Debate user @PoweraHuskCryonon the subtle differences between a femboi and a troon

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

If it's purely for pleasure - you're not eating what you hunt and it doesn't serve keeping the population stable - I'm strongly in favor of strict regulations and severe punishment for breaking them.

But what difference does it make if you hunt and eat your kill or not? Does eating it somehow justify the pleasure of the hunt? Or should hunters be monitored to ensure they don't like it too much, attaching facial sensors to detect if their mask of stoicism falters?

This seems very arbitrary. Either killing the animal is wrong or not. The difference between going to prison and winning a hunting competition shouldn't be whether you eat it or crack a smile.

You equate morality with legality. I think it's a fallacy. There are acts that are legal but immoral and acts that are illegal but moral.

Not at all. If someone wouldn't stop the car after hitting someone and try to help them regardless of the law, even if they could get away with it, they're a psycho.

If you stop to check on the skunk you're a little nutty.

Then what is valuable? I think it's just bias to favor our own species that's just a part of our nature - we can understand a fellow human being and see ourselves in them to some degree, that's why we value them more. In my opinion it's an aspect of human nature so primal that it eludes moral judgement.

We're inherently more valuable. From an Atheistic perspective we're more intelligent and higher up the food chain, it's the natural order, so we have more value. From a Christian perspective we're also more valuable because God set us above animals.

There is in the law although I think ancient Egypt gave the death penalty for killing a cat wrongly. Again, if I were dictator gratuitous cruelty to animals, especially cats, would be met with unspeakble horror and brutality.

This is essentially to equate cats and people then. Different degrees of crime deserve different punishments. So if you steal a candy bar you get a slap on the wrist, you kill somebody and you get life in prison/death. If you jail someone for life over the candy bar too then you're not setting a moral distinction between the acts.

If there was a cat and a baby in a burning building and you could only save one, which would it be and why?

I think that depends on the dog and the people in question, and the difference between a dog and pig is more thab inches. Moreso with cats. I value the life of most cats more than I do so much "false humanity." (nod to those who get the reference)"
Also, a person cannot gratuitously kill livestock or game as far as I know.

People with pet pigs wouldn't agree cats are any more valuable than their cute little piggies, conceding only that their choice of pet likely tastes better (not sure if pet pig breeds even taste good), which shouldn't detract from its value as a pet.

 

[Norbert the Tiger]

Here I am gripped by insomnia....

But what difference does it make if you hunt and eat your kill or not? Does eating it somehow justify the pleasure of the hunt? Or should hunters be monitored to ensure they don't like it too much, attaching facial sensors to detect if their mask of stoicism falters?

A fundamental concept in criminal law is Mens Rea, ie the state of mind or intent of the actor. Sometimes actions can be nigh identical in terms of the action but hinge on the mens rea, intent. Intent is inferred from action, so if a pig farmer killed one of his pigs in a fit of rage or sadism and didn't harvest meat from the slaughter, we can infer it was from rage, sadism, et al.

This is essentially to equate cats and people then. Different degrees of crime deserve different punishments. So if you steal a candy bar you get a slap on the wrist, you kill somebody and you get life in prison/death. If you jail someone for life over the candy bar too then you're not setting a moral distinction between the acts.

Right, but my position is killing a cat should not just be a slap on the wrist. I am absolutely sincere when I state people who wantonly kill cats should be tortured and mutillated before dying very horrible deaths-after a trial in a new autocratic state that arises from the mistake that is democracy, of course. Think Hostel, or dancing to Stuck in the Middle of You with a straight razor as you douse the condemned with gasoline.

If there was a cat and a baby in a burning building and you could only save one, which would it be and why?

That would never happen... but it would depend on the cat and the baby and the family of the baby. It is a fale dichotomy because a society could harshly benefit baby killers and people who kill cats (or dogs).

People with pet pigs wouldn't agree cats are any more valuable than their cute little piggies, conceding only that their choice of pet likely tastes better (not sure if pet pig breeds even taste good), which shouldn't detract from its value as a pet.

You are proffering the exception as the rule. Brigitte Nielsen was 6'1 but that does not mean women are generally tall or taller than men. Some people do have pigs, but that is the exception. As a rule or principle they are livestock, so it is different.

