For hardcore conservatives 2

[moorobot]

[ QUOTE ]

As to ethical considerations, I presume you would agree that much of what is considered ethical derives from Judeo-Christian values. You may choose to ignore some or all of these values of course, but society makes determinations based on ethical values and although in the west homosexuality has become mainstream there are many who still find it objectionable for various reasons, not just because they are bible thumpers.

[/ QUOTE ] For some people this is true, but you have to remember judeo-christian values are themselves pre-dated and largely derived from greek and roman moral thinkers, first off all, and second of all, there are people like my self who try to use inductive logic to decide what ethical precepts follow from premises that are very widely shared (and or/"provable" and/or what principles best live up to those widely shared premises (such as "people matter, and matter equally" or "people's interests matter, and matter equally")

[ QUOTE ]
Of course if you are a homosexual who abstains from sex or are in a monogamous relationship there will be no difference in life expectancy or STD rates. However, the type of sex engaged in among male homosexuals(rimming and anal sex) is much more prevalent in their community and has resulted in lower life expectancy and higher rates of STD transmission. So to place a young child in that environment will, if such exposure increases the likelihood of they themselves engaging in homosexual activity(we don't know for sure, do we) necessarily increase the chance of ill effects on health and life expectancy. You ask 'when did it become acceptable for other people to decide what an individual should do with their own health?' I agree with you it's nobody's business unless we are talking about placing a child in an environment in which it is possible their health will ultimately be adversely affected.

[/ QUOTE ] ethical considerations are paramount in all cases: all-non self-serving politics proceeds under the guidance of ideals. As Rawls put it "if the so-called private sphere is a place that is said to be outside the realm of justice, than there is no such thing as a private sphere". However, I think you are going too far here, even if you are right that the child has a slight chance of being at a bigger risk from homosexual parents. Surely a child of smokers is at a bigger risk of being harmed by that situation than the child of homosexuals, and they same might be said of children whose parents who are stupid but loving and caring, or parents who love and care but work a bazillion hours a week so they are never around andor very tired when he/she is. It would seem to follow from your argument that we should not allow homosexuals to have children that we should also prevent smokers and people who are not highly intelligent to not have children as well. I'm not saying that is wrong necessarily, it may be the case that a well-ordered and just state (not the United States) should decide who each child is raised by to some degree.

However, I just want you to know that consistency demands that if you don't allow homosexuals to have children because of this argument you also do not allow many other groups to have them either: taking you to your logical conclusion: showing you the consequences of your argument.

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
I disagree with this statement. You know that meat can only be obtained by likking animals. You are giving money to people for giving you meat. It doesn't matter that they kill the animals before you agree to pay them for it, because they expect you (or someone) to pay them for it. The level of demand sets the level of supply, if killing animals is wrong then eating animals and financiallly supporting people for killing animals is also wrong.
This isn't like buying a watch froma murderer- its like buying a watch from a guy who could ONLY have gotten the watch by murder, and WOULD ONLY have commited that murder and taken the watch if he expected someone to buy it.

[/ QUOTE ]

1) Not all meat requires that an animal be killed--what about an animal that was killed by another animal, or one that died naturally--would eating it be wrong?

2) What if I buy meat and don't eat it--is that also wrong? Suppose I'm a vegetarian buying meat for a non-vegetarian family member. Or suppose I'm buying meat to donate to a food drive--are these things wrong because I somehow implicitly support the killing of animals?

3) So I can't financially support animal killers either? At all, or only by buying meat? Is it morally acceptable to loan someone omey if I know they intend to use the $$ to go hunting? What if they are hungry and want a sandwich? Why is my support here any different than when I buy the meat to eat myself? It can't solely be that, were I eating the meat, and stopped, that less animals would be killed. Do you think me, just me alone, has the power to really alter how many animals are killed by just not eating meat? (This isn't meant as a critique of protest/radicalism/etc., but rather against the idea that I am responsible for the deaths of animals equal to how much meat I eat)

4) I don't understand the example of the murderer with the watch. If I say to some guy, 'yeah, I would buy a watch for $50', and I know that he only gets watches from murdering people, have I done something wrong? Maybe. I may be 'supporting' his actions, at some level. At what level is somewhat difficult to say, but it ought to be quite clear that it is a VERY different level from actually murdering the person, or directly putting out a hit on someone.

[kickabuck]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

As to ethical considerations, I presume you would agree that much of what is considered ethical derives from Judeo-Christian values. You may choose to ignore some or all of these values of course, but society makes determinations based on ethical values and although in the west homosexuality has become mainstream there are many who still find it objectionable for various reasons, not just because they are bible thumpers.

[/ QUOTE ] For some people this is true, but you have to remember judeo-christian values are themselves pre-dated and largely derived from greek and roman moral thinkers, first off all, and second of all, there are people like my self who try to use inductive logic to decide what ethical precepts follow from premises that are very widely shared (and or/"provable" and/or what principles best live up to those widely shared premises (such as "people matter, and matter equally" or "people's interests matter, and matter equally")

[ QUOTE ]
Of course if you are a homosexual who abstains from sex or are in a monogamous relationship there will be no difference in life expectancy or STD rates. However, the type of sex engaged in among male homosexuals(rimming and anal sex) is much more prevalent in their community and has resulted in lower life expectancy and higher rates of STD transmission. So to place a young child in that environment will, if such exposure increases the likelihood of they themselves engaging in homosexual activity(we don't know for sure, do we) necessarily increase the chance of ill effects on health and life expectancy. You ask 'when did it become acceptable for other people to decide what an individual should do with their own health?' I agree with you it's nobody's business unless we are talking about placing a child in an environment in which it is possible their health will ultimately be adversely affected.

