President Assad gasses and Donald fiddles

[LogGrad98]

I just don't buy the idea that there is a right way to kill an animal or a human and a wrong way. It's either wrong to kill or it's not. If Assad killing people with sarin merits US involvement, then surely Assad killing people by other means does too. Just seems crazy any other way.

Please Google human flaying and see if you can't see the gradients.

 

[Siro]

I reject the equivalence. I think it's silly to pretend that there is one. I think most people on some level know that there is not one. We don't eat people. We don't lock them in the garage/basement/backyard while we are at work. We don't purchase a new one to replace the old one when it dies.

Hmmm. Many animals possess subjective experiences and can experience the range of emotions that humans do, if at a simpler level (say like a baby). There is obviously some equivilance between the two. You can buy another pet when one dies, but you can also have another child if one dies.

I don't think they're exactly the same as we are humans and we identify with humans better. But I don't think it is a morally consistent argument to care about the suffering of humans but not the suffering of other animals.

 

[♪alt13]

Hmmm. Many animals possess subjective experiences and can experience the range of emotions that humans do, if at a simpler level (say like a baby). There is obviously some equivilance between the two. You can buy another pet when one dies, but you can also have another child if one dies.

I don't think they're exactly the same as we are humans and we identify with humans better. But I don't think it is a morally consistent argument to care about the suffering of humans but not the suffering of other animals.

Then why is it OK to eat animals(even if only because you like it)and not OK to eat people? I think that I'm being way more consistent than you are.

I care about people. I don't think they should suffer or be eaten. You care about both but are OK with eating a whole bunch of the creatures you empathize with.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

Then why is it OK to eat animals(even if only because you like it)and not OK to eat people? I think that I'm being way more consistent than you are.

Because we are higher on the food chain. There is a natural cycle of life that requires predatory animals to kill prey.

That is a different thing than what factory farming is.

 

[JazzGal]

Then why is it OK to eat animals(even if only because you like it)and not OK to eat people? I think that I'm being way more consistent than you are.

This doesn't answer your question but I heard on the radio yesterday that we do not eat human meat because it has a lot less nutritional value than other types of meat.

Sent from my HTC6535LVW using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[Siro]

Then why is it OK to eat animals(even if only because you like it)and not OK to eat people? I think that I'm being way more consistent than you are.

I care about people. I don't think they should suffer or be eaten. You care about both but are OK with eating a whole bunch of the creatures you empathize with.

I actually think it is preferable NOT to eat animals, and I would transition to grown meat if it was available. I eat them because it is culturally acceptable and I grew up doing it, although I am not comfortable with the morality of it. If I had grown up in a culture that ate people, like many existed throughout history, I'd probably be eating people too. And I'd be talking about how we probably should avoid eating people.

The question is, what makes human suffering unacceptable if suffering of other animals isn't? I think the death of a human is far more significant than the death of an animal, given our natural affinity of humans, and the social network humans have, which means the death of a human will cause the suffering of other humans connected to the deceased. I also do think human individuals carry more value given some definitions of value that I identify with (richness of human experience and knowledge for example). But even given the value argument, and even if we agree that human suffering has more value, surely if it has any value at all, then so must the suffering of other animals. I don't see how it can logically be another way.

 

[♪alt13]

I actually think it is preferable NOT to eat animals, and I would transition to grown meat if it was available. I eat them because it is culturally acceptable and I grew up doing it, although I am not comfortable with the morality of it. If I had grown up in a culture that ate people, like many existed throughout history, I'd probably be eating people too. And I'd be talking about how we probably should avoid eating people.

The question is, what makes human suffering unacceptable if suffering of other animals isn't? I think the death of a human is far more significant than the death of an animal, given our natural affinity of humans, and the social network humans have, which means the death of a human will cause the suffering of other humans connected to the deceased. I also do think human individuals carry more value given some definitions of value that I identify with (richness of human experience and knowledge for example). But even given the value argument, and even if we agree that human suffering has more value, surely if it has any value at all, then so must the suffering of other animals. I don't see how it can logically be another way.

So you are doing something that you have a moral compunction not to do.

I don't feel that way and I would be lying if I said that I did.

I think causing human suffering is morally wrong because I don't want to do it and I don't want others to do it, if it at all can be avoided. That's what morals are. Rules we place on ourselves and others so that we behave in the way we want to. I don't have a moral issue with the suffering of animals to fulfill a human need(especially not chickens) because I don't care. It's that simple.

If I did care I would behave differently and tell other people that they should too.

 

[Siro]

So you are doing something that you have a moral compunction not to do.

I don't feel that way and I would be lying if I said that I did.

I think causing human suffering is morally wrong because I don't want to do it and I don't want others to do it, if it at all can be avoided. That's what morals are. Rules we place on ourselves and others so that we behave in the way we want to. I don't have a moral issue with the suffering of animals to fulfill a human need(especially not chickens) because I don't care. It's that simple.

If I did care I would behave differently and tell other people that they should too.

So logic plays no role in morality? It's just what feels right or wrong? How can you tell others not to do something then? On what basis? Bizarre.

 

[DutchJazzer]

You're killing people one way or another. Why is it more moral to kill them quickly?

Close to half a million people have been killed in this conflict. Not sure how many by Assad, but you have to assume a decent chunk. Why was it okay to kill them with conventional weapons, but if they suffer slightly more, it's not okay? I'm trying to understand where this sudden pretend outrage is coming from.

killing is always moral!!!

murder on the other hand is always immoral!!!


as most of you know my english is TURRIBLE!

but if i could learn the difference between killing and murder so can YOU!

 

[DutchJazzer]

Go back and read Log's post. We don't tolerate the use of biological weapons because if we did everyone would be frightened all the time.

Siro talked a bit about Israel earlier. It should not be ignored that the reason middle eastern countries have biological weapons is because it is a deterrent to Israel and its nuclear weapons.

but guns frighten people!


so i think their use should be banned

 

[Gameface]

I think the reason chemical weapons are banned is because they were used extensively in WWI and people saw the results and heard the first-hand accounts and everyone pretty much said "hey, in the future, let's not fight wars like that. It's super horrible."

And I get it, flame throwers, land mines, cluster bombs, good old fashioned bullets... that's all good. But you know, I'm pretty cool with the world sticking to a standard where chemical weapons are a no-no. Just like the U.S. can use military force without going to nuclear weapons. If we did we would be condemned by pretty much everyone. This is a good thing.

 

[The Midnight]

I think the reason chemical weapons are banned is because they were used extensively in WWI and people saw the results and heard the first-hand accounts and everyone pretty much said "hey, in the future, let's not fight wars like that. It's super horrible."

And I get it, flame throwers, land mines, cluster bombs, good old fashioned bullets... that's all good. But you know, I'm pretty cool with the world sticking to a standard where chemical weapons are a no-no. Just like the U.S. can use military force without going to nuclear weapons. If we did we would be condemned by pretty much everyone. This is a good thing.

So you support Trump's action? Just curious.