I read posts here that call different things, "harmful to humanity." Others call something, "good" or "bad" or "evil."
A very simple question, who gets to decide the definition of "harmful to humanity" and what is there critieria? The same for "good," "bad," and "evil?" These are not material terms. If everything is material isn't there just "is" and not these moral declarations if one is being thoroughly atheist?
Help me understand your position so I am fair and honest about the views. Thanks.
I remember when corporation weren't people..how do we know this culture won't make dogs have the same rights as people? Hell they almost do now..Ask Michael Vick.
I'll never argue the lunacy of religion but that's not my point..
So, you think that it is perfectly acceptable to torture animals for the sake of masochistic entertainment? And showing empathy for said tortured and tormented animals is actually leading to making those animals able to enter into legal contracts? I'm not sure I can even come up with an appropriate response to that....
Damn two years in prison and millions of dollars and George Zimmerman gets out of jail after the entire U.S. population demands his arrest for a 15 thousand dollar bail..What was your question again?
Keith Pinster, are you making one of those irritating, vegan comments you so scorn? I assume you know that veganism is not just a kind of diet.
@Dogly - What? What "vegan comments" do I scorn? And, in probably about 99% of the cases, veganism IS just a dietary choice based on some sort of belief that meat is "bad" for you, or somehow "immoral" to eat. But that is completely irrelevant to the comment. Whether someone is a vegan because of a medical condition or if they are a "conscientious vegan", the point still remains: if you want to (or for some reason need to) live your life as a vegan, more power to you. Just try to force ME to be a vegan.
I don't understand how you think that is contradictory to anything that I have ever said in this forum or any other.
Shabaka Tecumseh," Ask Michael Vick". Your attitude is sickening! Laws that attempt to protect dogs against the abuse of dog fighting, are NOT giving them the same rights as humans. What a callous, sadistic, and illogical comment you made! This is a discussion about ethics. What are you even doing on this site?
not yet and that's my point...and btw, it can really develop into an "ethical" question.
The relationship of humans with the other animals is now, and has always been, an ethical issue. Just as slavery was always an ethical issue, even when it was legal. What are you afraid of? Are you not in favor of laws against animals abuse? Is dog fighting OK with you? How about the many ways Vick tortured and killed the dogs who lost? Is that fine with you, too?
i think in one of my post I commented that I didn't care for dog fighting, so i think it shouldn't be permitted...I think Michael Vick is an immature man/child with a serious problem with caring..He thinks manliness is machoism..
You also said that you don't care one way or another about dogs, and you said you thought Vick's sentence was too severe. We already know what you think of dogs!
I don't but that doesn't mean I think they should be abused..and Vick's sentence was too harsh
@Shabaka - Whatever you do, NEVER admit you're are wrong! Just keep moving forward and make yourself look even more like an uncaring ass. "If we can't torture animals, then that will lead to allowing chickens to marry pigs and that would just be *wrong*!!!" Is it that you don't understand how ludicrous your premise is, or that you are so self-righteous that you can't conceive of ever having an invalid opinion, or just so prideful that you can never admit being wrong in public?