Animals can not be Murdered

[FactFinder]

Absolute HOGWASH. YOU are moralizing that animals are somehow more important then humans. There is a HUGE difference between using an animal in an experiment and using a HUMAN or fetus. That you are so morally bankrupt that you can even try this argument is a sorry affair for YOU.

Human fetuses possess lesser capacities than certain nonhuman animals and a lesser awareness of their existence and surroundings. Your little tantrum doesn't change that; it just exposes your inability to offer logically sound arguments. What have you said that couldn't have been said by a white man denying the equivalent moral value of a black man? He could certainly imitate your squealing just as effectively.

I'll provide whatever I damn well please. If you don't like it, tough shit. Who died and put you in charge?

Jesus. Not the crucifixion thing; he tripped over a banana peel this morning.

You have no idea what capacities a fetus has.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

So you are saying that all your statements were hogwash?

As amusing as it is to see you flailing about, it's no less pathetic. All of your claims were rebutted, and you simply possess no further arguments. Had this been a debate conducted with a neutral arbitrator, you would have been declared the loser.

Must be nice to listen to the voices in your head and just claim you won.

 

[editec]

Absolute HOGWASH. YOU are moralizing that animals are somehow more important then humans.

Oh, we don't think animals are more important that humans.

We just think the animals that we love are more important than you, man.

Nothing personal, but we've all seen you trying to fetch a stick.

You're a swell guy, but you're no dog.

 

[FactFinder]

So you are saying that all your statements were hogwash?

As amusing as it is to see you flailing about, it's no less pathetic. All of your claims were rebutted, and you simply possess no further arguments. Had this been a debate conducted with a neutral arbitrator, you would have been declared the loser.

Must be nice to listen to the voices in your head and just claim you won.

I have pretty much resigned myself to not taking part with a "legend in his own mind".

 

[Agnapostate]

You have no idea what capacities a fetus has.

This has already been addressed. Inasmuch as live infants are not self-aware beings and lack an awareness of their own existence, it is obvious that fetuses suffer from a similar disability.

Must be nice to listen to the voices in your head and just claim you won.

Nonsense! Why don't you engage in a one-on-one debate with me before a neutral arbitrator or arbitrators who will declare a definitive victor if you think yourself or your claims superior?

 

[FactFinder]

Just as the James Jones and KKK sects were rejected so was those. There are many false prophets. It is telling that you would lean on those to promote your points. The writings of Matthew, Mark , Luke, John and the other Apostles are first hand accounts.

The writings of the other sects were similar "first hand accounts." By what means do you reject their writings yet not those of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John? Moreover, there are sections of the four currently used gospels that were added by scribes after their original creation, such as Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11.

They were rejected by main stream Christianity of the day as not being of God. KKK and James Jones followed some correct premises. That did not make them legitimate.

 

[Agnapostate]

They were rejected by main stream Christianity of the day as not being of God. KKK and James Jones followed some correct premises. That did not make them legitimate.

How does their popular rejection illustrate their illegitimacy? The majority of the world's population is non-Christian; does that illustrate Christianity's illegitimacy?

 

[FactFinder]

You have no idea what capacities a fetus has.

This has already been addressed. Inasmuch as live infants are not self-aware beings and lack an awareness of their own existence, it is obvious that fetuses suffer from a similar disability.

Must be nice to listen to the voices in your head and just claim you won.

Nonsense! Why don't you engage in a one-on-one debate with me before a neutral arbitrator or arbitrators who will declare a definitive victor if you think yourself or your claims superior?

You don;t know how aware infants are of their own existence. They have a will to survive. I would call that at least an instinct of existence. Just because we lack memory of that time having not verbalized language yet does not mean we are not aware.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You look at the similaritiy of a fetus and a cow - that is their 'unawareness' - and claim that abortion is not murder. I look at the difference between the fetus and the cow - that is, the fetus is human - and therefore the taking of a fetus is the taking of human life. You can dance around with your arguments till the cows come home; humans are superior to animals and abortion results in the destruction of human life.

That is not an argument; it is an arbitrary distinction, just as racial distinctions are arbitrary and similarly pointless. And just as with the species distinctions you now make, racial distinctions were once simply accepted as unchallengeable and indisputable facts, to which no degree of logical argument could apply. Have you not seen the folly of such an approach through that example? Provide arguments, not logical fallacies.

THERE ARE racial differences, in outer appearance and in traits within the Race. To claim other wise ignores reality. It is of course POLITICAL CORRECT to make such claims though.

