The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Is it?
Page:
Chr1s wrote:
> Grix Thraves wrote:
> "Because it's wrong!"
>
> "Why?"
>
> "Because... because it's wrong!"
>
> It really is that simple.
I think Memo is trying to ask "what is wrong"
> Grix Thraves wrote:
> "Because it's wrong!"
>
> "Why?"
>
> "Because... because it's wrong!"
>
> It really is that simple.
I think Memo is trying to ask "what is wrong"
Idiots. Stop trying to be clever. It's wrong to kick a cat in terms of morals. You are deliberatly causing a living creature pain, for no just reason - nihilism, pleasure, whatever. In terms of societie's dominant ethics, that is wrong. That is the clearest way to define right and wrong.
And don't pretend you're going to go into a deep philosophical debate about good and evil, because you won't.
And don't pretend you're going to go into a deep philosophical debate about good and evil, because you won't.
Grix Thraves wrote:
> "Because it's wrong!"
>
> "Why?"
>
> "Because... because it's wrong!"
It really is that simple.
> "Because it's wrong!"
>
> "Why?"
>
> "Because... because it's wrong!"
It really is that simple.
Memorandum! wrote:
> Memorandum! wrote:
> To Chr1s:
>
> But why were you upset at him for chasing your cat?
It's my cat. I paid for it. I have the right to protect it. I didn't know what that kid was going to do next. For all I knew he was gonna eat it.
> Why shouldn't the cat be chased?
Chasing the cat would frighten it. Fright is considered to be something bad so therefore the cat shouldn't be chased.
> Memorandum! wrote:
> To Chr1s:
>
> But why were you upset at him for chasing your cat?
It's my cat. I paid for it. I have the right to protect it. I didn't know what that kid was going to do next. For all I knew he was gonna eat it.
> Why shouldn't the cat be chased?
Chasing the cat would frighten it. Fright is considered to be something bad so therefore the cat shouldn't be chased.
Cycloon wrote:
> No. Cats pwn.
Why does a cat pwn?
> No. Cats pwn.
Why does a cat pwn?
Memorandum! wrote:
> Flock wrote:
> Well the cat looking like it should be kicked is a matter of
> opinion,
> of which you might be biased as maybe you want to kick the cat.
>
> Yes, that is perception. Why is it that my perception should be
> considered wrong and someone else's opposing perception considered
> right?
Because it goes against the majority verdict, opinion can never be set in stone, it is by it's nature undecided and so perception always comes down to majority verdict.
> Added
> to that, the cat probably doesn't want to be kicked and you're
> infringing the rights of the cats by kicking it as well as
>
> As a primitive animal it cannot express its rights. Therefore, how
> should we know that we are 'infringing' them?
All rights are percieved, just because you say you dont want to be kicked doesn't mean you dont want to be kicked, all expression is open to interpretation and as the law can't govern for interpretation it protects the base rights of the cat not to be kicked unless it expresses willingness to be kicked.
> breaking
> the cruelty to animals law.
>
> What is the relationship between morality and law? The law states
> that it 'is' illegal to do something, it does not follow that we
> therefore 'ought' not to do it. For instance if the law was that we
> had to have compulsory euthanasia at 65, it would not follow that it
> was right.
No it wouldn't but it would follow that that is acceptable even though it mat not be right, law is created by morality but law overrides morality as morality is not set in stone but in the eyes of people. Morality says you shouldn't kick the cat, law says dont kick the cat. The law is set to protect the cat and you would be breaking the law just by intent, if you were in the presence of a officer of the law you could be stopped before you had acted and that should be the clue to suggest you should not do it, not just ought not to.
> Society will look down on you if you kick
> that cat and you shall suffer the eyes of those who know you kicked
> the cat.
>
> The majority says its wrong, therefore it is wrong. Does this mean
> back when blacks were in slavery that it was right?
Everything in it's own time
> Flock wrote:
> Well the cat looking like it should be kicked is a matter of
> opinion,
> of which you might be biased as maybe you want to kick the cat.
>
> Yes, that is perception. Why is it that my perception should be
> considered wrong and someone else's opposing perception considered
> right?
Because it goes against the majority verdict, opinion can never be set in stone, it is by it's nature undecided and so perception always comes down to majority verdict.
> Added
> to that, the cat probably doesn't want to be kicked and you're
> infringing the rights of the cats by kicking it as well as
>
> As a primitive animal it cannot express its rights. Therefore, how
> should we know that we are 'infringing' them?
All rights are percieved, just because you say you dont want to be kicked doesn't mean you dont want to be kicked, all expression is open to interpretation and as the law can't govern for interpretation it protects the base rights of the cat not to be kicked unless it expresses willingness to be kicked.
> breaking
> the cruelty to animals law.
>
> What is the relationship between morality and law? The law states
> that it 'is' illegal to do something, it does not follow that we
> therefore 'ought' not to do it. For instance if the law was that we
> had to have compulsory euthanasia at 65, it would not follow that it
> was right.
No it wouldn't but it would follow that that is acceptable even though it mat not be right, law is created by morality but law overrides morality as morality is not set in stone but in the eyes of people. Morality says you shouldn't kick the cat, law says dont kick the cat. The law is set to protect the cat and you would be breaking the law just by intent, if you were in the presence of a officer of the law you could be stopped before you had acted and that should be the clue to suggest you should not do it, not just ought not to.
> Society will look down on you if you kick
> that cat and you shall suffer the eyes of those who know you kicked
> the cat.
>
> The majority says its wrong, therefore it is wrong. Does this mean
> back when blacks were in slavery that it was right?
Everything in it's own time
This is a rip off of my "why can't I go around killing everyone?" thread.
"Because it's wrong!"
"Why?"
"Because... because it's wrong!"
"Because it's wrong!"
"Why?"
"Because... because it's wrong!"
Regards the law, I refer back to earlier:
"What is the relationship between morality and law? The law states that it 'is' illegal to do something, it does not follow that we therefore 'ought' not to do it. For instance if the law was that we had to have compulsory euthanasia at 65, it would not follow that it was right."
And we shall assume that there is no-one around to see me kick it, and therefore no evidence for prosecution and it will not cause distress to anyone who witnesses it.
"What is the relationship between morality and law? The law states that it 'is' illegal to do something, it does not follow that we therefore 'ought' not to do it. For instance if the law was that we had to have compulsory euthanasia at 65, it would not follow that it was right."
And we shall assume that there is no-one around to see me kick it, and therefore no evidence for prosecution and it will not cause distress to anyone who witnesses it.
No. Cats pwn.
The only thing that matters here is not if the cat cares, not if you care about the cat - it's about if you care what society thinks of you.
Even if you like doing it, and if no-one saw you do it ... the only way you'll feel bad is if you know and care that society will not be happy with you.
Even if you like doing it, and if no-one saw you do it ... the only way you'll feel bad is if you know and care that society will not be happy with you.
Page: