They're both drowning, you can save only one... (1 Viewer)

[Psychopav]

Are you suggesting that it's wrong to buy and sell dogs?

In some cases the answer is clearly yes. Greyhound racing for example. Breeding dogs for pets is a closer case.

But the general idea of buying and selling dogs - in general, is it OK?

 

[Psychopav]

There is no problem with dogs being possessions.

I can't even talk to you. You're spewing ridiculous jibberish. What on earth can you bring to the table to back these babblings up? And if it involves a chapter and verse reference, save it for the tourists, padre.

It has nothing to do with religion, Smoo. Is a dog a possession or isn't it? If it's not, what is it?

It's a viable self-sustaining lifeform. Humans have decided to trade them as if they were possessions, just as they used to do with African humans, but that doesn't make it right or definitive.

Is it wrong to trade them and treat them as possessions?

I think it's wrong, yes. Not nuke-Europe wrong, but definitely squish-bugs wrong.

Well you haven't given any statements to back that up, other than saying that they have internal organs like we do.Why is it wrong?

 

[Smoo]

There is no problem with dogs being possessions.

I can't even talk to you. You're spewing ridiculous jibberish. What on earth can you bring to the table to back these babblings up? And if it involves a chapter and verse reference, save it for the tourists, padre.

It has nothing to do with religion, Smoo. Is a dog a possession or isn't it? If it's not, what is it?

It's a viable self-sustaining lifeform. Humans have decided to trade them as if they were possessions, just as they used to do with African humans, but that doesn't make it right or definitive.

What else are you suggesting dogs should do? Should they be able to choose their own master? Should they all be freed so they can live in the woods with all the other dogs? What are you suggesting? Are you suggesting that it's wrong to buy and sell dogs?

I'm suggesting that its wrong to think of a viable self-sustaining life form as no more important than your record collection.

 

[saintsfan]

Are you suggesting that it's wrong to buy and sell dogs?

In some cases the answer is clearly yes. Greyhound racing for example. Breeding dogs for pets is a closer case.

I agree with that, but none of that makes a dog's life as valuable as a human's life.

 

[Smoo]

There is no problem with dogs being possessions.

I can't even talk to you. You're spewing ridiculous jibberish. What on earth can you bring to the table to back these babblings up? And if it involves a chapter and verse reference, save it for the tourists, padre.

It has nothing to do with religion, Smoo. Is a dog a possession or isn't it? If it's not, what is it?

It's a viable self-sustaining lifeform. Humans have decided to trade them as if they were possessions, just as they used to do with African humans, but that doesn't make it right or definitive.

Is it wrong to trade them and treat them as possessions?

I think it's wrong, yes. Not nuke-Europe wrong, but definitely squish-bugs wrong.

Well you haven't given any statements to back that up, other than saying that they have internal organs like we do.Why is it wrong?

For many of the same reasons you people worship humans. They're life.

 

[Smoo]

Are you suggesting that it's wrong to buy and sell dogs?

In some cases the answer is clearly yes. Greyhound racing for example. Breeding dogs for pets is a closer case.

I agree with that, but none of that makes a dog's life as valuable as a human's life.

Perhaps not empirically, but local values will fluctuate on a case-by-case basis.

 

[saintsfan]

There is no problem with dogs being possessions.

I can't even talk to you. You're spewing ridiculous jibberish. What on earth can you bring to the table to back these babblings up? And if it involves a chapter and verse reference, save it for the tourists, padre.

It has nothing to do with religion, Smoo. Is a dog a possession or isn't it? If it's not, what is it?

It's a viable self-sustaining lifeform. Humans have decided to trade them as if they were possessions, just as they used to do with African humans, but that doesn't make it right or definitive.

What else are you suggesting dogs should do? Should they be able to choose their own master? Should they all be freed so they can live in the woods with all the other dogs? What are you suggesting? Are you suggesting that it's wrong to buy and sell dogs?

I'm suggesting that its wrong to think of a viable self-sustaining life form as no more important than your record collection.

I agree with that, and I don't think that. My tone may have suggested that, but that's not how I feel. Dogs are great animals. They are loyal, lovable, and trusting, but under no circumstance should their life be put above a human life. There is no equivalency.