The only thing I will give you is that the Human brain is to similar to support the notion that any race is inferior to any other given the same environment.

 

[Agnapostate]

You don;t know how aware infants are of their own existence. They have a will to survive. I would call that at least an instinct of existence. Just because we lack memory of that time having not verbalized language yet does not mean we are not aware.

You've confused awareness with self-awareness, and accordingly, sentience with sapience. To simplify things somewhat, sentience is effectively basic awareness and sapience is effectively awareness of that awareness. Numerous organisms possess basic awareness, but few possess an awareness of themselves as distinct entities existing over time. (A definition of self-awareness used by Singer.)

 

[Agnapostate]

THERE ARE racial differences, in outer appearance and in traits within the Race. To claim other wise ignores reality. It is of course POLITICAL CORRECT to make such claims though.

The only thing I will give you is that the Human brain is to similar to support the notion that any race is inferior to any other given the same environment.

Of course there are racial differences, but it's dubious to claim that they're significant enough to merit differentiations in official governmental policy in regards to different races. But regardless, you've understood my point. Racial similarities are obvious enough that it would be arbitrary to discriminate on the basis of race. Similarly, it's rather obvious that some species of great apes, for instance, are superior in awareness and sensory capacities to human fetuses, so why is it not similarly arbitrary to discriminate on the basis of species in such cases?

 

[FactFinder]

You don;t know how aware infants are of their own existence. They have a will to survive. I would call that at least an instinct of existence. Just because we lack memory of that time having not verbalized language yet does not mean we are not aware.

You've confused awareness with self-awareness, and accordingly, sentience with sapience. To simplify things somewhat, sentience is effectively basic awareness and sapience is effectively awareness of that awareness. Numerous organisms possess basic awareness, but few possess an awareness of themselves as distinct entities existing over time. (A definition of self-awareness used by Singer.)

So you would measure awareness by degrees? So an adult less aware than yourself is inferior to you? Are you Arian?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Absolute HOGWASH. YOU are moralizing that animals are somehow more important then humans. There is a HUGE difference between using an animal in an experiment and using a HUMAN or fetus. That you are so morally bankrupt that you can even try this argument is a sorry affair for YOU.

Human fetuses possess lesser capacities than certain nonhuman animals and a lesser awareness of their existence and surroundings. Your little tantrum doesn't change that; it just exposes your inability to offer logically sound arguments. What have you said that couldn't have been said by a white man denying the equivalent moral value of a black man? He could certainly imitate your squealing just as effectively.

I'll provide whatever I damn well please. If you don't like it, tough shit. Who died and put you in charge?

Jesus. Not the crucifixion thing; he tripped over a banana peel this morning.

You claim what ever you want, all you are proving is your ignorance. Let me guess, you are a Liberal right?

And the difference between a man of any color claiming a man of another color is inferior based solely on skin pigmentation is not even the same.

Why using the LOGIC you have presented here we could just round up all the aged and infirm, the people unable to function with out help be it physical or mental and just kill them off, wouldn't be a moral problem at all using your argument.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You have no idea what capacities a fetus has.

This has already been addressed. Inasmuch as live infants are not self-aware beings and lack an awareness of their own existence, it is obvious that fetuses suffer from a similar disability.

Must be nice to listen to the voices in your head and just claim you won.

Nonsense! Why don't you engage in a one-on-one debate with me before a neutral arbitrator or arbitrators who will declare a definitive victor if you think yourself or your claims superior?

This is not a debating society where some ones idea of scoring points wins out over reality or facts. Join MENSA and have at it with those dumb asses, most of them have no common sense either.

 

[FactFinder]

Absolute HOGWASH. YOU are moralizing that animals are somehow more important then humans. There is a HUGE difference between using an animal in an experiment and using a HUMAN or fetus. That you are so morally bankrupt that you can even try this argument is a sorry affair for YOU.

Human fetuses possess lesser capacities than certain nonhuman animals and a lesser awareness of their existence and surroundings. Your little tantrum doesn't change that; it just exposes your inability to offer logically sound arguments. What have you said that couldn't have been said by a white man denying the equivalent moral value of a black man? He could certainly imitate your squealing just as effectively.

I'll provide whatever I damn well please. If you don't like it, tough shit. Who died and put you in charge?

Jesus. Not the crucifixion thing; he tripped over a banana peel this morning.

You claim what ever you want, all you are proving is your ignorance. Let me guess, you are a Liberal right?

And the difference between a man of any color claiming a man of another color is inferior based solely on skin pigmentation is not even the same.

