|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
posted October 25, 2008 08:38 PM |
|
Edited by Asheera at 20:39, 25 Oct 2008.
|
While I do not agree about becoming all vegetarians, killing animals in cruel ways like in that video is horrible.
____________
|
|
VokialBG
Honorable
Legendary Hero
First in line
|
|
posted October 25, 2008 08:40 PM |
|
|
I'm not killing them, I'm eating them 
____________
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted October 25, 2008 08:41 PM |
|
|
I was talking about Celf's last posted video - those people kill the animals in horrible ways.
____________
|
|
JapanGamer
Known Hero
|
|
posted October 25, 2008 08:43 PM |
|
|
I couldnt watch after seeing a skinned dog like being blink.. I'm taking the video out of the post.
____________
Pictures of god
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted October 25, 2008 09:59 PM |
|
|
Well... Ok, that's horrible.
I do not agree with furs, that's where I draw the line. Wool and cotton is good enough 
(to all smartie pants who try and point out the difference: ) There is only one difference in it, though... Quality of fur doesn't change when the animal is killed with loads of pain...
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 25, 2008 10:28 PM |
|
|
Quote:
What mutually beneficial cooperation? I already said in that example that they do not want to trade anything and just go on with their lives.
I was talking about animals and how they don't have human intelligence. If they did, they would be able to cooperate with mutual benefit. But they can't. And they're not smart enough to revolt, either. So we can do it.
Think about three scenarios. In 100 years, humans are exploring space, and they stumble upon an alien species. In the first scenario, the alien species looks like a giant flightless beetle (and doesn't have much intelligence), and is pretty calm. In the second scenario, the alien species is also a giant flightless beetle, but with human-level intelligence and capabilities. In the third scenario, the alien species looks exactly like a human, and has almost the same intelligence, but doesn't want to interact with humans.
In the first scenario, "enslaving" them would be okay. In the second and third scenarios, it wouldn't be.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted October 25, 2008 11:40 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I was talking about animals and how they don't have human intelligence. If they did, they would be able to cooperate with mutual benefit. But they can't. And they're not smart enough to revolt, either. So we can do it.
How many times must I tell you? Those people in MY EXAMPLE (which is what we've been talking about, well me at least) would not cooperate with mutual benefit. Period. Is enslaving them ok?
Quote:
In the first scenario, "enslaving" them would be okay. In the second and third scenarios, it wouldn't be.
Wait. This ends our conversation.
That is just sick twisted Nazi thinking.
(do you think Nazis cared about "cooperation" or "mutual benefit"? They thought exactly like you did, and of course they would actually suffer (look at KD ) if they were using mutual benefit with Jews, in their minds -- who are you to decide what's rational suffering, just because you think you are "normal" or think normally and they have some 'sickness' to enslave Jews? Well heads up, you have such sickness too, with aliens/whatever!)
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 26, 2008 12:23 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Those people in MY EXAMPLE (which is what we've been talking about, well me at least) would not cooperate with mutual benefit.
Then they're idiots. If there is mutual benefit, why not cooperate? If the farmer approaches the blacksmith, does the blacksmith turn away? But, to answer your question, no, it wouldn't be okay to enslave them, because it's like my third scenario.
Quote:
That is just sick twisted Nazi thinking.
Or perhaps you just can't grasp utilitarianism.
Quote:
do you think Nazis cared about "cooperation" or "mutual benefit"?
Obviously, they didn't. Otherwise, they wouldn't be Nazis, would they?
Quote:
who are you to decide what's rational suffering
Physical pain is rational suffering. Hunger is rational suffering. That is, anything that a person experiences that does not make that person happy and endangers or harms that person's health or life (in the physical sense) is rational suffering. There is, of course, emotional suffering, but that's a different category and largely irrational.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted October 26, 2008 01:29 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Then they're idiots. If there is mutual benefit, why not cooperate? If the farmer approaches the blacksmith, does the blacksmith turn away? But, to answer your question, no, it wouldn't be okay to enslave them, because it's like my third scenario.
And I said: "We enslave/kill animals/aliens, which are creatures, so why can't we do the same with humans, which are creatures, as well?"
You used the above (your version) of excuse to justify it, but you didn't answer to my version.
Quote:
Obviously, they didn't. Otherwise, they wouldn't be Nazis, would they?
Wait a sec and let me get this right. You're saying that Nazis were doing a good thing, the only problem being that they were foolish? Is that it? That the only problem Nazis had, right, that they were foolish -- killing Jews was only bad because it provided less benefits for the Nazis, is that right? Is that the thing why Nazis were bad in your opinion? Come on, why don't you admit it?
So, if killing Jews was beneficial for the Nazis, that would make them righteous in your opinion. 
Quote:
Physical pain is rational suffering. Hunger is rational suffering. That is, anything that a person experiences that does not make that person happy and endangers or harms that person's health or life (in the physical sense) is rational suffering. There is, of course, emotional suffering, but that's a different category and largely irrational.
"Physical", what is that? Is the brain not physical? The brain's suffering (so to speak) can just as easily endanger him: he might become crazy, paranoid, or commit suicide.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 26, 2008 05:16 PM |
|
|
Quote:
And I said: "We enslave/kill animals/aliens, which are creatures, so why can't we do the same with humans, which are creatures, as well?"
Would you want someone to enslave you? No? Then don't do it to others! But since there's no danger of an animal enslaving you, then you can "enslave" it. (To use your terminology.) You are a human (I presume ). You don't want to be a slave. Let's say, theoretically, you had the ability to enslave another human. But you shouldn't, because you don't want another human to enslave you.
Quote:
You're saying that Nazis were doing a good thing, the only problem being that they were foolish? Is that it? That the only problem Nazis had, right, that they were foolish -- killing Jews was only bad because it provided less benefits for the Nazis, is that right? Is that the thing why Nazis were bad in your opinion?
If they had been doing "the right thing", then they wouldn't have killed any humans at all, and thus wouldn't have been Nazis! And the Nazis hated the Jews, so they killed them. I don't hate animals. I don't exterminate them just for the purpose of exterminating them. In fact, I like some animals. But I like my dinner plate too.
Quote:
"Physical", what is that? Is the brain not physical? The brain's suffering (so to speak) can just as easily endanger him: he might become crazy, paranoid, or commit suicide.
People could just tell themselves not to hate Jews, and, after some effort, they wouldn't, and end up better off, keeping the Jews and not going crazy. And the Jews would've been better off too.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted October 26, 2008 05:18 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Would you want someone to enslave you? No? Then don't do it to others! But since there's no danger of an animal enslaving you, then you can "enslave" it. (To use your terminology.) You are a human (I presume ). You don't want to be a slave. Let's say, theoretically, you had the ability to enslave another human. But you shouldn't, because you don't want another human to enslave you.
Would you want an animal to kill you? No? Then don't do it to them!
Seriously, people always complain when animals kill them, yet they kill animals even for fun (some hunters)
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 26, 2008 05:20 PM |
|
|
Animals (except humans) don't enslave anybody. They can't - they don't have such a capability. So we don't have to worry about them doing it to us.
But I oppose killing animals for fun.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted October 26, 2008 06:04 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Would you want someone to enslave you? No? Then don't do it to others! But since there's no danger of an animal enslaving you, then you can "enslave" it. (To use your terminology.) You are a human (I presume ). You don't want to be a slave. Let's say, theoretically, you had the ability to enslave another human. But you shouldn't, because you don't want another human to enslave you.
Why use the word human? Why not the word creature? Let's see, it looks totally different:
Would you want some other creature to enslave you? No? Then don't do it to others! But since there's no danger of an animal enslaving you, then you can "enslave" it. (To use your terminology.) You are a creature (I presume ). You don't want to be a slave. Let's say, theoretically, you had the ability to enslave another creature. But you shouldn't, because you don't want another creature to enslave you.
But yeah of course, you never heard of the phrase "with power comes responsibility", or with wisdom also comes understanding (that is: if you are far wiser than your disciples (let's say animals ) you need to be understanding for them that they are in such position).
