GameBanshee Forums

[QUOTE=Magrus]Hmm, if my mother were diagnosed with terminal cancer, and the cure required the pain of other animals to cure her? I would let her die.[/QUOTE]

Apparently the 'parents = earthworms' constituency is larger than I thought.

[QUOTE=Magrus]However, you still think [...] it's no big deal that ducks got killed.[/QUOTE]

I said just the opposite in my last post, but don't let that interfere with your flights of fancy.

...

I can't imagine what's wrong with you, but I hope you get it sorted out before you're actually in a position where someone's life depends on your actions.

[QUOTE=ellipsis jones]Apparently the 'parents = earthworms' constituency is larger than I thought.[/QUOTE]

People do say that when you cease learning something new everyday it is the day you die, don't they?

[QUOTE=ellipsis jones]I said just the opposite in my last post, but don't let that interfere with your flights of fancy.

...[/QUOTE]
For someone new, you do learn fast about twisting what is posting to your own ends. :laugh: You said nothing to contradict what I posted. Nothing at all. As I said, aside from the fact you have done nothing to instill the belief in me you would actually attack a random animal for the simple joy of it, you still held similar beliefs in the view that humans>other species.

[QUOTE=ellipsis jones]I can't imagine what's wrong with you, but I hope you get it sorted out before you're actually in a position where someone's life depends on your actions.[/QUOTE]

Hmm, I'm assuming a lot here, but unless you are in a medical or military/police type profession, I can guarantee I've saved more lives than you, or any average person in my short lifetime. So, regardless of what is "wrong with me", people have depended on me, and I have saved their lives before. That is a moot point.

So every human out there is racist, negliegent, cruel and deserves no mercy and if they're random and in your way, you'll just see the very worst in them rather than the possibility that they are good and doing what they can to stamp out such traits in others?
Wouldn't that just persuade people who were doing selfless, good things just to give up on that because no one recognises that, thus adding to the crowd of people you hate so much?

What gives you the right to decide that some random person's life is worth less than someone you know?

bah..
never mind

As for the animal cruelty vs murder thing, Mag seems to be placing animals above humans on a scale, I'd like to think of my own view as one closer to equal value on both.
That's how my posts reflect the main topic.

[QUOTE=Magrus]For someone new, you do learn fast about twisting what is posting to your own ends. :laugh: You said nothing to contradict what I posted. Nothing at all.[/QUOTE]

Yes, I do believe that humans are more important than other species. Never disputed that. I do NOT view beating ducks to death as "no big deal," which is why I called it "a serious crime" and deemed the perpetrator a likely "psychopath." How you get tacit approval out of that is beyond me.

[QUOTE=Magrus]I've saved more lives than you, or any average person in my short lifetime. So, regardless of what is "wrong with me", people have depended on me, and I have saved their lives before.[/QUOTE]

I suppose it's a good thing there wasn't a bunny with a wounded paw nearby during any of these incidents. How would you have been able to decide between helping it, or saving a human life?

[QUOTE=Ravager]So every human out there is racist, negliegent, cruel and deserves no mercy and if they're random and in your way, you'll just see the very worst in them rather than the possibility that they are good and doing what they can to stamp out such traits in others?
Wouldn't that just persuade people who were doing selfless, good things just to give up on that because no one recognises that, thus adding to the crowd of people you hate so much?

What gives you the right to decide that some random person's life is worth less than someone you know?[/QUOTE]

*shakes my head* I have found that nearly everyone I know is harboring beliefs that make them to be creatures that I lack respect for in some way. Whether it be my racist paternal grandmother, my abusive paternal grandfather, my close-minded mother, my abusive father, my racist boss, my power-hungry CEO, the addict I live next to, whatever. Humans, as a species, need to learn from others in order to survive. What they absorb affects how they think. Yet, that isn't all. They are capable of independant thought.

There are most definately people I respect and hold dear. However, I have no reason to discriminate between species simply based on species. It is the fact most people I know that are biased, discriminatory people who I dislike that gives me the opinion, that if I were to pick some random person off of the street and end their life, I would in some tiny way be doing this entire planet a favor. Why? By far, the vast majority of humanity is harming this planet overall rather than helping.

No matter what you toss my way, it will not change my mind. Even myself, I will whole-heartedly admit that. As I am sure has been mentioned before on this forum, there really is no purpose in me going against the majority and attempting to stop what is going on from happening. My recycling, is nothing in comparison to the vast corporations that dump waste into the Great Lakes in the northern US, which have enough fresh water, if not polluted by humanity, to supply both North and South America with fresh water to be drinking water fo everyone within the two continents.

If I were to give up everything, and start to hunt, and take only what I need to survive it would not work. Humans have claimed every inch of this planet's surface as their own. SOMEONE owns everything, so that if say I wanted to make myself a bow and arrow, hide in the woods, build myself a shelter and hunt deer to survive, it would be illegal to do so. I would need to work at a job the pay exceptional money, and the purchase a few square miles of good land in order to survive on my own. That, or steal enough heavy military equipment and weaponry from my government in order to fend them off and keep my newly conquered territory as my own land.

