|
Post by Admin on Jul 7, 2024 22:24:42 GMT
I would concur with the contention that some life can be killed without violating the commandment. Hunt for food, not for sport. Do you have a dog you love and let out when the time is open for the killing ? I don't understand the question, but it smells like fish. If the commandment in question forbids the intentional termination of literally all life, then perhaps cemeteries should be buffets for those who don't live near roadkill cafes.
|
|
|
Post by transfuged on Jul 8, 2024 6:10:20 GMT
Do you have a dog you love and let out when the time is open for the killing ? I don't understand the question, but it smells like fish. If the commandment in question forbids the intentional termination of literally all life, then perhaps cemeteries should be buffets for those who don't live near roadkill cafes. It’s quite a not rethorical question. You advocate for hunters, with the exception of crazy gun toting sport performers. Do you have a dog you love, it’s not much open a question. Yes, no ? You must know what a dog is, and even love might be a thing you know more about than I do. Do you have one, do you love her, do you let her out in the time of hunting season ? (Ps imho and in the humble opinion of some other law experts here, Driving licence is not licence to kill)
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 8, 2024 7:31:47 GMT
I don't understand the question, but it smells like fish. If the commandment in question forbids the intentional termination of literally all life, then perhaps cemeteries should be buffets for those who don't live near roadkill cafes. It’s quite a not rethorical question. You advocate for hunters, with the exception of crazy gun toting sport performers. Do you have a dog you love, it’s not much open a question. Yes, no ? You must know what a dog is, and even love might be a thing you know more about than I do. Do you have one, do you love her, do you let her out in the time of hunting season ? (Ps imho and in the humble opinion of some other law experts here, Driving licence is not licence to kill) Not anymore. When he was 13 years old, he got an inoperable tumor in his throat that was slowly closing off his windpipe as it grew. I had him euthanized, but you can say I killed him and I won't argue. What's your point?
|
|
|
Post by transfuged on Jul 8, 2024 13:41:04 GMT
It’s quite a not rethorical question. You advocate for hunters, with the exception of crazy gun toting sport performers. Do you have a dog you love, it’s not much open a question. Yes, no ? You must know what a dog is, and even love might be a thing you know more about than I do. Do you have one, do you love her, do you let her out in the time of hunting season ? (Ps imho and in the humble opinion of some other law experts here, Driving licence is not licence to kill) Not anymore. When he was 13 years old, he got an inoperable tumor in his throat that was slowly closing off his windpipe as it grew. I had him euthanized, but you can say I killed him and I won't argue. What's your point? Condolences for your pet dog. You never killed your dog. You did what had to be done. And she was lucky you could pay a vet to do it, when poor people must get their gun and do that by themselve.Your pet dog was suffering with every breath and you ended it and you were spared watching her suffocating to death. There was no option or niceness to it. You probably barely avoided totaling your car in a wall on your way back home in the empty car so much you cried. Being nice would have been taking her in your lap and waiting for her death, hours long, instead of committing her to the hands of a stranger and to a lonely death in a strange and unknown place. That’s not possible if you behave according to standards. Our morality is not being nice to each others, let being nice to animals, even dear and lovable pets. Way I see it, that’s something to look forward to in the future. It’s not a point. I’m not arguing.You are OK for hunters, with the small exception noted above. Here’s a piece advice for anyone in time of open hunting season who love their dogs and don’t want them killed by crazy gun toting people : don’t let the dogs out. Frankly, you can pigheadedly deny it all you want, there’s no killing or murdering without destruction of life. And I am still waiting for the answear about how does one destructs life being nice. Condolences, again.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 8, 2024 19:12:00 GMT
It is the recollection of events or things. One can't; but that is not relevant to the Commandment under discussion, which does not (at least as most commonly interpreted) mean not taking any life whatsoever. It was in connection with the point you made about a religion other than Christianity, if you remember that ' which puts not destroying life above all.'
