I'd kill the SOB

[TNTrulez]

All you need is one pet owner out of 12 to hang the jury. Happens all the time.

You're assuming that all pet owners thinks like you. I own pets but I definitely do not think like you. If someone murder a man I will make sure that they pay for it.

It does not take unanimous decision to put someone to jail for manslaughter. That's only for the death sentence and maybe some other high punishments. (I might be wrong on this one because I'm not a lawyer.)

I don't need to explain anything since I know there are others out there who knows exactly what I am talking about. Why should I try to convince you guys of anything? It serves me no good to do so and therefore I am not going to try. My words would fall on deaf ears anyways.

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: FrontlineWarrior

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: bandXtrb
Humans are just animals with egos.

ding ding ding we have a winner

i love how some people think that they're just worth more than another animal just because.... talk about a distorted sense of entitlement.

Ok, let me give you a hypothetical situation. Let's say a fireman has to choose between saving your grandmother's life or saving a pet lizard. According to your radical view, we're not more important than any other animal, and the reason we favor humans is because of some "distorted sense of entitlement." Ok, so I present this case to you. Convince me that I really have no legitimate reason for saving your grandmother instead of someone's pet lizard. I made it intentionally easy in this case. But your view ends up being no more valid than my view that humans are more important than animals.

no, actually your situation does not prove anything, since you intentionally used a "heartstring" example, aka grandma. for example, if you replaced "grandma" with "ted bundy", i would go ahead and tell you to take the lizard.

if you knew nothing about the two creatures, all you knew was that one was human and one was animal, you would in all likelihood, save the human. as for why this would occur... i believe this is human nature... survival of the species and whatnot.

 

[TNTrulez]

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: FrontlineWarrior

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: bandXtrb
Humans are just animals with egos.

ding ding ding we have a winner

i love how some people think that they're just worth more than another animal just because.... talk about a distorted sense of entitlement.

Ok, let me give you a hypothetical situation. Let's say a fireman has to choose between saving your grandmother's life or saving a pet lizard. According to your radical view, we're not more important than any other animal, and the reason we favor humans is because of some "distorted sense of entitlement." Ok, so I present this case to you. Convince me that I really have no legitimate reason for saving your grandmother instead of someone's pet lizard. I made it intentionally easy in this case. But your view ends up being no more valid than my view that humans are more important than animals.

no, actually your situation does not prove anything, since you intentionally used a "heartstring" example, aka grandma. for example, if you replaced "grandma" with "ted bundy", i would go ahead and tell you to take the lizard.

if you knew nothing about the two creatures, all you knew was that one was human and one was animal, you would in all likelihood, save the human. as for why this would occur... i believe this is human nature... survival of the species and whatnot.

So, you're saying that if you were in that building, you would want me to tell the fireman to take the lizard instead of you? Get real.

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: TNTrulez

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: FrontlineWarrior

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: bandXtrb
Humans are just animals with egos.

ding ding ding we have a winner

i love how some people think that they're just worth more than another animal just because.... talk about a distorted sense of entitlement.

Ok, let me give you a hypothetical situation. Let's say a fireman has to choose between saving your grandmother's life or saving a pet lizard. According to your radical view, we're not more important than any other animal, and the reason we favor humans is because of some "distorted sense of entitlement." Ok, so I present this case to you. Convince me that I really have no legitimate reason for saving your grandmother instead of someone's pet lizard. I made it intentionally easy in this case. But your view ends up being no more valid than my view that humans are more important than animals.

no, actually your situation does not prove anything, since you intentionally used a "heartstring" example, aka grandma. for example, if you replaced "grandma" with "ted bundy", i would go ahead and tell you to take the lizard.

if you knew nothing about the two creatures, all you knew was that one was human and one was animal, you would in all likelihood, save the human. as for why this would occur... i believe this is human nature... survival of the species and whatnot.

So, you're saying that if you were in that building, you would want me to tell the fireman to take the lizard instead of you? Get real.

you want to show me where i said that?

btw, if i were a better person, i would. there was once a famous buddhist monk, who happened upon a starving tiger. he thought about catching some food for the tiger, but then realized that it would be unfair to the animal that would be caught. so threw himself at the tiger, offering himself. the tiger got scared and ran away, but you get the point

 

[TNTrulez]

You're just another "Ted Bundy" to me. If you want to save the lizard instead of him, then you would want me to save the lizard instead of you.

