Topical Discussion - Please try to get overly angry/upset

Post by **Lieva** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 7:37 pm

Kallima wrote:I'm afraid, when it really comes to a choice, I put humans above animals. Put it this way, if I was driving along the road and a rabbit and a child ran out in front of the car and I had to hit one of them, then the rabbit gets it.

Of course if it was a choice between a rabbit and an Albion, then the Albion gets it. :bunneh:

well of cause

but say

if you had the choice of hitting hitler (to use a person - choose another person from history) before the 2nd WW or a rabbit.
Who would you choose

Norcott · Post by **Norcott** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 7:44 pm

Banana wrote:if you had the choice of hitting hitler (to use a person - choose another person from history) before the 2nd WW or a rabbit.
Who would you choose

(well as i couldnt resist in pure humour for self pleasure...)

Both.. have a good feed on the rabbit, then kill old Adolf..

yea i know.... I know .. <shields up full for the Inc./slap>

Post by **Xest** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 7:48 pm

Only reason I'd hit the rabit is because it's illegal to hit humans, if it wasn't then hitting the human would win every time

Post by **Xest** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 8:03 pm

BBC! wrote:Animal tests on the kind of drug given to the six men ill in a London hospital may not be the best way of evaluating the effects in people, an expert warns.

The drug they took stimulates a protein only found in humans.

...and they wonder why it went wrong? Retards

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4817178.stm

OohhoO · Post by **OohhoO** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 8:08 pm

It's all very difficult, because it raises so many delicate moral/ethical issues:-

1) Is it ethically/morally acceptable to use the law of "might is right" to inflict suffering on so-called "lesser-species" to "advance" the cause of our own species?

2) Does someone who signed a 16-page get-out-contract have a legal right to compensation outside that contract? That the unfortunate victims have a moral right to compensation should be obvious, but shouldn't the extent of that compensation be thoroughly documented within said contract rather than being drawn through years of largely destructive legal processes which really only serve to enrich the vultures of the legal profession?

3) Is the general direction of medical scientific investigation to extend the QUANTITY of human life rather that its QUALITY (Danger! - Generalisation) really the morally or ethically right direction? Should we be aiming for 80-100 years of life in dubious health or 40-50 years of perpetual youth & then lights out?

Question 3 raises yet more delicate moral/ethical issues regarding scientific investigation of our basic genetic structure and the tissues which would be needed (placentas, aborted phoetae) for that investigation.

Personally I'd go for 40-50 years of perpetual youth without abuse of other species & then byebye (although most other quatrogenerians would probably have a different viewpoint), but that standpoint is very probably extremely hypocritical in itself.

I don't think such a complex thematic can really be accurately portrayed on an internet forum for a MMORPG. Yes, we can discuss it, but we'll probably never do more than scratch the surface &/or induce an unnecessary flame war.

Kallima · Post by **Kallima** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 8:13 pm

Xest wrote:Only reason I'd hit the rabit is because it's illegal to hit humans, if it wasn't then hitting the human would win every time

I thought you would also take into account that the human is bigger than the rabbit so more likely to damage the car. <grins>

Kallima · Post by **Kallima** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 8:16 pm

Banana wrote:well of cause

but say

if you had the choice of hitting hitler (to use a person - choose another person from history) before the 2nd WW or a rabbit.
Who would you choose

Well of course if you personally know the human or the rabbit then personal bias comes into it, and some humans would definitely get hit ahead of a rabbit. This includes tyrants and dictators and people who hit people with fish... <giggles and waves at Aran>

OohhoO · Post by **OohhoO** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 8:24 pm

Here the short version for people who don't like long sentences:-

1) I'm a moderate supporter of animal rights.
2) I don't like lawyers.
3) I'd rather fuck like a rabbit till I'm 50 than shit my pants till I'm 100.

TYVM&BBFN

Post by **Lieva** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 8:46 pm

Kallima wrote:Well of course if you personally know the human or the rabbit then personal bias comes into it, and some humans would definitely get hit ahead of a rabbit. This includes tyrants and dictators and people who hit people with fish... <giggles and waves at Aran>

but

if you would choose to hit the human because you know how evil they will be insted of the rabbit..why then choose to hit the rabbit. Surely that person could technically grow up to be just as evil - we just dont know ;p

OohhoO · Post by **OohhoO** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 8:53 pm

[quote="Banana"]but

if you would choose to hit the human because you know how evil they will be insted of the rabbit..why then choose to hit the rabbit. Surely that person could technically grow up to be just as evil - we just dont know ]

But ... how can we know that the rabbit isn't an evil rabbit?