Since everybody has a right to live - the grounds why you're not dead. Coming from someone against-abortion, this is odd to hear.

"Everybody" do indeed have a right to live, but get this: "Everybody" implies that you are talking about Humans:

Every person

(http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/everybody)

Every Animal, Every plant, and every dust mite in the air do not have a right to live. They have a right to serve Humans, the superior race, and if that means something arbitrary like being cut in half to make our lawns look nicer, then so be it. If that means being slaughtered for us to eat you, then so be it.

remplace "animals" with "Jews". Nobody, human or not, earns a quick end to their life like that, imagine if that happened to you. You've just as much luck to be born as a dog than to be born as a human, so what if you were born as a dog and experimented on to test drugs and unethic crap like that?

I don't have any "luck" to be born as a Dog. It is literally impossible for me to be born as a Dog, since I'm a human and not a Dog. If I were a Dog, I would not be "me", I would be a damn dog.

And in service to superior beings, you earn whatever we give you. I will not replace "animals" with "jews" because animals are here to serve humans, whereas jews are not. It is an irrelevant comparison.

Gremmer nazi ain't 2 real to spel

@Imperator
I disagree with eveything you've just said, but I'm glad that you posted it without hurling insults left, right and centre or getting really cross.

+1 for a sensible, intelligent debate.

Finally, humans are making progress with intelligence.

Edited 6/17/2016 16:49:32

"Everybody" implies that you are talking about Humans:

Ok, just for the posteriority, I'm not talking about man only.

I don't have any "luck" to be born as a Dog. It is literally impossible for me to be born as a Dog, since I'm a human and not a Dog. If I were a Dog, I would not be "me", I would be a damn dog.

Before you were born, you got slotted into some life. You might have been a germ, or a dog, or a human, and it just so happens that you were human.

And in service to superior beings, you earn whatever we give you. I will not replace "animals" with "jews" because animals are here to serve humans, whereas jews are not. It is an irrelevant comparison.

Wildlife is here for the same grounds we are here: to live, to thrive. Just since they're weaker doesn't mean that we deal with them as if they don't have wills of their own, that they don't have life. I've never heard a more offensive and filthy thing that you have said. Jews aren't relevant you say, but what you're supporting is at base, extreme eugeny.

Every Animal, Every plant, and every dust mite in the air do not have a right to live. They have a right to serve Humans, the superior race, and if that means something arbitrary like being cut in half to make our lawns look nicer, then so be it. If that means being slaughtered for us to eat you, then so be it.

And in service to superior beings, you earn whatever we give you

Every Jew does not have a right to live. They have a right to serve Nazis, the superior race, and if that means something arbitrary like being killed to make our country cleaner, then so be it. If that means being slaughtered for us to make Nazi Germany superior, then so be it.

And in service to Nazis, you earn whatever we give you.

The core of your speech can be applied to several things, Imperator, and as the above adjustment shows, your message could even be approved of by Hitler. The same underlined meaning, the same message of hate.
And Eklipse said I'm the sociopath.


@Prussian

Life isn't lived for its own sake.

Then why is it lived?

@Imperator
I disagree with eveything you've just said, but I'm glad that you posted it without hurling insults left, right and centre or getting really cross.

+1 for a sensible, intelligent debate.

Finally, humans are making progress with intelligence.

Thanks, I try to remain as civilized as possible, and I think most people on OT do as well. There are some trolls on the forums here who just flame and flame arbitrarily, but for the most part people here I've found are just looking for a debate.

Ok, just for the posteriority, I'm not talking about man only.

The word to use is "Everything" then, and this is also pretty problematic. Case in point, not everything is alive in the first place, and I wouldn't say that for example buildings have a right to live.

Before you were born, you got slotted into some life. You might have been a germ, or a dog, or a human, and it just so happens that you were human.

This is a highly theological debate, and if you'd like to get into it we can, but It probably won't go too far given that we have different theological positions.

Personally, I don't believe that anything has a soul besides humans, and that's what makes humans superior, but again this is highly theological.

Wildlife is here for the same grounds we are here: to live, to thrive. Just since they're weaker doesn't mean that we deal with them as if they don't have wills of their own, that they don't have life.

Plants and animals seem perfectly okay living and thriving in an environment that includes serving us. If there were 700,000 humans being killed a year, you can bet your ass that somebody would be complaining about it and that you would hear about it. And sure enough, you do:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_pro-life_movement

There are no cows protesting the killing of their own like you see for humans.

I've never heard a more offensive and filthy thing that you have said. Jews aren't relevant you say, but what you're supporting is at base, extreme eugeny.

