Fur

[Hacky]

Exactly why fur coats don't harm anything, animals don't have abortions, so whats the big deal?

Most of them are faux like I said as well...

So next time you see some prissy snob wearing one, they probably got it off eBay.

I don't believe that this post of yours is in complete sentences, please attempt it again.

[kirb]

I don't believe that this post of yours is in complete sentences, please attempt it again.

qft.

whenever i read his post i was tempted to reply asking who upgraded that clown.

[Anthony G]

I own a fur coat. I def. look like a stud with it on too. It's not like a complete fur coat just around the hood. It's so soft and cuddly and warm. I wish I could have killed the animal myself though because they messed it up a little bit when they put it on there.

[Tangent]

I own a fur coat. I def. look like a stud with it on too. It's not like a complete fur coat just around the hood. It's so soft and cuddly and warm. I wish I could have killed the animal myself though because they messed it up a little bit when they put it on there.

I was listening to Walk the Dinosaur, and it got to the 'everybody kill the dinosaur' part as I read that.

+rep4u

As for fur coats, I don't really care one way or another. You wanna wear fur? Go right ahead. Think fur is murder? Good for you. But still, I resume my side of neutralness. It's not like they're wearing half dead blood soaked minks around thier necks or anything, mirite? And besides, what do you think cavemen did? Fur is warm, outside is cold. I had a faux-fur coat one time (Just around the top part), and if the real thing feels anything like it (Although I doubt it because artificial stuff kicks *** in general), then ooooooh yeah. But still, fur is kind of douchey if it's a full coat. Everytime I hear about fur coats, I think of a plump old rich woman with opera glasses.

Also, I thought this thread was about furries.

[Tingebing]

THREAD HIJACK.

This thread is now about Furbies...

I had one back in the days, killed it with a baseball bat...

I was bored =§

[MaudKip]

I understand what you are saying, but I get a feeling that you didn't fully think this thread out when you wrote it.
What you wrote has a hint of being quickly typed up without a second reading, and this is fine for most of the forums
however in serious discussion if you want to be better received, write a more thought out set of paragraphs instead of
One quick jumbled idea. That being said, you can probably discern that I am highly skeptical of the serious discussion
board. Most of the stuff posted in here is n00bs trying to prove themselves, and don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with that, but most of it is unstructured and petty.

Take for instance all the religious threads that are in this board. For some reason n00bz think that if they prove that
they know something about religion, then they will seem deeper and are more likely to be accepted.
Now seeing as I am an extremely bitter person when it comes to people 'trying' to appear smart or deep, I tend to rant about this sort of thing.

In short, I do not like the serious discussion board and that is why I do not frequent it.
And SamohtHeartsPikachu, please do not take this as me attacking you, because I am not.
This is just where I chose to rant. Oh and BlueOceanFag, Hi.

THREAD HIJACK.

This thread is now about Furbies...

I had one back in the days, killed it with a baseball bat...

I was bored =§

INFRACTIPWNED....

[Rust and Wind]

I don't want to be cruel but if you wear fur your kinda a murderer

Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder).

"I don't want to be cruel, but if you wear fur, you've kinda supported animal skinning, which can only be deemed 'animal abuse' for murder involves killing humans."

But what I don't get, personally, is why two atheists have a moral problem with killing lower species? Maybe I misunderstood something.

[Dahari]

But what I don't get, personally, is why two atheists have a moral problem with killing lower species? Maybe I misunderstood something.

So atheist should have no morals because they don't believe in god? Just because we dont have a book, commandments, or a "higher being" to tell us right from wrong, you think we have no morals? I find that insulting really.

[Rust and Wind]

So atheist should have no morals because they don't believe in god? Just because we dont have a book, commandments, or a "higher being" to tell us right from wrong, you think we have no morals?

Who said that?

I know atheists have morals, whether objective or not. What I'm wondering is how two homo sapiens can justify their sense of "wrongness" with their fellow homo sapiens who indulge in the pleasures of lesser creatures' fur? Do we need to change the legislative definition of murder? Or do the two homo sapiens need to let their fellow homo sapiens take advantage of their wealth and vices without this "moral" complaint? Ultimately, all these "rich snobs" have done is take the atoms off one creature and place them on their own body; what's wrong with that? Are we hurting the evolution of that species? Are we hurting our own?