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 8, 2024 22:52:52 GMT
Not anymore. When he was 13 years old, he got an inoperable tumor in his throat that was slowly closing off his windpipe as it grew. I had him euthanized, but you can say I killed him and I won't argue. What's your point? Condolences for your pet dog. You never killed your dog. You did what had to be done. And she was lucky you could pay a vet to do it, when poor people must get their gun and do that by themselve.Your pet dog was suffering with every breath and you ended it and you were spared watching her suffocating to death. There was no option or niceness to it. You probably barely avoided totaling your car in a wall on your way back home in the empty car so much you cried. Being nice would have been taking her in your lap and waiting for her death, hours long, instead of committing her to the hands of a stranger and to a lonely death in a strange and unknown place. That’s not possible if you behave according to standards. Our morality is not being nice to each others, let being nice to animals, even dear and lovable pets. Way I see it, that’s something to look forward to in the future. It’s not a point. I’m not arguing.You are OK for hunters, with the small exception noted above. Here’s a piece advice for anyone in time of open hunting season who love their dogs and don’t want them killed by crazy gun toting people : don’t let the dogs out. Frankly, you can pigheadedly deny it all you want, there’s no killing or murdering without destruction of life. And I am still waiting for the answear about how does one destructs life being nice. Condolences, again. I don't deny that, much less pigheadedly. Call it killing, termination or destruction of life, it makes no difference in this context. And I just gave you an example of it being a nice thing to do. Euthanasia is generally considered to be an act of love and compassion. Another example would be killing someone to prevent them from killing someone else. But this a digression from the actual point, which is that if the 6th Commandment forbids killing/destruction of any life for any reason, then we're all convicts because life feeds on life and if you don't eat, you kill yourself (aka destroy your life).
|
|
|
Post by transfuged on Jul 9, 2024 0:54:42 GMT
Condolences for your pet dog. You never killed your dog. You did what had to be done. And she was lucky you could pay a vet to do it, when poor people must get their gun and do that by themselve.Your pet dog was suffering with every breath and you ended it and you were spared watching her suffocating to death. There was no option or niceness to it. You probably barely avoided totaling your car in a wall on your way back home in the empty car so much you cried. Being nice would have been taking her in your lap and waiting for her death, hours long, instead of committing her to the hands of a stranger and to a lonely death in a strange and unknown place. That’s not possible if you behave according to standards. Our morality is not being nice to each others, let being nice to animals, even dear and lovable pets. Way I see it, that’s something to look forward to in the future. It’s not a point. I’m not arguing.You are OK for hunters, with the small exception noted above. Here’s a piece advice for anyone in time of open hunting season who love their dogs and don’t want them killed by crazy gun toting people : don’t let the dogs out. Frankly, you can pigheadedly deny it all you want, there’s no killing or murdering without destruction of life. And I am still waiting for the answear about how does one destructs life being nice. Condolences, again. I don't deny that, much less pigheadedly. Call it killing, termination or destruction of life, it makes no difference in this context. And I just gave you an example of it being a nice thing to do. Euthanasia is generally considered to be an act of love and compassion. Another example would be killing someone to prevent them from killing someone else. But this a digression from the actual point, which is that if the 6th Commandment forbids killing/destruction of any life for any reason, then we're all convicts because life feeds on life and if you don't eat, you kill yourself (aka destroy your life). Of course we are all sinners in that regard. If not on that ground, there’s always the st Augustine theory about ”dinner”. We disagree, I see, but that’s not a surprise... Bottom line, I’m glad for you your dog did not die in your lap. Do you know about the Narayama movie ?