Jews are not relevant here because nobody is claiming that jews are inferior to other humans. I am only claiming that animals are inferior to humans, and unless you think that jews are animals, there is no reason to equate the claims.

Just to be clear, these claims do not conflict:

1. Animals are inferior to humans

2. Jews are not inferior to other humans

It is not unreasonable to hold both of these claims as truths, as they do not conflict at all.

In fact, I would argue that you are displaying extreme antisemitism by equating jews with animals by saying that statements about animals can be applied to jewish folk. Take a few examples:

Most animals are covered in hair and have huge noses
Most jews are covered in hair and have huge noses

The latter statement is extremely antisemitic, whereas the former is an unoffensive observation. You cannot equate jews (or other humans) with animals in any sense.

The core of your speech can be applied to several things, Imperator, and as the above adjustment shows, your message could even be approved of by Hitler. The same underlined meaning, the same message of hate.

The logic itself is not hateful. You can use it in innocent ways, for example to claim that it is not morally wrong to mow your lawn. Or, in my case, that killing and eating animals is not morally wrong.

You can also apply it in hateful ways, such as saying that all jews deserve to die. This does not make the logic itself hateful, it makes hateful applications of the logic hateful. This is practically true of all logic, and is nothing special with this particular piece of logic. Take for example this one:

"Horses are not intelligent enough to get human jobs"

Well will you look at that, this observation becomes an extremely antisemitic nazi propoganda statement if you replace "horses" with "jews":

"Jews are not intelligent enough to get human jobs"

Edited 6/17/2016 18:08:27

Jews aren't human. They are animals, they don't have souls.

You should be IP-banned for that sentence. Your views are disgusting and caused a world war.

The word to use is "Everything" then, and this is also pretty problematic. Case in point, not everything is alive in the first place, and I wouldn't say that for example buildings have a right to live.

Do you think of yourself as a "thing" then? Anyhow, this is just semant.

This is a highly theological debate, and if you'd like to get into it we can, but It probably won't go too far given that we have different theological positions.

I don't think this has anything to do with gods, but it's just like random spreading mode in a Warlight game. To think that the land you got is the only land you could have gotten is silly to me.

I don't believe that anything has a soul besides humans, and that's what makes humans superior, but again this is highly theological.

What is "soul"?

Plants and animals seem perfectly okay living and thriving in an environment that includes serving us.

Shrubs don't have feelings, they can't be cross nor happy, literally. I'm not really against killing them, nor anybody else that doesn't even have a brain of any kind. Perhaps what you mean by "soul" is feelings.

There are no cows protesting the killing of their own like you see for humans.

There were no Holocaust protestors until the Holocaust was revealed, what's your point? Cows don't know that they're being bred to die.

Jews are not relevant here because nobody is claiming that jews are inferior to other humans.

Your stance is the same irrational one, just remplacing Jews with somebody else.

It is not unreasonable to hold both of these claims as truths, as they do not conflict at all.]

They don't conflit, but your arguments for why wildlife is to be genocided are the same irrational ones wielded to genocide the Jews.

I would argue that you are displaying extreme antisemitism by equating jews with animals by saying that statements about animals can be applied to jewish folk.

It's called equality, that all men and beings are equal.

Well will you look at that, this observation becomes an extremely antisemitic nazi propoganda statement if you replace "horses" with "jews"

The differnce is, you're not talking about any truths, you're just trying to wield these totally irrational arguments to justify your killings.

I don't think this has anything to do with gods, but it's just like random spreading mode in a Warlight game. To think that the land you got is the only land you could have gotten is silly to me.

Yes, it is theological, because if you believe that there is something immaterial about you that could have existed as something else, it is a religious position, as this is not backed up by science.

There were no Holocaust protestors until the Holocaust was revealed, what's your point? Cows don't know that they're being bred to die.

Go ahead and let the cow know then, I'm sure it'd still wander around eating grass and be perfectly fine with it.

They don't conflit, but your arguments for why wildlife is to be genocided are the same irrational ones wielded to genocide the Jews

Using this argument as a justification for the holocaust is only irrational because one of the premises is wrong. You can think of it as essentially a deductive argument. If all of the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true. So, here are the premises and conclusions for both:

1. Animals are inferior to humans
2. If something is inferior to you then it is acceptable to kill it
3. I am a human

Therefore, It is okay for me to kill animals

---

Contrast this with:

1. Jews are inferior to germans
2. If something is inferior to you then it is acceptable for you to kill it
3. I am a german

Therefore, It is acceptable for me to kill Jews

---

They both follow the same format, but only the latter is irrational since one of the premises is wrong. In the former, all of the premises are correct, so the argument is not irrational.