I cannot be a do-gooder, because the system assures, that in doing so, I would be required to be put in a cage. There is a legal limit to how much fish, deer, ect I can hunt and eat. Which is woefully insufficient in order to support myself without purchasing anything. If I could, I would, but I would need to change the minds of millions of ignorant US citizens in order to such a thing.

[QUOTE=Ravager] As for the animal cruelty vs murder thing, Mag seems to be placing animals above humans on a scale, I'd like to think of my own view as one closer to equal value on both.
That's how my posts reflect the main topic. [/QUOTE]

Indeed. As I said, I have more personal reason to respect animals over humans. The only species besides humans which has ever attacked me for simple walking past it were dogs. That's it. No cat, ant, fly, bee, bird, fish, snake, etc has ever attacked me for coming near it. Humans and dogs have. Dogs, have been breeded to be dependant on humans for training and survival. If you want a canine that is not, find a fox or wolf. Humans, in general, as promoted in this post, by every single poster beyond myself and Chim have shown, that they view themselves as more important than other species.

I have provided reasons as to why I hold my views. No one else has. Not beyond some nonsense about humans being better than animals, that's that type of crap.

[QUOTE=ellipsis jones]Yes, I do believe that humans are more important than other species. Never disputed that. I do NOT view beating ducks to death as "no big deal," which is why I called it "a serious crime" and deemed the perpetrator a likely "psychopath." How you get tacit approval out of that is beyond me.[/QUOTE]

How I get approval of that is beyond you? The fact you believe humans are more important than any other species. Simple as that. Why you view humans, the single most destructive force on this planet, as more important as any other species, is beyond me.

[QUOTE=ellipsis jones]I suppose it's a good thing there wasn't a bunny with a wounded paw nearby during any of these incidents. How would you have been able to decide between helping it, or saving a human life?[/QUOTE]

Simple. I'd go through a few thoughts before reacting.

1. Do I know the person or bunny?
2. Do I like the person more than the bunny?

Depending on answers 1 and 2, I would act accordingly. If, I knew neither, to be honest, chances are I would act in a manner which would have a higher success rate. Given "bunnies" are more likely to run off before being touched by something x70 their body weight, my chances of helping the human are greater.

[QUOTE=Magrus]There are most definately people I respect and hold dear. However, I have no reason to discriminate between species simply based on species. It is the fact most people I know that are biased, discriminatory people who I dislike that gives me the opinion, that if I were to pick some random person off of the street and end their life, I would in some tiny way be doing this entire planet a favor. Why? By far, the vast majority of humanity is harming this planet overall rather than helping. [/QUOTE]

And you know how many of the six billion odd population of the planet?
There are a lot of bad people out there, I know that, but there are a lot of good selfless people out there too. And as for people harming the planet, on what scale do you mean, the people who live a light on for longer than necessary thus wasting electricity and then requiring more to be produced to cover that? I'm sure we're all guilty of such offences at one point or another. What about the people who go out of their way to make people aware of this, getting people to swap to energy efficient materials thus helping the planet, do they then deserve the same treatment as the person 'harming the planet. Or does it come down to a 50/50 chance on who gets picked simply because you know neither, nor have spent the time getting to know them?

[QUOTE=Magrus]No matter what you toss my way, it will not change my mind. Even myself, I will whole-heartedly admit that. As I am sure has been mentioned before on this forum, there really is no purpose in me going against the majority and attempting to stop what is going on from happening. My recycling, is nothing in comparison to the vast corporations that dump waste into the Great Lakes in the northern US, which have enough fresh water, if not polluted by humanity, to supply both North and South America with fresh water to be drinking water fo everyone within the two continents.[/QUOTE]

I never said doing a good thing in the minority was/or would be a pointless act. It in fact would help to encourage others to follow suit, whch would then multiply out exponentially. If enough people recycled and stood up against the corporations then the situation might cange, and that's better than following the herd of the majority in order for an easier life.

[QUOTE=Magrus]I cannot be a do-gooder, because the system assures, that in doing so, I would be required to be put in a cage. There is a legal limit to how much fish, deer, ect I can hunt and eat. Which is woefully insufficient in order to support myself without purchasing anything. If I could, I would, but I would need to change the minds of millions of ignorant US citizens in order to such a thing. [/QUOTE]

Who says you need to become some survival expert, going back to the basics to do good deeds, there are people who do good deeds while living in modern society, using modern products that may waste resources by their very nature.

[QUOTE=Magrus]I have provided reasons as to why I hold my views. No one else has. Not beyond some nonsense about humans being better than animals, that's that type of crap. [/QUOTE]

I don't want to see any animal go through needless cruelty, and it baffles me why murdering an animal would be called 'cruelty' rather than 'murder'. A normal animal hunts for survival, whereas a human generally hunts for sport. As for those who then go out of their way to see an animal suffer as well as die, I think there should be a decent punishment for that. I'm not advocating a death penalty though, nor would I do that in the case of a human murder.
Does that answer the question?