 

[TheIronSheik]

There is no problem with dogs being possessions. That's what they are and that's what they will always be.

If dogs are just possessions, why can't the owners mistreat them? I don't see any laws preventing me from abusing my sofa.

Actually, destruction of property while in a fit of rage, with the presence of another person, can lead to you being arrested for Domestic Disturbance. But I see your point.Pyscho- This thread moves to quick. I'm trying to keep up as much as possible.

 

[Psychopav]

There is no problem with dogs being possessions.

I can't even talk to you. You're spewing ridiculous jibberish. What on earth can you bring to the table to back these babblings up? And if it involves a chapter and verse reference, save it for the tourists, padre.

It has nothing to do with religion, Smoo. Is a dog a possession or isn't it? If it's not, what is it?

It's a viable self-sustaining lifeform. Humans have decided to trade them as if they were possessions, just as they used to do with African humans, but that doesn't make it right or definitive.

Is it wrong to trade them and treat them as possessions?

I think it's wrong, yes. Not nuke-Europe wrong, but definitely squish-bugs wrong.

Well you haven't given any statements to back that up, other than saying that they have internal organs like we do.Why is it wrong?

For many of the same reasons you people worship humans. They're life.

Just because they're alive doesn't mean it's wrong to trade in them. We buy and sell lots of living things, from dogs to plants to yeast cultures in yogurt. Is it wrong to buy yogurt??

 

[Smoo]

under no circumstance should their life be put above a human life. There is no equivalency.

And I have no problem with you believing that. I also have no problem with people believing that there are circumstances where a dog could be put above a human.

 

[CrossEyed]

Moral relativism has led us to debate for 24 pages (and counting) whether or not a human life is more valuable than a dog's life. How sad.

 

[Smoo]

There is no problem with dogs being possessions.

I can't even talk to you. You're spewing ridiculous jibberish. What on earth can you bring to the table to back these babblings up? And if it involves a chapter and verse reference, save it for the tourists, padre.

It has nothing to do with religion, Smoo. Is a dog a possession or isn't it? If it's not, what is it?

It's a viable self-sustaining lifeform. Humans have decided to trade them as if they were possessions, just as they used to do with African humans, but that doesn't make it right or definitive.

Is it wrong to trade them and treat them as possessions?

I think it's wrong, yes. Not nuke-Europe wrong, but definitely squish-bugs wrong.

Well you haven't given any statements to back that up, other than saying that they have internal organs like we do.Why is it wrong?

For many of the same reasons you people worship humans. They're life.

Just because they're alive doesn't mean it's wrong to trade in them. We buy and sell lots of living things, from dogs to plants to yeast cultures in yogurt. Is it wrong to buy yogurt??

Ideally, yes, but at some point two other concerns enter into it (I've said many times that it's impossible to isolate any single variable)...1. Practicality. It's difficult to track, protect and save yeast. It's less difficult to track, protect and save a dog.2. Food. As valuable as life is, it's an unavoidable fact that life has to consume other life to live.But those are obviously tougher questions. To paraphrase Maurile, recognizing the value of a dog is not.

 

[saintsfan]

under no circumstance should their life be put above a human life. There is no equivalency.

And I have no problem with you believing that. I also have no problem with people believing that there are circumstances where a dog could be put above a human.

I can't think of one.

 

[Smoo]

Moral relativism has led us to debate for 24 pages (and counting) whether or not a human life is more valuable than a dog's life. How sad.

That's because there's no answer to that question. It depends on the human and it depends on the dog.

 

[bueno]

There is no problem with dogs being possessions.

I can't even talk to you. You're spewing ridiculous jibberish. What on earth can you bring to the table to back these babblings up? And if it involves a chapter and verse reference, save it for the tourists, padre.

It has nothing to do with religion, Smoo. Is a dog a possession or isn't it? If it's not, what is it?

It's a viable self-sustaining lifeform. Humans have decided to trade them as if they were possessions, just as they used to do with African humans, but that doesn't make it right or definitive.

