Thread Closed

Status
Not open for further replies.

Emberguard

Senior Ingame Moderator
I wouldn't be eating a dog in the first place. As to whether I'd eat a pet of a type of animal I would eat, then it'd depend on how it died. It's a bad idea to eat a diseased animal. If it dies from old age or from euthanasia then no I'm not going to eat it. If I kill it for meat either with a knife or a gun depending on size of animal then I'll eat it.
 

Lucifer1904

Well-Known Member
I wouldn't be eating a dog in the first place. As to whether I'd eat a pet of a type of animal I would eat, then it'd depend on how it died. It's a bad idea to eat a diseased animal. If it dies from old age or from euthanasia then no I'm not going to eat it. If I kill it for meat either with a knife or a gun depending on size of animal then I'll eat it.
That is my argument, I am not arguing against the humanization of animals for human consumption, i.e cows, chickens, pigs as that has been a part of human survival since the beginning of time. My argument for animals is that of pets such as dogs and cats. You would not eat a dog or cat so what is your reason for killing them.
 

RazorbackPirate

Well-Known Member
^ What he said.
That is my argument, I am not arguing against the humanization of animals for human consumption, i.e cows, chickens, pigs as that has been a part of human survival since the beginning of time. My argument for animals is that of pets such as dogs and cats. You would not eat a dog or cat so what is your reason for killing them.
Whether I choose to eat an animal or not, has no bearing on the issue. Even if my intent was to kill it for sport and mount it's head on my wall and use it's hide for a rug, it's an animal.

Interesting that you still make no distinction between humans and animals.

Since you are not arguing AGAINST the humanization of animals for human consumption, you are arguing FOR the humanization of animals for human consumption meaning you advocate ascribing human traits and behaviors to food animals to make them less attractive for use as food. Correct?

The question now is what is your reason for not killing another person? How did a discussion of euthanasia become a justification or not, based on subsequent human consumption? Are you then also arguing for the dehumanization of humans for human consumption? @Lucifer1904, are you advocating a return to Canaan Ba'al ism?
 

Emberguard

Senior Ingame Moderator
I am not advocating cannibalism. I have no further comment on this debate at this time.
Ok that's not what you're advocating. But you are comparing animals to humans on both a consumption basis and a murder basis. So if you're not advocating eating people then there's no point to be made about eating pets in regards to supporting euthanasia in people unless you're also advocating going vegan - it's not a comparison.

If you wish to advocate for euthanasia in people then it can't be on the basis of whether or not it's done with animals. Anything justified through animals opens up justification of anything animals do. Which would include killing a male to steal the mate. If humans did that they'd be locked up or have the death penalty depending on country. Either we're above the animals and go by a different set of morals -OR- there is no difference and what goes for one goes for the other

We could say we're their caretaker, it's our responsibility to look after their wellbeing and whatevers best in their interests. But we can't really use the argument of you do it with animals why don't we do it with people, especially if that's your main point. Doing something just because someone else has done it before doesn't justify an action. Someone can't steal a car and justify it by saying someone else stole theirs and got away with it. They'd be tried and judged based on their own actions, not someone elses actions.
 
Last edited:

Lucifer1904

Well-Known Member
Based on this topic getting off-track from the topic of "Is euthanasia justified" due to the factor of animals in the debate. I have edited the debate to be only based on the justification for humans. As stated before, if this thread becomes off-topic it will be closed.

-Lucifer1904 / Ex-Forum Moderator
 

RazorbackPirate

Well-Known Member
Based on this topic getting off-track from the topic of "Is euthanasia justified" due to the factor of animals in the debate. I have edited the debate to be only based on the justification for humans.
You have not. You still equate killing humans to killing animals and conflate them as if they're morally equivalent. They're not. No matter how you spin it. Putting down Grandma after she breaks her hip is not the same as putting down your dog for the same thing.

As long as you think it is, then the circumstances by which death of people is warranted, allowable, beneficial, compassionate, whatever euphemism you want to dress up murder with, becomes subjective to opinion based on societal whims. Eugenics, Euthanasia, Euphemism, see a trend here?

That doesn't seem to register with you. As such, if you support euthanasia, you have no moral argument against societies that justify killing people for any other reason whether it be genocide, sacrificing to Moloch, or Canaan Ba'al ism. As long as the majority 'feels' it's okay, it's okay.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

"Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." In that order. Not because it sounds good that way, it's the list of Rights in order of Supremacy. Your pursuit of Happiness does not allow you to infringe on my Liberty, my Liberty does not give me the right to deny you Life.

That you can't see that is disturbing, but given your user name, I'm not surprised. A man who hates YHWH will naturally hate His Supreme Creation. Your god also demands human sacrifice in order to serve him, so at least your morally consistent that way.

Here's a web site that might interest you. Might be just the place to celebrate Grandma's passing. http://cannibalclub.org The perfect way to enjoy one last meal with her.

I fear for your family members, especially those with money. I also pray you're not a Dr.
 
Last edited:

Stephen Longshanks

"Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." In that order. Not because it sounds good that way, it's the list of Rights in order of Supremacy. Your pursuit of Happiness does not allow you to infringe on my Liberty, my Liberty does not give me the right to deny you Life.
Do you have any outside verification of this "fact"? Because I don't believe your Liberty necessarily allows you to interfere with my pursuit of Happiness.
 