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: TNTrulez
You're just another "Ted Bundy" to me. If you want to save the lizard instead of him, then you would want me to save the lizard instead of you.

um, how am i another "ted bundy"? and you're dead wrong, i would want you to save me over the lizard.

so tell me, are you going to continue in this thread just posting your opinions and putting words in the mouths of other people, without ever expaining your position?

 

[jaeger66]

Originally posted by: TNTrulez

All you need is one pet owner out of 12 to hang the jury. Happens all the time.

You're assuming that all pet owners thinks like you. I own pets but I definitely do not think like you. If someone murder a man I will make sure that they pay for it.

It does not take unanimous decision to put someone to jail for manslaughter. That's only for the death sentence and maybe some other high punishments. (I might be wrong on this one because I'm not a lawyer.)

In America, all jury decisions must be unanimous. If they cannot reach a verdict, the judge declares a mistrial and a new trial is set. However, the prosecuter must decide how much time and money he's willing to spend on a class-3 felony since if one jury hangs odds are the next one will too. In that situation, the charge is dropped. And I'm fairly positive that at least one pet owner will see it from the defendant's side.

 

[FrontlineWarrior]

Ok wiseguy, I will make it as objective as possible.

Situation: Burning house, fireman can save only one of two. One is a perfectly nice person, no criminal record, nothing. The other is an equally perfect "nice" kitten.

You choose to save the person, do you not? And let us suppose as you suggest, that the reason behind this is some instinctive self serving action. That is, let us suppose that we chose to save the person simply because we are compelled to do so by some hypothetical instinctive urge.

Would you then be willing to say that we were completely unjustified in our choice?

Now let's investigate actual actions in a more realistic example. Same situation, except the person is you, a person who is on the whole a good guy, but has faults, does some things wrong, and wastes too much of his time on ATOT. Let's say the animal is a dog who is extremely loyal to his master and rarely disobeys. Suppose now that I'm the fireman. I enter the room, and I can only save one of you guys. You plead to me to save your life. My response is that I am unjustified in choosing you over the dog, so in the interest of fairness I'll flip a coin. Will you think "Oh sh*t he's got a point" or would you think that's completely asinine?

Come on, the answer is so obvious.

 

[FrontlineWarrior]

By the way, that monk or whatever is a dumbass. Perhaps I'll just kill myself so that I can feed fungi with my decomposing body. According to the monk's way of thinking, if he stays consistent, all life should just kill themselves for each other until there is no life left. That's frickin brilliant.

 

[TNTrulez]

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: TNTrulez
You're just another "Ted Bundy" to me. If you want to save the lizard instead of him, then you would want me to save the lizard instead of you.

um, how am i another "ted bundy"? and you're dead wrong, i would want you to save me over the lizard.

so tell me, are you going to continue in this thread just posting your opinions and putting words in the mouths of other people, without ever expaining your position?

You can't even do close reading so there's no use in explaining anything to you. I use similies and metaphors and you don't understand them so what's the point?

Ok, I'll do this one more time. I don't care about you just like you don't care about this "Ted Bundy." If you are willing to save the lizard instead of Ted, then you are telling me (by your treatment of Ted) that it is ok if I do the same to you. That is, you're telling me that it would be fine for me to save the lizard instead of you.

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: FrontlineWarrior
Ok wiseguy, I will make it as objective as possible.

Situation: Burning house, fireman can save only one of two. One is a perfectly nice person, no criminal record, nothing. The other is an equally perfect "nice" kitten.

You choose to save the person, do you not? And let us suppose as you suggest, that the reason behind this is some instinctive self serving action. That is, let us suppose that we chose to save the person simply because we are compelled to do so by some hypothetical instinctive urge.

Would you then be willing to say that we were completely unjustified in our choice?

Now let's investigate actual actions in a more realistic example. Same situation, except the person is you, a person who is on the whole a good guy, but has faults, does some things wrong, and wastes too much of his time on ATOT. Let's say the animal is a dog who is extremely loyal to his master and rarely disobeys. Suppose now that I'm the fireman. I enter the room, and I can only save one of you guys. You plead to me to save your life. My response is that I am unjustified in choosing you over the dog, so in the interest of fairness I'll flip a coin. Will you think "Oh sh*t he's got a point" or would you think that's completely asinine?