What else are you suggesting dogs should do? Should they be able to choose their own master? Should they all be freed so they can live in the woods with all the other dogs? What are you suggesting? Are you suggesting that it's wrong to buy and sell dogs?

I'm suggesting that its wrong to think of a viable self-sustaining life form as no more important than your record collection.

Unless it doesn't have a completely functional brain of course.

 

[Smoo]

under no circumstance should their life be put above a human life.  There is no equivalency.

And I have no problem with you believing that. I also have no problem with people believing that there are circumstances where a dog could be put above a human.

I can't think of one.

That's fine, but other people can. Let them.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

2. Food. As valuable as life is, it's an unavoidable fact that life has to consume other life to live.

We could just wait until stuff dies of natural causes and then eat it.

 

[Smoo]

There is no problem with dogs being possessions.

I can't even talk to you. You're spewing ridiculous jibberish. What on earth can you bring to the table to back these babblings up? And if it involves a chapter and verse reference, save it for the tourists, padre.

It has nothing to do with religion, Smoo. Is a dog a possession or isn't it? If it's not, what is it?

It's a viable self-sustaining lifeform. Humans have decided to trade them as if they were possessions, just as they used to do with African humans, but that doesn't make it right or definitive.

What else are you suggesting dogs should do? Should they be able to choose their own master? Should they all be freed so they can live in the woods with all the other dogs? What are you suggesting? Are you suggesting that it's wrong to buy and sell dogs?

I'm suggesting that its wrong to think of a viable self-sustaining life form as no more important than your record collection.

Unless it doesn't have a completely functional brain of course.

Then it's not a viable self-sustaining life form now, is it?

 

[Smoo]

2. Food. As valuable as life is, it's an unavoidable fact that life has to consume other life to live.

We could just wait until stuff dies of natural causes and then eat it.

Yes, we could. You first.

 

[bueno]

There is no problem with dogs being possessions.

I can't even talk to you. You're spewing ridiculous jibberish. What on earth can you bring to the table to back these babblings up? And if it involves a chapter and verse reference, save it for the tourists, padre.

It has nothing to do with religion, Smoo. Is a dog a possession or isn't it? If it's not, what is it?

It's a viable self-sustaining lifeform. Humans have decided to trade them as if they were possessions, just as they used to do with African humans, but that doesn't make it right or definitive.

What else are you suggesting dogs should do? Should they be able to choose their own master? Should they all be freed so they can live in the woods with all the other dogs? What are you suggesting? Are you suggesting that it's wrong to buy and sell dogs?

I'm suggesting that its wrong to think of a viable self-sustaining life form as no more important than your record collection.

Unless it doesn't have a completely functional brain of course.

Then it's not a viable self-sustaining life form now, is it?

Neither is a two year old.

 

[Smoo]

There is no problem with dogs being possessions.

I can't even talk to you. You're spewing ridiculous jibberish. What on earth can you bring to the table to back these babblings up? And if it involves a chapter and verse reference, save it for the tourists, padre.

It has nothing to do with religion, Smoo. Is a dog a possession or isn't it? If it's not, what is it?

It's a viable self-sustaining lifeform. Humans have decided to trade them as if they were possessions, just as they used to do with African humans, but that doesn't make it right or definitive.

What else are you suggesting dogs should do? Should they be able to choose their own master? Should they all be freed so they can live in the woods with all the other dogs? What are you suggesting? Are you suggesting that it's wrong to buy and sell dogs?

I'm suggesting that its wrong to think of a viable self-sustaining life form as no more important than your record collection.

Unless it doesn't have a completely functional brain of course.

Then it's not a viable self-sustaining life form now, is it?

Neither is a two year old.

A two-year old is viable.

 

[Psychopav]

under no circumstance should their life be put above a human life. There is no equivalency.

And I have no problem with you believing that. I also have no problem with people believing that there are circumstances where a dog could be put above a human.

So the relative value of a dog over the value of a rhododendron is morally obvious?

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

Why is it so hard for the "human" people to understand why I would save something I love and have an emotional attachment to over a stranger??

It's not hard for us to understand your motivation. We just think it's immoral.

Answer this question Mr. Morality.You can save the life your child or the lives of 100 other children. What do you choose? HUH??

