434 réponses à ce sujet

[Firesteel]

AlexXIV wrote...

Luc0s wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Honor killings serve a purpose. Murder is for me if you kill your uncle because you want to inherit his money, for example.

You're wrong. In both cases the murder serves a purpose.


In a honor killing, the murder serves a purpose. The purpose is regaining honor.

Killing my uncle for money serves a purpose. The purpose is getting money.

AlexXIV wrote...

If there is war, or someone is a criminal or you are in a blood feud it is something different because if people actually find an excuse why killing is justified then they already admit that the murder as such would not be justified without the additional justification.

There is always an excuse. Every single criminal, serial-killer and mass-murderer always has an excuse. There is always a justification. However, not all justifications are always accepted.

What justification is or isn't accepted depends on the society you live in. It's different in each society. It's subjective.

There may always be an excuse, but not always a valid excuse. If you kill your father to inherit his money there is no more reason than you wanting something. It is greed. If you kill your father to inherit his money because he cheated you then there is some sort of justice in it. It's not all about greed. Whether people can find excuses is not the question. The question is what their reasons are. The question is not if murder is morally acceptable. The question is if it is murder, or, for example manslaughter/homicide. You probably think it is the same, most laws I know don't think so.

Murder, and by association assassination, is, by definition, against the law. Even though the person might completely deserve to get killed, in the killer's mind, they (the killer) broke the law. Vigilanites are criminals because they generally do not give people trials in courts of law. Legally, there is no justification for killing anyone without a trial. If people did not follow the laws about killing, there would be chaos and anarchy. Murder/assassination is dictated by society's laws.

Murder has varying degrees:
First degree is planned with the intent to kill.
Second degree is not planned murder with the intent to kill.

Voluntary Manslaughter: when a person is not entirely in control of themselves and kills someone intentionally (murders of passion)
Involuntary Manslaughter: when a person unintentionally kills another through criminal negligence (drunk driver killing someone)

[AlexXIV]

Luc0s wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

There may always be an excuse, but not always a valid excuse. If you kill your father to inherit his money there is no more reason than you wanting something. It is greed. If you kill your father to inherit his money because he cheated you then there is some sort of justice in it. It's not all about greed. Whether people can find excuses is not the question. The question is what their reasons are. The question is not if murder is morally acceptable. The question is if it is murder, or, for example manslaughter/homicide. You probably think it is the same, most laws I know don't think so.

Of course we have laws that prevent us from randomly killing each other and I totally understand why some reasons to kill someone are more acceptable than other reasons. However, not everyone shares the same ideas on this. That's why we have a universal law on this matter. It keeps things simple.


However, the very reason why we invented such laws is to create a set of universaly-enforced set of rules to keep order and prevent our society from falling into total anarchy and chaos. This also proves that morality is subjective. If morality was objective, we would not need those laws and rules.

If morality was objective, we would already have all those laws inprinted in our soul, spirit, mind, whatever you believe in. If objective morality existed we would all share the same moral values. However, we don't. We all have our own set of moral values, our own opinions, our own beliefs and our own ideals. That's why we need a law to keep us all in line.

Well wolves for example have it. Also animals who hatch their offspring. I mean why would they even do it, do they have a real reason? It is their instinct, imprinted in their very being because it is the basis of life. We are also pack animals if you want so. Our society has developed what was at some point mere survival instict. If murder was acceptable then there wouldn't be half-intelligent life. Because they would kill each other relentlessly. But we have something of a natural block to kill our own kind for no reason. Which doesn't work for everyone for some reason. Probably because we have the bad habit of lying to ourselves. The simple logic is that any society that would allow murder would terminate itself because in it your worst enemy would be the guy next to you.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 10 janvier 2012 - 11:48 .

[Firesteel]

Luc0s wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

I agree about the animals. I am not a vegatarian because I am too weak. But I know that what you do is right and what I do is wrong. Eating meat, that is.

Eating meat is not wrong. It's in our nature.

How we treat those animals, is wrong. How we mass-breed them only to place them into way too small cages for their entire (short) lifes, is wrong. How we systematically slaughter them, is wrong.

I agree with Luc0s, we are omnivores by nature and there is nothing inherently wrong with eating meat. The way the animals are raised, fed, and killed is wrong. There are still farms out there that are quite humane, but they are quite small and are few and far between.

