What NSG thinks is morally acceptable

[The Corparation]

Before we get too off-topic. Most animal fur is not collected by hunters, it is taken from animals raised on a farm.

Re-posted for necessity.

Yes, but on farms the whole animal is utilized, not just the skin. Right?

Depends on the animals, for some smaller animals I would think it isn't as their isn't as much demand for their meat. Also most animal fur that people use is cut of off animals like sheep, which go on to grow a new coat.

[EvilDarkMagicians]

Animals=/=people.

Lrn2Biology.

Biology really isn't the issue, nor a factor there.

Erm. What?

Biology traditionally isn't much of a factor when determining ethic, see: post above yours

Why not?

[Abdju]

Why isn't it? Is eating meat moral?

No.

Why not?

Because it causes massive yet entirely un-necessary pain, suffering and violence against non-human animals, reduces the amount of food available to humans and wild animals, reduces the genetic health of farmed species and increases the risk of epidemics in farmed species and humans.

[Maurepas]

Animals=/=people.

Lrn2Biology.

Biology really isn't the issue, nor a factor there.

Erm. What?

Biology traditionally isn't much of a factor when determining ethic, see: post above yours

Why not?

Simple, we don't treat humans as animals. The 13th Amendment says you cannot treat a human like a horse, despite their both being biologically animals, legally and ethically they are not.

[Great Nepal]

I am disgusted that 55 people think pre-marital sex is moral.


I'm not Christian, btw.

What's wrong with pre-marital sex? As my mother once told me, you always test drive a car before you buy it...why shouldn't you test drive the man? He's a way larger and longer commitment.

Sex should take place between two person who are in long term relationship not just some random person who seems to "love" each other.

I agree that casual sex should be frowned upon, but pre-marital sex also includes those who are in a long term relationship but are unwed.

No, it could mean one side can break off if the baby is born which will destroy life of both sides.

If they're in a long-term relationship, that isn't likely to happen.

Depends on what you call long term doesn't it?

[Buffett and Colbert]

I believe certain things such as abortion are not moral but I firmly believe in a woman's right to choose.

[Mad hatters in jeans]

I had all but two.
Fur and cloning humans.

ditto.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Animals=/=people.

Lrn2Biology.

Biology really isn't the issue, nor a factor there.

Erm. What?

Biology traditionally isn't much of a factor when determining ethic, see: post above yours

Why not?

Simple, we don't treat humans as animals. The 13th Amendment says you cannot treat a human like a horse, despite their both being biologically animals, legally and ethically they are not.

There is something very subjective at play here, Maure. Some people equate animal life with that of humans. To them, killing an animal is just as bad as killing a person is.

[Qwcasd]

Homosexuality,
Wearing animal furs,
Polygamy
Strange List

[Senestrum]

Why isn't it? Is eating meat moral?

No.

Why not?

Because it causes massive yet entirely un-necessary pain, suffering and violence against non-human animals, reduces the amount of food available to humans and wild animals, reduces the genetic health of farmed species and increases the risk of epidemics in farmed species and humans.

oh no, the feed animal that's too stupid to understand what's going on may feel pain for however long it takes it to go unconscious before dying

how terrible

[EvilDarkMagicians]

Animals=/=people.

Lrn2Biology.

Biology really isn't the issue, nor a factor there.

Erm. What?

Biology traditionally isn't much of a factor when determining ethic, see: post above yours

Why not?

Simple, we don't treat humans as animals. The 13th Amendment says you cannot treat a human like a horse, despite their both being biologically animals, legally and ethically they are not.

So? I wasn't even talking about what's legal and not legal.

[Indeos]

Why isn't it? Is eating meat moral?

No.

Why not?

Because it causes massive yet entirely un-necessary pain, suffering and violence against non-human animals, reduces the amount of food available to humans and wild animals, reduces the genetic health of farmed species and increases the risk of epidemics in farmed species and humans.

oh no, the feed animal that's too stupid to understand what's going on may feel pain for however long it takes it to go unconscious before dying

how terrible

I support this message. I too will eat three animals for every one Abdju doesn't.

[EvilDarkMagicians]

How mature.

[Maurepas]

Animals=/=people.

Lrn2Biology.

Biology really isn't the issue, nor a factor there.

Erm. What?

Biology traditionally isn't much of a factor when determining ethic, see: post above yours

Why not?

Simple, we don't treat humans as animals. The 13th Amendment says you cannot treat a human like a horse, despite their both being biologically animals, legally and ethically they are not.

There is something very subjective at play here, Maure. Some people equate animal life with that of humans. To them, killing an animal is just as bad as killing a person is.

True of course, I was just turning the issue on its head to show that that even they would be wrong if they stated that they believed animals were equal to people, or vice versa.

As that opens up a whole new set of issues ranging from voting rights, to forced labour.

[Buffett and Colbert]

How mature.

You've posted equally dumb pictures on here.

[Maurepas]

Animals=/=people.

Lrn2Biology.

Biology really isn't the issue, nor a factor there.

Erm. What?

Biology traditionally isn't much of a factor when determining ethic, see: post above yours

Why not?

Simple, we don't treat humans as animals. The 13th Amendment says you cannot treat a human like a horse, despite their both being biologically animals, legally and ethically they are not.

So? I wasn't even talking about what's legal and not legal.

Ah, but it is a discussion about ethics, would you consider it ethical to work a human like an animal? Or is it ethical to deny the voting rights to animals?

