/ck/ - Food & Cooking

>>5704250
i really don't understand how my point is being lost on you, so i'll try to explain:
>be a free-blooded american
>decide that i want liquor
>drink liquor out of glass bottle
>keep bottle as vessel for water for weeks to come

your suggestions:
>buy an empty glass bottle
or
>buy a bottle of expensive water (which you disowned in your post as being douchey!)
>scrape off logo so people won't judge
>the above, times three?!

jesus, if i'm anything, i'm an economist

>>5661072
obviously not the anon with reaction gifs, but i am curious as to what criteria you have for regarding an object as "someone".

is it self-awareness? humans are the only species (that we know of) that has the notion of a self, true, but would the statement "this statement is false" not also be self-aware? if not, why not? it certainly offers a description of itself, something which some humans are incapable of. should we humans not eat paradoxes?

is it the capacity for pain? i don't think it could be argued that paradoxes feel pain, but animals absolutely express avoidance behavior to painful stimuli—as they well should, eons of evolution having done its job. some humans born with a congenital defect in their nervous system do not have the physical capacity to experience pain, should we eat them instead?

is it intelligence? if so, i would argue that this is a highly anthropocentric argument and probably invalid. what makes the human's brand of intelligence superior to that of an ape, or fish? creation, destruction? arthur c. clarke seemed to think the first human emotion was envy, do we only wish to eat creatures who don't know envy? if so, that's a little strange.

i'm not trying to be a philosophy101 douchebag (though this may come across that way), but i'm really curious as to why you would call a person "a retard" for using the concept of "someone" to include species other than human. this is not an exercise in rhetoric, i'm genuinely hoping for a well-thought out reply in return.