[AlexXIV]

Luc0s wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

I agree about the animals. I am not a vegatarian because I am too weak. But I know that what you do is right and what I do is wrong. Eating meat, that is.

Eating meat is not wrong. It's in our nature.

How we treat those animals, is wrong. How we mass-breed them only to place them into way too small cages for their entire (short) lifes, is wrong. How we systematically slaughter them, is wrong.

It's wrong because we don't need to do it. It WAS our nature maybe. But we are not slaves to our nature anymore. At least not in this. If everyone stopped eating meat now, then in a few generations it would be the most normal thing to not eat meat. And the few who still do it would probably conidered brutes or psychopaths by the majority of people. The thing is that most people do it. That's why it is 'accepted'. I believe at some point our species will stop eating meat and looking back at us they will consider us barbaric for doing it. You're right about the slaughter of course, and how animals who serve us as food are treated. Thing is I know it. And I am sure many others who eat meat know it too. Excuses are just a sort of defensive reflex. I could give you many excuses for why I eat meat and justify it. But deep down inside I know it all boils down to me being too weak to do what I actually believe in. Which would be stop eating meat.

[Dean_the_Young]

We don't need to eat plants either.

Stop discriminating against plants.

[AlexXIV]

Luc0s wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Well wolves for example have it. Also animals who hatch their offspring. I mean why would they even do it, do they have a real reason? It is their instinct, imprinted in their very being because it is the basis of life. We are also pack animals if you want so. Our society has developed what was at some point mere survival instict. If murder was acceptable then there wouldn't be half-intelligent life. Because they would kill each other relentlessly. But we have something of a natural block to kill our own kind for no reason. Which doesn't work for everyone for some reason. Probably because we have the bad habit of lying to ourselves. The simple logic is that any society that would allow murder would terminate itself because in it your worst enemy would be the guy next to you.

We don't have a natural block that prevents to kill our own kind, we have a nautral block that prevents us from killing those that are important to our own survival.

But on everything else you said here, I agree. However, these "moral codes" that are inprinted in our genes, are still not objective, not truly. Though these "codes" are central to the survival of mammallian life on earth and present in each and every single pack-animal on earth, it's not truly objective. It's subjective to evolution. It's subjective to our species. It's subjective to how mammals evolved.

Not all animals share these same set of instincts and "moral codes". Most mammal species do have the same "moral codes" as us inprinted in their genes, but most insects, ambibians and other types of animals, don't.

Well I guess the question is then what do we consider objective and subjective. 'Every human being should think the same way' is objective enough for me. It's not subjective for me if it is in our very nature. Being a mammal and being sentient.

[AlexXIV]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

We don't need to eat plants either.

Stop discriminating against plants.

One step after the other. My sister has a plant and shouts at me everytime run into it (accidently) because it is a bit sickly and I am hurting it ...

[Ravenmyste]

what if you have both paragon and renegade filled to max and got both achievements in the same game without choosing {cant remember{ classification} that increases both paragon and renegade scores} till the last mission.. but you end up doing the paragon ending if you blow up the collector base up,

since i have it and my scores are maxed io would really like to see what happens i don't support Cerberus outright, but some issues i do agree with them just not how they are going about it

[AlexXIV]

Ravenmyste wrote...

what if you have both paragon and renegade filled to max and got both achievements in the same game without choosing {cant remember{ classification} that increases both paragon and renegade scores} till the last mission.. but you end up doing the paragon ending if you blow up the collector base up,

since i have it and my scores are maxed io would really like to see what happens i don't support Cerberus outright, but some issues i do agree with them just not how they are going about it

I don't think it is possivle. I tried it once and managed to fill one bar and the other to half. Unless you used some sort of cheat in which case you only have yourself to blame if the game recognizes you wrong.

[Ravenmyste]

Luc0s wrote...

Firesteel7 wrote...

I agree with Luc0s, we are omnivores by nature and there is nothing inherently wrong with eating meat. The way the animals are raised, fed, and killed is wrong. There are still farms out there that are quite humane, but they are quite small and are few and far between.

Luckily, by nature, humans only need a tiny fraction of meat to be healthy, just like our cousins, the chimps. Only 5% of our daily diet should be meat. However, in modern society, it's much more.

The fact that we don't need a lot of meat, makes it easy for us vegetarians to replace meat and still stay healthy. By eating and drinking soy products, nuts and forest-fruits, we can compensate everything our body misses from not eating meat.