Someone else said man was made in the image of God, I am skeptical. Other religions, see different animals as divine. The Egyptians saw divinity in cats and they were right. Odinism reveres the wolf and the raven as well.

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

A fundamental concept in criminal law is Mens Rea, ie the state of mind or intent of the actor. Sometimes actions can be nigh identical in terms of the action but hinge on the mens rea, intent. Intent is inferred from action, so if a pig farmer killed one of his pigs in a fit of rage or sadism and didn't harvest meat from the slaughter, we can infer it was from rage, sadism, et al.

But that's a legal perspective. Morally, either killing the pig is wrong or it's not, whether you're eating it or just got tired of seeing it.

It's wrong to kill humans regardless of the law, aside from cases like self-defense.

Right, but my position is killing a cat should not just be a slap on the wrist. I am absolutely sincere when I state people who wantonly kill cats should be tortured and mutillated before dying very horrible deaths-after a trial in a new autocratic state that arises from the mistake that is democracy, of course. Think Hostel, or dancing to Stuck in the Middle of You with a straight razor as you douse the condemned with gasoline.

I'm aware, but it is deserving of a relative slap on the wrist, your punishment far outstrips the crime imo. That type of thing should be reserved for these cases, and worse. Proportionality is lost on you, I think.

That would never happen... but it would depend on the cat and the baby and the family of the baby.

Elaborate.

As a rule or principle they are livestock, so it is different.

These breeds aren't livestock, never have been in this country in my lifetime. And what's considered food varies from time and place. In the end, every animal is food when you're hungry enough.

By the way, by time and place I don't just mean Chinese eating cats, I mean hillbillies down south right here in America eating possums and such, animals we consider pests elsewhere. Rabbits are viewed as both food and pets, there's a lot of animals like that.

The Egyptians saw divinity in cats and they were right.

The Indians saw divinity in cows and they were right. They taste divine!

 

[Mankirk]

Morally, either killing the pig is wrong or it's not, whether you're eating it or just got tired of seeing it.

This is stupid and wrong. Do you think killing an intruder in self defense is morally equivalent to murdering a random person on the street? It's the food chain, and if everybody was allowed to kill animals suitable for consumption while wasting the food it has a tangibly negative impact on humanity's capacity to sustain itself.

Surely you can do better than this. Being intentionally wasteful with the natural resources we are blessed with is subhuman behavior and should get you culled.

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

Do you think killing an intruder in self defense is morally equivalent to murdering a random person on the street?

No, self-defense is virtually the only scenario in which it's morally justified to kill a person, aside from contrived hypotheticals. So, if animals are equal to people in terms of value like some are suggesting then you can only justifiably kill them in self-defense too. Liking their yummy flesh would be no better an excuse than liking someone's money and killing them for that.

Arbitrarily raising a cat up above a rabbit or pig when the only substantial difference is cats probably don't taste very good is stupid. To be consistent he'd need to be a vegetarian, otherwise just admitting he's arbitrarily elevating cats is the only real play, and I'd respect it.

 

[Mankirk]

So, if animals are equal to people in terms of value like some are suggesting then you can only justifiably kill them in self-defense too.

I didn't say they are equal, I said that the wasting of those resources harms humanity. Wars where humans kill each other are fought when resources are scarce, therefore killing a pig wastefully (intentionally destroying food) is an attack on humanity.

Arbitrarily raising a cat up above a rabbit or pig when the only substantial difference is cats probably don't taste very good is stupid.

I said nothing about cats or such. Caring about cats is less stupid than killing an animal suitable for food wastefully. That said, there is a worse suffering/food+pleasure ratio when killing animals that don't have much meat, especially when you have a market providing you more economical options. Mature life represents an investment, whether we are talking livestock or pets. ats and dogs serve humanity through companionship, protection, and pest control. Killing them needlessly (especially with unnecessary suffering) harms humanity too, in objective ways.

If you had to beat a dog to death to prevent a nigger from getting aborted, would you do it? Why or why not?

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

I didn't say they are equal, I said that the wasting of those resources harms humanity.

I never suggested otherwise, but we actually aren't lacking in food, not by a long shot.

Wars where humans kill each other are fought when resources are scarce, therefore killing a pig wastefully (intentionally destroying food) is an attack on humanity.

War isn't over those types of resources anymore, now it's oil and metals and shit.

