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.
"As an example: You argue that if we protect animals from abuse, that will lead to giving them the same rights as intelligent beings, which they are not"- Keith
I don't think I argued anything of the sort..go back and take another look and try to figure out way I associated Michael Vick in the dialog.
"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?"
I believe I was trying to make the point that in the future dogs will have as much rights as humans..what has that to do with torture? Meaning that Vick get two years and millions of dollars in lost revenue and Zimmerman doesn't get arrested and when he does he gets 15 thousand dollars bail for killing a black teen.
..go back and take another look and try to figure out way I associated Michael Vick in the dialog.
@ Shabaka - You obviously brought up Michael Vick because you thought his punishment was too harsh. I cannot fathom how anyone with any capacity at all for empathy would treat dogs in such a way.
If that is not what you meant then perhaps you should rephrase what you said in an attempt to help me and everybody else understand the point you wanted to make. Why should we try to figure out what you mean? Just state it clearly, please.
yes I think Vicks punishment was too harsh but that's not relevant in THIS conversation..context...
dog get abused..abuser gets 2 years in prison and millions in lost revenue..
Human teens gets killed and "killer" takes a nation to even get arrested and when he does he gets 15 thousand dollars bail..
which of the two has more privileges (rights) the dog or the human teen?
does that help?
And I think Vick's punishment wasn't harsh enough. If someone is willing to do that sort of thing to other sentient beings, you have to wonder the extent of lack of compassion someone like Vick holds for humans. I, personally, think that he is a heartly, uncaring bastard that would sooner let you die in a pool of your own blood than to spend the 50 cents and 30 seconds it would take to call for help. He is a disgrace to athletes worldwide and should not be upheld as a role model for our youth. But, as you say Shabaka, that is not relevant.
Shabaka, if you understand that it is irrelevant, one has to wonder why you brought it up in the first place.
Zimmerman hasn't stood trial yet. You can't compare his case to one where someone has been convicted.
If Zimmerman is convicted I am sure he will serve more than two years.
@SteveInCO - Yes, that was the point I was trying to make with Shabaka comparing Vick's fines vs Zimmerman's bail. You made that point clearer for me. Thanks.
Steven made the point that Zimmerman isn't even convicted..my point was it took a nation to even get him arrested and if the outcry hadn't taken place, he'd still be walking around freely and Trayvon would be cold.
Yet Michael Vick spent two years in prison and lost millions because of dog fighting. I mean the moment they found out about the dogs Vick was hounded until he went to jail. For dog fighting, not murder
Speaking of Zimmerman, I don't understand. He was a neighborhood watch person and was told he didn't have police powers and he should not carry a gun. When he saw Trayvon he called the dispatch and was told not to follow him. However Zimmerman continue to follow until he confronted Trayvon. At that point did Trayvon have the right to stand his ground? After all he had a very legitmate reason for being in the area.
Even if a scuffle happened, Zimmerman had no right to shot him based on the above because if he had followed any of those directives, he's have no reason to fear for his life or have the means to kill Trayvon.
Let's watch what happens....
and I still think so...Remember in non white cultures, people eat dogs..so is this a "moral" issue or what? I think he shouldn't have done what he did, but the punishment was too harsh. Maybe a stiff fine and threat of disbarrment from the nfl..
And therein lies the issue. This statement "I believe I was trying to make the point that in the future dogs will have as much rights as humans" is exactly the slippery slope fallacy that we are talking about. "what has that to do with torture?" Vick tortured dogs and was punished for it. You are using the defense of the dogs as a springboard to come to the conclusion that dogs will some day have the same rights as humans. That leap is fallacious. Just because we defend an animal from torture does not mean we will give that animal all the rights that humans get. There is NO CONNECTION there.
As for Zimmerman, although I don't support the death penalty for anything except extreme cases, from the information that I have seen and heard (and I do admit that we might not have a clear picture of the whole incident, so my judgment is only dependent of what we know), Zimmerman should spend a LOT of time sitting in a jail cell and going through a LOT of therapy to make sure he understands exactly how devastating his prejudice and actions are to both the specific people involved and society as a whole. But you also can't compare fine for fine or jail time for jail time. It is obvious that Vick barely suffered from his sentence, let's just hope that Zimmerman suffers substantially more. Even 6 months in jail is devastating to an average person, financially and socially speaking, whereas 2 years in jail for a millionaire, only to get released and continue making millions doesn't mean the 2 years was a "harsher punishment". You have to compare the impact on the person, not just the numbers. You are also comparing Vicks FINES with Zimmerman's BAIL. That doesn't make any sense at all. The two things are completely different.
There is no logical connection between the Vick / Zimmerman punishment debate and the slippery slope fallacy that if we defend an animals rights to not be tortured, that will lead to them getting all the same rights as humans. Once again, if you can't understand and admit that, I think there is no hope to get you to look at something in a logical manner.
Keith I'm sure you know Koreans eat dogs.. you feel the same way about them?
@Shabaka - In other words, you are going to just keep pushing forward, no matter how wrong you are proved to be. We're done. You obviously refuse to look at anything through anyone else's eyes but your own. Trying to have a conversation with you is an exercise in futility.