Now if you want to debate whether my premises are true or not then do so, but please don't continue saying "You're a nazi so whatever you're saying is invalid".

It's called equality, that all men and beings are equal.

I'd like to hear why exactly you think this, as humans are obviously superior to animals in basically every respect.

Edited 6/17/2016 18:40:29

And Eklipse said I'm the sociopath.

You're the one who stated that you want hundreds of millions to die for your personal utopia, not Imperator.

I might have gotten more heated than I should have, but I still stand by every word I said. If you honestly believe that everyone who eats cheeseburgers needs to die, just for that reason alone, than you are indeed a Sociopath.


It's called equality, that all men and beings are equal.

Equal how? In what way? Are men and trees also equal? Trees are alive just like animals. What right have we to kill the innocent plants? And what about the insects we squash on a regular basis?

No. Not every living organism is equal.

In addition, even if animals WERE equal somehow, it doesn't matter. Lions look after other lions, Zebras look after other Zebras. Humans should look after other humans first, and worry about other species second.

If we can help nature without sacrificing ourselves, than we should do all we can. But to turn on each other for the sake of that cause is just paradoxical.

Yes, it is theological, because if you believe that there is something immaterial about you that could have existed as something else, it is a religious position, as this is not backed up by science.

Ok, think of it this way, then, if you want science. The multiverse is everything that could have happened, and there's some happening where you spawned in as a cow.

Go ahead and let the cow know then, I'm sure it'd still wander around eating grass and be perfectly fine with it.

You can't let the cow know, furthermore, do you doubt that they value their lives? It would be evolutionarilly bad if they didn't.

Using this argument as a justification for the holocaust is only irrational because one of the premises is wrong.

The premise that is wrong is one in both, the middle one. Even if all Jews were worse in all ways than Germans, that's no pardon for killing them.

humans are obviously superior to animals in basically every respect.

Just since someone is stronger than you doesn't mean that you should lose all rights, even though it's what happens. It's called empathy. You lack empathy. Do what you would like to have done, and don't do what you don't want to not be done.

If we can help nature without sacrificing ourselves, than we should do all we can. But to turn on each other for the sake of that cause is just paradoxical.

I agree, but the path of least bloodspill is evidently the better one. 6k million onetime, or 60k+ million each year?

You can't let the cow know, furthermore, do you doubt that they value their lives? It would be evolutionarilly bad if they didn't.

Cows as we know them are essentially a human creation, not the product of evolution. We've selectively bred them to be huge versions of their wild selves.

And no, I don't think that cows give a crap if they live or die. And unless you can give some proof that they do, there's no reason to think otherwise.

Ok, think of it this way, then, if you want science. The multiverse is everything that could have happened, and there's some happening where you spawned in as a cow.

Multiverses aren't scientific. And even in that case, unless there is something immaterial tying your cow self and human self together, there are are two separate beings of which the human one is you, not one being in two different bodies.

The premise that is wrong is one in both, the middle one.

This premise is almost universally accepted as being true though. Even vegetarians and vegans accept that killing plants is morally justifiable.

>goes into the "Assassination of British Labour MP Jo Cox" thread
>finds himself in the middle of a religious debate

oh well, my condolences to the Rosbifs, I hate those extremists.

Cows as we know them are essentially a human creation, not the product of evolution. We've selectively bred them to be huge versions of their wild selves.

So what?

And no, I don't think that cows give a crap if they live or die.

Why on Earth wouldn't they? Legitimately, why wouldn't you think that cows value their life? That's why they run away from whatever predators they have, or whatever is hurting them. If you stab a cow with a knife, he won't just stand there.

Multiverses aren't scientific.

They very much are. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation

there is something immaterial tying your cow self and human self together, there are are two separate beings of which the human one is you, not one being in two different bodies.

And you could have been either one of them.

This premise is almost universally accepted as being true though. Even vegetarians and vegans accept that killing plants is morally justifiable.

Just since it's how most folk think doesn't make it right. Vegetarians aren't morally allowed to kill shrubs just since they can, but since shrubs don't have any being or thinking or happening of life.

So what?

You said something like "Cows value life because of evolution".

Why on Earth wouldn't they? Legitimately, why wouldn't you think that cows value their life? That's why they run away from whatever predators they have, or whatever is hurting them. If you stab a cow with a knife, he won't just stand there.

