Originally Posted by
SmileyJones
Hm, earlier you approved of thinking "innocent until proven guilty". Does killing one dog really prove that someone is irredeemable and unfit to live in society? If so, where should the line be drawn? I think the line is generally drawn at murder in our societies, but even some murderers even manage to redeem themselves in prison.
Yeah, i know where the line is drawn as far as laws go, but hey...My line differs slightly. And i used 'innocent until proven guilty' with the assumption that Hitler was, at the time of contact in your scenario, largely innocent.....Same couldn't be said about my scenario, where the people already commuted a rather repulsive act.
Now, what i am about to say may be very controversial (as if this thread isn't already
) but i actually think there are more plausible cases one could make for killing another human than one could make for killing a pet.
Forget about species bias for a second.
What could a human do to provoke "righteous" animosity from another human?
Lots of things:
Treachery. Framing. Blackmail. Ruin your career. Ruin your reputation. Steal your property......Murder your pet.
What can a dog do? Pee on your shoe? Poop on your front yard?
Yes, an average human has far more value to
our society....but people are so vastly different.
Last edited by Odlov; Nov 12, 2009 at 02:03 AM.