Excalibur EXECUTED by Spain

[RedWorker]

Excalibur has just been executed by the ruling Spanish right-wing clique.
Rest in peace.
Also, the whole handling of the Ebola thing was completely wrong. In a poll by the centre-left newspaper Publico (several million readers), over 99% of people voted in favor of the resignation of the health minister. The CC.OO. labor union (more than 1 million members) also requested the resignation. The health workers of several hospitals protested for the terrible handling of the situation.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

???

[RedWorker]

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/10/08/health/save-excalibur-ebola-dog/index.html

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/10/08/health/save-excalibur-ebola-dog/index.html

I thought you might be talking about this Excalibur ...


Arthur: How do you do, good lady. I am Arthur, king of the Britons. Whose castle is that?
Woman: King of the 'oo?
Arthur: King of the Britons.
Woman: 'Oo are the Britons?
Arthur: Well we all are! We are all Britons! And I am your king.
Woman: I didn't know we 'ad a king! I thought we were autonomous collective.
Man: (mad) You're fooling yourself! We're living in a dictatorship! A self-perpetuating autocracy in which the working classes--
Woman: There you go, bringing class into it again...
Man: That's what it's all about! If only people would--
Arthur: Please, *please*, good people, I am in haste! WHO lives in that castle?
Woman: No one lives there.
Arthur: Then who is your lord?
Woman: We don't have a lord!
Arthur: (spurised) What?? Man: I *told* you! We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune! We're taking turns to act as a sort of executive-officer-for-the-week--
Arthur: (uninterested) Yes...
Man: But all the decisions *of* that officer 'ave to be ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting--
Arthur: (perturbed) Yes I see!
Man: By a simple majority, in the case of purely internal affairs--
Arthur: (mad) Be quiet!
Man: But by a two-thirds majority, in the case of more major--
Arthur: (very angry) BE QUIET! I *order* you to be quiet!
Woman: "Order", eh, 'oo does 'e think 'e is?
Arthur: I am your king!
Woman: Well I didn't vote for you!
Arthur: You don't vote for kings!
Woman: Well 'ow'd you become king then? (holy music up)
Arthur: The Lady of the Lake-- her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. THAT is why I am your king!
Man: (laughingly) Listen: Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government! Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some... farcical aquatic ceremony!
Arthur: (yelling) BE QUIET!
Man: You can't expect to wield supreme executive power just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!!
Arthur: (coming forward and grabbing the man) Shut *UP*!
Man: I mean, if I went 'round, saying I was an emperor, just because some moistened bink had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!
Arthur: (throwing the man around) Shut up, will you, SHUT UP!
Man: Aha! Now we see the violence inherent in the system!
Arthur: SHUT UP!
Man: (yelling to all the other workers) Come and see the violence inherent in the system! HELP, HELP, I'M BEING REPRESSED!
Arthur: (letting go and walking away) Bloody PEASANT!
Man: Oh, what a giveaway! Did'j'hear that, did'j'hear that, eh? That's what I'm all about! Did you see 'im repressing me? You saw it, didn't you?!

[DDR]

Humanity first, fuck the dog. Sorry for the people ran over, thou.

[RedWorker]

That's racial supremacism, unless you'd also agree with the execution of humans with Ebola for the "good of humanity". The dog probably didn't even have Ebola (can dogs even get it?) and it could have easily been quarantined or whatever. In the case he had Ebola he could have been scientifically useful.

[Hrafn]

I am completely fine with racial supremacism. Humanity first! Glory to Homo Sapiens!

[RedWorker]

How is the structural thinking behind this different from the Nazis'? The funny thing is this racial supremacism usually even has a hierarchical structure: dogs and monkeys usually are more "sacred", for example some advocate that any harm to a monkey is not okay because they have higher intelligence. (the same kind of argument Nazis are making all day)

[DDR]

So because I draw the line in sentience and not in a nervous system (or motor system) I'm a nazi. Either every life is sacred (and you starve to death or by illness) or there's some arbitrary classification (and therefore one is a nazi according to you)

But anyhow, there's an illness with 90% mortality, brought to the country because of two daying priest. The people who is in charge is the same people who were in charge of the prestige, the yak-42, the valencia's underground, the alvia accident, the 11-m etc. That's what's worries me, not the wellbeing of a fuking dog.

[ℂᵒиѕẗяᵤкт]

I'm not sure how putting humans over dogs is anything like racial supremacy, which dehumanizes (note that word) certain groups by drawing parallels between them and animals, by saying they are less than human.

Is it racial supremacy to train a dog and call him a good "boy?" Am I a Nazi for having a dog as a pet? Is that slavery?

[RedWorker]

So because I draw the line in sentience and not in a nervous system (or motor system) I'm a nazi. Either every life is sacred (and you starve to death of by illness) or there's some arbitrary classification (and therefore one is a nazi according to you)

You are discriminating by capabilities which was yet another point of the Nazis. And many non-human animals are sentient.


I'm not sure how putting humans over dogs is anything like racial supremacy, which dehumanizes (note that word) certain groups by drawing parallels between them and animals, by saying they are less than human.

