I apologize for opening this can of worms.
I apologize for opening this can of worms.
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here this is the War room"
Don't apologize- I'm having fun. This amuses me, and we're all debating of our own free will. You may regret it, but you've nothing to apologize for. And, if you recall, I tried to honor your wishes and let this debate die... didn't help, though.
Now, back to the debate.
I'm making these parallels because they're EXACTLY as relevent as what you're saying. You wanna compare cows and babies, then I get to compare cows and trees and dirt.
And I always thought it was wrong to have sex with children because it causes long term emotional damage that never quite heals... animals can't experience long-term emotional damage, and therefor, that doesn't apply. Either that, or it's because both are just nasty.
And, now, I'd love to hear exactly how animals are parallel to children ENOUGH to use them for analogy. Analogy=Analog. No analog=no analogy. They aren't the same- and if you use them to parallel the points, I and everyone else out there is under moral obligation to point out that, if forced to choose between their infant and their pet dog, the dog WILL lose... and anyone who'd choose otherwise is evil, as simple as that.
But you keep saying "killing animals is wrong". And we keep saying "why?". And you reply "because they can feel pain". And we keep saying "So what? we're better, we have that right". And you go "that's cruel and heartless". and we go "that's nature". And you go "but we should be better than that". And we go "either we're better, or we're not, either way we're under no obligation". And then you go and pull out the comparing them to babies (which is just WRONG on every applicable level).... Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's the synopsis right there.
Last edited by udsuna; 03-04-2005 at 01:04 AM.
Recognized Member
animals can't experience long-term emotional damage, - udsuna
If you can say this, then I say that you know nothing about animals. Just look at all of the cats and dogs in animal shelters that have been abused and cower every time someone raises a hand, etc. There is long-term emotional damage. I had a cat that was abused as a kitten and it never got over it. You come up behind her accidentally and she would freak out. Cows and pigs wouldn't be any different.
Hello Pika Art by Dr Unne ~~~ godhatesfraggles
udsuna, I'm going to take a wild guess here and say you've never owned a pet. In fact, I might go as far as to say you've never been in contact with an animal before. Your logic is so faulty I don't even know where to begin responding to it. Please know at least a little of what you're talking about before you start talking, because you sound extremely ignorant.
Like Leeza, I have a dog that suffered emotional damage, though to a lesser extent. When she was really young still with her mother and breeders, her bed was right next to an alarm clock that went off several times a day. And now, 12 years later, my dog still jumps and runs to hide when an alarm goes off.
But why is it evil to choose a dog over an infant? I love my dog more than I love any infant in the world, and I'd choose her in a heartbeat. Then again I'm a minanthrope, but I'd imagine if there was a burning house with the loved dog of the potential rescuer and an unknown baby, that rescuer would probably choose his dog based on love. It's not evil.
It's not evil, sure. Reprehensible, though.
ARGUMENT FROM GUITAR MASTERY
(1) Eric Clapton is God.
(2) Therefore, God exists.
I like my dog better than that baby probably wouldn't hold up in your negligent homicide trial, either. All the better, though.
Congratulations on using google to look up terms of which you have no idea for the meaning!
It wouldn't be homocide by any stretch because I'm not entitled to go into a burning house to rescue anybody at all. If it was my dog in there, though, I'd risk it. But not for an infant.
And congtatulations also on changing the topic once again since you have nothing more to defend yourself with in regard to the original point.
Congratulations on assuming that someone doesn't know the meaning of a word, when you clearly don't know it yourself.Originally Posted by >>--heartshot--> ♥
If a house was burning down and you chose to save a dog rather than a baby, you could, and most likely would be charged with negligent homicide.Negligent Homicide occurs when the defendant's simple negligence causes the death of another. This is the least severe homicide offense because the mental state is least culpable: the defendant did not intend to kill or injure, but failed to act as a reasonable person would have acted under similar circumstances.
ARGUMENT FROM GUITAR MASTERY
(1) Eric Clapton is God.
(2) Therefore, God exists.
I know what negligent homocide is, I learned it in high school. I'm assmuing MecaKane got it off google because if he can't spell "society," I severely doubt he can spell a big word like "negligent." Not that that really matters. In any case, it would depend on the circumstances of the fire, but in general a passerby wouldn't be obliged to go into a burning house.
And this way out of context. I don't even remember what the original topic is anymore.
Great, you can stop posting then.
Running into a burning house, and coming out of it with a dog, when you know full well there's a baby in there, is what you were talking about. I'm not talking about you not going into a house to save a baby.
I used to live ON A FARM. In the MIDDLE OF NOWHERE. For the longer part of my life, animals were almost my ONLY friends. I can name every pet I've ever given a name since I was 3. I've had raccoons, ferrets, oppossums, fish, a Caimen Crocodile, twelve dogs, three birds, one very unfriendly snapping turtle, a few more friendly turtles, a baby badger that I rescued and nurtured to health. Dozens of common snakes, and a few rarer ones. For about three months, I took care of a Hog-Nosed snake... let it go when I found out I was comitting a federal crime. Oh, yeah, and exactly ONE gerbil. Not including the various actual livestock and other creatures like insects and stuff that I used to go out hunting for. I've never been more than a month without at least two different species worth of pets. Any more wild guesses that are so wrong it's actually pathetic?
So you've lived with animals all your life but you don't understand a thing about them and say they are the equivalent of machines? Very believable. Either that or you actually are extremely ignorant.
There's really no point for me to post in this thread anymore since none of you have anything relevant to say.
Hey, don't mind me, I'm just enjoying the view and noticed that point went by unansweredRetarded children = won't grow up into 'intelligent' adults.
Wat
is
going
on
wtf
rawr
kk nvm n____n
I think her point is, just because a retarded child isn't going to grow up into an intelligent being, does that give us other "intelligent" beings the right to exploit/torture him or her?Hey, don't mind me, I'm just enjoying the view and noticed that point went by unanswered
I ignored it as a disgusting, below-the-belt shot that didn't deserve a responce. Was then, is now, 'nuff said. Human children, regardless of intelligence, still have souls.
And animals are the equivilant to machines. They are flesh and blood, nothing more. They're incapable of being more than their function in nature, or what we use them for. They are what they are, whereas humans can choose to become something else. As much as I loved and adored my pets, all of them combined are not worth nearly as much as another human being. Even a stranger.
I side against you, not because my love of animals is less, but because my love of humanity is more.
Posting Permissions