[QUOTE=Magrus]Given "bunnies" are more likely to run off before being touched by something x70 their body weight, my chances of helping the human are greater.[/QUOTE]

But isn't the human capable of more evil acts, thus less worthy of saving?

[QUOTE=Ravager]And you know how many of the six billion odd population of the planet?
There are a lot of bad people out there, I know that, but there are a lot of good selfless people out there too. And as for people harming the planet, on what scale do you mean, the people who live a light on for longer than necessary thus wasting electricity and then requiring more to be produced to cover that? I'm sure we're all guilty of such offences at one point or another. What about the people who go out of their way to make people aware of this, getting people to swap to energy efficient materials thus helping the planet, do they then deserve the same treatment as the person 'harming the planet. Or does it come down to a 50/50 chance on who gets picked simply because you know neither, nor have spent the time getting to know them?[/QUOTE]

Yes, no, and yes. In order of your questions. I have no the time in my life to get to know every person in the detail needed to judge such a stituation, so I must use my own, personal judgement. Which, may or may not be correct, however, it is what I have to work with given my life experiences. Given they have been far different than the majority of those on this planet, most especially different from those who frequent this forum, my views are far different than most humans views are.


[QUOTE=Ravager]I never said doing a good thing in the minority was/or would be a pointless act. It in fact would help to encourage others to follow suit, whch would then multiply out exponentially. If enough people recycled and stood up against the corporations then the situation might cange, and that's better than following the herd of the majority in order for an easier life.[/QUOTE]

Umm, people have been recycling for years here. The only reasons corporations do so is because they will be fined large sums of money and shut down if they don't. Not for any righteous reasons, it all comes back to greed and profits, unfortunately.



[QUOTE=Ravager]Who says you need to become some survival expert, going back to the basics to do good deeds, there are people who do good deeds while living in modern society, using modern products that may waste resources by their very nature.[/QUOTE]


*nods* Those people who do good deeds while wasting resources in doing so aren't doing the best they can though, are they? If I were to follow all laws, and have the money to pay for every service I could afford to help the environment, I would still end up harming the environment. Why? It is the human way to do whatever it can to see to personal comfort above of the good of all involved. Every time I purchase a package of food, it is bad for the envinronment. Even if I buy those eggs that are purchased from farms that do not cage their chickens, the eggs still come in a package which is unfriendly to the environment.

[QUOTE=Ravager]I don't want to see any animal go through needless cruelty, and it baffles me why murdering an animal would be called 'cruelty' rather than 'murder'. A normal animal hunts for survival, whereas a human generally hunts for sport. As for those who then go out of their way to see an animal suffer as well as die, I think there should be a decent punishment for that. I'm not advocating a death penalty though, nor would I do that in the case of a human murder.
Does that answer the question? [/QUOTE]

Yeah, it does. Far better than everyone else who has posted here.

[QUOTE=Ravager]But isn't the human capable of more evil acts, thus less worthy of saving? [/QUOTE]

Not necessarily. In my personaly experience, broken down into statiscal mathematics...yes...however, that is not necessarily true. However, the chances of a human with an injured foot running off and getting away from me instead of a rabbit with the same situation is far less. Not to mention, I understand the physical makeup, and could communicate better with a human than a rabbit. If I had a sure way to capture the rabbit, and knew how to treat the wound, I would see to the rabbit. However in a circumstance that I couldn't, I would go to the human, as I have a better chance of helping the human that the rabbit given the circumstances.

Between my running off to shower and my running off to find an open liquor store--success, by the way --a lot's happened in this thread. So much catching up to do.

Vicsun wrote:I'd also assume that the parentheses in the definition he quoted mean that human is implied. Not that I think arguing semantics has any point whatsoever - what difference does it make if we have a different word for the slaughter of humans than for the slaughter of animals? If anything it's further underlining the fact that humans put more worth on their own species than other species, which is completely understandable - I can't remember the last time I saw a lion care about hyena. In that respect humans are nicer than most animals in the fact that we do grant them some privileges.

It's in paranthesis to suggest that humans are the most common example of what it means to commit an act of murder. It does not necessarily mean that it is implied that only humans can murder if it's other humans. And humans are the only species who believes there is a need for such privleges and rights, and humans are the only species who need laws to govern them. All the animals are capable of just "being."

Magrus wrote:@ Chim, Wonderful response. If you were a chick I would SO be all over you. :laugh:

Er, which response was that, so I can be sure not to do it again?

Ravager wrote:My point is creatures like crocodiles and lions that learn to hunt for sport rather than survival. This does happen, just like humans can learn or be born into rascist or situations that encourage cruelty. Do you then judge an entire species on the acts of one such creature, even if the rest of that species was usually good and placid, just because you haven't had that experience?
Animals hunting for sport is the equivalent of some human randomly beating another for personal amusement.

