I'm not saying no animal should suffer.
Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: November 29, 2024, 9:49 am
Thread Rating:
|
Atheism and vegetarianism
|
Then what are you saying?
Best regards,
Leo van Miert Horsepower is how hard you hit the wall --Torque is how far you take the wall with you 
I'm saying that since it's not possible to stop any animals suffering it all, that doesn't mean it can't be minimized. And I'm saying the priority, IMO, is on those animals that have more complex nervous systems and more intelligence, as they can probably feel more, and hence, suffer more.
That's nonsense. I can kill any animal without a single bit of suffering no matter how complex their CNS is. Better yet, I can kill them while deliriously happy because of their CNS.
Best regards,
Leo van Miert Horsepower is how hard you hit the wall --Torque is how far you take the wall with you
Animals can be killed sans unecessary suffering......
Why is it ok to kill plants?? sans any thought at all??? "The Universe is run by the complex interweaving of three elements: energy, matter, and enlightened self-interest." G'Kar-B5
(August 24, 2010 at 7:04 am)leo-rcc Wrote: That's nonsense. I can kill any animal without a single bit of suffering no matter how complex their CNS is. Ah, so that includes humans? And how is this done? (August 24, 2010 at 7:16 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote: Why is it ok to kill plants?? sans any thought at all??? They don't feel pain.
That certainly includes humans.
The method, Nitrogen. replace the rooms Oxygen with Nitrogen and your body will feel no difference so no signs of asphyxiation. But the lack of Oxygen in your brain causes neurons to fire that get you in a happy delirious state before you die. Not only will you die for certain, you will have a blast while doing it. This method of killing was proposed to one of the US states that still support the death penalty as a method of execution, but it was rejected because the condemned person would feel no pain but euphoria. The victims of the prisoner didn't die happy, why should he or she?
Best regards,
Leo van Miert Horsepower is how hard you hit the wall --Torque is how far you take the wall with you
Why not? Once the person is dead they're no threat. No reason to make them suffer in the end. And in a utilitarian and anti-retributivist (and so anti-desert) sense it's even a small bonus.
Sounds to me like the perfect form of euthanasia and death penalty. Besides, even if you're retributivist, what about the risk (however small) that someone has been put to death who is in fact innocent? If they're innocent, then at least they would die in ecstasy. The last thing you want is not only a termination of life for an innocent person, but a horribly painful death as well.
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.
Best regards,
Leo van Miert Horsepower is how hard you hit the wall --Torque is how far you take the wall with you
In many cases killing isn't done this way though is it?
|
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
