Is it morally permissible to hunt retards for sport? (1 Viewer)

[JohnMcGee]

Now here me out NCAP, before reporting me to the various authorities. We are here for philosophical discourse! I strongly object to the hunting of retards for sport due to my prima facie belief that it is wrong. WROONG. But we all know that any philosopher who claims anything prima facie has lost the game. So let us begin.

1. The severely retarded are not people. Those with Down syndrome are people. Those with ADHD are people. A comatose person is not. A pig is not a person. And similarly, anyone below a certain threshold (let us say for argument's sake, that one must be more intelligent than a pig to count as a person) of intelligence and human functioning is not a person.
2. It is morally permissible to hunt animals for sport.

Hence, it is morally permissible to hunt those humans who are below a certain level of human functioning for the enjoyment and satisfaction of people. The "animalistic humans" being hunted cannot process pain and suffering on the level that a human can, and furthermore, our (persons) happyness overrides any suffering that they endure.

Discuss.

 

[zombie omie jay]

Now here me out NCAP, before reporting me to the various authorities. We are here for philosophical discourse! I strongly object to the hunting of retards for sport due to my prima facie belief that it is wrong. WROONG. But we all know that any philosopher who claims anything prima facie has lost the game. So let us begin.

1. The severely retarded are not people. Those with Down syndrome are people. Those with ADHD are people. A comatose person is not. A pig is not a person. And similarly, anyone below a certain threshold (let us say for argument's sake, that one must be more intelligent than a pig to count as a person) of intelligence and human functioning is not a person.
2. It is morally permissible to hunt animals for sport.

Hence, it is morally permissible to hunt those humans who are below a certain level of human functioning for the enjoyment and satisfaction of people. The "animalistic humans" being hunted cannot process pain and suffering on the level that a human can, and furthermore, our (persons) happyness overrides any suffering that they endure.

Discuss.

I think you will find that they are classified as people due to ther biology

 

[Lolsmith]

No point anyway. Most people would have to hunt them with kitchen knives due to gun restrictions. Where's the fun in that?

 

[JohnMcGee]

no philosophically serious person gives two shits about biology. in fact, neither does the general public. this is why abortions are permissible, and why it's permissible to turn off life support. biology is not the question, personhood is.

raising the issue of self sufficiency also plays a big part in this debate, i think.

 

[JohnMcGee]

No point anyway. Most people would have to hunt them with kitchen knives due to gun restrictions. Where's the fun in that?

well given that most of these people are probably wheelchair bound, im not sure how much fun a gun would be anyway.

 

[brendroid]

Uh, I thought there was still a bit of debate about the permissible nature of abortions and turning off life support. As in the law still finds them very blurry and grey.

 

[xeuyrawp]

Fail philosophical thread is fail.

should be morally permissible to hunt humans regardless of intellect because we are basically pigs anyway
THEREIS NO GOD we are just living things like everything else

so. kill away

The fact that you link permissibility of hunting humans with the existence of god would indicate that you are actually a closet, afraid theist.

 

[Lolsmith]

well given that most of these people are probably wheelchair bound, im not sure how much fun a gun would be anyway.

Well then what's the point in the sport? If it ain't fun then its gotta be for food.

Can anyone fill me in on whether human flesh tastes good or not?

 

[JohnMcGee]

Uh, I thought there was still a bit of debate about the permissible nature of abortions and turning off life support. As in the law still finds them very blurry and grey.

well society seems to have erred on the side of liberalism on those issues given that they're both pretty legal and widespread. should the same be said of retard hunting?

 

[JohnMcGee]

Well then what's the point in the sport? If it ain't fun then its gotta be for food.

Can anyone fill me in on whether human flesh tastes good or not?

killing things with a knife can be fun, can't it? catch my drift.

 

[brendroid]

Last time I heard that they weren't too legal but there was a big push for their legalisation.

 

[JohnMcGee]

Last time I heard that they weren't too legal but there was a big push for their legalisation.

oh no abortions are hidiously illegal and noone ever has their life support turned off


wtf m8

 

[brendroid]

You're twisting what I'm saying >.>

Abortions are legal in NSW at least for medical purposes. Not on request. Hence, big push for final legalisation.

And turning off life support is still a touchy issue, considering how it could be linked to euthenasia. Hence, big push for final legalisation.

The final legalisation in both cases is the final breaking of the boundaries. Hence, the legality that most people might want isn't there just yet.

 

[JohnMcGee]

Do you even know what you're talking about?

Abortion in Australia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Abortion law in New South Wales is primarily based upon the Levine ruling of 1971 (itself derived from the Victorian Menhennitt ruling of 1969), which declared abortion to be legal if a doctor found 'any economic, social or medical ground or reason' that an abortion was required to avoid a 'serious danger to the pregnant woman's life or to her physical or mental health' at any point during pregnancy. This was expanded by the Kirby ruling of 1994, which extended the period during which health concerns might be considered from the duration of pregnancy to any period during the woman's life. This arguably precludes any successful prosecutions for illegal abortions. Despite this, in 2006 Dr Suman Sood was convicted of two counts of performing an illegal abortion where she failed to enquire as to whether a lawful reason for performing the abortion did exist.

It's more or less entirely legal.

 

[JohnMcGee]

This isn't a thread about abortion, it is a thread about killing vegetables for fun, ok?

 

[Lolsmith]

This isn't a thread about abortion, it is a thread about killing vegetables for fun, ok?

And there ends the very final chances of this thread being taken the slightest bit serious. Nice work.

 

[kaz1]

If they make animal noises maybe...

 

[brendroid]

Then why the hell did you use abortion as an argument in favour of killing vegetables?

 

[Nigger_Jew]

Immah kick yo sowwie ass to jeroosalam or what eva y'all call it down unda nigga's.
What da fuck we talkin bout dawgs?
Shlom peace hebrew nigga.
P.s Beyonca n Jay Z in da crib

 

[JohnMcGee]

Then why the hell did you use abortion as an argument in favour of killing vegetables?

To help illustrate. I didn't want the thread to degenerate into some toshy argument about abortion. Abortion is a footnote in this debate.