Defender2516 Posted June 9, 2007 Share Posted June 9, 2007 Now, tell me why you value your daughters life over a animals. ~Defender~ Well done, you've not only managed to miss the point entiely in 4 consecutive posts, you've also managed to not read my previous post or answer my original question. I'm not going to respond to that redundant question because it's entirely false, and you wouldn't have even asked it if you'd read and understood what I said. Shame.. for a person who accuses others of not answering his questions, you sure do not answer mine. But seriously, what answer would be sufficent for you anyway, on my ethic basis of human life. Obviously we both value human life.. but apparently there is levels in one person values it higher than the other. I'm glad you think i'm ignorant because I haven't answered you silly questions. Perhaps i'll stop dodging if you will? Deal? ~Defender~ If you love me, send me a PM. 8 - Love me2 - Hate me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovelydude Posted June 9, 2007 Share Posted June 9, 2007 :twisted: That's a bit silly Tigra, would what we eat D: :twisted: Does my addition of smilies mean anything to you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Defender2516 Posted June 9, 2007 Share Posted June 9, 2007 Now, tell me why you value your daughters life over a animals. ~Defender~ Is this a guilt-trip question, or something? I'd snap the necks of a billion cows with my bare hands before I let any harm cmoe upon a child of mine. And I wouldn't regret a single severed spinal cord. Why should I? Oh my, someone speaking logic and common sense? I must be on a different planet earth.. ~Defender~ If you love me, send me a PM. 8 - Love me2 - Hate me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigra00 Posted June 9, 2007 Share Posted June 9, 2007 :twisted: That's a bit silly Tigra, would what we eat D: :twisted: Does my addition of smilies mean anything to you? Well, I'm just saying. I really don't like hurting or killing animals, but if that's my choice, hand me the chainsaw, because honestly...A cow is still just a cow, someone you love personally could very well be your entire world. God himself could not stop me from someone who hurt someone I love. Especially if they were raped or something...Oohhhhh, you might as well just off yourself, because I'll do worse. :lol: The popularity of any given religion today depends on the victories of the wars they fought in the past. - Me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Punc Posted June 9, 2007 Share Posted June 9, 2007 In a recent trip that I took to Amsterdam with my Father who was on a business trip, I saw this thing first-hand. There were girls on the street from places like the Middle-east ect who were prostitutes but what amazed me the most was that several of them looked and probably younger than me. I'm pretty sure that the situation in Amsterdam doesn't even come close to the situation in countries like Thailand. The Netherlands have some laws that protect these girls. (it doesn't make it okay thou, but it's somewhat better...) I never could understand how people are even capable of doing this to childeren, is money really so important for them that they have to ruin so many lives :( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assassin_696 Posted June 9, 2007 Share Posted June 9, 2007 Shame.. for a person who accuses others of not answering his questions, you sure do not answer mine. But seriously, what answer would be sufficent for you anyway, on my ethic basis of human life. Obviously we both value human life.. but apparently there is levels in one person values it higher than the other. I'm glad you think i'm ignorant because I haven't answered you silly questions. Perhaps i'll stop dodging if you will? Deal? ~Defender~ No deal. Your question is, as I said, redundant because I cannot put myself in a position of paternal responsibility. If you want to know why I think I would value the life of my daughter over an animal the answer is obvious, she's my daughter, my child and I would love and care for her more than anything else in the world. If you're asking why I would in general value the life of a human over that of an animal it's because when push comes to shove I think we should put our own species and survival first. But I believe ethics are subjective to a situation and it's not as black and white as you make it out. But as i've said, countlessly, that does not mean one cannot stand up for the rights of animals, against battery farming or unethical conditions. Against unncessary cruelty when being slaughtered or testing for beauty products. I'm surprised that as someone who calls themselves a Christian you seem so against the idea of working towards a more ethical treatment of animals. Another question, answer this one, would you value the life of your daughter's captors over that of a cow? One is human and the other animal, but one has done nothing to harm your daughter. "Da mihi castitatem et continentam, sed noli modo" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foolgool Posted June 9, 2007 Share Posted June 9, 2007 Wow. That is pretty humbling. Now at least we know we haven't got it bad if we fail a test, lose a girl/boyfriend, or any comparatively trivial problems. It's a huge surprise that those women even LIVE for 20 years, not to mention being able to actually have sex. The code in my sig should say 1032 not 0132. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrOwez Posted June 9, 2007 Share Posted June 9, 2007 Their governments should do more to help them tbh. A friend to all is a friend to none. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Death_By_Pod Posted June 9, 2007 Share Posted June 9, 2007 There wouldn't be a sex trade if there weren't buyers. You may blame the foreign countries, but the problem is largely here at home where customers are generated through sex-filled media/desensitization and the idea that "sex is okay wherever, whenever". Because having sex with young girls never happened before the 20th century. The difference is that slavery and sexual relationships/marriage at young ages are not acceptable. Marriage was common at 10-13 a few centuries ago. What's next convert the natives from their pagan religions to the one true religion? The problem is that culture and social practices differ from region to region. Although we abhor this kind of culture, it doesn't justify us to force our cultural beliefs on other societies. To one culture, throwing a virgin girl off a temple is the ultimate honour and sacrifice that one can make, especially to the god that you are being sacrificed to. Perhaps the idea of willingly jumping off a temple is insane, however to many others it's an honour. That last time Australia tried to intervene on another culture's values, we ended up contributing to genocide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_Generation). What constitutes an absolute moral value or mental illness (is it sane to want to jump off a temple) is problematic. The best we can do is prevent human trafficking into our countries and punish those who abuse the laws of other nations and commit offences which would otherwise be illegal here. If selling children or child prostitution is illegal, then perhaps it's possible to support the government in upholding their laws. Otherwise it's is up to the countries in question to govern under the laws and values which their citizens hold. The best we can do is educate the law makers as to why slavery and child prostitution are bad for people, in relation to their other laws. For example, if they find theft wrong, then perhaps theft of a child's own body is also wrong. It's the same reason why Australian Aborigines are unable to receive compensation for being taken away from their parents. It was legal at the time and they lived under those laws. We might find it wrong on reflection, but that doesn't change the justification we made when it was legal. We can't punish people who work within the law. Out of interest, what's your ethical basis for valueing a human's life over an animal's? Speciesism? Are you saying you wouldn't protest over cruelty to animals? And speciesism is wrong, why? Another one of those relative cultural values I presume. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane Posted June 9, 2007 Share Posted June 9, 2007 And isn't the idea that forcing your values on another culture is wrong just another culturally relative value of your own? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trapical Posted June 9, 2007 Author Share Posted June 9, 2007 First off, 4 pages in less than 12 hours? Impressive, but I wish the arguments were a little more civil. Guys, come on, animal rights activists and human rights activists are not enemies, they are in fact allies. Is it that wrong to try and put things into perspective or prioritise? I'm sure he's not annoyed with what they are fighting for per se, he's just making a comparison to show how inhumane we are to ourselves. No, it's perfectly just, but he didn't need to go so far as to state that animal cruelty protestors were annoying and that their cause is nothing compared to that of the victims of slave trade. I see your point, and your right, I did sort of cross the line. However, like I said in the original post, I do respect that these people are actually doing something active. In truth, it's not these people that actually annoy me, its the whole concept that there are people out there being treated worse than animals, and all 1st world countries want to do is save the panda. Why save the Panda? What ever happened to saving the west African Cockroach? Many activists are just interested in saving puppies, and kittens, and chicks, and calves, while they go back home and pesticide their houses killing billions of insects. These people clearly favor certain species over others, and thus I find it odd that they don't care that members of their own species are being put into conditions worse than that of any animal I know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assassin_696 Posted June 9, 2007 Share Posted June 9, 2007 First off, 4 pages in less than 12 hours? Impressive, but I wish the arguments were a little more civil. Guys, come on, animal rights activists and human rights activists are not enemies, they are in fact allies. My point exactly. Fighting for one does not negate fighting on behalf of the other (perhaps fighting is a little extreme, especially for animals, but you get the idea). "Da mihi castitatem et continentam, sed noli modo" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Death_By_Pod Posted June 9, 2007 Share Posted June 9, 2007 And isn't the idea that forcing your values on another culture is wrong just another culturally relative value of your own? Nope, it's identifying that we have a cultural bias and that our own culture is subjective. Working within this framework of cultural bias, it is impossible to justify being able to force values on another culture. It isn't a question of whether it is right or wrong. It's like rejecting that the sky is blue on the grounds that you don't agree with physics. It doesn't change the truth of the matter either way, it's a matter of identifying that these constraints (on the colour of the sky) exist in the first place. You can force your values on another culture, it's just that you have no justification for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane Posted June 9, 2007 Share Posted June 9, 2007 And isn't the idea that forcing your values on another culture is wrong just another culturally relative value of your own? Nope, it's identifying that we have a cultural bias and that our own culture is subjective. Working within this framework of cultural bias, it is impossible to justify being able to force values on another culture. It isn't a question of whether it is right or wrong. Is it possible to justify not forcing your values on another culture? