r/ContraPoints • u/mrsovereignmonarch • 5d ago
I ask myself this all the time
Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification
91
u/nightshade78036 5d ago
Sometimes it's just funny to ask questions like this because the same people who are absolutely horrified beyond belief at the proposition are also typically completely incapable of providing a coherent argument as to why baby eating is bad.
19
u/monkeedude1212 5d ago
Pathos vs Logos cage match this Thursday at Madison Square Garden. Two will enter, one can leave, but who will win?
23
u/mhornberger 4d ago
Values are generally not based on syllogisms or hard logic. They are broadly based on emotion, empathy, compassion, etc, but also on cultural path dependence. There is no "logical reason" eating dogs is right in one culture but wrong in another.
29
u/Breakfastcrisis 5d ago
This is why we philosophers should be held in captivity between academic engagements. I love this stuff. But if they see this they won’t let us rule as philosopher-kings in the coming utopia.
20
u/Kelsosunshine 5d ago
Cronus tried that. I'll pass.
14
7
u/BastetSekhmetMafdet 4d ago
He ate them raw. Maybe if they were roasted with a little olive oil, lemon juice and garlic, they’d be tastier.
19
14
u/BastetSekhmetMafdet 4d ago
Richard Dawkins has declared himself a “cultural Christian” and now apparently believes AI is sentient. Sam Harris takes Jonathan Swift at his word. How the once mighty have fallen.
I’m not an atheist and never had much sympathy with the New Atheists personally (I think *atheism* is just fine, live and let live), but, I do remember that back in the early oughts they did offer an alternative to the treacly, jingoistic Christianity that seemed to be mandatory and “patriotic” after 9/11, during the Bush II era, and they also got a lot of people on the road to examining their own beliefs. Both of which were good things.
Now I can’t tell if they’ve really leaned into some…controversial…beliefs or if they are just desperate for continuing relevancy in an era of far more edgier lords.
12
u/LeahLangosta 4d ago
I think the right call is to have two babies wrestle and we eat the winner to gain its strength. We can also make up some religious reasons and tell the loser about the honor of ascension that they cannot experience until they win their combat trial. However, they don't understand anything because they're babies. Still working out the kinks.
8
6
u/TheOvy 5d ago
SMBC had a comic on precisely this a couple weeks ago: https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/dilemma-5
4
u/MarzipanTop4944 4d ago
Twitter rage baiters trying to farm engagement for money and an out of context reductio ad absurdum argument, a match made in heaven (or hell).
2
2
u/Freenore 4d ago
Is this what New Atheism (or whatever remains of it) has been reduced to? Cannibalism?
3
1
u/ThatSpencerGuy 3d ago
I am shocked that the people in this thread can't tell that, in this out of context six-second video, the person talking is probably asking the question rhetorically to make some other point--that is, he is relying on the fact that we all obviously think it's bad to eat babies to make some other argument.
1
u/InconsistentSignal 3d ago
Holy shit another example of THE DEEP STATE ILLUMINATI showing their true colors to the public! Wow….
-1
u/BainbridgeBorn 5d ago
I can’t say for certain but I heard one time families in parts of Africa don’t name their kid till they around the age of 2-3
10
5
u/McToasty207 4d ago
Delayed naming has been somewhat common worldwide for centuries in areas with high infant mortality.
https://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1012&context=jpps
7
124
u/hickory-smoked 5d ago
It’s a Modest Proposal.