where they stand in terms of what they consider fine or not, that their opinion. I eat chicken all the time but if i had to kill it myself everytime i would go vegan. Whereas many people would be fine with doing it. As you said, it's subjective. So while you may be fine with killing a mama goat and its baby (which you wouldn't necessarily be a bad person for doing) it doesn't mean everyone else in western civilisation should as well.

I stated that stating that you are willing to kill a buck but not a goat or a baby goat is whats hypocritical, not the act of changing your mind or not wanting to kill an animal.

Then im stating you being willing to kill a goat but not a dog is hypocritical as well. 

It's not, due to historical, philosophical and logical reasons, and if I get into them it would just take forever, and it would be a waste of time, because even you know the answer to your question. Just ask yourself the same thing. Why are you willing to eat a chicken but not a dog.

I don't eat anything apart from chicken and turkey. It has more to do with taste though. We all have different morals. Some morals overlap, like eating dogs is a no no to almost everyone. Then you have other morals such as eating no meat, or only eating specific meat or only eating eggs etc etc. If somebody doesn't want to leave a baby goat motherless, its not hypocritical or stupid. Over sensitive ? Maybe. There's no definite right or wrong. Just different morals and choices. 

It is hypocritical to me when you say the reason for not killing the baby goat and a goat is because of your conscious, but then later on butcher the chicken and benefit from its eggs.

It's not the same whatsoever. The situation was entirely different with the goats because there was a mother and a baby and thats where certain people's nurturing instinct comes into play. They were fine killing any other goat. As JT said if they can catch one thats not a baby or a mother then he'll kill it. Our conscious isnt as simple as you might be thinking. 

The chicken is a soon to be mother, and the eggs are soon to be her babies as well, again what's the difference ? If you say its a difference of the animal being viviparous or oviparous, I would say that's a pretty lame and stupid excuse. If you say it's a matter of whether the animal has already given birth or not, I would still say that's a pretty lame and stupid excuse. 

I get that the contestants reactions were instinctual, but that won't stop me from pointing out the double standard.

Hali is a queen.

InternationalFan wrote:

DarkFights wrote:

InternationalFan wrote:
DarkFights wrote:
InternationalFan wrote:
DarkFights wrote:
InternationalFan wrote:
DarkFights wrote:
InternationalFan wrote:
DarkFights wrote:
InternationalFan wrote:
DarkFights wrote:
InternationalFan wrote:
DarkFights wrote:"Chicken is a common type of meat in the US as opposed to goat" okay....and ? I don't get how this argument has any weight, the fact that goats aren't a common nourishment in a country is completely and entirely irrelvant to this situation."And the chickens were brought in strictly to be eaten or supply eggs, they weren't roaming around in their home like the goats were" I don't get how this argument has any weight either, they could easily just tie the goats as they did at one point, and benefit from its milk and meat. What exactly is the issue with that ? Especially when you're extremely early in a game with an environment such as survivor's."Sure, chickens have babies too, but the goat and baby were together and killing the mother with the baby right there and knowing you're leaving it orphaned isn't easy on the mind." - So by your logic, it is completely permissible to feed off of the chicken's eggs and not the baby goat ? You're pretty much ripping the "poor chicken's" babies out of her hands, so how is that easier on the mind than killing the goat or the baby goat ? A goat is killed and eaten every single day, whether its a baby or not, so it should be even more morally permissible to butcher an animal in the conditions of survivor if it wasn't before. 

Would you kill any animal you found there then ? Like a dog or cat ? 

Obviously not.

So its fine killing goats but not dogs or cats ? So why can't it be fine for someone to kill chickens and not goats?

You asked me what I would do, not what I find fine or not.Many people around the world feed off of dogs, cats etc...because of their culture, beliefs or religion, so what's considered fine to you is may completely differ from what I find fine or not which may also be considered absurd by another human being around the world, so "what's fine" is completely subjective.And yes, I believe that it's fine to kill a goat, a chicken, a rabbit, a pigeon, a fish, a sheep etc...and not dogs or cats mainly because I view them as companions instead of food sources. Simple as that. It's fine to not want to kill a goat, but the arguments that were made by some of the contestants were hypocritical, that's where my issue lied.

Well there you go. What is considered fine is subjective. So just because you are fine with something doesn't automatically mean other people have to be. If people think it's fine to kill chickens but not goats it's their own choice. Nothing hypocritical, just different opinions. 

You're not getting it. They were all fine with killing the goat until their "conscious" changerd their minds, just because it's a baby/female goat then it's immoral, JT even said that he is willing to find a buck and kill it instead, that's where the hypocrisy sits. And plus, we're dealing with western civilisation where goats and chicken are pretty much in the same category when it comes to the food insudtry.

Changing your mind isnt hypocrisy. They realised afterwards that they werent comfortable with it. Hunger can do that to you. If not killing a mama and its baby is where they stand in terms of what they consider fine or not, that their opinion. I eat chicken all the time but if i had to kill it myself everytime i would go vegan. Whereas many people would be fine with doing it. As you said, it's subjective. So while you may be fine with killing a mama goat and its baby (which you wouldn't necessarily be a bad person for doing) it doesn't mean everyone else in western civilisation should as well.

I stated that stating that you are willing to kill a buck but not a goat or a baby goat is whats hypocritical, not the act of changing your mind or not wanting to kill an animal.

Then im stating you being willing to kill a goat but not a dog is hypocritical as well. 

It's not, due to historical, philosophical and logical reasons, and if I get into them it would just take forever, and it would be a waste of time, because even you know the answer to your question. Just ask yourself the same thing. Why are you willing to eat a chicken but not a dog.

I don't eat anything apart from chicken and turkey. It has more to do with taste though. We all have different morals. Some morals overlap, like eating dogs is a no no to almost everyone. Then you have other morals such as eating no meat, or only eating specific meat or only eating eggs etc etc. If somebody doesn't want to leave a baby goat motherless, its not hypocritical or stupid. Over sensitive ? Maybe. There's no definite right or wrong. Just different morals and choices. 

It is hypocritical to me when you say the reason for not killing the baby goat and a goat is because of your conscious, but then later on butcher the chicken and benefit from its eggs.

It's not the same whatsoever. The situation was entirely different with the goats because there was a mother and a baby and thats where certain people's nurturing instinct comes into play. They were fine killing any other goat. As JT said if they can catch one thats not a baby or a mother then he'll kill it. Our conscious isnt as simple as you might be thinking. 

The chicken is a soon to be mother, and the eggs are soon to be her babies as well, again what's the difference ? If you say its a difference of the animal being viviparous or oviparous, I would say that's a pretty lame and stupid excuse. If you say it's a matter of whether the animal has already given birth or not, I would still say that's a pretty lame and stupid excuse. I get that the contestants reactions were instinctual, but that won't stop me from pointing out the double standard.

The difference is the chicken ain't about to be no ones mother. All the eggs they lay are unfertilised. They are off no use to the mothers. They will never hatch. There's a reason that the roosters are always kept out of egg farms and on survivor are kept separate or not given at all. No one wants to be eating an egg with an actual chick inside it. Atleast in most of western civilisation. 

Pages