[/ QUOTE ] ethical considerations are paramount in all cases: all-non self-serving politics proceeds under the guidance of ideals. As Rawls put it "if the so-called private sphere is a place that is said to be outside the realm of justice, than there is no such thing as a private sphere". However, I think you are going too far here, even if you are right that the child has a slight chance of being at a bigger risk from homosexual parents. Surely a child of smokers is at a bigger risk of being harmed by that situation than the child of homosexuals, and they same might be said of children whose parents who are stupid but loving and caring, or parents who love and care but work a bazillion hours a week so they are never around andor very tired when he/she is. It would seem to follow from your argument that we should not allow homosexuals to have children that we should also prevent smokers and people who are not highly intelligent to not have children as well. I'm not saying that is wrong necessarily, it may be the case that a well-ordered and just state (not the United States) should decide who each child is raised by to some degree.

However, I just want you to know that consistency demands that if you don't allow homosexuals to have children because of this argument you also do not allow many other groups to have them either: taking you to your logical conclusion: showing you the consequences of your argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I appreciate you taking me to my logical conclusion: showing me the consequences of my argument(I say about 2/3rds in jest [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]). Remember it is in fact the state that regulates placement of these children, homosexuals cannot procreate so they must be given children to raise. I do not know the regulations regarding home placement of adopted or foster kids but I would not at all be surprised if smokers are not allowed nor those folks possessing dull normal IQ's or less. In any event, my objections are not entirely dependent on health issues, although that is an important concern.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
1) Not all meat requires that an animal be killed--what about an animal that was killed by another animal, or one that died naturally--would eating it be wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

No- i would not equate either of these situations with either killing or hiring someone to kill an animal. Of course if you purchase meat in the way that most people do (in industrialized countries) the chances of this being the case is close to 0% for each individual purchase.

[ QUOTE ]

3) So I can't financially support animal killers either? At all, or only by buying meat?

[/ QUOTE ]

When you buy meat you are reinforcing a specific behavoir- if you find that behavior morally "wrong" then in my view you are as culpable as the person performing the action.

[ QUOTE ]
What if I buy meat and don't eat it--is that also wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely.

[ QUOTE ]
Suppose I'm a vegetarian buying meat for a non-vegetarian family member. Or suppose I'm buying meat to donate to a food drive--are these things wrong because I somehow implicitly support the killing of animals?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

[ QUOTE ]
Is it morally acceptable to loan someone omey if I know they intend to use the $$ to go hunting?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would it be? Would it be morally accetable to loan someone money to buy a gun that they intended to kill another Human with?

[ QUOTE ]
but it ought to be quite clear that it is a VERY different level from actually murdering the person, or directly putting out a hit on someone.


[/ QUOTE ]

Why is it different that putting a hit out on someone? If the person whom he kills for a watch would not have been killed its exactly the same. You have offered a man 50$ to kill someone, just because you don't know who the victim is doesn't alter your culpability.

All these arguments are predicated upon the moral claim that killing animals is wrong.

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
Why is it different that putting a hit out on someone? If the person whom he kills for a watch would not have been killed its exactly the same. You have offered a man 50$ to kill someone, just because you don't know who the victim is doesn't alter your culpability.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I haven't; I have offered $50 for a watch. The fact that he gets these watches solely by killing isn't really my fault.
In any case there seems to be a difference between a situation where I say "i need a watch, go kill someone and i'll give you $50" and "if you happened to get a watch, i might take it off your hands for $50". The fact that a watch is worth $50 to me is in no way related to the fact that the murderer uses immoral means to attain the watch. Even if we stipulate that he only kills to get the watches (and hence without the demand for watches he would kill nobody), the fact that there would still be watches for sale regardless of whether I say anything to him, or buy a watch, means that this is a far different case than hiring him as a hitman.

[ QUOTE ]
All these arguments are predicated upon the moral claim that killing animals is wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

But of course. If one rejects this, the argument isn't even worth having. As it turns out, I do think that killing animals is wrong in many (but not all) scenarios. However, I don't think that this fact is enough to prove either of two main vegetarian claims: that animals have rights, or that eating meat is immoral.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
Even if we stipulate that he only kills to get the watches (and hence without the demand for watches he would kill nobody), the fact that there would still be watches for sale regardless of whether I say anything to him, or buy a watch, means that this is a far different case than hiring him as a hitman.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is it different?

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
Why is it different?

[/ QUOTE ]

How is it not different? In one case you have a clear and concise causal chain linking you to a person's death. I'm not sure that this makes you as culpable as the murderer (circumstances matter a lot, I would imagine in some cases you are less culpable, some you are the same or more), but the fact that you worked out a contract, employing someone to kill another human being, makes you cuplable.
How is this not different from the case in which you are a person who happens to occasionally buy a watch from a man who gets them through murder? Even if we agreed that both actions are wrong (certainly a reasonable stance), they are clearly not wrong to the same degree.