Сюда стучат - animal crush films- фильмы животного сокрушить
[Recent Entries][Archive][Friends][User Info]
12:48 pm [uk1000]
[Link] |
animal crush films- фильмы животного сокрушить
|
|
|
From: | uk1000 |
Date: | October 14th, 2011 - 01:33 am |
---|
| | Re: crush | (Link) |
|
On that basis...should anything be banned?
If left to an individuals personal judgement, then anything goes.
There would be no crime...as everything is legal. Except that those among us who wield most muscle/power would soon enough impose a 'law' on us.
We have lived through that stage of human development. These days we try to have a consensus as to what is acceptable behaviour. These ideas become law.
The law prevents me from attacking my neighbour with a hammer (and likewise him attacking me). Violent assaults are 'banned'. This is a good thing for everyone obviously. So we must agree that there should be laws and 'bans' for some things.
| From: | ded_mitya |
Date: | October 14th, 2011 - 02:39 am |
---|
| | Re: crush | (Link) |
|
> If left to an individuals personal judgement, then anything goes.
That depends on an individual.
> There would be no crime...as everything is legal. Except that > those among us who wield most muscle/power would soon enough > impose a 'law' on us.
That's a popular superstition. Why don't you (personally you) don't steal? Because of fear of being caught, because of fictional man lining in the sky, or because your personal cumulative life experience rejects the idea?
> The law prevents me from attacking my neighbour with a hammer <...>
So, how watching some image is like violently attacking anybody? You are mixing violent and victimless crimes.
From: | uk1000 |
Date: | October 14th, 2011 - 01:42 pm |
---|
| | Re: crush | (Link) |
|
Not victimless. The victims are clearly the animals in this situation.
You seem to believe that freedom of speech is more important than that. I disagree.
Your argument suggests that we should be allowed to swap pics and links on anything (child abuse/rape/snuff) because the right of the individual overrides the promotion of this material.
My points about stealing or violent crime are examples of what can happen in a society with no rules. You are ignoring the victims in this case. You care more for individual freedoms than you do for the victims right not to be abused.
| From: | tiphareth |
Date: | October 14th, 2011 - 03:31 pm |
---|
| | Re: crush | (Link) |
|
The "rights" of animals are by several orders of magnitude less important than freedom of speech. Also, it's questionable if animals have any rights at all. For instance, nobody would object to killing cockroaches or bacilli, and there is no legal or philosophical difference between cats (which I love, personally) and cockroaches, which most people find disgusting. The difference between bacillae, cockroaches and cats is a matter of personal taste, and to ascribe some basic rights to bacteria would be ridiculous.
All the best Misha
| From: | ded_mitya |
Date: | October 14th, 2011 - 03:47 pm |
---|
| | Re: crush | (Link) |
|
-- I didn't kill this apple to eat it. -- Yes, you are eating this apple ALIVE!
| From: | ded_mitya |
Date: | October 14th, 2011 - 03:43 pm |
---|
| | Re: crush | (Link) |
|
> Not victimless. The victims are clearly the animals in this situation.
Again, you either fail to see obvious things or pretend to fail to se them.
Animals of this situation are victims of one who hurt them, not some dude who sees the picture of them being hurt. Banning pictures is a practice that is dumb iin many ways. Most importantly:
1. it is fighting effect rather than the cause. 2. it violates personal freedom of individual without any redeeming value whatsoever, its whole point is creating the illusion of triumph of morale and justifying existence (and paychecks) of people that are incapable of doing anything useful. 3. it creates a precedent of substituting logic with a slogan and rational thought with kneejerk reaction. 4. It is completely withoit logic: you can freely watch any Mel Gibson's movies where entire nations are being wiped out or some guy is being nailed to a piece of wood, but you cannot see a dog die. Well, you will probably claim that the difference is that in the latter case the dog dies for real. If that's it is all about, go after the root of difference, that is whoever killed the dog.
| From: | tiphareth |
Date: | October 14th, 2011 - 08:43 am |
---|
| | Re: crush | (Link) |
|
| From: | ded_mitya |
Date: | October 14th, 2011 - 03:44 pm |
---|
| | Re: crush | (Link) |
|
"If you trump on my expression of the First Amendment, you'll face my expression of the Second Amendment" |
|