I believe that humans aren't true omnivores, but oppertunistic omnivores. We can eat meat, but we don't need to eat meat. We eat meat, but we don't need it if we adjust our diet accordingly to a proper and healthy vegetarian diet.


But this is getting off-topic. I'm more than willing to open a topic about this subject in the off-topic section of the forum, if anyone feels the urge to debate vegetarianism with me.

like to point out most vegen are not entirely health due they are not getting all the vitamins that meat has that cant be gotten other then eating some meat.

[AlexXIV]

Ravenmyste wrote...

Luc0s wrote...

Firesteel7 wrote...

I agree with Luc0s, we are omnivores by nature and there is nothing inherently wrong with eating meat. The way the animals are raised, fed, and killed is wrong. There are still farms out there that are quite humane, but they are quite small and are few and far between.

Luckily, by nature, humans only need a tiny fraction of meat to be healthy, just like our cousins, the chimps. Only 5% of our daily diet should be meat. However, in modern society, it's much more.

The fact that we don't need a lot of meat, makes it easy for us vegetarians to replace meat and still stay healthy. By eating and drinking soy products, nuts and forest-fruits, we can compensate everything our body misses from not eating meat.


I believe that humans aren't true omnivores, but oppertunistic omnivores. We can eat meat, but we don't need to eat meat. We eat meat, but we don't need it if we adjust our diet accordingly to a proper and healthy vegetarian diet.


But this is getting off-topic. I'm more than willing to open a topic about this subject in the off-topic section of the forum, if anyone feels the urge to debate vegetarianism with me.

like to point out most vegen are not entirely health due they are not getting all the vitamins that meat has that cant be gotten other then eating some meat.

But as he said it would be enough to eat as little meat as necessary. Which is many times less than what the average person in our western culture eats. And I am sure our body will adapt eventually. Maybe not in lifetime, but in many genarations. But you can't find alot of people actually changing their life for this.

[Firesteel]

Ravenmyste wrote...

Luc0s wrote...

Firesteel7 wrote...

I agree with Luc0s, we are omnivores by nature and there is nothing inherently wrong with eating meat. The way the animals are raised, fed, and killed is wrong. There are still farms out there that are quite humane, but they are quite small and are few and far between.

Luckily, by nature, humans only need a tiny fraction of meat to be healthy, just like our cousins, the chimps. Only 5% of our daily diet should be meat. However, in modern society, it's much more.

The fact that we don't need a lot of meat, makes it easy for us vegetarians to replace meat and still stay healthy. By eating and drinking soy products, nuts and forest-fruits, we can compensate everything our body misses from not eating meat.


I believe that humans aren't true omnivores, but oppertunistic omnivores. We can eat meat, but we don't need to eat meat. We eat meat, but we don't need it if we adjust our diet accordingly to a proper and healthy vegetarian diet.


But this is getting off-topic. I'm more than willing to open a topic about this subject in the off-topic section of the forum, if anyone feels the urge to debate vegetarianism with me.

like to point out most vegen are not entirely health due they are not getting all the vitamins that meat has that cant be gotten other then eating some meat.

Well, the main reason that most non-carnivor wild animals don't eat tons of meat, is that meat requires a lot more energy to catch and kill than finding a plant and eating it. Being vegetarian is far more natural than being vegan. Humans need some of the fat and minerals in things like eggs to be completely healthy.

[Firesteel]

To get back on topic:

Paragons are about both the ends AND the means to that end.
Renegades are just about the ends and the means don't matter, as long as the end result is beneficial.

Cerberus is both literally and metaphorically a renegade organization.

Renegades do not necessarily like Cerberus. A lot of the arguments against Cerberus is their rather crappy track record from ME1 and the novels.

[Ravenmyste]

AlexXIV wrote...

Ravenmyste wrote...

what if you have both paragon and renegade filled to max and got both achievements in the same game without choosing {cant remember{ classification} that increases both paragon and renegade scores} till the last mission.. but you end up doing the paragon ending if you blow up the collector base up,

since i have it and my scores are maxed io would really like to see what happens i don't support Cerberus outright, but some issues i do agree with them just not how they are going about it

I don't think it is possivle. I tried it once and managed to fill one bar and the other to half. Unless you used some sort of cheat in which case you only have yourself to blame if the game recognizes you wrong.

nope no cheat there upgraded that gives you full bar on both side that can be don from picking upgraded like assassin and what not that will increase you pagon/renegade scores{ i played since me-me2 and after being me1 i  hit paragon  and after i rescued all crewmembers and blew up the collector base  i was given both due they added up the side missions that i did arival pushed that over  due it i took the renegade ending  and kiilled the doct but tried to warn the batarians

[Ravenmyste]

AlexXIV wrote...

