(August 24, 2010 at 7:52 am)The Omnissiunt One Wrote:(August 24, 2010 at 7:42 am)leo-rcc Wrote: Preaching to the choir, I'm anti death penalty anyway because of the risk of not guilty persons being killed. And I would be in favor of doing it like that too if it really needs to be done.
However, the point was that the existence or the development of the CNS is not relevant, there are many ways to kill without suffering. Nitrogen is just the one I'd advocate as a cheap and viable solution. Close to 80% of the Earths atmosphere is Nitrogen anyway.
Why do you put artificial boundaries up about killing humans?
I'm not, our society does, and I am a part of that. Killing humans is wrong because we as a society came to the agreement it is wrong, hence there is no death penalty here for the protection of the innocent. Other societies do support the death penalty. We do support euthanasia and abortion because it sometimes is the best option, some others don't. One is only more moral than the other from a personal standpoint, not a societal one.
In any case that is not relevant to a personal dietary choice.
Quote:My criteria for what it's wrong to kill are clear and logical: if a being is a person, it is wrong to kill them
Why is that clear and logical?
Best regards,
Leo van Miert
Horsepower is how hard you hit the wall --Torque is how far you take the wall with you
Leo van Miert
Horsepower is how hard you hit the wall --Torque is how far you take the wall with you