Easy, I choose my child. But before you cry double standard, review that in this case we are talking human life on either side of the ledger. Being that I am the parent of that child, it is my natural protective instinct to save my own child first.

Of couse you would save your child.. but the moral thing to do would be to let the other 100 children live.

No, the moral thing would be to save either the one or the 100. Choosing one over the other would not be more or less moral. I would argue that choosing the 100 over your own might be less moral because you would be denying your responsibility as a parent which (IMHO) is pretty sacrosanct.

So you're responsible for the death of 100 children but you take solace in that you're a good parent. Sounds pretty immoral to me.

I am responsible? How so? I believe the causality is ,issing. I had the choice to save one over 100 or 100 over one. Nowhere is it indicated that I am activley killing in either case. Your argument is flawed.

 

[bueno]

There is no problem with dogs being possessions.

I can't even talk to you. You're spewing ridiculous jibberish. What on earth can you bring to the table to back these babblings up? And if it involves a chapter and verse reference, save it for the tourists, padre.

It has nothing to do with religion, Smoo. Is a dog a possession or isn't it? If it's not, what is it?

It's a viable self-sustaining lifeform. Humans have decided to trade them as if they were possessions, just as they used to do with African humans, but that doesn't make it right or definitive.

What else are you suggesting dogs should do? Should they be able to choose their own master? Should they all be freed so they can live in the woods with all the other dogs? What are you suggesting? Are you suggesting that it's wrong to buy and sell dogs?

I'm suggesting that its wrong to think of a viable self-sustaining life form as no more important than your record collection.

Unless it doesn't have a completely functional brain of course.

Then it's not a viable self-sustaining life form now, is it?

Neither is a two year old.

A two-year old is viable.

But it is not self-sustaining.

 

[shmagu]

Without reading through 24 pages, I am 100% comfortable with saving the life of a stranger over ANY animal.I would be pretty damn mad if someone decided to save their dog if one of my children were drowning!

 

[Psychopav]

Why is it so hard for the "human" people to understand why I would save something I love and have an emotional attachment to over a stranger??

It's not hard for us to understand your motivation. We just think it's immoral.

Answer this question Mr. Morality.You can save the life your child or the lives of 100 other children. What do you choose? HUH??

Easy, I choose my child. But before you cry double standard, review that in this case we are talking human life on either side of the ledger. Being that I am the parent of that child, it is my natural protective instinct to save my own child first.

Of couse you would save your child.. but the moral thing to do would be to let the other 100 children live.

No, the moral thing would be to save either the one or the 100. Choosing one over the other would not be more or less moral. I would argue that choosing the 100 over your own might be less moral because you would be denying your responsibility as a parent which (IMHO) is pretty sacrosanct.

So you're responsible for the death of 100 children but you take solace in that you're a good parent. Sounds pretty immoral to me.

I am responsible? How so? I believe the causality is ,issing. I had the choice to save one over 100 or 100 over one. Nowhere is it indicated that I am activley killing in either case. Your argument is flawed.

Nobody's saying there's murder going on here.

 

[TheIronSheik]

Why is it so hard for the "human" people to understand why I would save something I love and have an emotional attachment to over a stranger??

It's not hard for us to understand your motivation. We just think it's immoral.

Answer this question Mr. Morality.You can save the life your child or the lives of 100 other children. What do you choose? HUH??

Easy, I choose my child. But before you cry double standard, review that in this case we are talking human life on either side of the ledger. Being that I am the parent of that child, it is my natural protective instinct to save my own child first.

Of couse you would save your child.. but the moral thing to do would be to let the other 100 children live.

No, the moral thing would be to save either the one or the 100. Choosing one over the other would not be more or less moral. I would argue that choosing the 100 over your own might be less moral because you would be denying your responsibility as a parent which (IMHO) is pretty sacrosanct.

So you're responsible for the death of 100 children but you take solace in that you're a good parent. Sounds pretty immoral to me.

I am responsible? How so? I believe the causality is ,issing. I had the choice to save one over 100 or 100 over one. Nowhere is it indicated that I am activley killing in either case. Your argument is flawed.

