For theists: Is letting animals live okay?

[Gillipig]

Or do we have to kill them all?

[BigBallinStalin]

They're just asking for it, so kill 'em all.

[Dukasaur]

I believe the U.S. Army has that phrase copyrighted. You may be in for a copyright-infringement suit. Either that or a tomahawk missile into your bedroom.

[Funkyterrance]

Most farm animals wouldn't exist at all if not for eating.

[tzor]

Letting animals live is OK, I suppose.

[john9blue]

save the animals <3

edit: except the tasty ones

[Gillipig]

They're just asking for it, so kill 'em all.

If they didn't want us to kill them they shouldn't have been born, so it's their own fault if we kill them really.

[BigBallinStalin]

They're just asking for it, so kill 'em all.

If they didn't want us to kill them they shouldn't have been born, so it's their own fault if we kill them really.

Well, according to my ethical system, I can determine what they actually want--without really explaining how I can, and you definitely can't, so you're wrong. My system promotes the general interest even though I can't use it to adjudicate between conflicting interests among the parties involved because there's no way to do so--other than my saying so. So, you're wrong!

[Metsfanmax]

They're just asking for it, so kill 'em all.

If they didn't want us to kill them they shouldn't have been born, so it's their own fault if we kill them really.

Well, according to my ethical system, I can determine what they actually want--without really explaining how I can, and you definitely can't, so you're wrong. My system promotes the general interest even though I can't use it to adjudicate between conflicting interests among the parties involved because there's no way to do so--other than my saying so. So, you're wrong!

Your ethical system involves a level of scientific understanding that is about 100 years out of date.

http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/dvorsky201208251

[Gillipig]

They're just asking for it, so kill 'em all.

If they didn't want us to kill them they shouldn't have been born, so it's their own fault if we kill them really.

Well, according to my ethical system, I can determine what they actually want--without really explaining how I can, and you definitely can't, so you're wrong. My system promotes the general interest even though I can't use it to adjudicate between conflicting interests among the parties involved because there's no way to do so--other than my saying so. So, you're wrong!

Your ethical system involves a level of scientific understanding that is about 100 years out of date.

http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/dvorsky201208251

Wait, what? BBS has an ethical system?? I thought he considered everything okay as long as nothing bad happens to him.

[/]

Only the ones that pray to something.

[waauw]

They're just asking for it, so kill 'em all.

If they didn't want us to kill them they shouldn't have been born, so it's their own fault if we kill them really.

Sarcasm I hope?

[JohnAarson]

Kill 'em all!

...

was a great album by Metallica.




But now in all seriousness: I agree with what was said back there. Save the animals except for the tasty ones. ^^

[waauw]

Kill 'em all!

...

was a great album by Metallica.




But now in all seriousness: I agree with what was said back there. Save the animals except for the tasty ones. ^^

What if some of the tasty ones are endangered species?

[JohnAarson]

Kill 'em all!

...

was a great album by Metallica.




But now in all seriousness: I agree with what was said back there. Save the animals except for the tasty ones. ^^

What if some of the tasty ones are endangered species?

Oh, so this is really a serious discussion? Oh well, okay.



Actually I would not want to eat meat from an animal who's species were facing extintion. I would not feel well with myself if I was aware of that. But I'm not sure wether it's fair to prohibit people to eat animals from endangered species. For one we, as humans, are meat eaters. And the most natural thing in the world is for species to get extinct. With or without human action.

It's not an easy subject to discuss in my opinion. Both sides have good arguments. Should we be allowed to eat endangered species? As far as our ethical points of view go, maybe not. As far as our human nature points of view go, maybe yes.

[jonesthecurl]

They're just asking for it, so kill 'em all.

If they didn't want us to kill them they shouldn't have been born, so it's their own fault if we kill them really.

[BigBallinStalin]

They're just asking for it, so kill 'em all.

If they didn't want us to kill them they shouldn't have been born, so it's their own fault if we kill them really.

Well, according to my ethical system, I can determine what they actually want--without really explaining how I can, and you definitely can't, so you're wrong. My system promotes the general interest even though I can't use it to adjudicate between conflicting interests among the parties involved because there's no way to do so--other than my saying so. So, you're wrong!

Your ethical system involves a level of scientific understanding that is about 100 years out of date.

http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/dvorsky201208251

Wake me up when the animals become capable of signing it. Although it's a minor fault with my position, as I said earlier, you're already committed to your position--regardless of its faults and nonsense. You'll cling onto any particular concept at the expense of other ones in order to justify a stance which you've already felt strongly about. It's like you and your imagined government. <applause>