To take a life away because of moral value: 11-Year Old Boy puts his 'pet' to rest because he loved it. Is it ok?

@mrdecepticonleader said:

@PrinceAragorn1 said:

@mrdecepticonleader said:

No it doesn't. Why is it entirely different? Both are killing for pleasure/because they want to eat.

And what is actually done? they take a knife and cut their own heads off? Yeah right.

You seemed to have skipped my first and last points on comparing people who eat meat to killers.

Cannibalism can result when there is nothing else to eat,like when people become standard for example.Its different because people eating people is different to eating animals.

LOL no but Id imagine in most cases they are killed pretty quick so they don't suffer.

You know, killing in a way that the target doesn't suffer is does not make the killing right. If something doesn't want to be killed, it should be left alone.

When its for food there is nothing wrong with that.

To compare me to a serial killer is just utterly foolish.

So.. killing an animal against it's wish is ok. But killing a human is not. Is that about it?

Edit: I'll drop the sk analogy on vortex's suggestion though.

@mrdecepticonleader said:

Ok, point taken.

I'm not being militant bro, using high end comparisons doesn't mean that. I'm just trying to explain that killing animals against their will for whatever reasons is evil. Nothing can justify them. The only reason I'm using the serial killer analogy is because I can't really think of some equal footed example, and that one is so easily available. :(

The point is simple:

"I killed the animal because I wanted to eat it" is rather similar to "I killed the guy because I wanted to", though second is far more evil. They're on the same end of spectrum is all I'm trying to say. Not that they're equally bad. Perhaps you can help with a better, non-extreme looking example?

If you cant use another analogy that is less extreme then maybe that is a sign you should reconsider things.

Dude, the analogy is "extreme". Not "wrong". There is a huge difference between the two.

@PrinceAragorn1 said:

@mrdecepticonleader said:

@PrinceAragorn1 said:

@mrdecepticonleader said:

No it doesn't. Why is it entirely different? Both are killing for pleasure/because they want to eat.

And what is actually done? they take a knife and cut their own heads off? Yeah right.

You seemed to have skipped my first and last points on comparing people who eat meat to killers.

Cannibalism can result when there is nothing else to eat,like when people become standard for example.Its different because people eating people is different to eating animals.

LOL no but Id imagine in most cases they are killed pretty quick so they don't suffer.

You know, killing in a way that the target doesn't suffer is does not make the killing right. If something doesn't want to be killed, it should be left alone.

When its for food there is nothing wrong with that.

To compare me to a serial killer is just utterly foolish.

So.. killing an animal against it's wish is ok. But killing a human is not. Is that about it?

Edit: I'll drop the sk analogy on vortex's suggestion though.

Pretty much. I suppose.

The whole point is animals are killed for food and humans aren't.

@PrinceAragorn1 said:

@mrdecepticonleader said:

Ok, point taken.

I'm not being militant bro, using high end comparisons doesn't mean that. I'm just trying to explain that killing animals against their will for whatever reasons is evil. Nothing can justify them. The only reason I'm using the serial killer analogy is because I can't really think of some equal footed example, and that one is so easily available. :(

The point is simple:

"I killed the animal because I wanted to eat it" is rather similar to "I killed the guy because I wanted to", though second is far more evil. They're on the same end of spectrum is all I'm trying to say. Not that they're equally bad. Perhaps you can help with a better, non-extreme looking example?

If you cant use another analogy that is less extreme then maybe that is a sign you should reconsider things.

Dude, the analogy is "extreme". Not "wrong". There is a huge difference between the two.

It is wrong and extreme.

@mrdecepticonleader said:

Pretty much. I suppose.

The whole point is animals are killed for food and humans aren't.

And why is that? What gives us the right to do so? because we're stronger, or more intelligent?

@PrinceAragorn1 said:

@mrdecepticonleader said:

Pretty much. I suppose.

The whole point is animals are killed for food and humans aren't.

And why is that?

Um why is what? Animals are used as livestock and humans aren't.

Is it that hard to understand?

@mrdecepticonleader said:

Dude, the analogy is "extreme". Not "wrong". There is a huge difference between the two.

It is wrong and extreme.

Wrong and extreme are two extremely different things.

@Vortex13 said:

@PrinceAragorn1: Most animals don't cannibalize their own so comparing eating an animal to eating a human is simply wrong. We do not kill animals for pleasure we kill them for food so your serial killer analogy is also wrong. You are being completely ridiculous now. Eating meat isn't morally wrong and the comparisons you are making are unjust and completely unfounded. When mrdecepticonleader said you were a stereotypical vegan I feel like he was not quite right, what you are is the type of vegetarian that is so militant about your beliefs and that your way is the right way, you're the type of vegetarian that gives others a bad name simply because of your militant stance against eating meat. You keep agreeing the things you are saying are blown out of portion then why do you keep making those comments? It actually hurts your argument by making you seem like a radical, and radicals are never taken seriously. In my opinion they usually shouldn't either. When someone is that passionate about a subject they become blind to all other views and therefore dismiss them.