I wouldn't say that they really value their life, but rather that they don't like the pain that comes with being stabbed. I doubt the cow has any idea what will happen if it stands there, since cows aren't able to transfer their thoughts to other cows like people are to other people.

They very much are. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation

Something isn't scientific until you can actually offer proof for it. Since literally by definition you can't interact with the "other worlds", it can never be scientific, So let's just stick to what we know and not assume that whack ass theories are true as well.

Just since it's how most folk think doesn't make it right.

No, but in the minds of most people it will be right, which is honestly all that can be said for basically anything.

Vegetarians aren't morally allowed to kill shrubs just since they can, but since shrubs don't have any being or thinking or happening of life.

Actually, most vegetarians are totally okay with killing innocent plants just to make their yards look nicer.

Edited 6/17/2016 19:51:52

>goes into the "Assassination of British Labour MP Jo Cox" thread
>finds himself in the middle of a religious debate

oh well, my condolences to the Rosbifs, I hate those extremists.

You got it perfectly Stewie...

You said something like "Cows value life because of evolution".

It's not been bred out of them, and furthermore, anyone who wants to die is mentally ill anyway, and it's cruel to push or breed folk to the brink like that, in my thought.

I wouldn't say that they really value their life, but rather that they don't like the pain that comes with being stabbed.

I wouldn't care so much if they die without knowing they die, like in their sleep, but consistency, it shouldn't be a crime to have a human die in their sleep from poison nor should it be for wildlife, or perhaps both crimes.

Something isn't scientific until you can actually offer proof for it.

No, it's proof when you can offer something to prove it. Many-Worlds Understanding isn't like Islaam or Christianity or anything, it's something that is logically believed. Without going too much into something I can't really talk about (nor can you), but this is something talked about in *theoretic* phys today, or do you think of that not a science, either?

but in the minds of most people it will be right, which is honestly all that can be said for basically anything.

What's this mean?

Actually, most vegetarians are totally okay with killing innocent plants just to make their yards look nicer.

Yes, since the great majority of shrubs literally can't feel anything (and the ones that do, not really).

I wouldn't care so much if they die without knowing they die, like in their sleep, but consistency, it shouldn't be a crime to have a human die in their sleep from poison nor should it be for wildlife, or perhaps both crimes.

I doubt cows have any idea what's going on while they're dying.

No, it's proof when you can offer something to prove it. Many-Worlds Understanding isn't like Islaam or Christianity or anything, it's something that is logically believed. Without going too much into something I can't really talk about (nor can you), but this is something talked about in *theoretic* phys today, or do you think of that not a science, either?

We can logically prove a lot of things, that doesn't make them true. Until there is actually some sort of proof, as in some sort of relic from an alternate world, it is psuedo-science, not science. Psuedo-science is not valuable when discussing things in the context of the real world.

Yes, since the great majority of shrubs literally can't feel anything (and the ones that do, not really).

It doesn't matter how you qualify something as being inferior to you. If you believe that it is okay to kill something and eat it, you are acknowledging that that thing is inferior. If you believed that something was equal to you, then it's silly to assume that it shouldn't have equal rights to you, such as the right to not be killed. The only way to solve this dilemma is to just say that plants are inferior to humans.

And in fact, this applies to even things which has never been alive. To breathe in a moral manner you have to acknowledge that the air you are breathing is inferior to you, since if it is afforded equal rights to humans, it's obviously pretty problematic to use it for our own breathing without acknowledging it's basic rights.

I doubt cows have any idea what's going on while they're dying.

That's a naif doubt, why on Earth wouldn't they? It's an ending of their life in which they want to go on, and in a cruel and bulk way.

We can logically prove a lot of things, that doesn't make them true. Until there is actually some sort of proof, as in some sort of relic from an alternate world, it is psuedo-science, not science. Psuedo-science is not valuable when discussing things in the context of the real world.

Are you really classing theoretic phys as "pseudoscience"?

It doesn't matter how you qualify something as being inferior to you. If you believe that it is okay to kill something and eat it, you are acknowledging that that thing is inferior.

Uh, no, I don't actually think about anything. It's a lower lifeform, but that's not the justification for killing.

And in fact, this applies to even things which has never been alive. To breathe in a moral manner you have to acknowledge that the air you are breathing is inferior to you, since if it is afforded equal rights to humans, it's obviously pretty problematic to use it for our own breathing without acknowledging it's basic rights.

Um, air has no "soul", the sky has no brain, I told all this already, I don't care about killing germs or literally brainless wildlife like any kind of embryo, or microbes, or stuff like that, and even then, some exceptions (how strong is their brain?).

The core difference: will the sky run away if you start to eat it?