Ravenmyste wrote...

Luc0s wrote...

Firesteel7 wrote...

I agree with Luc0s, we are omnivores by nature and there is nothing inherently wrong with eating meat. The way the animals are raised, fed, and killed is wrong. There are still farms out there that are quite humane, but they are quite small and are few and far between.

Luckily, by nature, humans only need a tiny fraction of meat to be healthy, just like our cousins, the chimps. Only 5% of our daily diet should be meat. However, in modern society, it's much more.

The fact that we don't need a lot of meat, makes it easy for us vegetarians to replace meat and still stay healthy. By eating and drinking soy products, nuts and forest-fruits, we can compensate everything our body misses from not eating meat.


I believe that humans aren't true omnivores, but oppertunistic omnivores. We can eat meat, but we don't need to eat meat. We eat meat, but we don't need it if we adjust our diet accordingly to a proper and healthy vegetarian diet.


But this is getting off-topic. I'm more than willing to open a topic about this subject in the off-topic section of the forum, if anyone feels the urge to debate vegetarianism with me.

like to point out most vegen are not entirely health due they are not getting all the vitamins that meat has that cant be gotten other then eating some meat.

But as he said it would be enough to eat as little meat as necessary. Which is many times less than what the average person in our western culture eats. And I am sure our body will adapt eventually. Maybe not in lifetime, but in many genarations. But you can't find alot of people actually changing their life for this.

true you are right but as it stand  those who dont meat at all are not healthy they may feel healthy but there bodies are missing important vitamin  my wife who is japanese  wont eat any type of meat which gets me worried sometimes if she gets sick. she gets alot sicker, alot longer then me.. and yes i am meat eater just not omg send that cow to the slaughter house and cook it just enough so i can hear it  moo as i bite into it person i tend to look for  leaniest 90% less fat can i can get and i trynot to eat to much meat{let be said that i am not a meat eater that doesnt worry about clogging up his arties with the badness that some meat has i tend to go light on my meat consumption..}

[AlexXIV]

Ravenmyste wrote...
true you are right but as it stand  those who dont meat at all are not healthy they may feel healthy but there bodies are missing important vitamin  my wife who is japanese  wont eat any type of meat which gets me worried sometimes if she gets sick. she gets alot sicker, alot longer then me.. and yes i am meat eater just not omg send that cow to the slaughter house and cook it just enough so i can hear it  moo as i bite into it person i tend to look for  leaniest 90% less fat can i can get and i trynot to eat to much meat{let be said that i am not a meat eater that doesnt worry about clogging up his arties with the badness that some meat has i tend to go light on my meat consumption..}

I probably eat alot less meat than others. Like once a week. And I am alot more healthy than most people. I can shake off a flu, if I get it at all, in like 2 or 3 days. Which is why I am hardly sick for longer than a couple of days, sometimes not even worth to see the doctor. I think it is more about your constitution than about what you eat.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 11 janvier 2012 - 12:31 .

[Ravenmyste]

Luc0s wrote...

Ravenmyste wrote...

like to point out most vegen are not entirely health due they are not getting all the vitamins that meat has that cant be gotten other then eating some meat.

I like to point out that you're wrong and that there is no reason for a vegetarian not to be healthy.

There is nothing exclusive to meat that can't be gotten elsewhere. It's just a bad excuse that ignorant people use to keep eating meat.


Don't worry, I won't stop you from eating meat. I believe that everyone should make that decision on their own. I'm not part of the vegan-police and I won't dictate what other people should or shouldn't eat. It's none of my business. I'm merely pointing out that what you said is completely wrong.

i am not saying you are wrong but going by personal watching of my wife who is a vegan, not vegetarian and vegan's tend to be stricter on what they consume and will not eat anything that she cant grow for herself she will  not  eat anything that is not from the ground period! so as i said you want to talk to my wife when want proof of her getting sick its not good thing for immunity system is a lot weaker then normal people...

Modifié par Ravenmyste, 11 janvier 2012 - 12:39 .