quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On Is that a fact?

yes.

murder is a term reserved for humans only. There's no debate to be had there. The term was devised to describe the exact act vern already mentioned. does that mean that it's fine to go around hanging dogs? not by any stretch of the imagination. however, murder is worse than killing animals, regardless of how friendly or domesticated & loved the animals might be. I'd even put rape above killing animals on the morally reprehensible list.

___________________

> S u s h i p u n k . P h o t o g r a p h y <

I can't believe Vick stooped to something so stupid and low when he is so damn talented.

it's kind of sad.

I'm going to guess he will serve 6 months of Jail Time out of 1 year or more.

___________________
Although you are far away
I know you'll always be
Near to me
Near to me

R.I.P. DarkAngel 12-16-o9

quote:

Originally posted by inconspicuous yes. murder is a term reserved for humans only. There's no debate to be had there. The term was devised to describe the exact act vern already mentioned. does that mean that it's fine to go around hanging dogs? not by any stretch of the imagination. however, murder is worse than killing animals, regardless of how friendly or domesticated & loved the animals might be. I'd even put rape above killing animals on the morally reprehensible list.

You didn't even read the post he quoted, did you?



The value of a human life is definitely not fact.

Edit: Also, your etymology is wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt.

"Murder" is in no way, shape, or form reserved for humans.

___________________
last minute disco dot net

quote:

Originally posted by inconspicuous yes. murder is a term reserved for humans only. There's no debate to be had there. The term was devised to describe the exact act vern already mentioned. does that mean that it's fine to go around hanging dogs? not by any stretch of the imagination. however, murder is worse than killing animals, regardless of how friendly or domesticated & loved the animals might be. I'd even put rape above killing animals on the morally reprehensible list.

How is it different? Humans are animals, too. What is so much more morally reprehensible about killing within your own species than outside of it?

You can make this a semantical argument if you like (which you apparently do?), you could even cite hundreds of cases which establish legal precedence. But morality and the law have very little to do with one another, no matter how often one takes the others' name in vain.

The intentional torture and killing of animals may differ from that of humans in many ways, but what is the fundamental difference? Why is one more cruel than another? If both are intentional and neither victim can effectively defend itself, what difference does it truly make what species we have classified it as?

___________________
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

Needless to say, I'm with Halcyon+On+On 100% on this one.

___________________
last minute disco dot net

quote:

Originally posted by RJT You didn't even read the post he quoted, did you? The value of a human life is definitely not fact.

I'm sure some people do think that other animals' lives are more valuable than those of humans, but that's nowhere near the norm and certainly not an opinion I share. So, I suppose you're right--it's not a fact.

___________________

> S u s h i p u n k . P h o t o g r a p h y <

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On How is it different? Humans are animals, too. What is so much more morally reprehensible about killing within your own species than outside of it? You can make this a semantical argument if you like (which you apparently do?), you could even cite hundreds of cases which establish legal precedence. But morality and the law have very little to do with one another, no matter how often one takes the others' name in vain. The intentional torture and killing of animals may differ from that of humans in many ways, but what is the fundamental difference? Why is one more cruel than another? If both are intentional and neither victim can effectively defend itself, what difference does it truly make what species we have classified it as?

I'm only making it an argument about semantics in so far as the term 'murder' is being applied to actions involving dogs. I never claimed that it is 'so much more morally reprehensible.' By the time you've reached the aforementioned acts, you're well beyond the boundaries of normal human behavior. If you do honestly feel that there is no difference between any act, regardless of the living species affected, then we're going nowhere anyway, because we disagree at a fundamental level.

___________________

> S u s h i p u n k . P h o t o g r a p h y <

quote:

Originally posted by inconspicuous I'm sure some people do think that other animals' lives are more valuable than those of humans, but that's nowhere near the norm and certainly not an opinion I share. So, I suppose you're right--it's not a fact.

So how does that affect anything anyone has discussed in this thread?



I was under the impression we were discussing my views, not societies.

Further, the value of any life is without doubt subjective, so whether or not society as a whole would answer the question "Is human or animal life more valuable?" with a resounding "HUMAN!" has absolutely no bearing on the fact that if you asked an individual whether or not they'd rather see their rabbit Fluffkins die as opposed to a convicted rapist, they'd inevitably choose Fluffkins.

Societal "norms" in cases like these have little meaning to me. It's all subjective.

___________________
last minute disco dot net

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On The intentional torture and killing of animals may differ from that of humans in many ways, but what is the fundamental difference? Why is one more cruel than another? If both are intentional and neither victim can effectively defend itself, what difference does it truly make what species we have classified it as?

while there's very little difference with regard to the thought process behind such acts, the end result of one is a dead human, and the other, a dead animal. I can't even claim to be certain that one is the product of a more twisted mind, but in my opinion, the death of a dog or other animal is not as significant as that of a human. Clearly, you disagree.

___________________

> S u s h i p u n k . P h o t o g r a p h y <

quote:

Originally posted by inconspicuous If you do honestly feel that there is no difference between any act, regardless of the living species affected, then we're going nowhere anyway, because we disagree at a fundamental level.

I'm saddened that you think we have nothing to discuss.

Tell me - what is the morality of a knife?

___________________
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

quote:

Originally posted by inconspicuous while there's very little difference with regard to the thought process behind such acts, the end result of one is a dead human, and the other, a dead animal. I can't even claim to be certain that one is the product of a more twisted mind, but in my opinion, the death of a dog or other animal is not as significant as that of a human. Clearly, you disagree.

I couldn't possibly disagree more, especially when it comes to adult humans who continue to torture and maim animals - which is exactly why animal torture is one of the general precursors to psychopathy they look for in children.

Edit: And in my opinion, the significance isn't in the death, it's in the act.

___________________
last minute disco dot net