|
|
|
Post by transfuged on Jul 9, 2024 0:58:12 GMT
It is the recollection of events or things. One can't; but that is not relevant to the Commandment under discussion, which does not (at least as most commonly interpreted) mean not taking any life whatsoever. It was in connection with the point you made about a religion other than Christianity, if you remember that ' which puts not destroying life above all.' Oops, you did it again... 🛋💋
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 9, 2024 3:18:45 GMT
I don't deny that, much less pigheadedly. Call it killing, termination or destruction of life, it makes no difference in this context. And I just gave you an example of it being a nice thing to do. Euthanasia is generally considered to be an act of love and compassion. Another example would be killing someone to prevent them from killing someone else. But this a digression from the actual point, which is that if the 6th Commandment forbids killing/destruction of any life for any reason, then we're all convicts because life feeds on life and if you don't eat, you kill yourself (aka destroy your life). Of course we are all sinners in that regard. If not on that ground, there’s always the st Augustine theory about ”dinner”. We disagree, I see, but that’s not a surprise... Bottom line, I’m glad for you your dog did not die in your lap. Do you know about the Narayama movie ? I'm saying we're not sinners in that regard, and my dog literally died in my lap. Do you suppose Orin's neighbor had to be dragged up the mountain because of his innate instinct to survive?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 9, 2024 14:54:48 GMT
It is the recollection of events or things. One can't; but that is not relevant to the Commandment under discussion, which does not (at least as most commonly interpreted) mean not taking any life whatsoever. It was in connection with the point you made about a religion other than Christianity, if you remember that ' which puts not destroying life above all.' Oops, you did it again... 🛋💋 Yes, I am happy to reply to your points, if one can be made out that is. Buddhists (for instance) call the cycle of rebirth samsara believing that, when someone dies, they will be reborn again as something else. Hence treading on a bug might mean killing your granny. Christians are generally not bothered with such considerations and are only enjoined not to murder. There, I told you again.
|
|
|
Post by transfuged on Jul 10, 2024 23:51:22 GMT
Of course we are all sinners in that regard. If not on that ground, there’s always the st Augustine theory about ”dinner”. We disagree, I see, but that’s not a surprise... Bottom line, I’m glad for you your dog did not die in your lap. Do you know about the Narayama movie ? I'm saying we're not sinners in that regard, and my dog literally died in my lap. Do you suppose Orin's neighbor had to be dragged up the mountain because of his innate instinct to survive? ’”in that regard” meant the christian dogmas say so. Not I. One of the reasons I am an agnostic*. Or my teacher was wrong or I didn’t listen. I do not feel like a sinner. No one knows why o Rin neighbour's could not comply or did not want to go climb and die a horrible and premature death. Not even o Rin neighbour's. There is no o Rin neighbor. He’s a character in a fiction, a work of art. *As if it were not enough to be mortal
|
|
|
Post by transfuged on Jul 10, 2024 23:59:39 GMT
Oops, you did it again... 🛋💋 Yes, I am happy to reply to your points, if one can be made out that is. Buddhists (for instance) call the cycle of rebirth samsara believing that, when someone dies, they will be reborn again as something else. Hence treading on a bug might mean killing your granny. Christians are generally not bothered with such considerations and are only enjoined not to murder. There, I told you again. I suspect there’s a difference when one search for causes and only look backward or try to look ahead. I stopped bothering with causes, and look ahead mist of the times. So, granny or not granny, both courses lead you to one place . Somewhere were life is not to be discarded lightly.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 11, 2024 0:03:23 GMT
I'm saying we're not sinners in that regard, and my dog literally died in my lap. Do you suppose Orin's neighbor had to be dragged up the mountain because of his innate instinct to survive? ’”in that regard” meant the christian dogmas say so. Not I. One of the reasons I am an agnostic*. Or my teacher was wrong or I didn’t listen. I do not feel like a sinner. No one knows why o Rin neighbour's could not comply or did not want to go climb and die a horrible and premature death. Not even o Rin neighbour's. There is no o Rin neighbor. He’s a character in a fiction, a work of art. *As if it were not enough to be mortal Are you agnostic because you can't reconcile the 6th Commandment with your breakfast? Surely you didn't bring that fiction into this discussion just to dismiss it in your very next response...did you?
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 11, 2024 0:05:56 GMT
I suspect there’s a difference when one search for causes and only look backward or try to look ahead. Looking ahead for a cause is just as silly as saying looking backward isn't the only way to find it.
|
|
|
Post by transfuged on Jul 11, 2024 0:07:39 GMT
I suspect there’s a difference when one search for causes and only look backward or try to look ahead. Looking ahead for a cause is just as silly as saying looking backward isn't the only way to find it. Where does it say in my message that looking ahead is a search for cause ?
