I don't think the fact that we are apparently eradicating many species is justification enough for me to believe that eradicating another species intentionally is the right decision.
That really depends on what someone's moral code is. If someone's moral code says not to kill innocent people, and then they do that, then they're breaking their own moral code.
If someone doesn't care about killing innocents, I don't believe that there is anything absolutely wrong with that.
Do you know what the word sociopath means? By definition, a sociopath is someone who doesn't care about other people.
I think you have a point, but I suppose I was talking about the (perhaps incorrect) idea that all sociopaths love torturing and hurting other people. I've seen some people that say this is true. If that is what someone believes (even if that definition is incorrect), then I believe that not caring if humans go extinct wouldn't necessarily make you a sociopath.
I didn't know that being a sociopath changed you from being a member of one species to being a member of another (unidentified) species. I also didn't know that not caring if humanity as a whole died off automatically means that you're a sociopath. There could be many reasons for feeling this way, and not all of them make someone a sociopath.
I disagree. I think the burden of proof is on anyone who states something as a fact. If you state that god doesn't exist (rather than just saying that you don't believe that he does), then I'll ask you for some evidence. I would do the same thing to someone that stated that god does exist as a fact.
Stating something as a fact, to me, implies that you have some evidence to back that up. Your statement ("Very rarely do you come across a well though out response where the person is both informative and a total asshole.") seems very hard to prove or disprove, but you still stated it as a fact. That is why I asked for evidence.
To ask me for evidence of something I say doesn't exist
You said: "Very rarely do you come across a well though out response where the person is both informative and a total asshole."
I asked you to prove: "Very rarely do you come across a well though out response where the person is both informative and a total asshole."
I'm just asking you to back that up with evidence.
The way I see it, there's a single thing you should care about when we're talking about the eradication of an entire species: how will it affect humans?
Well, I don't agree with the way you see it. It sounds like you think that humans are more important than other species. Well, I think that's fine, but I don't much care about them.
Just because humans can do the manipulation on a greater scale that means we should stop?
People will do whatever they have the power to do. I said nothing of what humans "should" (factually) do. I only stated what I believe they should do. I don't think we should eradicate them, but that won't amount to much.
You stated something as a fact. This made me curious whether or not you could prove it as such. Of course, I didn't believe that you could, but I stilled asked. Next time, I think you should state it as a belief/opinion.
Well, yes, the entire point of the human intelligence is that we survived by mastering our environment. I suppose you would also protest lions eating deer?
It sounded to me like he was talking about humans that believe that they are factually more valuable than every other species and everything else is worthless (as if some god created everything and deemed as more important).
Slashdot Mirror
Not everyone has that same line of thinking. Although, perhaps most people do.
pedantic
I don't think they're minor details, though. If they don't want me replying to them, then perhaps they shouldn't post.
I don't think the fact that we are apparently eradicating many species is justification enough for me to believe that eradicating another species intentionally is the right decision.
That comment is highly offensive. You've taken away all of my happiness, you thief!
That really depends on what someone's moral code is. If someone's moral code says not to kill innocent people, and then they do that, then they're breaking their own moral code.
If someone doesn't care about killing innocents, I don't believe that there is anything absolutely wrong with that.
Do you know what the word sociopath means? By definition, a sociopath is someone who doesn't care about other people.
I think you have a point, but I suppose I was talking about the (perhaps incorrect) idea that all sociopaths love torturing and hurting other people. I've seen some people that say this is true. If that is what someone believes (even if that definition is incorrect), then I believe that not caring if humans go extinct wouldn't necessarily make you a sociopath.
Which, from what I see, would be the wrong answer.
I didn't know that being a sociopath changed you from being a member of one species to being a member of another (unidentified) species.
I also didn't know that not caring if humanity as a whole died off automatically means that you're a sociopath. There could be many reasons for feeling this way, and not all of them make someone a sociopath.
Well, we are. To us.
To who? I hope you're not talking about every human in existence. I'm sure there are some that hate humanity. Others might not care if it dies off.
I disagree. I think the burden of proof is on anyone who states something as a fact. If you state that god doesn't exist (rather than just saying that you don't believe that he does), then I'll ask you for some evidence. I would do the same thing to someone that stated that god does exist as a fact.
Stating something as a fact, to me, implies that you have some evidence to back that up. Your statement ("Very rarely do you come across a well though out response where the person is both informative and a total asshole.") seems very hard to prove or disprove, but you still stated it as a fact. That is why I asked for evidence.
To ask me for evidence of something I say doesn't exist
You said: "Very rarely do you come across a well though out response where the person is both informative and a total asshole."
I asked you to prove: "Very rarely do you come across a well though out response where the person is both informative and a total asshole."
I'm just asking you to back that up with evidence.
Except that you don't kill every mosquito in existence. So, no, there are plenty of them that aren't being killed by you.
Besides, humans die all the same. If they were painlessly removed from existence, wouldn't that be kinder?
Children!? No! That's so much worse than the same number of adults dying!
To me, that is a few humans. There are billions and billions of humans on this Earth. Even a million would be a few to me.
Likewise, I'd be willing to sacrifice the entire human population if it gave me a lifetime of entertainment.
The one that keeps killing HUMANS?
Why is the word "humans" in all capital letters as if that is something I should care about?
Nature wants to survive
As far as I know, nature doesn't and can't want anything.
The way I see it, there's a single thing you should care about when we're talking about the eradication of an entire species: how will it affect humans?
Well, I don't agree with the way you see it. It sounds like you think that humans are more important than other species. Well, I think that's fine, but I don't much care about them.
Just because humans can do the manipulation on a greater scale that means we should stop?
People will do whatever they have the power to do. I said nothing of what humans "should" (factually) do. I only stated what I believe they should do. I don't think we should eradicate them, but that won't amount to much.
You stated something as a fact. This made me curious whether or not you could prove it as such. Of course, I didn't believe that you could, but I stilled asked. Next time, I think you should state it as a belief/opinion.
Yeah. I have noticed quite a few people seem to like to use the "if you were in situation X, you'd feel differently" argument.
Well, yes, the entire point of the human intelligence is that we survived by mastering our environment. I suppose you would also protest lions eating deer?
It sounded to me like he was talking about humans that believe that they are factually more valuable than every other species and everything else is worthless (as if some god created everything and deemed as more important).
Why couldn't somebody live a happy life with the constant notion that their own existence diminishes -- and even damages the world around them?
Good question. I was wondering that myself.
There's no paradox there. You can enjoy life but think that nature would be better off without humans. Where is the paradox?
You can also hate everyone else other than yourself. I see no paradox in either way of thinking.
Here is my evidence then, I cannot find a suitable post where the person was both informative and a complete asshole.
I wouldn't call that evidence. The fact that you can't find it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
Think of the children!
I don't think a few humans dying warrants the eradication of an entire species. And I care more about bugs/animals that I can actually see.
Why can't someone enjoy living but also believe that nature would also get along much better without us?