Come on, the answer is so obvious.

you consistently fail to account for the inherent flaws in human nature. of course, i would be pissed that you are giving me a 50/50 chance to live... that's because i'm selfish and i want to live. i'm not clear on what this is supposed to prove. now then, if it came down to me and MY dog, i would be fine with you just taking the dog. my dog is like family to me, so just as i would have you take my little sister over me, i would have you take the dog over me.

 

[datalink7]

Originally posted by: FrontlineWarrior
Ok wiseguy, I will make it as objective as possible.

Situation: Burning house, fireman can save only one of two. One is a perfectly nice person, no criminal record, nothing. The other is an equally perfect "nice" kitten.

You choose to save the person, do you not? And let us suppose as you suggest, that the reason behind this is some instinctive self serving action. That is, let us suppose that we chose to save the person simply because we are compelled to do so by some hypothetical instinctive urge.

Would you then be willing to say that we were completely unjustified in our choice?

Now let's investigate actual actions in a more realistic example. Same situation, except the person is you, a person who is on the whole a good guy, but has faults, does some things wrong, and wastes too much of his time on ATOT. Let's say the animal is a dog who is extremely loyal to his master and rarely disobeys. Suppose now that I'm the fireman. I enter the room, and I can only save one of you guys. You plead to me to save your life. My response is that I am unjustified in choosing you over the dog, so in the interest of fairness I'll flip a coin. Will you think "Oh sh*t he's got a point" or would you think that's completely asinine?

Come on, the answer is so obvious.

Of cource it would be, in equal cases even, the human. If it was Ted Bundy and a loyal dog, I would save the dog and let the bastard die.

You see, the point is... Actually, I don't feel like giving a long drawn out explination right now. I am off to bed. But I will give you my conclusion, and you can draw what you will from it.

Potential good

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: TNTrulez

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: TNTrulez
You're just another "Ted Bundy" to me. If you want to save the lizard instead of him, then you would want me to save the lizard instead of you.

um, how am i another "ted bundy"? and you're dead wrong, i would want you to save me over the lizard.

so tell me, are you going to continue in this thread just posting your opinions and putting words in the mouths of other people, without ever expaining your position?

You can't even do close reading so there's no use in explaining anything to you. I use similies and metaphors and you don't understand them so what's the point?

Ok, I'll do this one more time. I don't care about you just like you don't care about this "Ted Bundy." If you are willing to save the lizard instead of Ted, then you are telling me (by your treatment of Ted) that it is ok if I do the same to you. That is, you're telling me that it would be fine for me to save the lizard instead of you.

tell me, do you know who ted bundy was?

btw, i SEE your similies and metaphors... the fundamental premise upon which your opinion is flawed, which is why i ask you to explain your position, so that the flaws can be brought to light.

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: FrontlineWarrior
By the way, that monk or whatever is a dumbass. Perhaps I'll just kill myself so that I can feed fungi with my decomposing body. According to the monk's way of thinking, if he stays consistent, all life should just kill themselves for each other until there is no life left. That's frickin brilliant.

no, he is not saying what you *should* do, that is simply the route he chose because he realized that his life, objectively, was not worth any more than that of the tiger.

 

[TNTrulez]

Originally posted by: FrontlineWarrior
By the way, that monk or whatever is a dumbass. Perhaps I'll just kill myself so that I can feed fungi with my decomposing body. According to the monk's way of thinking, if he stays consistent, all life should just kill themselves for each other until there is no life left. That's frickin brilliant.

What monk are you talking about? A Buddhist monk? If it is one, then I can give you the answer. To a monk, life is suffering. To end suffering, you would have to end life and the cycle of rebirth. To end the cycle of rebirth you would have to get rid of desires. I'm not going to explain the whole Buddhist fundamentals to you so if you want to know more go find some books.

 

[her209]

What are the differences between a human child and a dog?

[*]People feed a dog like you do a child.
[*]People form an emotional bond with a dog as you do with a human.
[*]People take their dog to the vet like they take their kids to the pediatrician.
[*]People let their dogs run around the house like they do their kids.
[*]Some people let their dogs sleep on the same bed with them. Some have a mat inside the house. Some build a dog house.
[*]People teach/train their dogs like they train/teach their children.
[*]There are bad dogs as there are bad kids.
[*]There are good dogs as there are good kids.
[*]A dog tells his owner how it feels. A child does the same.

