First  Prev  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  Next  Last
Is homicide wrong?
4977 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / The Black Order
Offline
Posted 2/17/08 , edited 4/21/08
yes it is.
it feels bad to take away a living breathing life
1836 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
73 / M / NJ, USA
Offline
Posted 2/17/08 , edited 4/21/08
yes its wrong but sometimes unavoidable. like if someones coming to kill you, you better darn well kill them first.
360 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 2/17/08 , edited 4/21/08
Aww... Come on'. Why do some of us think killing is bad? We don't really know because we haven't tried it . So, let's not be judgmental.
3705 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / F / Washington
Offline
Posted 2/19/08 , edited 4/21/08
I eat meat, but I really don't aprove of legal ownership of livestock.
13328 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Terra
Offline
Posted 3/7/08 , edited 4/21/08
lol im tryin to bring the post back... i want more opinions
17071 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Sellout Town
Offline
Posted 3/7/08 , edited 4/21/08
people are better than animals for one reason: might makes right
2876 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / F / LI, NY
Offline
Posted 3/7/08 , edited 4/21/08
I think that you have to look at the difference between killing and murder:

Killing is simply ending the life of something. Most of the killing that goes from species to species is a matter of survival, individual or for the social grouping or species. We kill other species for food, as many animals do. Pack males will kill each other to show the whole pack who is stronger and more cunning and therefore more qualified to lead (queen bees and other matriarchal species do this as well--lions will actually kill the cubs first, because of mating "rules". Killing is also not necessary for many species; wolves typically will just lower the loosing male's "rank"). Mothers bearing an over populated liter will eat her own young so that she can either reduce the number or make her capable of having a smaller, stronger litter that is more capable of surviving for the good of the species. Even in fights for a mate, killing tends to be accidental (the fight is over when one is injured or runs away). The only non-instinctive intra-species killings are found to be because the killer went crazy (like in Tarzan).

This is normal in the animal kingdom, and we only look down upon the majority of it because it isn't necessary for our species. We may be overpopulated, but our instinct will most likely not kick in to kill our children, because we do not normally give birth to large "litters", and we most certainly will not eat them. We do not need to kill for leadership, or mates. There is no psychological instinct that says we need to kill one another.

We kill because we can, because we want to just kill, and there are only two species that actually do this (frighteningly the two that we classify as the most intelligent on this earth): humans and dolphins. Sure, when we kill, we try to justify it; we say that, even if we don't condone the action, there was a purpose to the death, be it revenge or "population control". This doesn't make it something other than murder, because it still wasn't instinctively necessary. The only time it is instinctively necessary to kill another human is for self-defense, and the only other time in which it can be even possibly forgivable is if you go legitimately crazy.

Edit: Since I was going back through more of the older posts, I just needed to say this: I hate the argument that killing other lifeforms is ok because they don't have souls and humans do. I hate it, because that's only a handful of religions say that, and I need real proof (i.e. not scripture or other sorted religious doctrine) that this statement is true in order to swallow it. My religion says that all life is sacred, and all life got the divine breath of life that gives us souls, so bite me on your baseless reasoning.


o0James0o wrote:

A famous phrase from Marie Antoinette "Let Them Eat Cake!~"
i suppose cake(the cake from the phrase if u know what the cake means) will get people full(especially people like yourself)


Actually, this was never said by Marie Antoinette, but by a Spanish princess that was made Frances queen two or so generations before Marie (I forgot who, though). It was repeated happily by equally heartless noble women in France's court. There is no real basis that Marie Antoinette said this, though, other than revolutionist propaganda. Marie Antoinette actually wanted to help the people, but was just really young, naive and inept at successfully helping them, especially when most of the debts were made from before her even becoming part of the French court (she was actually Austrian, which helped propaganda against her move so fast, because Austria-Hungry was France's enemy at the time). "Let them eat cake" also didn't mean "let them eat garbage", but was an attempt to ease the flour shortage that made bread so inaccessible by selling the expensive cake loaves at the same price as cheap basic bread.

To back all this:
http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/227600.html
http://ask.yahoo.com/20021122.html
http://www.lucidcafe.com/library/95nov/antoinette.html
http://www.sonypictures.com/homevideo/marieantoinette/index.html<--yes, that's for the movie, but they have facts on Marie Antoinette's actual life that was portrayed in the film
13328 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Terra
Offline
Posted 3/7/08 , edited 4/21/08

nodysseus wrote:

people are better than animals for one reason: might makes right


holy shoot... my philosophy teacher were talkin about that thing like 2 weeks ago... damn ur correct... but nowadays... humans r stupid... so what makes us better?...
17071 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Sellout Town
Offline
Posted 3/7/08 , edited 4/21/08

o0James0o wrote:


nodysseus wrote:

people are better than animals for one reason: might makes right


holy shoot... my philosophy teacher were talkin about that thing like 2 weeks ago... damn ur correct... but nowadays... humans r stupid... so what makes us better?...


that would be the might part^ and killing things of your own species sets a precedent of killing more of them, its really a practical solution. if i say you cant kill joe, you arent allowed to kill me either
13328 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Terra
Offline
Posted 3/7/08 , edited 4/21/08

nodysseus wrote:


o0James0o wrote:


nodysseus wrote:

people are better than animals for one reason: might makes right


holy shoot... my philosophy teacher were talkin about that thing like 2 weeks ago... damn ur correct... but nowadays... humans r stupid... so what makes us better?...


that would be the might part^ and killing things of your own species sets a precedent of killing more of them, its really a practical solution. if i say you cant kill joe, you arent allowed to kill me either


yea my teacher were tlakin about those ideas of socrotes... forgot how u spell his name... and the cities in plato's book or something i forgot... the best city, the city of swine, and the lugerious city... and then something about something with might makes right,.... i totally forgot
Posted 3/7/08 , edited 4/21/08
i wouldn't personally but there are definitely circumstances where it might be the lesser evil.
906 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 3/8/08 , edited 4/21/08
NO DOUBT. its wrong

Its common sense anyway

1328 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
37 / M / Closing in
Offline
Posted 3/8/08 , edited 4/21/08
Specisism (setting your own species first) is natural. In nature there are many examples. Animals will only breed with other species under special circumstance. Zorzen, for instance, has only been born in zoo. And flock animals flock together according to species. It does not matter whether or not humans are better pragmatically speaking. Anyways if you don't allow defence of your own species, even in matters of killing in self-defence, we get a lot of more deaths. Especially if you determine bacteria and virus as a life form.

Someone is talking about religious basis and sin (sin is the breaking of some holy rule, there are no secular sins, also sins are only present in some religions, although some others consider it wrong). I am not sure how to debate this. That would be a theological debate, pure and simple, and would have to base itself on a specific religion, because the basis for determing its validity would be different.
4604 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 3/8/08 , edited 4/21/08
It really dependso n what they did
4604 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 3/8/08 , edited 4/21/08
Depends on what they did
First  Prev  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.