mainly due to the holes opened up by reformed theologians and catholic Aristotelians and nominalists

Christians claiming their holy book is outdated <:facepalm:508484035274735665>

A lot of modern Christians display a large about of cognitive dissonance; they claim to believe the Bible, but when it comes to civic life they pretend that God isn’t real and they can decide policy using their own reason

It's called larping

Even larpers are more convincing

Reminds me of the phenomenon where trannies actually make more of an effort to appear feminine than thots

It’s because of nominalism, there is no conception of a female “essence” or “form”, women are merely a collection of traits, so you can become a woman by imitating a bunch of these traits

all the more reason to be apart of neo-platonist gang

No, Neoplatonism is gay too

They have a faulty conception of God

What about Zoroastrianism?

@FreshWholeMilk shut the fuck up liberal

you dare contradict augustine

Augustine introduced a lot of philosophical errors to the western outlook

if you want to talk about philisophical errors on outlook can we talk about the river of fire thing from the orthodoxes

The thing about the river of fire being the same as the river of life?

yes

It’s not dogmatic that you have to believe that, but it makes a certain amount of sense

Why should animals have rights?

I know you should nt do nonsensical things on principle but I don't understand the argument from ppl on the right that animal testing expecially cosmetic testing on animals is inhumane

We should use sex offenders for that kind of testing

not joking

instead of animals

Because when they become intelligent and form a society, they won't start enslaving us humans

I advocate for human testing when they have done henious crimes

I mean you don't need to use animals for that when you have perverts that can just as easily fill the same purpose

Jokes aside, most people that say that says because they pity the animal, "think of their suffering"

Or also, in some cases, because they find them cute

The part that I find ppl on the right saying this bothers me

By right I mean JQ-woke right

Most of these people wouldn't mind a genocide on cockroaches, insects etc, even if they are a crucial part of the ecosystem, just because they're ugly and gross

Well, they can be JQ-Woke but not Animal-Woke

humans are biologically more empathetic towards animals than they are towards insects

interacting with a roach does not benefit us in any significant way than it would have a human being thousands of years ago domesticating wolves for hunting

insects are still animals, it would be better to say they are more empathetic to mammals

well technically insects are their own category and they are important to ecosystems

but i cant ever feel anything for a roach

but i would feel empathetic if i saw a dog being attacked on the street

I would say that some of the roles animals have in our societies is dictated by culture and it should stay that way... in other cases well.. needless suffering is just needless.

I'm just correcting you scientifically, insects are Arthropods and Arthropods are from the Kingdom Animalia in Biology

Don't really care much about animals, just feel they have a important role in the ecosystem and thus should be preserved, same as Plants, Fungi etc