Stephen Longshanks

My point is that you can't have an honest debate if you just make stuff up. Maybe there is relevance to the order of those words, maybe there isn't. Do you have any sources that confirm your statement that there is relevance to their order?
 

RazorbackPirate

Well-Known Member
My point is that you can't have an honest debate if you just make stuff up. Maybe there is relevance to the order of those words, maybe there isn't. Do you have any sources that confirm your statement that there is relevance to their order?
The Declaration of Independence is a legal document. It is written as a legal document and needs to be read as a legal document. In legal documents, the order of lists are not arbitrary. If you need more than that, do your own research. If you want to understand our founding documents as the founders wrote them, not within the context of today's fluid 'penumbra' of rights, the Federalist Papers is a great place to start.
 

Stephen Longshanks

The Declaration of Independence is a legal document. It is written as a legal document and needs to be read as a legal document. In legal documents, the order of lists are not arbitrary. If you need more than that, do your own research. If you want to understand our founding documents as the founders wrote them, not within the context of today's fluid 'penumbra' of rights, the Federalist Papers is a great place to start.
The trouble with that theory is that it doesn't take into account that multiple items with equal importance still have to be listed in some kind of order. (And if we're going to take things strictly as the founders wrote them, then the NRA's Second Amendment stance goes right out the window.)
 

RazorbackPirate

Well-Known Member
The trouble with that theory is that it doesn't take into account that multiple items with equal importance still have to be listed in some kind of order. (And if we're going to take things strictly as the founders wrote them, then the NRA's Second Amendment stance goes right out the window.)
If you believe your pursuit of Happiness allows you to take a Life or deny another's Liberty, that is an issue far beyond the scope of the Constitution and you'll answer for any actions you take or promote commensurate with that stance to a Judge far higher than any Supreme Court Justice. Good luck with that.

If you want to know why your parenthetical statement is wrong, read the Federalist Papers. In the meantime, here's a few quotes from the Founding Fathers on firearms and their thoughts on private possession. https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/gun-quotations-founding-fathers

One of my favorites,
"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
BTW - If you're going to take a stance that's intended to deny people the right to defend themselves not only from bad people, but also from an overreaching tyrannical government, for God's sake do some independent research. Please don't vote to enslave humanity because you heard someone say something you agreed with once.

If NZ was all "they" say it was, why are "they" threatening to jail or fine anyone possessing a copy of the tape? Isn't it convenient there always seems to be one of these events just when "they" need one to push legislation to strip us of more of our rights. Wake up. Evil is real and time is running out.
 

Stephen Longshanks

If you want to know why your parenthetical statement is wrong, read the Federalist Papers. In the meantime, here's a few quotes from the Founding Fathers on firearms and their thoughts on private possession.
I don't need to read any non-Constitutional writings to understand the plain meaning of the Second Amendment, and that it is outdated and needs to be repealed. The military realities of the time it was written no longer exist. We have a professional army for defense, which is something the founding fathers didn't envision happening. You need to read the first part of the amendment that qualifies everything after it. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,". So if you're part of a well-regulated militia dedicated to the security of the State, you are entitled to keep and bear arms. If you're not part of such a militia, you are not Constitutionally guaranteed this right. Which would mean that local governments had the right to regulate firearm ownership. This was the legal view until about 10 years ago or so when the Supreme Court made one of its less legally correct decisions. They essentially changed the Constitution by their erroneous thinking. And now the NRA buys politicians to keep this from being fixed.
 

Stephen Longshanks

If you believe your pursuit of Happiness allows you to take a Life or deny another's Liberty, that is an issue far beyond the scope of the Constitution and you'll answer for any actions you take or promote commensurate with that stance to a Judge far higher than any Supreme Court Justice.
I am saying none of that. I am merely pointing out that your statement was factually wrong.
BTW - If you're going to take a stance that's intended to deny people the right to defend themselves not only from bad people, but also from an overreaching tyrannical government, for God's sake do some independent research. Please don't vote to enslave humanity because you heard someone say something you agreed with once.
Did you get this little tidbit straight off the NRA website? Talk about nonsense. "Enslave humanity"? Really? You should stop drinking the Kool-Aid.
 

mamboking053

Well-Known Member
I am saying none of that. I am merely pointing out that your statement was factually wrong.

Did you get this little tidbit straight off the NRA website? Talk about nonsense. "Enslave humanity"? Really? You should stop drinking the Kool-Aid.
Lol. Well...I'll just say that maybe in 1776 citizens who armed themselves posed a threat to the central government, but in this day and age, with the severe advantage of combat multipliers and universal surveillance, it is a pipe dream.
 

RazorbackPirate

Well-Known Member
Did you get this little tidbit straight off the NRA website? Talk about nonsense. "Enslave humanity"? Really? You should stop drinking the Kool-Aid.
No. That is an original thought and statement of my own independent thoughts after thorough careful investigation. I also do not throw out facts that I find inconvenient. Bury your head if you must.

"There are none so blind as those who will not see."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.