And yet, when a crocodile or lion hunts for sport, they pick off the weak and sick and the old. Predators, whether hunting for sport--which is a human thing, animals don't engage in this--or for food, invariably catch the weak, thinning out the herd so that the stronger survive. This you can bet old in one of any number of nature programs or read in any nature magazine. But then, if a crocodile or shark were to hunt a human and catch such weak pray, the backlash against the animal is always a hundred times worse: look at famous examples of shark hunts or when other animals kill humans. If an animal were to engage in the idea of killing a human for the fun of it, there would be more than fifty humans swarming that animal's habitat, killing the animal's family, children, rivals, and even the animal itself. For one small life, how many others would be extinguished in the so-called hope of preserving more life?

ellipsis jones wrote:What Vicsun said. Certainly, the verb 'murder' can be used to refer to any brutal killing. But the original post was discussing the crime of murder, which has a specific legal definition.

The original post was discussing how some people consider laws regarding the killing of a human to be more equal than laws regarding killing helpless animals. The verb, or action, is what I bring up since it is the actual act we are punishing rather than the idea--nouns are people, places, things, or ideas, remember--of murder. You cannot punish an idea without an action having taken place, unless you live in a "dictatorship."

Actually, we're talking about epistemology - how we organize things into conceptual categories. Do you think that 'animals' and 'humans' are identical categories? Should animals share all the same rights as human beings? Since you equate the life experience of a duck with that of a human being, I'm guessing your answer is a big yes on both counts. Well, by all means, try to change the legal code in your area to reflect what you think is the rightful status of animals. I don't imagine you'll get much support, though, since you'd basically be telling people that there's no difference in value between their parents, and say, earthworms. I suppose we shouldn't keep dray animals either, because it's enslavement. And we mustn't harvest wool without a sheep's expressed consent - it would be theft.

Epistemology is a philosophy. This is scientific classification (maybe CE can help me, I totally forgot the actual name for the categorization of creatures based on their physical characteristics). If it has four legs, it must be a quadraped. That's how I took your "four-legged" question. Do I think "lower" lifeforms and "humans," the arrogantly self-proclaimed higher lifeform, are in different categories? Yes. At least the "lower" lifeforms don't have arrogant preconceived notions about racial differentiation between the species or even its own. At least the "lower" lifeforms do not rape and pillage the world, destroying it in the process, because they can easily get what they need--and only what they need--from the environment around them without hurting it. At least the "lower" lifeforms do not create such abritrary laws to apply only to themselves, which do not apply to others, sometimes even of their own species, so that if a law is broken but doesn't apply to the species, the prepetrator gets off with a lenient punishment. That's three points for the "lower" lifeforms, null for humans. So yes, humans are in another category compared to "lower" lifeforms; we're in a lesser category. And you seem to be trying to compare both Magrus and myself to those hypocritical no-good do-gooders in PETA. I would treat any fanatical member of that hypocritical group the same way I would someone who bashes ducklings for fun, because I know what kind of people are in the upper echelons of PETA. For you to compare me to them, frankly, is highly insulting. And the only reason I wouldn't get much support is due to people like you, who think you're better than other species, because it is a myth that has been prepetuated throughout time by an arrogant species. So, no, I wouldn't get much support, because most people would equate being "lowered" to the level of an earthworm as an insult. Because people are bred to think they are somehow superior to any other species, and when someone is taught something from birth, that kind of indoctrination is difficult to break.

Of course animals are lesser creatures. That doesn't mean we have no responsibilities toward them, and it doesn't mean we can treat them in whatever manner we like. It simply means that the life of a bird, while valuable, is not as valuable as that of a person. Squashing ducks is a serious crime, but not a crime of the same magnitude as murder.

What if said bird was the last of its species? Does it have more value then, due to the selfish drive to preserve the lives of animals nearly destroyed by other people? Such acts are selfishly-conceived to lull the conscience into thinking you did something for them. Only if the bird happens to be special in some way would people attribute it to being valuable. And what if that bird just happened to hold the cure to cancer, if scientists were able to study it alive? Suddenly, that bird is looking a whole lot more valuable due to its inherent value at preserving more human life. Selfish.[/QUOTE]

ellipsis jones wrote:I can't imagine what's wrong with you, but I hope you get it sorted out before you're actually in a position where someone's life depends on your actions.

And who says you're any better to sort through this kind of moral arguement? There was once a great man who tried to purge his country of all its ills. He tried desperately to restore order to a chaotic world, and eliminate a perceived threat to his countrymen. People invested their trust in him, and he did what he could to justify their trust in him. This description can probably fit a few dozen people, but the one I have in mind in this description is one of the most hated, "evil" men in the world: Hitler. The Germans were willing to turn a blind eye to the things the Nazis did, and Hitler was given a position of power by Hindenburg. He helped the lives of countless Germans, and all it cost were the lives of the insignificant specks of "lower lifeforms," the Jews. And yet, the Jews aren't a separate species at all; they were just deemed lower lifeforms by those indoctrinated to feel that way towards a specific group of living beings. And that justified their treatment of the Jews, the Poles, the Slavs, the gays, the Catholics, etc.

