Why Condemn PETA? Hypocrites...
TYT--The Young Turks--is a very popular YouTube-based news network that has recently condemned PETA for a just statement in which they claim the dentist guilty of killing an innocent should be executed through a sort of death penalty.
Now, this condemnation is only present because it was the killing of an innocent Lion. But if it was the killing of an innocent baby I'm sure the response would have been entirely different. I contest to the amount of animosity they're expressing towards PETA because of such a statement as if this killer should be forgiven for his atrocious actions.
They say that people seem to care more about the killing of an animal rather than a human being as if this is somehow an abysmal position? Of course people care more because it is worse to kill an animal as apposed to human. Animals are innocent in their entirety- but humans, eventually or otherwise, will be guilty of some immoral action (esp. if you argue that humans are the only species that understands moral consequences of actions).
My point (which you obviously missed) was that they don't condemn any entity that suggests the death penalty towards an individual when a human has fallen victim to murder. When it's a human that is murdered by a human they say things such as: "I am not for the death penalty but I understand why so many people want to have him dead" but when there is a animal involved it's: "How dare someone suggest this man be killed for killing a lion. This is unacceptable and only incites violence [...]." The distinction between the amount of repudiation expressed is quite obvious. As for the ad hominem: homicide suggests killing an innocent person, this man is not innocent an innocent person, it follows that the act of killing him would not sufficiently render said act an actual homicide. Secondly, that part of your statement doesn't even represent my position- I'm not condemning anyone, I'm pointing out the unjust hypocrisy. My point (which you obviously missed) was that they don't condemn any entity that suggests the death penalty towards an individual when a human has fallen victim to murder. Your point is stupid because it is already an established form of punishment. Executing someone for killing an animal would be a punishment that has never been given out before. but when there is a animal involved it's: "How dare someone suggest this man be killed for killing a lion. This is unacceptable and only incites violence [...]." Actually, what they really said was more like: Calling him a coward is perfectly fine. He appeared to evade the law. We are all outraged. Why do you have to take it over the top? How ironic is it that you are advocating killing a human for killing an animal. And, when Bill Clinton advocated killing Timothy McVeigh, they had the same reaction: Hey, that's a contradiction. You are doing the exact thing you hate. So, no hypocrisy even with your BS reason. The distinction between the amount of repudiation expressed is quite obvious. If you don't listen to what they said. As for the ad hominem There was no ad hominem. I made a completely separate statement that did not attempt to discredit your argument at all. I can insult you as long as it isn't an attempt to weaken your argument. homicide suggests killing an innocent person Nope. this man is not innocent an innocent person That is irrelevant. You would like to kill innocent people, so my statement fits. it follows that the act of killing him would not sufficiently render said act an actual homicide. But, anyone who definitely wouldn't kill the guy is definitely not homicidal. Secondly, that part of your statement doesn't even represent my position I agree. It demonstrates your character as a lunatic. I'm not condemning anyone, I'm pointing out the unjust hypocrisy. You have condemned the dentist hunter and considered anyone who hasn't done the same as a hypocrite. Plus, unjust hypocrisy is not the same as acting differently in different situations. 1
point
You should really educate yourself on a group before calling them out so that you don't look hilariously uninformed. Likewise you really should educate yourself on understanding contextualization. I did not say they "support" the death penalty, my point is the amount of animosity they have towards PETA for suggesting the death penalty for the lion killer was unwarranted given that if was in fact a human, their response would have been entirely different- that is not to say their response would've been supporting, rather understanding, yet still against it. Looks like you made the same mistake as the Cart fellow: presuming my position even when it is coherently expressed in the description. What I find odd is that both of you presumed this despite me not having said anything like "support"...? 1
point
Likewise you really should educate yourself on understanding contextualization. I did not say they "support" the death penalty, my point is the amount of animosity they have towards PETA for suggesting the death penalty for the lion killer was unwarranted given that if was in fact a human, their response would have been entirely different- that is not to say their response would've been supporting, rather understanding, yet still against it. This is pure unsubstantiated supposition that seems pretty clearly based on a lack of knowledge of the people you are referring to. You have provided no reason to believe that their stance would be different, and evidence has been presented to you that would indicate that their stance would be consistent. 1
point
SO have humans, do we deserve to die? I think recreational hunting should be illegal. Lions hunt because they need food, not for the fun of it. So do most humans. Anyone that wants to hurt any other being that is conscious and has emotions is deranged. They don't deserve to die, but they should NOT be allowed to hurt them. I think they should be severely fine and lose their hunting license, as well as go to jail for a while. Getting a little angry because you are getting demolished? Angry because you are a moron, that's all. You: I don't think that a transgender person can really claim they are actually a man until they physically turn into a man, sure. You: I never said anything like this you stupid fuck. What are you even talking about? We are discussing whether to call her a he or a she. Gender is different than sex you complete idiot. You saying that a male transgender cannot consider themselves the opposite gender if they don't have their genitalia removed is tantamount to saying that aren't transgenders. Lol I am surprised you cannot see this? Well... not too surprised. They consider themselves the opposite SEX you stupid idiot. Otherwise your entire argument completely dies. You know you are wrong, but you just will not admit it. Anyway, I will abstain from debating with you any further. You know you are wrong, otherwise you wouldn't create a horribly crafted strawman. Stop being disrespectful to people, and don't kill anyone. |