So then by choosing my dog, I'm not killing the stranger. That ####### just drowned near my dog.

 

[Psychopav]

Without reading through 24 pages, I am 100% comfortable with saving the life of a stranger over ANY animal.I would be pretty damn mad if someone decided to save their dog if one of my children were drowning!

Set your ppp to 50, and it's only 17 pages. That doesn't sound so bad, now does it?

 

[Smoo]

under no circumstance should their life be put above a human life.  There is no equivalency.

And I have no problem with you believing that. I also have no problem with people believing that there are circumstances where a dog could be put above a human.

So the relative value of a dog over the value of a rhododendron is morally obvious?

Which dog and which rhododendron, and morally obvious to whom?Begone with your universal rules, I have no use for them.

 

[Smoo]

There is no problem with dogs being possessions.

I can't even talk to you. You're spewing ridiculous jibberish. What on earth can you bring to the table to back these babblings up? And if it involves a chapter and verse reference, save it for the tourists, padre.

It has nothing to do with religion, Smoo. Is a dog a possession or isn't it? If it's not, what is it?

It's a viable self-sustaining lifeform. Humans have decided to trade them as if they were possessions, just as they used to do with African humans, but that doesn't make it right or definitive.

What else are you suggesting dogs should do? Should they be able to choose their own master? Should they all be freed so they can live in the woods with all the other dogs? What are you suggesting?

Are you suggesting that it's wrong to buy and sell dogs?

I'm suggesting that its wrong to think of a viable self-sustaining life form as no more important than your record collection.

Unless it doesn't have a completely functional brain of course.

Then it's not a viable self-sustaining life form now, is it?

Neither is a two year old.

A two-year old is viable.

But it is not self-sustaining.

Right. So?

 

[Psychopav]

There is no problem with dogs being possessions.

I can't even talk to you. You're spewing ridiculous jibberish. What on earth can you bring to the table to back these babblings up? And if it involves a chapter and verse reference, save it for the tourists, padre.

It has nothing to do with religion, Smoo. Is a dog a possession or isn't it? If it's not, what is it?

It's a viable self-sustaining lifeform. Humans have decided to trade them as if they were possessions, just as they used to do with African humans, but that doesn't make it right or definitive.

Is it wrong to trade them and treat them as possessions?

I think it's wrong, yes. Not nuke-Europe wrong, but definitely squish-bugs wrong.

Well you haven't given any statements to back that up, other than saying that they have internal organs like we do.Why is it wrong?

For many of the same reasons you people worship humans. They're life.

Just because they're alive doesn't mean it's wrong to trade in them. We buy and sell lots of living things, from dogs to plants to yeast cultures in yogurt. Is it wrong to buy yogurt??

Ideally, yes, but at some point two other concerns enter into it (I've said many times that it's impossible to isolate any single variable)...1. Practicality. It's difficult to track, protect and save yeast. It's less difficult to track, protect and save a dog.2. Food. As valuable as life is, it's an unavoidable fact that life has to consume other life to live.But those are obviously tougher questions. To paraphrase Maurile, recognizing the value of a dog is not.

Sorry quoted the wrong post above.Smoo, is it OK to buy and sell dogs or isn't it?

 

[Psychopav]

under no circumstance should their life be put above a human life.  There is no equivalency.

And I have no problem with you believing that. I also have no problem with people believing that there are circumstances where a dog could be put above a human.

So the relative value of a dog over the value of a rhododendron is morally obvious?

Which dog and which rhododendron, and morally obvious to whom?Begone with your universal rules, I have no use for them.

Right. It's only your universal rules that you have a use for.

 

[shmagu]

Without reading through 24 pages, I am 100% comfortable with saving the life of a stranger over ANY animal.I would be pretty damn mad if someone decided to save their dog if one of my children were drowning!

Set your ppp to 50, and it's only 17 pages. That doesn't sound so bad, now does it?

Still too many and it doesn't change my opinion.

