| Subject: Debris |
Author:
Damoclese
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 03/ 1/02 2:59pm
In reply to:
ozboy
's message, "Crumbs" on 03/ 1/02 11:54am
>
>from Damoclese: without sustenance. >>> in your
>opinion.
You haven't given me any reason to think otherwise.
>>>> ok! ... before we go any further ... you may find
>my replies curt or unwarrented under the context of
>Ben's board....
Um, okay.
>
>...but I could easily accuse many here of not
>supplying evidence on a particular topic sufficient
>for me (or anyone else) to believe, and the same is
>true for me in some of my arguments!
>__________
That may be true, but if you are going to make statements that you are going to recalcitrantly hold to, you should at least attempt to justify them. Otherwise, I could just as easily say "Ozboy is a complete hermaphorditic asswipe" and by your above notion of "evidence" you'd be forced to accept my opinion as at least valid, without any further evidence.
>
>>>> .. even though my nick is not ozoboy I shall reply
>... this is sarcasm ... it is a way of answering your
>question firmly and honestly but in an indirect way by
>giving a hypothetical comic example designed to make
>you think about what you said.
Getting me to think about what I said? Did you even bother to read the post under Ben's about my justifications for ethical actions? I've obviously thought about them. I asked for your thoughts, not some crux designed to allow me to reach some form of Ozboy enlightenment.
>
>... ie you say " Should I be so fond of human life
>over animal life for any reason you can think of?" ...
>this would indicate that you place the same (or
>greater) value on the life of your pussy cat (an
>animal) than you do your own life or the life of a
>loved one, or even my life! ... therefore, should I
>visit your house and endanger the life of your
>hypothetical cat (by kicking it)... you would consider
>ending my life in order to protect the life of the
>animal.
Kicking it would not endanger it's life. It would hurt it, undoubtley, which would anger me. I'd say that if you can kill a cat that it isn't fundamentally different than killing a human being, and I think this is demonstrated adequately by the serial killers who preface their actions by killing animals first. However, we must look at the context of what kind of harm is caused by your killing my cat before we decided whether or not the situation warrants your death.
When we execute a human being, we do it under the pretense that they are irreparably depraved, that they are going to cause emotional harm by being left alive, aside from the fact that they still have the potential to harm even more people if they ever were to get out. The person(s) they killed are harmed, because their desires to live have been disobeyed; the people who are related to those people have been emotionally harmed, which causes an even bigger web of harm to form. Worse yet, others if this person is left alive might become emotionally distraught that they too might be killed by this person if they are left to live, which casts a bigger net of harm (for those people and their families). Killing this person, though it will harm the emotions of the family related to them, and potentially cause harm to the person being killed (i.e. disobyeing his wishes to live) it is still far less than the harm it causes for this person to remain alive.
For your offense of killing my cat, though I would view your actions as immoral, (as immoral as killing a human being) I think that it would do more harm to execute you for killing my cat than to allow you to continue living, for cats don't (as far as we know) tremble with trepidation at the fact that they too might be killed, nor do cats seem to be as closely emotionally allied within a family and relationships as that of a human. That doesn't mean that it is any less of an offense, but only that killing cats doesn't cause enough harm to warrant your death to alleviate that harm.
>
>from Damoclese: Uh, how is sentencing someone to rot
>in prison until they die any different that executing
>them? Either way, you are determining their death.
>
>>>> ..this is to say that your mother determins your
>death by giving birth to you.
Not really. Your mom really doesn't have much control over your life, especially once you leave the house. We are talking about sentencing a person in the name of justice in which our actions will directly bring about their death, just in different ways. We have a much more active part in this, and I think your isomorphisim is a bit loose to be applied here.
>
>
>Epilogue: When I die I will feel the same as I did 9
>months before I was born. Just as I did not exist
>before I was concieved, I will not exist when I am
>dead.
You think so? How was it you were endowed with this speical knowledge of what happens to us after we die?
>
>... so you imediately want to know if I can prove
>this? ... this cannot be done in one post ... but I
>will begin by asking this question:
okay...
>
>Name one religion, past or present, that does not
>involve the entry to an afterlife through worship of
>something that is not tangible or agreed upon by
>everyone?!
I can't, but I fail to see how religion determines knowledge of the afterlife anyway.
>
> plus ... your replies indicate you don't understand
>my posts, yet your titles belie this?
I understood the posts, I just thought it was a rather shitty thing to do since so far the equations are working out that I've spent much more time on my posts justifying my position, and you've spent a sentence or two with non-productive sarcasm.
Damoclese
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 