[Senestrum]

How mature.

Sorry, vegetarians are really too lulzy for me to take seriously.

Besides, Hitler was a vegetarian, so it's obviously wrong and people should stop eating anything except meat.

[Wamitoria]

How mature.

Sorry, vegetarians are really too lulzy for me to take seriously.

Besides, Hitler was a vegetarian, so it's obviously wrong and people should stop eating anything except meat.

Godwin's law ftw.

[Qwcasd]

How mature.

Sorry, vegetarians are really too lulzy for me to take seriously.

Besides, Hitler was a vegetarian, so it's obviously wrong and people should stop eating anything except meat.

Godwin's law ftw.

Does Godwin's law apply on page 5, or is this guy just coco in the coconut?

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Animals=/=people.

Lrn2Biology.

Biology really isn't the issue, nor a factor there.

Erm. What?

Biology traditionally isn't much of a factor when determining ethic, see: post above yours

Why not?

Simple, we don't treat humans as animals. The 13th Amendment says you cannot treat a human like a horse, despite their both being biologically animals, legally and ethically they are not.

There is something very subjective at play here, Maure. Some people equate animal life with that of humans. To them, killing an animal is just as bad as killing a person is.

True of course, I was just turning the issue on its head to show that that even they would be wrong if they stated that they believed animals were equal to people, or vice versa.

As that opens up a whole new set of issues ranging from voting rights, to forced labour.

No worries, I know that that's from where you're coming from. In fact, you know that some animal rights activists are exactly as you're explaining. What with the whole debate of 'sapience' and what animals can do or can't. It is rather ridiculous, but at the same time highlights the very purpose of the thread. Think about it. Why is it ok to allow abortion but consider death penalty immoral?

Of course, some people will say that a fetus is not a person while an inmate accused of murder and sentence to die in the electric chair is. Twist that, some people believe that a fetus is as much of a person as an inmate sentenced to death is, yet women must have the choice. I'm not trying to turn this in that kind of debate, but merely using it as an example.

[EvilDarkMagicians]

How mature.

Sorry, vegetarians are really too lulzy for me to take seriously.

Besides, Hitler was a vegetarian, so it's obviously wrong and people should stop eating anything except meat.

I'm not even going to dignify this with a response.

Oh shit......

[Aiestonia]

I believe that all things in the list are moral, bar human cloning, euthanasia, and polygamy. I'm abit torn on the issue of capital punishment, but decided to not vote to consider it "Moral". Better safe than sorry...

Human cloning: It would just fuck up the whole concept of the "sanctity of human life". Alot.
I am unique. Period. That's the way it should stay. All arguements of cheap labour, "human robot" soldiers, etc. not withstanding. A clone is still just as human as you or me, bar the fact that it isn't unqie. There is no good way to integrate clones into our society. I believe.

Euthanasia: I beleive there are certain, extreme cases where euthanasia might be morally acceptable, but as a rule, it isn't, and shouldn't be.
If I were a doctor, I wouldn''t want the killing of a person on my consience. That's it. That's an arguement that trumps all others. We humans should be responsible for our own lives. If we pay someone to kill us...then suddenly we change the responsibility over to somebody else. For the people who aren't so sick they can't have control of their own body... it's nothing short of cowardice. Wanting another person to kill you for your convenience, without hte slightest thought of what dent that might leave in your killer's consience, possibly forever. Jump of a cliff, infront of a train, buy a gun, stab yourself...there's plenty of ways to do it...

Polygamy: I am against it, provided the couple (couples?) have children. Then it's just...irreseponsible. I am not very sympathetically inclined otherwise either...
I would not like to share my girl with some dumbass twat. It's him or me.
Then again, of course, not all people think like this... But the family and social cohesion point still stands.

[EvilDarkMagicians]

Ah, but it is a discussion about ethics, would you consider it ethical to work a human like an animal? Or is it ethical to deny the voting rights to animals?

Depends on the animal.

[Maurepas]

Animals=/=people.

Lrn2Biology.

Biology really isn't the issue, nor a factor there.

Erm. What?

Biology traditionally isn't much of a factor when determining ethic, see: post above yours

Why not?

Simple, we don't treat humans as animals. The 13th Amendment says you cannot treat a human like a horse, despite their both being biologically animals, legally and ethically they are not.

There is something very subjective at play here, Maure. Some people equate animal life with that of humans. To them, killing an animal is just as bad as killing a person is.

True of course, I was just turning the issue on its head to show that that even they would be wrong if they stated that they believed animals were equal to people, or vice versa.

As that opens up a whole new set of issues ranging from voting rights, to forced labour.

No worries, I know that that's from where you're coming from. In fact, you know that some animal rights activists are exactly as you're explaining. What with the whole debate of 'sapience' and what animals can do or can't. It is rather ridiculous, but at the same time highlights the very purpose of the thread. Think about it. Why is it ok to allow abortion but consider death penalty immoral?

Of course, some people will say that a fetus is not a person while an inmate accused of murder and sentence to die in the electric chair is. Twist that, some people believe that a fetus is as much of a person as an inmate sentenced to death is, yet women must have the choice. I'm not trying to turn this in that kind of debate, but merely using it as an example.

Again true, like I said it boils down, in my opinion,to a person having control over his/her own body, whereas the state doesn't have the right to people's bodies, again, in my opinion.

As far as that goes, in short, I don't consider the state to be the equal of people,

[Andorianus]

For me, all but death penalty and abortion.