So what your saying is: If you can get away with it, then it ought to be done.
The implications of that would mean I can murder, steal, rape etc. for as long as I can evade the law. And if for some reason the law isn’t able to enforce the punishment then it’s ok.
If a woman is unable to defend herself from an attacker and is raped then she doesn’t have the right to not be raped because it wasn’t enfored and her attacker got away with it?
If sick people can get medicine, and poor people can get money from the suffering of animals then any reason given to conclude that those things are wrong puts animals above sick and poor people. If animals can enforce the so called “natural rights” that you’ve given them, (which incidentally, I think is a mischaracterization of what the term natural rights even means) then they can have them. Let the rats and dogs revolt, just like humans do. Then they have rights.
Edit: I think I read you wrong. But my opinion is still right there…^
[/quote]
Do you think it’s ok for sick people to get medicine, and poor people to get money from the suffering of other people?
that’s right. morality is worthless…
-Imp
she has only those rights that she can enforce… she should pack heat or learn how to defend herself and not find herself in such a position…
from the rapist’s point of view he is doing the right thing…
-Imp
But who is using fallacious reasoning here, the rapist or the woman? I have worked with youth sex offenders, all of them have been victims of abuse at some point in their lives. Many of them view love and sex as the taking of pleasure from somebody else. They are children of rage. It takes years of therapy to correct the thinking errors they have employed throughout their life.
Your right that both the rapist and the woman are doing what they think is right. But one of them is using fallacious reasoning and one is not.
Smears, I hope you are joking. Animals deserve more care than people sometimes.
When?
no, neither is fallacious.
-Imp
Before I tear that down, I would like to know why you think that the rapist reasoning is not fallacious. Because it isn’t enough to simply think what your doing is right, obviously that doesn’t make it right.
Of course many times it doesn’t make since, and it may never will.
We tend to care for animals that are cute, treat us nice, or just don’t taste good.
Most women would be against the killing of dogs, cats, birds, etc. but i’ve seen so many yell spider! kill it! Snake! kill it! Roach! Kill it!
I just think there should never be any useless killing or harm done to animals or insects. Ever felt wrong killing ants just to do it? If you’re conscience tells you it’s wrong it probably is.
And when I say ‘wrong’ I mean as in unhealthy. Of course there isn’t a known objective law, there’s just your beliefs. If you’re an earthy person you believe in harmony, if this person killed something it’d hurt there conscience and in turn maybe hurt there health. If things are being killed for useless pleasure, and you’re some kind of sadists, than you should quit before that pleasure deepens. As such you shouldn’t kill for no reason other than you wanted to to see death, that would be shearing your conscience to killing something.
That’s my opinion though. I think in life so many things need to be done in moderation.
For those of you that are extreme animal activists, the truth is the majority of animals really don’t care what you think. It’s the circle of life. Animals are going to kill other animals to stay alive, why can’t we? Because we became more evolved? Sure kill the guy who raped and killed 20 people, but the animal that did deserves to live. We could take it to court, but i’m not sure it’d go over well. And in self defense if I was being attacked by powerful animals threatening my life I’d probably kill them.
We can’t make double standards, we must take things in the gray. Don’t fight a human who kills an animal for food, the same as you wouldn’t protest any other animal for killing for food. And as far as testing goes, I’d rather have alot of rats, mice, and whatever die so that I could see another human live.
As a human, I believe human life is the most important. Whatever helps our living environment for humans, we should keep it or work with it. We need to stay alive because we can think, progress, and find ways to possibly eliminate having to kill anything one day. I highly doubt an animal is going to do that research. Why does this even matter though? I don’t know, life to animal activists who don’t believe in God or a moral law shouldn’t really care, it should be their opinion. Whine and complain but in the end it doesn’t matter even if you were right. And those that are christian, well follow Gods laws then, he gave us dominion after adam and eve sinned, so we can use it.
I must say, it would be nice though to kill the majority of mosquitoes in the world.
Have you ever tried a juicy new york steak… or even a sexy chicken sandwich from jack in the box… pleased taste buds > ethics
Really, some animals just lack nervous systems, they don’t feel pain, they aren’t self aware fck em.
All that said, there is no need to torture chickens, cows etc… they do live in really awful conditions… but if they were treated better chicken would be worth its weight in gold - imagine using chickens to barter, eh?
Oh… my… god.
A key example of why individualistic and equivalistic philosophies need to be argued against, or?
right is whatever one thinks it is. there is no objective right. but go ahead and tell us what your idea of objective right is.
-Imp
god remains dead.
-Imp
But that didn’t seem to stop gib…
Had to go back out make sure I was reading the right post.
So this is the animal rights posts? So rapist comes under that?
I mean you know its illegal to mess with our animals right?
Morality is subjective, but that doesn’t mean all moral viewpoints are equally valid.
Where is the depletion? Oh you want to go on killing until a specific date. Uh uh, well that is hypcritical of you. Slaughter until a certain amount or date is hit. What happens to the farm animals afterwards? Turn them loose to run afield and start breeding up again? Because that is what is going to happen with specific animals. Pigs, Goats, poultry, sheep. Cattle will breed up too, only at a slower rate. Within a few years the populations of all these farm animals will destroy ecosystems, worse than they are doing now. Farm animals are highly adaptable creatures physically wise. They were bred to survive. They were bred to be prolific breeders. They were bred to eat multiple things and excuse this,but bred to pig out.
What are you going to do when they start destroying ecosystems faster than you can fix them? Oh and don’t expect people to keep useless non profitable animals on their land. It is expensive to feed and care for them. They will be turned loose. Farmers are practical people, they won’t waste their resources(land ,money, time) on useless animals.
By “right” I meant correct, in that his reasoning is fallacious. As far as asking me what is objectively right, that is just a red herring and deserves it’s own thread (this probably does too). A better request is to ask me to objectively prove the rapist is using fallacious reasoning.
I don’t know if you are familiar with the psychology of sex offenders or not, but they employ a lot of fallacies in their reasoning.
Example: One young man would make his 4 year old brother watch hard core pornography with him while he masturbated. He “thought” that his brother wanted to watch the porn, his brother didn’t want to watch the porn, he wanted to play with his toy truck.
Many rapist insist that the woman led them on, ie: the guy is stalking a woman, after following her home he insists that she was “showing him the way to her house, because she wanted to be raped”.
Even if the rapist doesn’t believe the woman wants to be raped, but does it anyway, he is still guilty of rationalizing.
The rapist is confused about the womans desires. The brother is confused about his younger siblings desires. Their (the rapists) reasoning is wrong. Wrong things are wrong by tautology. Wrong reasoning is indicative of a fallacy.