5 ms·

Yes/No. What's the difference how he answers your question. You're absolutely the reason why our politics and logical thinking of our citizens suffer. People w

Yes/No. What's the difference how he answers your question. You're absolutely the reason why our politics and logical thinking of our citizens suffer. People who think that asking a "wiseass" question suffices for actual ethics/moral compass. Here let me try this brainless questionnary approach to rhetoric. Tell me if I'm up to your level of quality. ------ I've had raccoons raid my trash bin. Should I slice the next raccoon up and turn him into a "Rorschach test"?

grayclhn 11y ago
> You're absolutely the reason why our politics and logical thinking of our citizens suffer. People who think that asking a "wiseass" question suffices for actual ethics/moral compass. This is not a constructive response.
- goldenkey 11y ago
  > This is not a constructive response. Hm, this is not a constructive response either.
coldtea 11y ago
>You're absolutely the reason why our politics and logical thinking of our citizens suffer. People who think that asking a "wiseass" question suffices for actual ethics/moral compass. Perhaps you're overthinking it? It's insects. For humanity it has been a non-issue killing them for the entirety of our existence. What's next? "Is it ethical to kill cancer cells?".
- goldenkey 11y ago
  That's the kind of thinking that when extended by induction, supports killing of all sorts of things. Insects might be annoying but as humans all we have over them is our ability to build, shape the tera, and command respect of intellect by the deeds we do. The fact that it is hardly necessary is the main facet here. We should not be killing and destroying homes for pleasure or entertainment. Unfortunately the pleasure part is already being done in the form of eating animals, so it's hard to argue a facet of morality that 99% of the world espouses with.
  - coldtea 11y ago
    >That's the kind of thinking that when extended by induction, supports killing of all sorts of things. And that's totally fine. Nature also kills "all sorts of things", has all sorts of things killing each other, and could even wipe out the planet tomorrow with a huge comet or something... Note that every time you wash your hands you're killing millions of germs...
  - alphapapa 11y ago
    Visit a jungle, or an African savannah, or go for a swim in shark-infested waters. Go make friends with some animals. When you meet a hungry predator, or a swarm of parasites, you will be attacked and eaten. What will you say? Survival of the fittest? Or immoral animal unnecessarily eating an innocent human being for its pleasure? If you really believe that humans are just another animal, then we have as much right to eat them as they have to eat us--and they do.
    - goldenkey 11y ago
      But that's the point. We have intelligence and morals. It's what we base our humanity on - achievements in the realm of mathematics, engineering, physics, chemistry, etc. We cannot use "well we're animals" as justification for intellectually reprehensible acts like torture. A cogent human has no business factory farming, ie. torturing animals for tastebud entropy unless it's by necessity. Hunting and eating animals is a blurred line but I'd generally say its OK given that it's a lot more filled with respect and lack of torture than the meat industry.
alphapapa 11y ago
> You're absolutely the reason why our politics and logical thinking of our citizens suffer. People who think that asking a "wiseass" question... What do you think you're doing? He asked a reasonable question that provided context and counterpoint to the original assertion, which advances the discussion. You posted a reactionary, knee-jerk response, driving the level of discussion into the ground, and accusing him of being in the wrong. You are trolling.
- goldenkey 11y ago
  I was not trolling. The question he asked was a baseless setup for anecdotal personal attacks. I simply added a tangential point to the conversation. Asking a question like that only serves to debate by way of cheap anecdotes. "Well if you DID experience an ant colony invading your home, you would change the value of your binary view" Its a cheap shot and I'd actually take your entire comment and point it at the unreasonably coy question intended to create a rift in what should be objective logic.

grayclhn 11y ago

goldenkey 11y ago
> This is not a constructive response. Hm, this is not a constructive response either.

coldtea 11y ago

>You're absolutely the reason why our politics and logical thinking of our citizens suffer. People who think that asking a "wiseass" question suffices for actual ethics/moral compass. Perhaps you're overthinking it? It's insects. For humanity it has been a non-issue killing them for the entirety of our existence. What's next? "Is it ethical to kill cancer cells?".

goldenkey 11y ago
That's the kind of thinking that when extended by induction, supports killing of all sorts of things. Insects might be annoying but as humans all we have over them is our ability to build, shape the tera, and command respect of intellect by the deeds we do. The fact that it is hardly necessary is the main facet here. We should not be killing and destroying homes for pleasure or entertainment. Unfortunately the pleasure part is already being done in the form of eating animals, so it's hard to argue a facet of morality that 99% of the world espouses with.
- coldtea 11y ago
  >That's the kind of thinking that when extended by induction, supports killing of all sorts of things. And that's totally fine. Nature also kills "all sorts of things", has all sorts of things killing each other, and could even wipe out the planet tomorrow with a huge comet or something... Note that every time you wash your hands you're killing millions of germs...
- alphapapa 11y ago
  Visit a jungle, or an African savannah, or go for a swim in shark-infested waters. Go make friends with some animals. When you meet a hungry predator, or a swarm of parasites, you will be attacked and eaten. What will you say? Survival of the fittest? Or immoral animal unnecessarily eating an innocent human being for its pleasure? If you really believe that humans are just another animal, then we have as much right to eat them as they have to eat us--and they do.
  - goldenkey 11y ago
    But that's the point. We have intelligence and morals. It's what we base our humanity on - achievements in the realm of mathematics, engineering, physics, chemistry, etc. We cannot use "well we're animals" as justification for intellectually reprehensible acts like torture. A cogent human has no business factory farming, ie. torturing animals for tastebud entropy unless it's by necessity. Hunting and eating animals is a blurred line but I'd generally say its OK given that it's a lot more filled with respect and lack of torture than the meat industry.

alphapapa 11y ago

> You're absolutely the reason why our politics and logical thinking of our citizens suffer. People who think that asking a "wiseass" question... What do you think you're doing? He asked a reasonable question that provided context and counterpoint to the original assertion, which advances the discussion. You posted a reactionary, knee-jerk response, driving the level of discussion into the ground, and accusing him of being in the wrong. You are trolling.

goldenkey 11y ago
I was not trolling. The question he asked was a baseless setup for anecdotal personal attacks. I simply added a tangential point to the conversation. Asking a question like that only serves to debate by way of cheap anecdotes. "Well if you DID experience an ant colony invading your home, you would change the value of your binary view" Its a cheap shot and I'd actually take your entire comment and point it at the unreasonably coy question intended to create a rift in what should be objective logic.