Ravager wrote:What gives you the right to decide that some random person's life is worth less than someone you know?

That's not a fair question; very few people would be able to make that kind of moral choice when confronted with the matter.

[QUOTE=Chimaera182]Er, which response was that, so I can be sure not to do it again? [/QUOTE]

The list would be very long, and require multiple posts. Let's just say I concur with everything you have posted so far in this thread. That, and I've had a lot of rum, and I'm in one of my rare, happy moods when I love everyone. Ugh, Lina so didn't help with the before she left tonight.

Chimaera182 wrote:the actual name for the categorization of creatures based on their physical characteristics

Linnaean taxonomy?

And what if that bird just happened to hold the cure to cancer, if scientists were able to study it alive? Suddenly, that bird is looking a whole lot more valuable due to its inherent value at preserving more human life. Selfish.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Hitler Hitler Hitler

Now that the thread's been nice and thoroughly Godwinned, how about some pictures of adorable ducklings?

[QUOTE=Magrus]Yes, no, and yes. In order of your questions. I have no the time in my life to get to know every person in the detail needed to judge such a stituation, so I must use my own, personal judgement. Which, may or may not be correct, however, it is what I have to work with given my life experiences. Given they have been far different than the majority of those on this planet, most especially different from those who frequent this forum, my views are far different than most humans views are.[/QUOTE]

What about getting to know the person you'd so willingly sacrifice who was in your way? I'm not saying get to know everyone...beyond perhaps not attributing one all-encompassing view to everyone you don't know on the planet.
Maybe you'd see the person who you'd so willingly sacrifice doesn't deserve such a fate after all...

[QUOTE=Magrus]Umm, people have been recycling for years here. The only reasons corporations do so is because they will be fined large sums of money and shut down if they don't. Not for any righteous reasons, it all comes back to greed and profits, unfortunately.[/QUOTE]

No, I don't mean just standing up to a corporation via recycling though that would be a part of it, there are other legal ways of opposition, such as boycotting their products, highlighting things that the corporation does etc.

[QUOTE=Magrus]*nods* Those people who do good deeds while wasting resources in doing so aren't doing the best they can though, are they? If I were to follow all laws, and have the money to pay for every service I could afford to help the environment, I would still end up harming the environment. Why? It is the human way to do whatever it can to see to personal comfort above of the good of all involved. Every time I purchase a package of food, it is bad for the envinronment. Even if I buy those eggs that are purchased from farms that do not cage their chickens, the eggs still come in a package which is unfriendly to the environment. [/QUOTE]

What about people such as doctors and vets...who regularly work to save other people's and animals lives. Just because they live in a comfy house with electricity and running water, does that mean their other efforts are suddenly invalidated?
I'm not saying these home comforts are a good thing, packaging and such is produced in a wasteful way to the environment, and a lot needs to be done about that. But can you really condemn the person who buys them because they cannot see or afford an alternative. Even if they don't care whether there is one. It's the government, te corporation and a number of factors involved.

[QUOTE=Chim]And yet, when a crocodile or lion hunts for sport, they pick off the weak and sick and the old. Predators, whether hunting for sport--which is a human thing, animals don't engage in this--or for food, invariably catch the weak, thinning out the herd so that the stronger survive. This you can bet old in one of any number of nature programs or read in any nature magazine. But then, if a crocodile or shark were to hunt a human and catch such weak pray, the backlash against the animal is always a hundred times worse: look at famous examples of shark hunts or when other animals kill humans. If an animal were to engage in the idea of killing a human for the fun of it, there would be more than fifty humans swarming that animal's habitat, killing the animal's family, children, rivals, and even the animal itself. For one small life, how many others would be extinguished in the so-called hope of preserving more life?[/QUOTE]
Oh, I'm notsaying the method to deal with such animals is a correct one, it's an over-zealous form of self-defence, as you'd expect an animal to do all it could to protect it's young.
The animal that hunts for sport will pick indiscriminately on what the person is like, just sizing up a weakness to exploit...oh, much like these evil corporations, really...

[QUOTE=Chim]That's not a fair question; very few people would be able to make that kind of moral choice when confronted with the matter.[/QUOTE]
Just like it's not fair that someone random dies in your path because they were in your path at the wrong time?

[QUOTE=ellipsis jones]Linnaean taxonomy?

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Now that the thread's been nice and thoroughly Godwinned, how about some pictures of adorable ducklings?[/QUOTE]
Yes, taxonomy, thank you. It's been so long since I've heard that word, but that's what I meant.

I say it like it's a bad thing because before anyone knew this bird was the last of its species, or could possibly cure a disease, it held very little value at all.

[QUOTE=Ravager]Oh, I'm notsaying the method to deal with such animals is a correct one, it's an over-zealous form of self-defence, as you'd expect an animal to do all it could to protect it's young.
The animal that hunts for sport will pick indiscriminately on what the person is like, just sizing up a weakness to exploit...oh, much like these evil corporations, really...