Quote:
If they had been doing "the right thing", then they wouldn't have killed any humans at all, and thus wouldn't have been Nazis!
No I meant that, if killing Jews was actually BENEFICIAL (this includes long-term mutual benefit) FOR THE NAZIS only, would it be ok to do it? With your logic, yes it would.
Then, the Nazi ideology is (simplified) Race superiority. They thought that they were "superior" you see? That's why they did it. That's exactly the same as what you do, that you think you are superior to animals because whatever reasons (for example, they can't "cooperate" so to speak). So technically you're an animal Nazi
But it's a dead conversation anyway, doesn't get anywhere
(and it's in the VW so I should probably take off)
|
|
antipaladin
Promising
Legendary Hero
of Ooohs and Aaahs
|
|
posted October 26, 2008 06:06 PM |
|
|
Give one reason to eat animals?- becouse its tasty.
____________
types in obscure english
|
|
JapanGamer
Known Hero
|
|
posted October 26, 2008 06:37 PM |
|
|
humans are probably more tastey if you can get past the revulsion.
____________
Pictures of god
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted October 26, 2008 06:39 PM |
|
|
Quote:
humans are probably more tastey if you can get past the revulsion.
That's why I can't stop biting my nails!
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 26, 2008 06:53 PM |
|
|
TheDeath:
Quote:
Let's say, theoretically, you had the ability to enslave another creature. But you shouldn't, because you don't want another creature to enslave you.
Not going to happen. No matter how many animals I go around "enslaving", no animal is going to come and enslave me.
Quote:
No I meant that, if killing Jews was actually BENEFICIAL (this includes long-term mutual benefit) FOR THE NAZIS only, would it be ok to do it? With your logic, yes it would.
If gravity made things go up instead of fall down, what would the world be like? In any case, it doesn't work that way. It's conceptually wrong. How could it be beneficial for the Nazis to kill Jews (including long-term benefit? That's the question that needs to be answered first.
Quote:
They thought that they were "superior" you see? That's why they did it. That's exactly the same as what you do, that you think you are superior to animals because whatever reasons (for example, they can't "cooperate" so to speak).
First, Jews can do anything Aryans can do, and vice versa, so the analogy doesn't hold. Second, I don't think we're superior over other animals. I just think we're different from other animals.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted October 26, 2008 07:32 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Not going to happen. No matter how many animals I go around "enslaving", no animal is going to come and enslave me.
I said CREATURE mvass, creature. ANY creature. You wouldn't like ANY other creature to enslave you right? (this INCLUDES humans which are creatures). Therefore you don't enslave creatures (this also includes animals ).
Quote:
If gravity made things go up instead of fall down, what would the world be like? In any case, it doesn't work that way. It's conceptually wrong. How could it be beneficial for the Nazis to kill Jews (including long-term benefit? That's the question that needs to be answered first.
So let's replace the jews with the "nation" in my example. They don't do anything. They don't trade -- well there isn't much they can trade because let's say they have very strict traditions and they hate outsiders, so to speak. Suppose in that area there's a lot of oil, so we make it worthwhile to "enslave" them. Would you?
I know you're trying to avoid the answer but it is inevitable, why won't you admit it?
|
|
JapanGamer
Known Hero
|
|
posted October 26, 2008 08:46 PM |
|
|
|
I asked for this to be moved because it could be, but i somewhat revoke my request, because no ones been able to truly justify the killing of defenseless animals for food we do not need. Some people need it who cant afford to get decent foods, and hunters who have no choice need it, but most of us dont need it.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 26, 2008 11:03 PM |
|
|
Quote:
You wouldn't like ANY other creature to enslave you right? (this INCLUDES humans which are creatures). Therefore you don't enslave creatures
I don't enslave creatures that can enslave me back.
Quote:
They don't trade -- well there isn't much they can trade because let's say they have very strict traditions and they hate outsiders, so to speak. Suppose in that area there's a lot of oil, so we make it worthwhile to "enslave" them. Would you?
I already answered this question. No. It's like my third scenario.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