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted June 9, 2007 Share Posted June 9, 2007 Yes, equality of humans is equality of opinion. You just have to fugure out how we aquire the right to equality first. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane Posted June 9, 2007 Share Posted June 9, 2007 Yes, equality of humans is equality of opinion. You just have to fugure out how we aquire the right to equality first. Then if we are able to justify not forcing our values on people, it would imply that we believe not forcing our values on people is the right thing to do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted June 9, 2007 Share Posted June 9, 2007 Yes, ideally that is the value of liberalism. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane Posted June 9, 2007 Share Posted June 9, 2007 Yes, ideally that is the value of liberalism. So if not forcing our views on others is RIGHT, then forcing our views on others must be WRONG, make them absolutes? You can force your values on another culture, it's just that you have no justification for it. In your eyes. I think the millions of saved children's lives might be justification for the majority of people with, you know, hearts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted June 9, 2007 Share Posted June 9, 2007 Yes, ideally that is the value of liberalism. So if not forcing our views on others is RIGHT, then forcing our views on others must be WRONG, make them absolutes? It all comes down to what rights we as humans have and as some believe, are born with. I don't believe in natural rights. Since to me a right is not a right unless there is a law there to enforce it, as otherwise it holds no purpose. Since i am more of a utilitarian, i am inclined to go with "rights-based interests". That is basically if we conceive a rule such as "all humans are equal" it creates utility on a universal scale and becomes a right when enforced by law. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane Posted June 9, 2007 Share Posted June 9, 2007 Yes, ideally that is the value of liberalism. So if not forcing our views on others is RIGHT, then forcing our views on others must be WRONG, make them absolutes? It all comes down to what rights we as humans have and as some believe, are born with. I don't believe in natural rights. Since to me a right is not a right unless there is a law there to enforce it, as otherwise it holds no purpose. Since i am more of a utilitarian, i am inclined to go with "rights-based interests". That is basically if we conceive a rule such as "all humans are equal" it creates utility on a universal scale and becomes a right when enforced by law. That's only useful if everyone is utilitarian. What happens when you come up against a Kantian, or an absolutist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted June 9, 2007 Share Posted June 9, 2007 Well, that would be my own justification for it. Not everyone strives to create utility. Someone who beleives in natural rights, such as Locke, would aquire their justification to everyone being equal usually by some sort of God. The principle of "rights based interests" is not absolutist though, it is subject to change (although equality in humans would probably never change). You're right, it would only be justification for utilitarians. I think striving for an ultimate, universal justification to impose our ideals onto others has failed from the start. As if it were true there would be no need to do so. Perhaps asking the question of "What rational justification can you give for saying all humans are not equal" would be more realistic. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4nr Posted June 9, 2007 Share Posted June 9, 2007 This is just unbelievable. I had no idea this was going on. It's a real eye opener. I'm looking forward to reading your future threads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Striker6 Posted June 9, 2007 Share Posted June 9, 2007 That is very worrying on what is going on in the world, and certainly this was an eye opener. Let's just say I shall be looking forward to your more upbeat messages in your works, because as ignorant as I sound thats just depressing as I personally cannot do anything about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dark Lord Posted June 9, 2007 Share Posted June 9, 2007 It's ironic how those are more worried about oil and other less important things and turn a blind eye toward this. SWAG Mayn U wanna be like me but U can't be me cuz U ain't got ma swagga on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1_man_army Posted June 9, 2007 Share Posted June 9, 2007 I'm all for animal rights (within reason - I hate alot of what Peta do) but your right we should think first about people. Don't get me wrong I think animals shouldn't be abused, tortured or mis-treated but you have to look towards people first. It amazes me that so many people are completely ignorant to the things that people do to each other around the world. It's like people live in their own little perfect bubble where nothing negative ever happens or maybe it's just that they don't care. This topic reminds me of the thing I saw on the news a few months back about how people donate more money to animal charities than they do towards most other types of charity (I know thats vague but I can't remember the details to be honest). I suppose it's easier to create sympathy for a little little puppy than it is for somebody who has learning difficulties. I'm kind of going off-topic with my rant here - probably because my mate got put in the hospital the other night after he and his old man got jumped. I'm just venting in a way. He who learns must suffer, and, even in our sleep, pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart,and in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of God. - Aeschylus (525 BC - 456 BC) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now