That is what I meant by that.Since vegans are stereotyped with having that sort of mentality.

@mrdecepticonleader said:

Um why is what? Animals are used as livestock and humans aren't.

Is it that hard to understand?

Yeah, what gives a human a right to use others as a livestock? simply because we can?

@mrdecepticonleader said:

@Vortex13 said:

@PrinceAragorn1: Most animals don't cannibalize their own so comparing eating an animal to eating a human is simply wrong. We do not kill animals for pleasure we kill them for food so your serial killer analogy is also wrong. You are being completely ridiculous now. Eating meat isn't morally wrong and the comparisons you are making are unjust and completely unfounded. When mrdecepticonleader said you were a stereotypical vegan I feel like he was not quite right, what you are is the type of vegetarian that is so militant about your beliefs and that your way is the right way, you're the type of vegetarian that gives others a bad name simply because of your militant stance against eating meat. You keep agreeing the things you are saying are blown out of portion then why do you keep making those comments? It actually hurts your argument by making you seem like a radical, and radicals are never taken seriously. In my opinion they usually shouldn't either. When someone is that passionate about a subject they become blind to all other views and therefore dismiss them.

That is what I meant by that.Since vegans are stereotyped with having that sort of mentality.

Fine. Stereotyped. Not wrong.

@PrinceAragorn1 said:

@mrdecepticonleader said:

Um why is what? Animals are used as livestock and humans aren't.

Is it that hard to understand?

Yeah, what gives a human a right to use others as a livestock? simply because we can?

What gives animals the right to eat us or eat other animals? As I repeat it is the food chain/nature.

Life eats life deal with it. @PrinceAragorn1 said:

@mrdecepticonleader said:

Dude, the analogy is "extreme". Not "wrong". There is a huge difference between the two.

It is wrong and extreme.

Wrong and extreme are two extremely different things.

Um I know I said your stance was incorrect and extreme.

@mrdecepticonleader said:

@PrinceAragorn1 said:

@mrdecepticonleader said:

Um why is what? Animals are used as livestock and humans aren't.

Is it that hard to understand?

Yeah, what gives a human a right to use others as a livestock? simply because we can?

What gives animals the right to eat us or eat other animals? As I repeat it is the food chain/nature.

Life eats life deal with it.

As I repeat, we can choose our role in food chain.The carnivores can't. It's what we can, not what we must. You're saying we can slaughter animal against their will because we want to and still say, "I'm against animal cruelty"?

Wow.

@mrdecepticonleader said:

Um I know I said your stance was incorrect and extreme.

I accepted it of being extreme. Being wrong is denied.

@PrinceAragorn1: A comparison that could be made and would be more accurate would be to say "If you'll kill a cow for food then why wouldn't you kill a dog for food." Now I agree about there being a slight hypocrisy with people who love animals but still eat them. I'm one of those and I accept that hypocrisy. I still think it is wrong to say eating meat is flat is evil. If you're going to claim that man is evil for eating meat because they don't have to because they can survive on vegetation then you would have to think the same of all omnivorous since they can survive on it as well as meat. I said earlier that we are just animals, and we are so we should not be judged higher or lower then the rest of the animal kingdom.

@PrinceAragorn1 said:

@mrdecepticonleader said:

@PrinceAragorn1 said:

@mrdecepticonleader said:

Um why is what? Animals are used as livestock and humans aren't.

Is it that hard to understand?

Yeah, what gives a human a right to use others as a livestock? simply because we can?

What gives animals the right to eat us or eat other animals? As I repeat it is the food chain/nature.

Life eats life deal with it.

As I repeat, we can choose our role in food chain.The carnivores can't. It's what we can, not what we must. You're saying we can slaughter animal against their will because we want to and still say, "I'm against animal cruelty"?

Wow.

Animal cruelty and eating animals are two different things.

This thread has been derailed long enough Don't think there is anymore to be said.

@mrdecepticonleader said:

Animal cruelty and eating animals are two different things.

This thread has been derailed long enough Don't think there is anymore to be said.

Last time I checked, killing was a part of cruelty.