Just like it's not fair that someone random dies in your path because they were in your path at the wrong time? [/QUOTE]
But that's the point exactly, well, no it's not. Humans engage in hunting for sport, other animals do not. The other animals do it in order to survive, whereas humans can choose to hunt for sport if they saw fit. An animal that strikes down a human is doing it because it needs food or is trying to protect themselves; sharks often strike people not because they're hungry or vicious man-killers but because they don't understand what people are, and are curious and try to figure them out (it's not as though they're attacking humans out of sport).

To be honest, I hadn't read Magrus' post, the one you asked that question of; I just thought it was fair to point that out. But the truth is, at least if it's someone you know, you're better able to gauge who they are better than someone who's a stranger. For all you know, the stranger could turn into the next Hitler; or, for that matter, they could turn into the next Mother Teresa. But you don't know them, and because it's a personal choice, it invariably comes down to choosing the one you know. It's partly motivated by selfishness, because of the undue pain it would cause you if the person you know dies. Hence why I bring up that statement.

[QUOTE=Chimaera182]But that's the point exactly, well, no it's not. Humans engage in hunting for sport, other animals do not. The other animals do it in order to survive, whereas humans can choose to hunt for sport if they saw fit. An animal that strikes down a human is doing it because it needs food or is trying to protect themselves; sharks often strike people not because they're hungry or vicious man-killers but because they don't understand what people are, and are curious and try to figure them out (it's not as though they're attacking humans out of sport).[/QUOTE]
Generally, that's the truth, yeah. There are many documented instances where an animal has hunted for sport deliberately and not for food though. Which would make said animal no better than a human hunter or fisher who goes and kills an animal for nothing more than fun.

[QUOTE=Chimaera182]To be honest, I hadn't read Magrus' post, the one you asked that question of; I just thought it was fair to point that out. But the truth is, at least if it's someone you know, you're better able to gauge who they are better than someone who's a stranger. For all you know, the stranger could turn into the next Hitler; or, for that matter, they could turn into the next Mother Teresa. But you don't know them, and because it's a personal choice, it invariably comes down to choosing the one you know. It's partly motivated by selfishness, because of the undue pain it would cause you if the person you know dies. Hence why I bring up that statement.[/QUOTE]
I think Mag's original point was that he'd be willing to kill a random person between him and the one he loved rather than an animal, that's not a choice between someone you know and someone you don't. Heck, that's killing someone before even giving them the chance to move out of the way or explain themself. Yes, I accept that you would be biased towards the person you know, that's human nature, but there are limits to that...and surely murder is one of those.

[QUOTE=Ravager]What about getting to know the person you'd so willingly sacrifice who was in your way? I'm not saying get to know everyone...beyond perhaps not attributing one all-encompassing view to everyone you don't know on the planet.
Maybe you'd see the person who you'd so willingly sacrifice doesn't deserve such a fate after all...[/QUOTE]

If I did have time, possibly. If so, I'd move on to the next, and in that case, if I had time, yet again, until I found a person that didn't fit to my standards, and in that case, if needed, put a knife in their eye myeslf. I'm not squimesh.

[QUOTE=Ravager]No, I don't mean just standing up to a corporation via recycling though that would be a part of it, there are other legal ways of opposition, such as boycotting their products, highlighting things that the corporation does etc.[/QUOTE]

Which, gets nowhere really.

[QUOTE=Ravager]What about people such as doctors and vets...who regularly work to save other people's and animals lives. Just because they live in a comfy house with electricity and running water, does that mean their other efforts are suddenly invalidated?
I'm not saying these home comforts are a good thing, packaging and such is produced in a wasteful way to the environment, and a lot needs to be done about that. But can you really condemn the person who buys them because they cannot see or afford an alternative. Even if they don't care whether there is one. It's the government, te corporation and a number of factors involved.[/QUOTE]

Doctors left my memory, metabolism, body and mind a shadow of what is was before I saw them. Nurses followed through on orders from a doctor they knew where cruel and unusual orders. I hold no mercy or respect for anyone in either field. They're all looking for a paycheck, not to help those who truly need it. I'm considered crippled becuase of them. If they were looking to help people, those who said they could cure me of my constant pain "if you had the money to afford it" would have done so. No, screw them, they deserve pain and suffering. Claiming that they go out of their way to help people because they chose that profession is total, and utter crap. They wanted a career that paid them well and made them feel better about themselves, any other belief is delusion.

Chimaera182 wrote:
It's in paranthesis to suggest that humans are the most common example of what it means to commit an act of murder. It does not necessarily mean that it is implied that only humans can murder if it's other humans. And humans are the only species who believes there is a need for such privleges and rights, and humans are the only species who need laws to govern them. All the animals are capable of just "being."

OED:
Murder:1. The most heinous kind of criminal homicide; an instance of this. In eng law Defined as the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought; often wilful murder b.Ofen applied to a death sentence, killing of men in war. or any action causeing destruction of human life, which is regarded as morally wicked, whether legal or not.