The only difference I see between a dog and a human child is that the dog is willing to give its life to protect you or one of your children.

As for saving the grandma or the family pet

It would make sense to save both if possible. It is logical to save the safer one, ie, if the house is engulfed in flames why would the fireman fisk his life to go in and save the one that is impossible to save instead of saving the one that he is able to save.

Sounds like you guys are the kind of people who run over dogs and cats and don't give a fvck unless its a kid that you hit. :|

 

[Orsorum]

her209 -
Does a dog have the same potential as a human child?

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: her209

Sounds like you guys are the kind of people who run over dogs and cats and don't give a fvck unless its a kid that you hit. :|

I hate people like that, tbo. I cringed when I ran over a field mouse once.... yipes.

<--- hates running over anything...

 

[FrontlineWarrior]

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: FrontlineWarrior
By the way, that monk or whatever is a dumbass. Perhaps I'll just kill myself so that I can feed fungi with my decomposing body. According to the monk's way of thinking, if he stays consistent, all life should just kill themselves for each other until there is no life left. That's frickin brilliant.

no, he is not saying what you *should* do, that is simply the route he chose because he realized that his life, objectively, was not worth any more than that of the tiger.

Am I wrong in assumming he did the action that he thought was correct? Or did you include that example as one of a crazy idiot who attempted to kill himself for no reason?

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: TNTrulez

Originally posted by: FrontlineWarrior
By the way, that monk or whatever is a dumbass. Perhaps I'll just kill myself so that I can feed fungi with my decomposing body. According to the monk's way of thinking, if he stays consistent, all life should just kill themselves for each other until there is no life left. That's frickin brilliant.

What monk are you talking about? A Buddhist monk? If it is one, then I can give you the answer. To a monk, life is suffering. To end suffering, you would have to end life and the cycle of rebirth. To end the cycle of rebirth you would have to get rid of desires. I'm not going to explain the whole Buddhist fundamentals to you so if you want to know more go find some books.

WRONG!

The end to the cycle is achieving perfection, ie, Buddha.

 

[FrontlineWarrior]

Originally posted by: datalink7

Originally posted by: FrontlineWarrior
Ok wiseguy, I will make it as objective as possible.

Situation: Burning house, fireman can save only one of two. One is a perfectly nice person, no criminal record, nothing. The other is an equally perfect "nice" kitten.

You choose to save the person, do you not? And let us suppose as you suggest, that the reason behind this is some instinctive self serving action. That is, let us suppose that we chose to save the person simply because we are compelled to do so by some hypothetical instinctive urge.

Would you then be willing to say that we were completely unjustified in our choice?

Now let's investigate actual actions in a more realistic example. Same situation, except the person is you, a person who is on the whole a good guy, but has faults, does some things wrong, and wastes too much of his time on ATOT. Let's say the animal is a dog who is extremely loyal to his master and rarely disobeys. Suppose now that I'm the fireman. I enter the room, and I can only save one of you guys. You plead to me to save your life. My response is that I am unjustified in choosing you over the dog, so in the interest of fairness I'll flip a coin. Will you think "Oh sh*t he's got a point" or would you think that's completely asinine?

Come on, the answer is so obvious.

Of cource it would be, in equal cases even, the human. If it was Ted Bundy and a loyal dog, I would save the dog and let the bastard die.

You see, the point is... Actually, I don't feel like giving a long drawn out explination right now. I am off to bed. But I will give you my conclusion, and you can draw what you will from it.

Potential good

Datalink, I know exactly where you are coming from. Essentially, you are putting a value judgment based on the animal's character, one being human, the other being animal. For you, it doesn't, in itself, matter whether the life in question is human or dog, but rather the crucial issue is what KIND of human or dog it is, as well as what it CAN be. While I would disagree with that, I would consider your opinion entirely plausible, and for sure, more plausible than the one gopunk is setting forth.

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: FrontlineWarrior

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: FrontlineWarrior
By the way, that monk or whatever is a dumbass. Perhaps I'll just kill myself so that I can feed fungi with my decomposing body. According to the monk's way of thinking, if he stays consistent, all life should just kill themselves for each other until there is no life left. That's frickin brilliant.

no, he is not saying what you *should* do, that is simply the route he chose because he realized that his life, objectively, was not worth any more than that of the tiger.

