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

[brendroid]

Nigger Jew, didn't you get banned?

 

[brendroid]

Well I was just saying that it isn't as permissible as you made it out to be.

 

[JohnMcGee]

Well I was just saying that it isn't as permissible as you made it out to be.

AND I SHOWED YOU THAT THE LAW SAYS IT IS

who is this cunt? fuck off back to the hsc forums.

 

[brendroid]

THE LAW SAYS ONLY UNDER SOME CIRCUMSTANCES.

Read the fineprint.

 

[Graney]

It's no worse than killing any other animal of similar intellectual ability.

Which is to say, it's probably quite bad to kill animals of limited intellectual ability without just cause.

A mans worth, above and beyond other species, is given by his cognitive abilities being above and beyond those other species are capable of. Where a mans cognitive abilities are equal or less than another, non-human species, there is no good justification for granting him protection above and beyond that available to the non-human organism.

 

[iRuler]

-.-

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

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.

The problem here is assumption 2.

You made a thread supposedly questioning societies assumptions, but based your entire argument on a particularly retarded and difficult to justify assumption.

 

[JohnMcGee]

A mans worth, above and beyond other species, is given by his cognitive abilities being above and beyond those other species are capable of. Where a mans cognitive abilities are equal or less than another, non-human species, there is no good justification for granting him protection above and beyond that available to the non-human organism.

a) Cognitive worth, in that restricted definition, is no grounds for affording man any protection. there has to be further explanation as to how that cognitive ability affords the right of moral superiority.
b) I think it ignores an in built urge, or an obligation almost, for a species to value itself and to propagate itself above all others.

my belief is that a) we have grounds to treat people above all other animals as it's in built to our biology, and b) undue suffering is something that ought to be restricted (why? dunno), and our higher cognitive ability nessecarily means that we suffer more intensely.

 

[JohnMcGee]

The problem here is assumption 2.

You made a thread supposedly questioning societies assumptions, but based your entire argument on a particularly retarded and difficult to justify assumption.

i suppose i should have moved a point in made in the conclusion and made it assumption 3, zimmerman my fren

 

[JohnMcGee]

OH, OH, OKAY, EVERYONE GANG UP ON THE GUY THAT WANTS TO HUNT RETARDS FOR SPORT

typical

>_<

 

[Nigger_Jew]

Nigger Jew, didn't you get banned?

Dats right!! im back baby!

 

[Graney]

a) Cognitive worth, in that restricted definition, is no grounds for affording man any protection. there has to be further explanation as to how that cognitive ability affords the right of moral superiority.
b) I think it ignores an in built urge, or an obligation almost, for a species to value itself and to propagate itself above all others.

my belief is that a) we have grounds to treat people above all other animals as it's in built to our biology, and b) undue suffering is something that ought to be restricted (why? dunno), and our higher cognitive ability nessecarily means that we suffer more intensely.

I regret saying cognitive ability gives man value above and beyond, that was poor expression, but rather, it's a hierarchy, all life has inherent value and should be allowed to live, all life should be afforded inherent protection.

The higher value only comes into play where you have a choice between an animal life and a human life re: testing experimental drugs on animals, it would be acceptable to sacrifice some animal life for a greater number of humans to survive. Without appealing to emotion, this 'in-built urge' to which you refer, you can determine multiple means by which the human life can be argued to have greater value when it is a choice between the two.

We have in-built urges to do lots of things, often contrary things. We have inbuilt urges to all forms of prejudice- racism, sexism, distaste for the disabled and disfigured etc... a supposed 'inbuilt urge' is a poor justification for anything. I would like to throw out 'inbuilt urges' entirely in decision making, and act on a reasoned philosophy.

In terms of your beliefs- I agree entirely with b)

b) undue suffering is something that ought to be restricted (why? dunno), and our higher cognitive ability nessecarily means that we suffer more intensely.

That is among the reasons that you would accord a healthy adult human life greater protection. However in the case of this thread, or in considering whether a fetus can be aborted, we are referring to organisms that do not have this higher cognitive ability, that is the crux of the matter, many animals would be able to suffer to a much greater extent than these 'humans' of limited ability, which is exactly the point I was making, he who suffers most, deserves greatest protection, and not all that is biologically human suffers in equal capacity.

 

[abbeyroad]

the argument is invalid, even if you framed it in such a way that it's valid, it will still be unsound since your second premise will always be false no matter how you word it


/logic

 

[jazzzod]

Your argument is weak and invalid.

/Closethread.

Go fuck a tree or something.

 

[abbeyroad]

Your argument is weak and invalid.

/Closethread.

Go fuck a tree or something.

gj copying.

 

[jazzzod]

You questioned its validity.

I condemned him and told him to go fuck a tree.

Comprende?

 

[scarybunny]

It should be permisable to start hunting people who support mandatory internet censorship in Australia.

10 points if you get Conroy.

 

[abbeyroad]

You questioned its validity.

I condemned him and told him to go fuck a tree.

Comprende?

you're still a copycat and a dumbfuck