Murder v. 1. trans. To kill (a human being) unlawfully with malice aforethought; to kill wickedly, inhumanly or barbarously .......

I concur with the earlier post which stated that the parenthesis shows what is understood and implicit in the word. Frankly in ordinary usage murder is never applied to anything other than the killing of a human being. We all know that is what the word means, and the dictionary follows the native speaker not the other way round. While I took issue with this as applied by Ik in another context he is of course correct in principle - the dictionary lags but the native speaker is always correct. Where native speakers disagree there is room for argument. In this case I argue that it is perverse to pretend there is true disagreement, and in fact the issue is raised purely for the rhetorical effect. I am sorry if this offends, but I do not see anything here other than a theoretical possibility. Murder might mean the killling of ducks; it just so happens that it doesn't

And yet, when a crocodile or lion hunts for sport, they pick off the weak and sick and the old. Predators, whether hunting for sport--which is a human thing, animals don't engage in this--or for food, invariably catch the weak, thinning out the herd so that the stronger survive. This you can bet old in one of any number of nature programs or read in any nature magazine.

Um ......what us the point here? Do you question whether they hunt for sport? Clearly the paragraph suggests you do and the first sentence is redudant. You then seem to attribute some moral worth to an outcome which itself has no moral content. I am interested in your description that they pick off the "weak and sick and the old". Quite comfortable are we? In fact I think you will find that they will kill the children (do we prefer the term "very young") at least as often as those you choose to describe. Happy with the notion that it is survival of the fittest leading to strengthening of the group? I am not. Each individual is just that. His or her life matters more to than anything else. I am sorry if that is not very Darwinist but it happens to be true: there is no comfort in "my death will strengthen the group": not unless you are human.

But then, if a crocodile or shark were to hunt a human and catch such weak pray, the backlash against the animal is always a hundred times worse: look at famous examples of shark hunts or when other animals kill humans. If an animal were to engage in the idea of killing a human for the fun of it, there would be more than fifty humans swarming that animal's habitat, killing the animal's family, children, rivals, and even the animal itself. For one small life, how many others would be extinguished in the so-called hope of preserving more life?

Such a back lash would be ok if the animal had the effrontery to kill a strong human being? What are you talking about? Sharks don't kill the weak and the sick and the old. they kill people who go swimming -hardly the same group. Waht is your first point?.

Yes you are correct that the response is disproportionate. So what? We do it because we can? There is no answer to the question would they if they could? It is ridiculous

Epistemology is a philosophy.

Rubbish. It is the critical study of the relationship between grounds for belief and belief itself. It is a branch of philosophy concerned wih how we can know what we can know and it affects everything we think about

This is scientific classification (maybe CE can help me, I totally forgot the actual name for the categorization of creatures based on their physical characteristics). If it has four legs, it must be a quadraped. That's how I took your "four-legged" question.

I think that is zoology

Do I think "lower" lifeforms and "humans," the arrogantly self-proclaimed higher lifeform, are in different categories? Yes. At least the "lower" lifeforms don't have arrogant preconceived notions about racial differentiation between the species or even its own. At least the "lower" lifeforms do not rape and pillage the world, destroying it in the process, because they can easily get what they need--and only what they need--from the environment around them without hurting it. At least the "lower" lifeforms do not create such abritrary laws to apply only to themselves, which do not apply to others, sometimes even of their own species, so that if a law is broken but doesn't apply to the species, the prepetrator gets off with a lenient punishment. That's three points for the "lower" lifeforms, null for humans. So yes, humans are in another category compared to "lower" lifeforms; we're in a lesser category.

Lovely rhetoric. I could as well say that at "least"human beings sometimes perform altruistic acts; at "least" human beings can think about the rights and privileges of other species even if they are a food source,and can refrain from killing them on those grounds alone at times; at "least" human beings can maek laws which apply to their own species and which imposes punishment for reprehensible actions. That's threee points for human beings, null for the other species ( which I am not arrogant enough to call "lower" as you do, although I accept you may be trying to be ironic.)

And you seem to be trying to compare both Magrus and myself to those hypocritical no-good do-gooders in PETA. I would treat any fanatical member of that hypocritical group the same way I would someone who bashes ducklings for fun, because I know what kind of people are in the upper echelons of PETA. For you to compare me to them, frankly, is highly insulting.

Ad hominem and hardly subtle

And the only reason I wouldn't get much support is due to people like you, who think you're better than other species, because it is a myth that has been prepetuated throughout time by an arrogant species. So, no, I wouldn't get much support, because most people would equate being "lowered" to the level of an earthworm as an insult. Because people are bred to think they are somehow superior to any other species, and when someone is taught something from birth, that kind of indoctrination is difficult to break.

