The Glade 4.0

I tried to engage the morality side of the discussion Elmo, and you ignored it. The problem is that your point of view is based on an arbitrary moral decision that you cannot back up and remain consistant with your other views.

What about the act of ending a human life (ignoring for the moment the abortion debate, we'll come back to it) is wrong?

Your morality is based on the standard as well so its not a valid attack because it is equally critical of your alternative morality.

There is nothing in the ending of a human life which is wrong as there exist varied conditions which make it not only not an immoral act but in times a moral one.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Ok, then lets take the cold blooded murder of a human being for no purpose other than self gratification.
What about that is morally wrong? (I promise there is a point here, so please indulge me)

Does it have to be an impassioned plea? What about the Vulcans and the Borg?

I kid, I kid.

if rights are natural... then it should not need to to be an impassioned plea, if you need to provide the caveat that only developed species can receive these rights, then you logic yourself out of rights being a naturally existing construct.

If rights are natural, then they are in existence regardless of a species ability to make a plea for them, then every time meat is butchered for food preparation, then rights are being violated. Please try to retain some consistency.

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut

DING DING DING WE HAVE A WINNER!!!!

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Just to pose a Khross style question:

Elmo... do you eat meat?

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut

Only fetus meat.

So... veal?

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

What the hell are you doing Darksiege?

All we need is the muppet joining PETA.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

so he goes from being PITA to PETA... only a letter would change.

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut

2 letters

I personally joined the adopt a vegan program. Anytime someone decides to eat a meal that doesnt contain animal for moral reasons, I eat double just to fill the void

Meat is yummy

edit: Wrong thread.

This x 2

_________________
I met this six-year-old child, with this blank, pale, emotionless face and, the blackest eyes... the devil's eyes. I spent eight years trying to reach him, and then another seven trying to keep him locked up because I realized what was living behind that boy's eyes was purely and simply... evil

Corrected my typo that Lyd pointed out.

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut

It is a violation of the right to life. It causes harm to another.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Oh they obviously exist for that species in question before they make that plea but it is only through that plea (or similar) that we know we should erect rules to protect those rights. Again you are attempting to construct an argument where rights move from being a philosophy into a force and no one has ever claimed that -yet the attacks of this style are quite common. I suppose its easier to ignore what is being argued than it is to create an alternate philosophical position?

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

He is not attempting to make them into a "force"; he is pointing out an inconsistency in your stated position. If they "obviously" exist before the plea is made, why is the plea needed?

As for "constrcuting an alternate philosophical position" that is pointless when talking to you since you will simply ignore it and insist on arguing only in terms of your own. If someone rejects yours, you will insist they must then reject their own, but hypocritically ignore the fact that if that is true then you must also reject yours by virtue of rejecting theirs. I'm sure you have some clever reason why that isn't what you actually think, but since your behavior has been precisely this for 6 years or more now, there is no reason to think you will do anything else.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I'm going to fix this for you based on your statements here and in other threads, I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but rather trying to make this statement as specific as possible so we can drill down to the foundations of it. Right to life is ambiguous. Harm is ambiguous. even "another" is ambiguous.

Would you accept the following as an accurate narrowing/clarification of the original statement.

"All human beings have a fundamental right to continue their existence. The permanent termination of life processes of a human being, without the consent of the individual (either by acts which specifically waive those rights, or by direct given consent by a mentally competent act) is morally wrong."

Do you seriously pay attention to yourself? If the rights exist before a plea is made, then no plea need be made.

The fact that you say we need to be reminded that something has these rights in order for us to not trample on those rights is asinine.

By that logic, if we can silence the plea from a creature before it has been made, we are not violating rights.

So... in the case of abortion, if we silence the clump of cells before it can make a request that its rights be protected, no harm no foul.

Instead, you (and to be fair, others do this too) claim that because it is a life form, that it should not have its rights infringed upon. So you (being against abortion) would then speak for a creature incapable of pleading for its own rights. While trampling the rights of the host. Why no such sympathy for the cows who cannot plead for themselves either? Why no activism on behalf of the chickens and turkeys?

I will take your stance on right to life seriously when you do not try and justify holding one form of life sacred but not others. If life is sacred, then all life should be sacred. And I mean all life as in all life.

If life is sacred you should always avoid taking another life, even if defense of your own rights, nonlethal solutions could be achieved. Or; you could always just admit your inconsistency.

And really man, there is nothing wrong with holding views that are not always consistent with each other, as long as you are willing to admit you have this inconsistency.

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut

Can we not talk about how yummy meat is on Friday's during Lent?

_________________

...

For Elmo:

Click Here

For Darksiege:

Click Here

_________________

Khross, I really think it is time for you change your title from Evil Bastard to "Glade Librarian" or "Dewey Decimaster".

_________________

Why?

_________________