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

Animals are great.  As pets they are wonderful.  As meat, they are great sustenance.  As a labor source, relatively cheap.  As something to make you appreciate nature, great.  As a provider for skins to keep us warm, the best.  I am sure I am missing out on other uses for animals as well.But I am going to throw up in my mouth if I read any more about how animals are equal to humans in importance.  As a specie, it is mind boggling to me how we would devalue a member of our own specie over that of a lower specie.I don't advocate the mass extermination of any specie, but I would certainly choose the worst scumbucket of my own specie over the most noble of another specie because it is the right thing to do.Have we been infiltrated by treehuggers to such a degree that animals (non-human) have now taken precedence over humans.  If this is the case, by all means go live with a Gorilla tribe in the African lowlands, Jane Goodall.

It's not that animals are super-important to make them equal to humans. It's that humans are not nearly as puffed-up and important as we make them out to be. We're just animals ourselves who happen to have higher brain functins. And? Lucky us. So? Doesn't give us any sort of role as the chosen ones or anything.

We are the chosen ones even if you don't believe in God or gods. Why? Precisely because of our intellect and capacity for reason (oh, and opposable thumbs along with tool making and using ability). You can't abdicate the throne, you are at the top of the hierarchy my large toothed rodent friend.

So, as the only species on the Earth that in knowingly destroying the planet, we're the smartest? And don't get me wrong. I enjoy destroying the planet. Give me a gas guzzeling car, styrofoam containers, and non-recyclable products anyday. I don't care. If I can find some California Condors or Dodos to counter your argument, I let them post under my name.

I am not sure smartest would be the litmus test, but we are certainly atop the evolutionary pole. Can we/have we abused this position? Probably to some extent. What should we do? Abdicate our role to a dog or an ape a la Planet of the Apes? Please, spare me your sentimentality.I would guess that in terms of measurable intelligence we are among if not THE smartest specie. I know without a doubt we are the most powerful (tool making and harnessing of natural resources goes a long way).

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I am responsible?  How so?  I believe the causality is ,issing.  I had the choice to save one over 100 or 100 over one.  Nowhere is it indicated that I am activley killing in either case.  Your argument is flawed.

Nobody's saying there's murder going on here.

What's the difference? Two hypos:1) Your kid is dying, and so are 100 other kids. You can save your kid or the 100. You save your kid.2) Your kid is dying. The only way to save him is to murder 100 other kids. You kill the other kids to save your kid.Why would #1 be moral but #2 be immoral? In both cases you're trading 100 lives for your kid's life.

 

[Psychopav]

I would guess that in terms of measurable intelligence we are among if not THE smartest specie.

:rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: Now THIS is sig material! It's GOLD, Jerry, GOLD!

 

[Psychopav]

I am responsible?  How so?  I believe the causality is ,issing.  I had the choice to save one over 100 or 100 over one.  Nowhere is it indicated that I am activley killing in either case.  Your argument is flawed.

Nobody's saying there's murder going on here.

What's the difference? Two hypos:1) Your kid is dying, and so are 100 other kids. You can save your kid or the 100. You save your kid.2) Your kid is dying. The only way to save him is to murder 100 other kids. You kill the other kids to save your kid.Why would #1 be moral but #2 be immoral? In both cases you're trading 100 lives for your kid's life.

Because you do not have a moral right to take another life, even if it's to save a life, unless by virtue of self-defense.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Because you do not have a moral right to take another life, even if it's to save a life, unless by virtue of self-defense.

So if somebody is about to nuke Europe, I can't morally kill him?

 

[Psychopav]

Because you do not have a moral right to take another life, even if it's to save a life, unless by virtue of self-defense.

So if somebody is about to nuke Europe, I can't morally kill him?

unless by virtue of self-defense

This is the "I get to kill people who are out to kill people if there's no other way of stopping them" loophole. Countries use it and call it just war. Individuals use it and call it self-defense.Bush just ignores the rule and pre-emptively strikes so his buddies can get their hands on the oil, or so I've heard.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Because you do not have a moral right to take another life, even if it's to save a life, unless by virtue of self-defense.

So if somebody is about to nuke Europe, I can't morally kill him?

unless by virtue of self-defense

This is the "I get to kill people who are out to kill people if there's no other way of stopping them" loophole. Countries use it and call it just war. Individuals use it and call it self-defense.Bush just ignores the rule and pre-emptively strikes so his buddies can get their hands on the oil, or so I've heard.

