Matador gored through his throat *GRAPHIC*

[Bigga]

*sighs*

Damo, I admire your stance but your argument simply means all of us, vegans, veggies and carnivores are all killers without exception, from birth. Even those Mary Poppin/ Snow White types that may sing gaily amongst our more bestial friends have accidentally stood on a bug.

It cannot compare to wanton stabbing a beast to death in some ill thought 'spectacle' as 'pleasure'.

Give it up, pal...

 

[Paulski]

Morally speaking, isn't a life a life?

I preach moral equivalence, and I have yet to see anybody answer the fundamental question about why some animals should be harmed and why some animals shouldn't be.

I'm going to indulge myself in a bit of metaphor, if you don't mind.

Imagine for a moment that there are a set of twins, called Paul and Damon. They lead identical lives, up to a point where they are involved in a car crash. Both undergo surgery, but Paul has to have his lungs removed. However Damon is left braindead for the rest of his life. Now Paul can continue living but he will be confined to an iron lung in the hospital and will never be able to leave. The only possible way he could leave is if - you guessed it - he takes Damon's lungs - killing him in the process.

As the doctor and professor of ethics at the hospital, what would you do?

Sorry, I'm sure there's something similar out there in the internets that explains the same idea much better and easier (maybe that's the second meaning behind it - if you go on internet messageboards, prepare to deal with amateurs)

 

[Damocles]

Incidentally, how do you square your Darwinist views with your libertarian ones. As a libertarian, you must believe that humans are entitled to as much liberty as that which is compatible with the same level of liberty for others. However, you also believe humans are superior to other animals. So, why aren't humans, who've proved themselves to be stronger through competitive means by ceasing power, entitled to take your liberty away?

I pretty much agree with you on the killing animals bit, justification seems to be the arguing point here. I believe that the positive social and economic influences that bullfighting has brings in an element of justification, where others don't.

Good question on the Libertarian/Darwin views, and to be honest, I think that it's just one of those flaws within my morality, or at least one that isn't a continued thread. I view my opinion on how humanity should treat each other as an entirely different argument on how we should treat other species, perhaps this does allude to a Darwinist model - we have evolved past the point where we should be viewed as part of nature but as a separate entity from it. I can see this as hypocritical and it was a good spot to point it out.

-- Tue May 25, 2010 3:54 pm --

Morally speaking, isn't a life a life?

I preach moral equivalence, and I have yet to see anybody answer the fundamental question about why some animals should be harmed and why some animals shouldn't be.

I'm going to indulge myself in a bit of metaphor, if you don't mind.

Imagine for a moment that there are a set of twins, called Paul and Damon. They lead identical lives, up to a point where they are involved in a car crash. Both undergo surgery, but Paul has to have his lungs removed. However Damon is left braindead for the rest of his life. Now Paul can continue living but he will be confined to an iron lung in the hospital and will never be able to leave. The only possible way he could leave is if - you guessed it - he takes Damon's lungs - killing him in the process.

As the doctor and professor of ethics at the hospital, what would you do?

Sorry, I'm sure there's something similar out there in the internets that explains the same idea much better and easier (maybe that's the second meaning behind it - if you go on internet messageboards, prepare to deal with amateurs)

I've had this exact discussion before, and the NHS has a system for things like this based upon points. Morally though, if Damon is braindead, then he is literally dead, so by all mean use his lungs - machine supported life is not actual life.
If you meant that he was in a coma with zero chance of ever waking up, but was still alive without machines, then Paul has to sit in an iron lung. it is never okay to kill another human, under absolutely any circumstances, including euthanasia.

 

[Miami Weiss]

 

[LateBlue]

It was me who labelled you tool. No harm meant just a lil slagging.

No harm done, mate ,its just banter , l've got thick skin , like a Bull.

Anyway, you're not the tool anymore, LateBlue is and for fucks sake someone teach him how to use the 'quote' function properly .

Fair point, my IT skills are as bad as your English.

Signed
The Tool

 

[sweynforkbeard]

Morally speaking, isn't a life a life?

I preach moral equivalence, and I have yet to see anybody answer the fundamental question about why some animals should be harmed and why some animals shouldn't be.

I'm going to indulge myself in a bit of metaphor, if you don't mind.

Imagine for a moment that there are a set of twins, called Paul and Damon. They lead identical lives, up to a point where they are involved in a car crash. Both undergo surgery, but Paul has to have his lungs removed. However Damon is left braindead for the rest of his life. Now Paul can continue living but he will be confined to an iron lung in the hospital and will never be able to leave. The only possible way he could leave is if - you guessed it - he takes Damon's lungs - killing him in the process.

As the doctor and professor of ethics at the hospital, what would you do?

Sorry, I'm sure there's something similar out there in the internets that explains the same idea much better and easier (maybe that's the second meaning behind it - if you go on internet messageboards, prepare to deal with amateurs)

Quite simply I would harvest the healthy organs from both of them, sell them on the internet to the highest bidder and retire to the Bahamas.

 

[Lucas North]

No harm done, mate ,its just banter , l've got thick skin , like a Bull.

Anyway, you're not the tool anymore, LateBlue is and for fucks sake someone teach him how to use the 'quote' function properly .

Fair point, my IT skills are as bad as your English.

Signed
The Tool

lts alright mate, l've had the ignomy of being rumbled pretending that l could speak Spanish in order to add weight to my argument , luckily its only the internet and not real life .

Although l do know some .

Hasta la Bisto .......Have you got any gravy ?

 

[Paulski]

Morally though, if Damon is braindead, then he is literally dead, so by all mean use his lungs - machine supported life is not actual life.

By whose definition? Following on from your argument, this person is alive (parts of his body are functioning), just like the bacteria are alive. They are both in fact performing relatively similar things here. It's all motor, action without thought, movements. From what I've understand of your argument, we cannot differentiate between body and mind because they are both living. It is not just the brain which exerts influence upon other parts of the body.

Morally, killing animals is killing animals

 

[ono]

It's only a flesh wound.

 

[PJMCC1UK]

Damocles it's not the fact that the animal dies it's the necessity of it's killing.
Of all the things you listed only the animals for food are bred for it. Animals are used for food so it is necessary to kill them. I understand that there are some inhumane abattoir's And I do my best to avoid meat from them.

Bacteria that is killed is killed for the necessity that it can be harmful to humans. Same with virus' and such.
Even slugs etc are killed for a reason. I don't breed them for the specifics of torturing them to death for peoples entertainment, such as is the case with bullfighting.
And I always let flies and spiders go. Unless the fly stays for too long when I kill it because of the fact that they vomit over everything and spread disease.