Am I wrong in assumming he did the action that he thought was correct? Or did you include that example as one of a crazy idiot who attempted to kill himself for no reason?

no you are not wrong, however, simply because he thought that was the right thing for him to do, does not mean that he would advocate you do the same thing. your life is your own business.

 

[TNTrulez]

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: TNTrulez

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: TNTrulez
You're just another "Ted Bundy" to me. If you want to save the lizard instead of him, then you would want me to save the lizard instead of you.

um, how am i another "ted bundy"? and you're dead wrong, i would want you to save me over the lizard.

so tell me, are you going to continue in this thread just posting your opinions and putting words in the mouths of other people, without ever expaining your position?

You can't even do close reading so there's no use in explaining anything to you. I use similies and metaphors and you don't understand them so what's the point?

Ok, I'll do this one more time. I don't care about you just like you don't care about this "Ted Bundy." If you are willing to save the lizard instead of Ted, then you are telling me (by your treatment of Ted) that it is ok if I do the same to you. That is, you're telling me that it would be fine for me to save the lizard instead of you.

tell me, do you know who ted bundy was?

btw, i SEE your similies and metaphors... the fundamental premise upon which your opinion is flawed, which is why i ask you to explain your position, so that the flaws can be brought to light.

Do I know who you are? How am I to assume that you are worth saving instead of this Ted Bundy? What if you're some pervert who prays on innocent children?

The point is that if you're willing to let another human die, then I'm willing to let you die. If you don't like it, then too bad. Actually, I don't care if you or other human dies. Maybe I'm insensitive or maybe I haven't seen murder and carnage first hand. All I care about is people that I love. I feel no remorse for strangers that die in plane crashes, earthquakes, bombings, etc. That's the person that I am.

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: FrontlineWarrior

Originally posted by: datalink7

Originally posted by: FrontlineWarrior
Ok wiseguy, I will make it as objective as possible.

Situation: Burning house, fireman can save only one of two. One is a perfectly nice person, no criminal record, nothing. The other is an equally perfect "nice" kitten.

You choose to save the person, do you not? And let us suppose as you suggest, that the reason behind this is some instinctive self serving action. That is, let us suppose that we chose to save the person simply because we are compelled to do so by some hypothetical instinctive urge.

Would you then be willing to say that we were completely unjustified in our choice?

Now let's investigate actual actions in a more realistic example. Same situation, except the person is you, a person who is on the whole a good guy, but has faults, does some things wrong, and wastes too much of his time on ATOT. Let's say the animal is a dog who is extremely loyal to his master and rarely disobeys. Suppose now that I'm the fireman. I enter the room, and I can only save one of you guys. You plead to me to save your life. My response is that I am unjustified in choosing you over the dog, so in the interest of fairness I'll flip a coin. Will you think "Oh sh*t he's got a point" or would you think that's completely asinine?

Come on, the answer is so obvious.

Of cource it would be, in equal cases even, the human. If it was Ted Bundy and a loyal dog, I would save the dog and let the bastard die.

You see, the point is... Actually, I don't feel like giving a long drawn out explination right now. I am off to bed. But I will give you my conclusion, and you can draw what you will from it.

Potential good

Datalink, I know exactly where you are coming from. Essentially, you are putting a value judgment based on the animal's character, one being human, the other being animal. For you, it doesn't, in itself, matter whether the life in question is human or dog, but rather the crucial issue is what KIND of human or dog it is. While I would disagree with that, I would consider your opinion entirely plausible, and for sure, more plausible than the one gopunk is setting forth.

WTF? that IS my opinion....

 

[gopunk]

Do I know who you are? How am I to assume that you are worth saving instead of this Ted Bundy? What if you're some pervert who prays on innocent children?

i guess you'll just have to take my word on that one.

The point is that if you're willing to let another human die, then I'm willing to let you die. If you don't like it, then too bad. Actually, I don't care if you or other human dies. Maybe I'm insensitive or maybe I haven't seen murder and carnage first hand. All I care about is people that I love. I feel no remorse for strangers that die in plane crashes, earthquakes, bombings, etc. That's the person that I am.

so why the hell are you even posting the things you are? what you said means it is *irrelevant* whether or not i am better or worse than ted bundy, since you would let any creature you don't care about die.