[Dahari]

Are we hurting the evolution of that species?

#1 yes, kill enough for a useless reason, for something that another way would work just as well, and it would hurt their evolution.

#2 you said "why would atheists have a problem...morals...ECT." If it wasn't about atheism then why include it?

[Rust and Wind]

#1 yes, kill enough for a useless reason, for something that another way would work just as well, and it would hurt their evolution.

#2 you said "why would atheists have a problem...morals...ECT." If it wasn't about atheism then why include it?

#1 - even if it hurts their evolution, how is that morally wrong? And if it is morally wrong, what obligation do your fellow homo sapiens have for following that particular moral code, even if the majority believes in it? Besides, killing to the point of necessity is not directly related to the morality of killing. Naturalism precludes such things as souls or metaphysical concepts; so I'm asking what's morally wrong with killing these creatures for their fur. Not what's pragmatically wrong.

#2 - I don't fully grasp your meaning. The idea is that atheists, in general, will ascribe to the theory of evolution as the means of our current state. Obviously some religious person would formulate the "rightness" or "wrongness" of animal skinning based on their particular, objective (what they believe to be objective) moral code (i.e. what their book says, implies, etc.). What I'm wondering is where atheists, who by necessity have no such ultimate code, get the idea that what they perceive "evil" is ultimately evil with animal killing. These two atheists seemed to be saying that fellow humans who wear the furs of animals, particularly expensive furs, are somehow committing and act of evil. No argument there; just tell me why these other humans are supposed to either feel the same or act differently for moral reasons. I could see the atheist calling these people "snobs" or "wasteful" or something, but these two atheists have equated animal skinning to murder.

[kirb]

in b4 dahari







i have a set of $900 snakeskin shoes (long story), does that make me a bad person? :0

[Dahari]

#1 - even if it hurts their evolution, how is that morally wrong? And if it is morally wrong, what obligation do your fellow homo sapiens have for following that particular moral code, even if the majority believes in it? Besides, killing to the point of necessity is not directly related to the morality of killing. Naturalism precludes such things as souls or metaphysical concepts; so I'm asking what's morally wrong with killing these creatures for their fur. Not what's pragmatically wrong.

#2 - I don't fully grasp your meaning. The idea is that atheists, in general, will ascribe to the theory of evolution as the means of our current state. Obviously some religious person would formulate the "rightness" or "wrongness" of animal skinning based on their particular, objective (what they believe to be objective) moral code (i.e. what their book says, implies, etc.). What I'm wondering is where atheists, who by necessity have no such ultimate code, get the idea that what they perceive "evil" is ultimately evil with animal killing. These two atheists seemed to be saying that fellow humans who wear the furs of animals, particularly expensive furs, are somehow committing and act of evil. No argument there; just tell me why these other humans are supposed to either feel the same or act differently for moral reasons. I could see the atheist calling these people "snobs" or "wasteful" or something, but these two atheists have equated animal skinning to murder.

Both of these can be answered by the way someone is brought up and taught. Some people might be brought up being told that looking good or having money is more important than another animals life. Same way atheists might be brought up not believing in god, or someone who does believe in god. Some might have been taught that animal killing is murder or not. Its all from how we were taught when we were young. And I have learned that it is very hard to change ones mind about such things that were learned in early life. For example, I was taught that killing anything was murder, but I dont expect others to understand that because its not what they learned. Hope that answers your question.

All that from my iPod touch, not bad...

[Anthony G]

All that from my iPod touch, not bad...

I can't get signed in on my iPod touch. It just logs me out.

[Dahari]

in b4 daharii
i have a set of $900 snakeskin shoes long story), does that make me a bad person? :0

GD you!

And no it doesn't.

I can't get signed in on my iPod touch. It just logs me out.

I only had to log in once.

[Rust and Wind]

Some might have been taught that animal killing is murder or not.