I'm not in Europe, so it can't be self-defense. It's taking a life to save other lives, which you said was immoral.

 

[Funkley]

Why is it so hard for the "human" people to understand why I would save something I love and have an emotional attachment to over a stranger??

It's not hard for us to understand your motivation. We just think it's immoral.

Answer this question Mr. Morality.You can save the life your child or the lives of 100 other children. What do you choose? HUH??

Being that I am the parent of that child, it is my natural protective instinct to save my own child first.

True. But's that's how some people feel about their dogs too. Especially people who don't have children but do have pets.

 

[HERBERT THE HIPPO]

Bush just ignores the rule and pre-emptively strikes so his buddies can get their hands on the oil, or so I've heard.

I can no longer take you seriously....

 

[Psychopav]

Because you do not have a moral right to take another life, even if it's to save a life, unless by virtue of self-defense.

So if somebody is about to nuke Europe, I can't morally kill him?

unless by virtue of self-defense

This is the "I get to kill people who are out to kill people if there's no other way of stopping them" loophole. Countries use it and call it just war. Individuals use it and call it self-defense.Bush just ignores the rule and pre-emptively strikes so his buddies can get their hands on the oil, or so I've heard.

I'm not in Europe, so it can't be self-defense. It's taking a life to save other lives, which you said was immoral.

NO, it's taking a life to PREVENT that person from taking other lives. There is a difference.

 

[TheIronSheik]

Because you do not have a moral right to take another life, even if it's to save a life, unless by virtue of self-defense.

So if somebody is about to nuke Europe, I can't morally kill him?

unless by virtue of self-defense

This is the "I get to kill people who are out to kill people if there's no other way of stopping them" loophole. Countries use it and call it just war. Individuals use it and call it self-defense.Bush just ignores the rule and pre-emptively strikes so his buddies can get their hands on the oil, or so I've heard.

I'm not in Europe, so it can't be self-defense. It's taking a life to save other lives, which you said was immoral.

NO, it's taking a life to PREVENT that person from taking other lives. There is a difference.

So, could I kill a guy who was going to save his dog over a stranger?

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Because you do not have a moral right to take another life, even if it's to save a life, unless by virtue of self-defense.

So if somebody is about to nuke Europe, I can't morally kill him?

unless by virtue of self-defense

This is the "I get to kill people who are out to kill people if there's no other way of stopping them" loophole. Countries use it and call it just war. Individuals use it and call it self-defense.Bush just ignores the rule and pre-emptively strikes so his buddies can get their hands on the oil, or so I've heard.

I'm not in Europe, so it can't be self-defense. It's taking a life to save other lives, which you said was immoral.

NO, it's taking a life to PREVENT that person from taking other lives. There is a difference.

No there isn't.

 

[Smoo]

There is no problem with dogs being possessions.

I can't even talk to you. You're spewing ridiculous jibberish. What on earth can you bring to the table to back these babblings up? And if it involves a chapter and verse reference, save it for the tourists, padre.

It has nothing to do with religion, Smoo. Is a dog a possession or isn't it? If it's not, what is it?

It's a viable self-sustaining lifeform. Humans have decided to trade them as if they were possessions, just as they used to do with African humans, but that doesn't make it right or definitive.

Is it wrong to trade them and treat them as possessions?

I think it's wrong, yes. Not nuke-Europe wrong, but definitely squish-bugs wrong.

Well you haven't given any statements to back that up, other than saying that they have internal organs like we do.

Why is it wrong?

For many of the same reasons you people worship humans. They're life.

Just because they're alive doesn't mean it's wrong to trade in them. We buy and sell lots of living things, from dogs to plants to yeast cultures in yogurt. Is it wrong to buy yogurt??

Ideally, yes, but at some point two other concerns enter into it (I've said many times that it's impossible to isolate any single variable)...

1. Practicality. It's difficult to track, protect and save yeast. It's less difficult to track, protect and save a dog.

2. Food. As valuable as life is, it's an unavoidable fact that life has to consume other life to live.

But those are obviously tougher questions. To paraphrase Maurile, recognizing the value of a dog is not.