|
|
|
Post by transfuged on Jul 11, 2024 0:24:05 GMT
’”in that regard” meant the christian dogmas say so. Not I. One of the reasons I am an agnostic*. Or my teacher was wrong or I didn’t listen. I do not feel like a sinner. No one knows why o Rin neighbour's could not comply or did not want to go climb and die a horrible and premature death. Not even o Rin neighbour's. There is no o Rin neighbor. He’s a character in a fiction, a work of art. *As if it were not enough to be mortal Are you agnostic because you can't reconcile the 6th Commandment with your breakfast? Surely you didn't bring that fiction into this discussion just to dismiss it in your very next response...did you? Asking for what’s in the mind of a fictional character is asking what’s on my mind for there is no Mara. I’d wish yiu to be honest and direct and ask why I would not go or why I would go, but not Mara. I’m not Mara. I despise dogmas and dogmatic people, but I must admit st Augustine and his work on original sin was the first straw that broke my back. I don’t need the command of ”god” to observe that life is beyond our grasp except as it comes to destroy it. And the penal code forbids homicide. Fine with me. The current talks about euthanasia in the law I would call as absolutely ridiculous if that goes against the hypocratic oath and hypocritical if suicide still stays in the code and prohibited.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 11, 2024 0:36:28 GMT
Looking ahead for a cause is just as silly as saying looking backward isn't the only way to find it. Where does it say in my message that looking ahead is a search for cause ? See the last 5 words of what I quoted. Are you agnostic because you can't reconcile the 6th Commandment with your breakfast? Surely you didn't bring that fiction into this discussion just to dismiss it in your very next response...did you? Asking for what’s in the mind of a fictional character is asking what’s on my mind for there is no Mara. I’d wish yiu to be honest and direct and ask why I would not go or why I would go, but not Mara. I’m not Mara. I didn't know I was supposed to ask that, but now that I do... Why would you not go or why would you go? Are we not talking about the 6th Commandment anymore?
|
|
|
Post by transfuged on Jul 11, 2024 0:52:30 GMT
Where does it say in my message that looking ahead is a search for cause ? See the last 5 words of what I quoted. Asking for what’s in the mind of a fictional character is asking what’s on my mind for there is no Mara. I’d wish yiu to be honest and direct and ask why I would not go or why I would go, but not Mara. I’m not Mara. I didn't know I was supposed to ask that, but now that I do... Why would you not go or why would you go? Are we not talking about the 6th Commandment anymore? I see. Well, the sentence I wrote does not link looking forward and causes. And could you please proceed to the following sentence, where I write I did stop looking for causes ? I almost do not live in a time where Malthus rules. If I did... I am almost sure that in such a place, given the kind of conditioning people are subjected to, being told that being old is a crime, as in Logan’s run, I don’t think there would be a choice or a possible way to protest the way Mara is depicted. I suspect a thorough conditioning would break anyone’s spirit, being programmed to die on they umpteenth birthday. Life would be the long wait of a felon sentenced to death penalty in a prison without judge or jury and no reprieve. No human spirit or intelligence could be found there. I know they got a Nobel prize, but I’m not familiar with the work on instinct and I don’t follow their lead. Short way, I almost do not ”believe” in ”instinct.”
|
|
|
Post by transfuged on Jul 11, 2024 1:06:19 GMT
I still have a does not compute answear if I program ”cuddling someone to death, be nice to someone to death”
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 11, 2024 2:50:25 GMT
See the last 5 words of what I quoted. I didn't know I was supposed to ask that, but now that I do... Why would you not go or why would you go? Are we not talking about the 6th Commandment anymore? I see. Well, the sentence I wrote does not link looking forward and causes. And could you please proceed to the following sentence, where I write I did stop looking for causes ? I almost do not live in a time where Malthus rules. If I did... I am almost sure that in such a place, given the kind of conditioning people are subjected to, being told that being old is a crime, as in Logan’s run, I don’t think there would be a choice or a possible way to protest the way Mara is depicted. I suspect a thorough conditioning would break anyone’s spirit, being programmed to die on they umpteenth birthday. Life would be the long wait of a felon sentenced to death penalty in a prison without judge or jury and no reprieve. No human spirit or intelligence could be found there. I know they got a Nobel prize, but I’m not familiar with the work on instinct and I don’t follow their lead. Short way, I almost do not ”believe” in ”instinct.” Then follow your own lead. Watch a baby hold his breath under water, then ask yourself: Did someone teach him to do that? Maybe he was conditioned? I still have a does not compute answear if I program ”cuddling someone to death, be nice to someone to death” It's like we never even mentioned euthanasia.
|
|