So it's all subjective to the person.

Its all from how we were taught when we were young. And I have learned that it is very hard to change ones mind about such things that were learned in early life. For example, I was taught that killing anything was murder, but I dont expect others to understand that because its not what they learned.

So the other humans are under no moral obligation to change their practices.

If some people want to wear expensive furs, atheists, in particular, have no ultimate reason why they should criticize those people. "I don't agree with what they do," is one thing, but to say, "They are murderers" is an incongruous idea. The most these two atheists, or any atheists objecting to skinning, can say is the former. The latter is wholly subjective to the person. There's no ultimate right or wrong; just preference and maybe (not so much in this case) pragmatism.

Hopefully once these two realize the lack of validity in their judgments, they'll stop criticizing fellow homo sapiens whose subjective morals are different. It's not as if one system of morality is more "right" than the other; by your definition, a person raised with no morals is on par with the opposite sides of the argument. "It is right to me," "It is wrong to me," or "It is neither right nor wrong to me," are all valid assessments by this logic. Thus, "You're kinda like a murderer" holds no water.

[Dahari]

So it's all subjective to the person.So the other humans are under no moral obligation to change their practices.

If some people want to wear expensive furs, atheists, in particular, have no ultimate reason why they should criticize those people. "I don't agree with what they do," is one thing, but to say, "They are murderers" is an incongruous idea. The most these two atheists, or any atheists objecting to skinning, can say is the former. The latter is wholly subjective to the person. There's no ultimate right or wrong; just preference and maybe (not so much in this case) pragmatism.

Hopefully once these two realize the lack of validity in their judgments, they'll stop criticizing fellow homo sapiens whose subjective morals are different. It's not as if one system of morality is more "right" than the other; by your definition, a person raised with no morals is on par with the opposite sides of the argument. "It is right to me," "It is wrong to me," or "It is neither right nor wrong to me," are all valid assessments by this logic. Thus, "You're kinda like a murderer" holds no water.

Well said, but I phail to see the relavence of the word atheist in your explanation other than being used as a discriptive term. Is that it or does it have. A deeper meaning?

[Rust and Wind]

Well said, but I phail to see the relavence of the word atheist in your explanation other than being used as a discriptive term. Is that it or does it have. A deeper meaning?

What do you mean by descriptive term? Atheists, by necessity, have no ultimate, objective moral code; specifically evolutionist-atheists (is there another kind?). So these two atheists in question have no call to criticize their fellow homo sapiens for their indulgences when, as you've demonstrated, their moral sympathies are entirely subjective. Coming from an atheist, "You're kinda a murderer if you wear furs" is an illogical, incongruous judgment on fellow humans. Does that clarify?

[Dahari]

And who exactly has this "objective moral code"?

[Rust and Wind]

And who exactly has this "objective moral code"?

Just because we dont have a book, commandments, or a "higher being" to tell us right from wrong

As you've presumed, theists generally consider their "book, commandments, or higher being" to be the source of such. Regardless of the truth of their morals, their deity(ies) is generally the source of moral ultimacy and objectivity.

To answer your question directly: anyone with a supernatural or superhuman (super in its basic Latin sense) source(s) of morality.

If a Creator-God dictates that "Murder is evil," and if this Creator-God is real, then all humans are under a moral obligation. If there is no Creator-God, and thus no objective source of morality, then humans may dictate their own "morals," but as you've shown, no one is by necessity under anyone else's moral code. Without an ultimate source of moral dictation, atheists are under no moral obligation to anyone. Neither is the creation of moral obligation congruous. That's why I quoted the legislative definition of "murder" to the first poster; as you've shown, he can either go by that definition--a definition supposedly determined by society (which does not include killing animals)--or he can assert a preference contrasting that of the "rich snobs." But in the latter case, all he has is subjective "moral" preference; and thus, no grounds for proposing that something another homo sapiens does is "bad" as if it were objectively bad.

EDIT: Essentially, his "bad" holds no water because another person could consider the action "good" or even his protestation of skinning as "bad." Like you said--it's all preference. All subjective.