@Vortex13 said:

@PrinceAragorn1: A comparison that could be made and would be more accurate would be to say "If you'll kill a cow for food then why wouldn't you kill a dog for food." Now I agree about there being a slight hypocrisy with people who love animals but still eat them. I'm one of those and I accept that hypocrisy. I still think it is wrong to say eating meat is flat is evil. If you're going to claim that man is evil for eating meat because they don't have to because they can survive on vegetation then you would have to think the same of all omnivorous since they can survive on it as well as meat. I said earlier that we are just animals, and we are so we should not be judged higher or lower then the rest of the animal kingdom.

Well, Good to know that you're accepting.

And I still think that "I killed it to eat" doesn't justify your killing, specially when you had a choice. But we all have our own opinions. :)

@PrinceAragorn1 said:

@mrdecepticonleader said:

Animal cruelty and eating animals are two different things.

This thread has been derailed long enough Don't think there is anymore to be said.

Last time I checked, killing was a part of cruelty.

Animal cruelty and eating animals are two different things.Going out of your way to hurt an animal is cruel it is different.

@PrinceAragorn1 said:

@mrdecepticonleader said:

Animal cruelty and eating animals are two different things.

This thread has been derailed long enough Don't think there is anymore to be said.

Last time I checked, killing was a part of cruelty.

There is such a thing as a mercy kill. Eating obviously isn't about that but I believe in mercy kills. Which is what this thread was originally about so lets get back to that.

I believe that if something is suffering and there is no chance of recovering and the end result would be a slow painful death then yes, mercy killing is fine with me even with humans.

@mrdecepticonleader said:

Animal cruelty and eating animals are two different things.Going out of your way to hurt an animal is cruel it is different.

Yet the ultimate result is the animal dies against it's wishes..*Killing it for food is no justification.

@Vortex13 said:

There is such a thing as a mercy kill. Eating obviously isn't about that but I believe in mercy kills. Which is what this thread was originally about so lets get back to that.

I believe that if something is suffering and there is no chance of recovering and the end result would be a slow painful death then yes, mercy killing is fine even with humans.

I agree, It was even followed by some knights IIRC. (I can show scans lol)

It being done by an 11 year old was rather bad though. :o

@PrinceAragorn1 said:

@mrdecepticonleader said:

Animal cruelty and eating animals are two different things.Going out of your way to hurt an animal is cruel it is different.

Yet the ultimate result is the animal dies against it's wishes..*Killing it for food is no justification.

lol that's what you think but as I have expressed I simply don't comply or agree with that notion.

@mrdecepticonleader said:

@PrinceAragorn1 said:

@mrdecepticonleader said:

Animal cruelty and eating animals are two different things.Going out of your way to hurt an animal is cruel it is different.

Yet the ultimate result is the animal dies against it's wishes..*Killing it for food is no justification.

lol that's what you think but as I have expressed I simply don't comply or agree with that notion.

No problem. You're as entitled to your opinion as much as I am

@PrinceAragorn1: It sucks for the kid really. But I guess he is a warrior of god meant to kill cows in suffering.

@PrinceAragorn1 said:

@mrdecepticonleader said:

@PrinceAragorn1 said:

@mrdecepticonleader said:

Animal cruelty and eating animals are two different things.Going out of your way to hurt an animal is cruel it is different.

Yet the ultimate result is the animal dies against it's wishes..*Killing it for food is no justification.

lol that's what you think but as I have expressed I simply don't comply or agree with that notion.

No problem. You're as entitled to your opinion as much as I am

SPOILER WARNING: Click here to reveal hidden content.

And animals are as well, to finish ;)

whatever

@Vortex13 said:

@PrinceAragorn1: It sucks for the kid really. But I guess he is a warrior of god meant to kill cows in suffering.

Yeah, he said God talks to him anyway. 0_0

@mrdecepticonleader said:

@PrinceAragorn1 said:

@mrdecepticonleader said:

@PrinceAragorn1 said:

@mrdecepticonleader said:

Animal cruelty and eating animals are two different things.Going out of your way to hurt an animal is cruel it is different.

Yet the ultimate result is the animal dies against it's wishes..*Killing it for food is no justification.

lol that's what you think but as I have expressed I simply don't comply or agree with that notion.

No problem. You're as entitled to your opinion as much as I am

SPOILER WARNING: Click here to reveal hidden content.

And animals are as well, to finish ;)

whatever

Pleasure debating with you.. it's refreshing when the other guy is sensible. (Rather annoying about the repeated 'judgemental', but that's cool)

I've been debating with a guy who kept telling me to prove bullets/lightening in fiction have same speed as real world. *sigh*

And kept saying. "This is scientific and so invalid" (Because the world in discussion is fictional) Can you believe that?