Debate : 2163


Off-Topic / Debate / 2163	2162 \| 2164

Subject:	Re: Killing (was: Re: Voluntary, private discrimination (Was: Disparicies in Sentencing))
Newsgroups:	lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date:	Sun, 12 Sep 1999 01:40:04 GMT
Viewed:	1907 times

On Sat, 11 Sep 1999 12:43:05 GMT, Christopher Weeks <clweeks@eclipse.net> wrote: > > Killing animals is ethically hard to defend in most cases, but I think there are > > gradations of naughtyness involved. I don't think it's enough to say "you killed, > > you must die", and ignore everything else involved. > > > > Moz > > I would like to hear why killing animals is hard to defend. Given what premises? Wondering if he means for food (which I'm willing to accept - it IS hard to defend in a lot of cases, although I love a good steak as much as the next guy) or for sport, as in the case of trophy hunters, which is impossible to defend, imo, or maybe even the killing of say pets or something, which is also difficult to defend, since it is the destruction of the property of another person. The parts you want and nothing else? http://jaba.dtrh.com/ - Just Another Brick Auction Why pay eBay? Run your own LEGO auctions for free! http://www.guarded-inn.com/bricks/

Message has 4 Replies:

		Re: Killing (was: Re: Voluntary, private discrimination (Was: Disparicies in Sentencing))
Mike Stanley <cjc@NOSPAMnewsguy.com> wrote (...) Case one: humans. Should not be killed unless obsolutely necessary. Reasons? Killing reduces happiness not just in the victim, but also in their community. And can further reduce happiness in a wider (...) (25 years ago, 12-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: Killing (was: Re: Voluntary, private discrimination (Was: Disparicies in Sentencing))
(...) As you note below, your standard is that happiness is central to your philosophy. For those who disagree, their conclusions would be different. (...) Don't be silly, no 'animals' can experience unhappiness. God put them on this earth for us to (...) (25 years ago, 13-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: Killing (was: Re: Voluntary, private discrimination (Was: Disparicies in Sentencing))
John Neal wrote in message <37DC7797.C52E5404@u...st.net>... (...) God, or all (...) Which is nonsense is in the way of belief I think. Muslim belief is based on "everything on earth and in universe", either bad or good is for human being. (...) (25 years ago, 13-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: Killing (was: Re: Voluntary, private discrimination (Was: Disparicies in Sentencing))
<37DC6E8E.6E78EEF4@eclipse.net> <FHztB9.Lx5@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) I agree, but while you value happiness, others value (human) life. (...) Here in the US, not quite so (...) (25 years ago, 13-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Message is in Reply To:

		Killing (was: Re: Voluntary, private discrimination (Was: Disparicies in Sentencing))
<37D91372.E6E0B943@aeieng.com> <FHvtH0.G4z@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) I would like to hear why killing animals is hard to defend. Given what premises? --Chris (25 years ago, 11-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

276 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)

Entire Thread on One Page:: Nested: All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear: All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:: Nested: All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear: All | Brief | Compact

Custom Search