Why using the LOGIC you have presented here we could just round up all the aged and infirm, the people unable to function with out help be it physical or mental and just kill them off, wouldn't be a moral problem at all using your argument.

We have seen it in action with Terri Schaivo

 

[Skull Pilot]

Absolute HOGWASH. YOU are moralizing that animals are somehow more important then humans.

Oh, we don't think animals are more important that humans.

We just think the animals that we love are more important than you, man.

Nothing personal, but we've all seen you trying to fetch a stick.

You're a swell guy, but you're no dog.

As far as I'm concerned, my dogs are better than most people I know and since I don't know any of you, my dogs are definitely better than the lot of you people here.

 

[Agnapostate]

So you would measure awareness by degrees? So an adult less aware than yourself is inferior to you? Are you Arian?

You've now ventured into a rather interesting area, though likely without knowing it. There is one critical problem with your claim here, the element of incommensurability. There is a major distinction between differentiating between a fetus and a normal person, and between a person with an IQ of 110 and a person with an IQ of 90, for instance. Hence, the differences between them are effectively incommensurable, and cannot be used to justify formal policy distinctions. The respective ways in which one treats these two people (if even distinguishable, which is itself dubious, considering their difference is slight), may be acceptable as an individual act. but cannot translate into a rule. Official policy is far too broad and heavyhanded to address the differences between such people sufficiently, and due to the restraints of bounded rationality, governmental attempts to conduct individual utility calculations to determine how different people should be treated would probably itself cause a utility minimization due to resources and energy that would be better utilized on better projects (such as charity), instead being expended on such utility calculations.

You claim what ever you want, all you are proving is your ignorance. Let me guess, you are a Liberal right?

No. I am a libertarian socialist who supports participatory economic structure. Given that liberal democratic capitalism is sustainable for a greater period than the more rightist Anglo-Saxon capitalism of the free marketer, the liberal is actually a greater opponent of mine than the conservative.

And the difference between a man of any color claiming a man of another color is inferior based solely on skin pigmentation is not even the same.

Why not? It's a similarly arbitrary distinction.

Why using the LOGIC you have presented here we could just round up all the aged and infirm, the people unable to function with out help be it physical or mental and just kill them off, wouldn't be a moral problem at all using your argument.

Ja, mein herr! All on der fuerher's orders, right?

No, in actuality, such people would presumably remain persons since they would remain self-aware beings capable of conceptualizing their own existences, and able to suffer from the inhibition of preferences and desires they might form. Even the mentally retarded and similarly disabled should not be killed since they possess the capacity to derive happiness from their lives. The only beings that it might be acceptable to kill are the permanently comatose, inasmuch as their organs could be better utilized to provide life to the ill.

 

[Agnapostate]

This is not a debating society where some ones idea of scoring points wins out over reality or facts. Join MENSA and have at it with those dumb asses, most of them have no common sense either.

How are "reality and facts" determined? As previously mentioned, the racial superiority of the white man was once considered "reality" and a "fact" and similarly indisputable, yet it was not based on rational premises. Why would you risk making a similar mistake here by refusing to engage in logical debate?

We have seen it in action with Terri Schaivo

And what's your point regarding that? Are others supposed to simply accept that allowing her to die was morally wrong without complaint? If anything was morally wrong, it's that her suffering was prolonged through starvation and that she was not instead injected with a fatal chemical of some sort.

 

[editec]

Absolute HOGWASH. YOU are moralizing that animals are somehow more important then humans.

Oh, we don't think animals are more important that humans.

We just think the animals that we love are more important than you, man.

Nothing personal, but we've all seen you trying to fetch a stick.

You're a swell guy, but you're no dog.

As far as I'm concerned, my dogs are better than most people I know and since I don't know any of you, my dogs are definitely better than the lot of you people here.

Honesty.

How refreshing.

I don't even KNOW your dogs and I'll wager your dogs are definitely better than most of the people either of us know.

Your and your dogs are welcome for beer and Kibbles at the editec coupound anytime.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Oh, we don't think animals are more important that humans.

We just think the animals that we love are more important than you, man.

Nothing personal, but we've all seen you trying to fetch a stick.

You're a swell guy, but you're no dog.

As far as I'm concerned, my dogs are better than most people I know and since I don't know any of you, my dogs are definitely better than the lot of you people here.

Honesty.

How refreshing.

I don't even KNOW your dogs and I'll wager your dogs are definitely better than most of the people either of us know.

Your and your dogs are welcome for beer and Kibbles at the editec coupound anytime.

Thanks Ed We might just take you up on that.