 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
John VanSickle <evi### [at] hotmail com> wrote:
> Since none of the other species shows any regard whatsoever for the
> effects of its behavior on other life, you are holding man to a
> different standard than other forms of life. If man is merely a product
> of nature, this is illogical.
Man can be held to a different standard because we are a sentient species
who understands the consequences of irresponsive behavior.
A virus cannot be held responsible for killing millions because it's not
a sentient malevolent being.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
John VanSickle wrote:
> Since none of the other species shows any regard whatsoever for the
> effects of its behavior on other life, you are holding man to a
> different standard than other forms of life. If man is merely a product
> of nature, this is illogical.
Just because it's natural doesn't mean it's OK. The "natural is
good/OK" argument is a non-argument. It has no logic behind it.
Warp's point is that man (and occasionally, women) has shown he can act
contrary to nature and come out more or less unscathed.
--
Atheism is a non-prophet organization.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
> Warp's point is that man (and occasionally, women) has shown he can act
> contrary to nature and come out more or less unscathed.
I think his point is that since man is a product of nature (at least in
the atheistic view), then man cannot behave in unnatural ways.
This goes down to the philosophical definition of a sentient being,
and whether sentience makes humans to be above nature (in the sense that
humans are capable of unnatural behavior and thus can be held morally
responsible for it).
As I said, contrast a meteor smashing the Earth, and mankind making
the same kind of damage as a conscious, deliberate act (caused by
selfishness and greed). The meteor cannot be held morally responsible
because it's not a sentient being and thus doesn't make decisions, but
humans can.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 15:53:03 -0300, nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>
>> No prob. Pigs will avenge them all. ;)
>
> Napoleon, a Berkshire boar, Rulz :)
>
I was thinking more of the swine flu. :P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 03 May 2009 14:29:01 -0300, nemesis <nam### [at] nospam-gmailcom>
wrote:
>Stephen wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 15:53:03 -0300, nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>>
>>> No prob. Pigs will avenge them all. ;)
>>
>> Napoleon, a Berkshire boar, Rulz :)
>>
>
>I was thinking more of the swine flu. :P
Oh! But who gave the flu to the pigs?
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> A virus cannot be held responsible for killing millions because it's not
> a sentient malevolent being.
You'd like to think that, wouldn't you?
But it is held responsible, and is punished by the extensive attempts to
eradicate it and/or prevent it from functioning as it pleases.
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Tim Cook" <z99### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> "Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> > A virus cannot be held responsible for killing millions because it's not
> > a sentient malevolent being.
>
> You'd like to think that, wouldn't you?
>
> But it is held responsible, and is punished by the extensive attempts to
> eradicate it and/or prevent it from functioning as it pleases.
Besides, as Agent Smith well pointed out, our modus operandi is pretty much that
of a virus. ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Cook <z99### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> But it is held responsible
Not in the moral sense.
> and is punished by the extensive attempts to
> eradicate it and/or prevent it from functioning as it pleases.
Only in the same sense as people building houses to keep the cold out,
or building walls to stop floods from destroying crops.
In human civilization punishment is a consequence of a crime, and a
warning to others about what will happen if they do the same. No such
thing makes sense with viruses.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> Because, in the past, so called "extinction events" didn't happen that
> quickly.
Would we know?
Maybe one species of dinosaur actually was intelligent enough to make spears
and fished to extinction several species that were already scarce in the
fossil record. How would you know?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> Given this, I value all life, and I would like to preserve as much as
> possible. I am not speaking of preserving individual lives, but of
> kinds of life, here.
On the other hand, if you do not particularly value your own life, there's
no particular reason to especially value someone else's. If you're not
afraid of death, you're not afraid of extinction.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