I said nothing about cats or such. Caring about cats is less stupid than killing an animal suitable for food wastefully.

I agree with that.

That said, there is a worse suffering/food+pleasure ratio when killing animals that don't have much meat, especially when you have a market providing you more economical options. Mature life represents an investment, whether we are talking livestock or pets.

We don't base our consumption on those factors, or we wouldn't have veal.

ats and dogs serve humanity through companionship, protection, and pest control. Killing them needlessly (especially with unnecessary suffering) harms humanity too, in objective ways.

They're killed and spayed/neutered constantly at the pound to no societal detriment because we have an excess of them. I heard there's so many cats they're killing off too many birds actually.

These animals do serve a purpose in society, I never denied it, I love dogs and have one. But my only point was they're not nearly as valuable as humans. It's a valuation dispute basically.

If you had to beat a dog to death to prevent a nigger from getting aborted, would you do it? Why or why not?

An innocent human life is infinitely more valuable than any animal's, even a nigger's, but I'm not sure I'd be able to bring myself to actually do it. It'd be the right thing to do but that doesn't mean I could.

 

[Mankirk]

we actually aren't lacking in food, not by a long shot.

Pricing can prevent people from having enough of a good diet, even if the alternative isn't strictly starving to death.

We don't base our consumption on those factors, or we wouldn't have veal.

Plenty of people have an issue with that relative to more traditional meat. I'm not sure even a majority of people are fond of that.

They're killed and spayed/neutered constantly at the pound to no societal detriment because we have an excess of them. I heard there's so many cats they're killing off too many birds actually.

Overpopulation is a problem because it lowers the quality of life for them and other species around them. It's still being done humanely, and respectfully - they aren't turning around and selling the dog meat. It is a somber and depressing fact of life, which is why spaying/neutering is seen as the bare minimum for responsible pet ownership.

But my only point was they're not nearly as valuable as humans.

It depends on the human

innocent human life

a nigger

shiggy

 

[derpherp2]

hwat in tarnation

 

[JamusActimus]

It depends on the human

On average, a human life is more valuable than an animal's life.

 

[Norbert the Tiger]

@SSj_Ness the subject of this thread is not what the punishment should for gratuitous killing of animals. Very briefly and then this should end ity otherwise open a thread in mass debates or deep thoughts.

Morally, either killing the pig is wrong or it's not, whether you're eating it or just got tired of seeing it.

No, as I just finished finished explaining. Two men could run over a cat with car but one does so intentionally the other by accident. The Mens Rea (state of mind) is the determining factor.

I'm aware, but it is deserving of a relative slap on the wrist, your punishment far outstrips the crime imo. T

No. See eg this.

https://gothamist.com/news/bronx-teen-kills-kitten-in-oven

As for the rest, the Chinese are barbaric in that sense and in any case that is an alien culture and civilization to our own. Hillbillies hunting and eating possum also has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.
Against this is tangential so please open a thread to discuss but I think everything that needs to be stated has been.

 

[Android raptor]

Humans are less valuable than other animals because at least other animals don't do shit like post how much they want to rape cats on the internet.

 

[Kirtto]

Humans are less valuable than other animals because at least other animals don't do shit like post how much they want to rape cats on the internet.

For once I agree with you

 

[RadioactiveMonkeyMan]

On average, a human life is more valuable than an animal's life.

Every thread on this site is a stunning example of just how wrong that assumption is. Plus I don't really know any other animal other than humans who can knowingly destroy themselves and everything around them out of nothing but boredom. Not to forget a planet full of nothing but people is a literal hell.

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

Humans are less valuable than other animals because at least other animals don't do shit like post how much they want to rape cats on the internet.

Cats rape cats constantly

 

[SentinentCloud]

i will create a nother debate thread for the discussing surrounding the sublte differences bewteen raping cats and raping humans

 

[Kirtto]

Cats rape cats constantly

Do they post about it on the internet tho? Plus is there a cat equivalent of DSP?

 

[Mankirk]

i will create a nother debate thread for the discussing surrounding the sublte differences bewteen raping cats and raping humans

You are the unofficial head mod of Q&A

 

[Gangstalker #32194]

All Hail The Sentient Cloud

 

[SentinentCloud]

You are the unofficial head mod of Q&A

i shall work for free