Being a sinner just for being born

[Ignorant]

It very easily can be framed as such, even with your new weaseling of terms.  But who cares...that probably has more to do with how full the fullest picture is, eh?  I think it's far more interesting how, and what, we make edge cases out of.  Merciless killing obviously wasn't on your mind before.

True... mercilessly killing people wasn't on my mind as a good human action. Mercilessly killing people is a bad action. If a person thinks that mercilessly killing some other person will bring them fulfillment, they are simply wrong. I don't understand why you think I should conclude otherwise.

The killing of mosquitoes is -already- merciless, as is a great amount of the killing we do.  The example is something altogether more thorough, though.  Extermination.  The extermination of mosquitoes, by the metrics offered before, would be beneficial to human communities.  Lives would be saved.  Even the fans of the mosquito don't quibble over that point.  This seems like a shoe-in for a moral good as you've described them...and yet it's ridiculous?  Why?

Go re-read this point again. I was calling the ridiculous example the more general case which you described as "Suppose the merciless slaughter of some organism x were beneficial to the community?" <= That was too general for me. I admit, coming after your suggestion that mercilessly killing people is a good action, I thought your were trying to propose an absurd connection between human fullness and the arbitrary killing of organism X.

As far as the ecology angle (and that came out of nowhere)...it's widely held that mosquitoes are, truly, useless.

Out of nowhere? You'd think that the complete eradication of an insect would include at least some ecological questions (at least to me, an amateur). You seem to be in the know when it comes to that topic, so I defer to your knowledge of it. If the complete loss of mosquitoes truly has no impact on the environment and our relationship with it, then killing mosquitoes is quite similar to killing bacteria and other pathogens.

I think that a framework for determing the moral good ought to be able to handle a little sophistry.....but even so, yes - I do think that you're as much a merciless killer as any other human being, myself included.  So much so that you don't seem to realize it, or have consciously trivialized it so as to make perfectly understandable exemptions. [1] We're not known for being uniformly friendly, as a species.  That's not how we got to where we are or how we've maintained our position. [2]

1) It has finally occurred to me that since the beginning, when you said "merciless killers", you meant killing much more generally than killing other people. I thought you had shifted to that more general understanding just a few posts ago HERE. But I see now that you were thinking more generally all along. So thank you for answering this question.

I still will not grant you that what-we-are and merciless killer are synonymous. Sometimes, killing things (perhaps like mosquitoes) is a rational and fulfilling way to add to human fullness. Mercilessly killing a mosquito is irrational. Maliciously killing mosquitoes is irrational. Killing mosquitoes as if they are guilty and condemned people is irrational <= If that is not what you mean by mercilessly killing things, then I may withdraw my objection to that qualifier.

2) Yes, we kill things for our benefit, and there is a fulfilling and rational way to do that, and there is an irrational and unfulfilling way to do that.

You're the man with the scheme and the sliding scale..you tell me?   Seems to me that someone we'd call a merciless killer must be pretty damned successful at what he does.

Yes, he is. Now consider some people playing darts. They are very and intentionally successful at hitting the wall with their darts just to the right of the target. 

Are they successful at what they are trying to do? Yes. 
Are they colossally failing at the game of darts? YES.

-and now it's personal success over death and suffering, communities and victims?  A guy can't get it right for getting it wrong.  Certainly can't take your word for anything either.   

No. See above. If you want to be good at darts, and you think that dropping your darts on the ground is all you need to do to get there, then you are wrong. You'd fail to get good at darts.

Convenient, that being a christian has something to do with human fullness.

Ha! You were the one who proposed the hypothetically failing Christian.

 Seems pointless to assume as much when you initially fielded this business to avoid a moral imperative brought about by the desires and peculiarities of the christian god.

Where do you think I have been trying to avoid a moral imperative brought about by the desires and peculiarities of the christian god? I am arguing FOR a moral imperative: seek what is good, avoid what is evil. I don't think that imperative comes externally from us [to us externally], I think [it] comes from what and who we are, [from "within"]. Whether or not god exists, we still are what we are. Atheist or theist, what-humans-are is the measure of our actions, not some arbitrary list of rules/laws floating around in the ether.

You live in a world where the christian moral framework is affixed, just-so, to a "proper" moral framework by whatever metrics, however inconsistently applied.  An outsiders perspective, however, can differ greatly.  I see nothing that might add to the fullness of what we are by stringing up the better man, or worshiping the administrator who made it all possible.

Fair enough. Can anything add to the fullness of what-we-are?

You tell me..from the communities and victims angle,

Look, hopefully by now you know that when I proposed those as metrics of evaluating the evil in the act of mercilessly killing other people, I was speaking to that specific action. You seem to have seized on that as if those are the only two things I use to evaluate the goodness or lack of goodness in an action. It's a straw man.

is the world a better place or a shittier one for having one less scapegoater in it? 

It's a shittier place, because it is missing the goodness it would have from your fully lived human life.

 Here again we see an edge case, where consistent application of -any- of your offered metrics would leave me holding a moral imperative which would get me into some really hot shit with your god. 

No. You seem to have skimmed over the posts in which I emphasize that (contrary to utilitarianism), your fullness and my fullness are connected (HERE; HERE; HERE). Your fullness and the fullness of the community are connected, not opposed. The communal good is not a competitor with the individual good. If you fail at living a full human life, even if it brings some good to the community, your failure could never bring as much good to the community as your success could bring. 

So again I ask..how do we decide when things like this come up?

See above. Your failure at living a full human life will always bring LESS benefit to the community than your success.