Sorry quoted the wrong post above.

Smoo, is it OK to buy and sell dogs or isn't it?

What part of "I think it's wrong, yes" gave you problems?

 

[Psychopav]

Because you do not have a moral right to take another life, even if it's to save a life, unless by virtue of self-defense.

So if somebody is about to nuke Europe, I can't morally kill him?

unless by virtue of self-defense

This is the "I get to kill people who are out to kill people if there's no other way of stopping them" loophole. Countries use it and call it just war. Individuals use it and call it self-defense.Bush just ignores the rule and pre-emptively strikes so his buddies can get their hands on the oil, or so I've heard.

I'm not in Europe, so it can't be self-defense. It's taking a life to save other lives, which you said was immoral.

NO, it's taking a life to PREVENT that person from taking other lives. There is a difference.

No there isn't.

Yes, yes there is. Protecting innocent life from harm unjustly being perpetrated against it is different than ending one innocent life to save another.

 

[Psychopav]

There is no problem with dogs being possessions.

I can't even talk to you. You're spewing ridiculous jibberish. What on earth can you bring to the table to back these babblings up? And if it involves a chapter and verse reference, save it for the tourists, padre.

It has nothing to do with religion, Smoo. Is a dog a possession or isn't it? If it's not, what is it?

It's a viable self-sustaining lifeform. Humans have decided to trade them as if they were possessions, just as they used to do with African humans, but that doesn't make it right or definitive.

Is it wrong to trade them and treat them as possessions?

I think it's wrong, yes. Not nuke-Europe wrong, but definitely squish-bugs wrong.

Well you haven't given any statements to back that up, other than saying that they have internal organs like we do.

Why is it wrong?

For many of the same reasons you people worship humans. They're life.

Just because they're alive doesn't mean it's wrong to trade in them. We buy and sell lots of living things, from dogs to plants to yeast cultures in yogurt. Is it wrong to buy yogurt??

Ideally, yes, but at some point two other concerns enter into it (I've said many times that it's impossible to isolate any single variable)...

1. Practicality. It's difficult to track, protect and save yeast. It's less difficult to track, protect and save a dog.

2. Food. As valuable as life is, it's an unavoidable fact that life has to consume other life to live.

But those are obviously tougher questions. To paraphrase Maurile, recognizing the value of a dog is not.

Sorry quoted the wrong post above.

Smoo, is it OK to buy and sell dogs or isn't it?

What part of "I think it's wrong, yes" gave you problems?

No part of "I think it's wrong, yes" gave me problems. It was the apparent contradiction later when you said you have no use for absolutes that gave me problems.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Because you do not have a moral right to take another life, even if it's to save a life, unless by virtue of self-defense.

So if somebody is about to nuke Europe, I can't morally kill him?

unless by virtue of self-defense

This is the "I get to kill people who are out to kill people if there's no other way of stopping them" loophole. Countries use it and call it just war. Individuals use it and call it self-defense.Bush just ignores the rule and pre-emptively strikes so his buddies can get their hands on the oil, or so I've heard.

I'm not in Europe, so it can't be self-defense. It's taking a life to save other lives, which you said was immoral.

NO, it's taking a life to PREVENT that person from taking other lives. There is a difference.

No there isn't.

Yes, yes there is. Protecting innocent life from harm unjustly being perpetrated against it is different than ending one innocent life to save another.

What if the guy who was about to nuke Europe was innocent too? Like, he thought the button was to order a Fresca, but it actually was the "nuke Europe" button. In that case, you'd be killing an innocent guy to save other innocent people. Would that be moral?

 

[Psychopav]

What if the guy who was about to nuke Europe was innocent too? Like, he thought the button was to order a Fresca, but it actually was the "nuke Europe" button. In that case, you'd be killing an innocent guy to save other innocent people. Would that be moral?

That's a tough one. This is assuming of course that only death would stop him from pressing the button, there's no other way of stopping him (restraint, reason, other forms of violence that fall short of killing him, etc.).If that's the case, I think it would probably be immoral to kill him, but I'm not sure about that. Luckily, I don't think I'll ever be in a position to have to make that determination. That one's not so obvious.