No, I don't. I disagree because I think your argument is weak, not because I am deluded

What if said bird was the last of its species? Does it have more value then, due to the selfish drive to preserve the lives of animals nearly destroyed by other people? Such acts are selfishly-conceived to lull the conscience into thinking you did something for them. Only if the bird happens to be special in some way would people attribute it to being valuable. And what if that bird just happened to hold the cure to cancer, if scientists were able to study it alive? Suddenly, that bird is looking a whole lot more valuable due to its inherent value at preserving more human life. Selfish.

I cannot even begin to conceive of the point you are making. If a species is threatened by human action and some people take steps to preserve it then that may be an example of altruism as much as of selfishness. I happen to believe both are in play most of the time. I am not convinced by the dismissal of the one because a world weary pose suits your argument

And who says you're any better to sort through this kind of moral arguement? There was once a great man who tried to purge his country of all its ills. He tried desperately to restore order to a chaotic world, and eliminate a perceived threat to his countrymen. People invested their trust in him, and he did what he could to justify their trust in him. This description can probably fit a few dozen people, but the one I have in mind in this description is one of the most hated, "evil" men in the world: Hitler. The Germans were willing to turn a blind eye to the things the Nazis did, and Hitler was given a position of power by Hindenburg. He helped the lives of countless Germans, and all it cost were the lives of the insignificant specks of "lower lifeforms," the Jews. And yet, the Jews aren't a separate species at all; they were just deemed lower lifeforms by those indoctrinated to feel that way towards a specific group of living beings. And that justified their treatment of the Jews, the Poles, the Slavs, the gays, the Catholics, etc.

Godwin's law does not enhance an argument., in case you hadn't noticed

That's not a fair question; very few people would be able to make that kind of moral choice when confronted with the matter.

It is a perfectly fair question and your response suggests you are playing yourself

Fiona wrote:I am interested in your description that they pick off the "weak and sick and the old". Quite comfortable are we? In fact I think you will find that they will kill the children (do we prefer the term "very young") at least as often as those you choose to describe.

The young are weaker than the old or those who are fit, hence fitting into his description, no? A human toddler would be easier prey than a old lady or 20 year old male, yes?

Such a back lash would be ok if the animal had the effrontery to kill a strong human being? What are you talking about? Sharks don't kill the weak and the sick and the old. they kill people who go swimming -hardly the same group. Waht is your first point?.

Do you know many weak, sick people who go swimming in oceans? :laugh: Forgive me if I am wrong, but I don't see many people who aren't in good physical condition who actually go swimming in areas where sharks can reach. Your argument is ridiculous.

I have no idea who Godwin is, and as for the rest of that, I'm too buzzed to try and intellectually argue a point that most humans vehemently oppose due to their arrogant belief in their own superiority.

ellipsis jones got it: it's taxonomy. Zoology is the study of animals; taxonomy is the classification of all creatures, which does not exclude non-animals such as plants, bacterium, etc.

And when I looked up the word epistemology, the very definition described it as a philosophy.

epistemology (American Heritage): The branch of philosophy that studies the nature and theory of knowledge.

You even said it yourself: It is a branch of philosophy concerned wih how we can know what we can know and it affects everything we think about

(dictionary.com): The branch of philosophy that studies the nature of knowledge, its presuppositions and foundations, and its extent and validity.

n : the philosophical theory of knowledge

Whatever. If it's not a philosophy, then, I guess all those definitions--including your own--are wrong.

[QUOTE=Magrus]If I did have time, possibly. If so, I'd move on to the next, and in that case, if I had time, yet again, until I found a person that didn't fit to my standards, and in that case, if needed, put a knife in their eye myeslf. I'm not squimesh.[/QUOTE]
How about finding another way, where violence isn't the answer?
And besides, why does a person that doesn't quite match up to your standards need to suffer in such a way. Can't they be rehabilitated?
[QUOTE=Magrus]Which, gets nowhere really. [/QUOTE]
So, it's absolutely pointless then?
Wow, no wonder these corporations get away with it so effortlessly.
[QUOTE=Magrus]Doctors left my memory, metabolism, body and mind a shadow of what is was before I saw them. Nurses followed through on orders from a doctor they knew where cruel and unusual orders. I hold no mercy or respect for anyone in either field. They're all looking for a paycheck, not to help those who truly need it. I'm considered crippled becuase of them. If they were looking to help people, those who said they could cure me of my constant pain "if you had the money to afford it" would have done so. No, screw them, they deserve pain and suffering. Claiming that they go out of their way to help people because they chose that profession is total, and utter crap. They wanted a career that paid them well and made them feel better about themselves, any other belief is delusion.[/QUOTE]
Another perfect example of your own personal experience leading to a general view which you then apply to the whole group.
You had a bad experience, so you have an obvious bias against them but what about all the people that are saved? Look at the statistics.
Not every medical professional is in the job for the money, quite the opposite in the majority of countries, in fact. These people spend a far greater time in training than most to earn a substantially smaller wage than say, a stock broker.
And if you had a world withoutthe medical professionals, what do you think would happen?
A far worse reality than one with hospitals, I'm certain.