I am not the one engaging in any kind of racial supremacism here. So no, I am not discriminating any groups.
"Races" of humans are just a social construct, but the different species are actually different races. So yeah, it's actual racial supremacism.
That is like saying: "Calling Jews humans dehumanizes other races by drawing parallels between Jews and them".

[DDR]

Let e. coli run rampant, after all it is a living being :D

[RedWorker]

It's a bacteria. It doesn't have a family or friends, it doesn't suffer, it doesn't enjoy, it doesn't have a "life". Trolling since no real arguments?

[ℂᵒиѕẗяᵤкт]

To RedWorker,

I did not say you were engaging in racial supremacist thought, so I'm not sure what you're arguing with me about on that point, although it's small surprise you'd argue.

Your analysis of species as races makes so much less sense than none at all that I'm pretty sure you tore a hole in the fabric of spacetime. You just said races were a social construct, then you decided that "species" and "race" were the same thing.

[RedWorker]

The dictionary gives two definitions of "race":

"each of the major divisions of humankind, having distinct physical characteristics."

These are a social construct.

"(in nontechnical use) each of the major divisions of living creatures."

These are not. They are species.

Get it?

[DDR]

You are discriminating by capabilities which was yet another point of the Nazis.


It's a bacteria. It doesn't have a family or friends, it doesn't suffer, it doesn't enjoy, it doesn't have a "life". Trolling since no real arguments?

That's not discriminating by capabilities? So what's the difference, that I draw the line higher?

And yes, bacteria have life, they are "born", they "grow", reproduce and die, the definition of earthling living creatures.

[Hrafn]

I support complete equality within the homo genus. Even if we encountered other sentient species, I would - most likely - favour humanity. Purge the xenos!

http://www.geekfill.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/avatar.jpg

[RedWorker]

I'm not even sure what we are even arguing here. That the execution of a random dog which in all likelihood didn't even have Ebola to begin with is ok and even funny and something to joke about?


That's not discriminating by capabilities? So what's the difference, that I draw the line higher?

The point is that executing a dog is greatly wrong (by any application of moral/ethics) while it's no problem at all to deal with these bacteria. You are being stubborn.


And yes, bacteria have life, they are "born", they "grow", reproduce and die, the definition of earthling living creatures.

They don't have a "life" (as in the expression "get a life") like dogs do.

[Hrafn]

I'm not even sure what we are even arguing here. That the execution of a random dog which didn't even have Ebola to begin with is ok and even funny and something to joke about?

We're arguing that the life of an animal is of less value than the lives of many humans. This animal in specific has little to do with the general discussion.

[RedWorker]

Value? That reeks of Nazi structural thinking.

¡¡EXCALIBUR NO ESTAS SOLO!!

[DDR]

I support complete equality within the homo genus. Even if we encountered other sentient species, I would - most likely - favour humanity. Purge the xenos!

Burn the heretic, kill the witch, purge the mutant!!! :laugh::laugh::laugh:

In all seriousness thou, I'm an specist and an antropocentrist, but if we find intelligent life among the stars or inside our computers I would find them as my equals.

[RedWorker]

In all seriousness thou, I'm an specist and an antropocentrist, but if we find intelligent life among the stars or inside our computers I would find them as my equals.

Why is racism not allowed here but this is? After all you advocate murdering random dogs (by the BOURGEOIS STATE to SAVE HUMANITY like always, we couldn't live without them!) and make jokes about it.

[DDR]

Because this isn't a Jainist forum. This is a forum of the radical left which has (the radical left I mean) one objetive above all, to end all exploitation of humans by humans, the rest is secondary.

[RedWorker]

The execution of comrade Excalibur will deal a blow to the PP fascists/National Catholicists/Spanish Nationalists, just like the handling of the Ebola case. Por cierto, ¿crees que Pablo Iglesias tiene la cura al Ebola?

[Martin Luther]

lol after reading 2 of his posts I knew this guy was a nazi troll come on admins

[DDR]

Por cierto, ¿crees que Pablo Iglesias tiene la cura al Ebola?

¿Troll burbumori o forocarrista?

[ℂᵒиѕẗяᵤкт]

To RedWorker,

So you're saying that, because you found two different definitions for "race" in the dictionary, the racial supremacy practiced by the Nazis is analogous to treating dogs differently from humans?

Because I think the Nazis would be more than happy to agree with you.

[Slavic]

Discriminating by capabilities means your a NAZI!

But let me go on and discriminate bacteria by their capabilities, its cool bro bacteria is stupid.

This is how you sound, and this is why no one is taking your arguments serious in this thread.

If you going to claim that the dog should not have been put down give us a valid reason why. Why the dog has the same right to live as a human as oppose to the supposed bacteria within him. If you go around screaming people are Nazis because they god forbid categorize animals, then I can't take any of your reasoning serious.

[Magón]

It was just a dog, there are a lot more important things to worry about, than a single dog. It wasn't even a particularly special dog, it's fame just happened to be from being owned by a person with ebola.

[BIXX]

OK, I am sad about the dog. I wish they would have checked to see if it had Ebola before euthanizing it. However I think that this isn't as big if a deal as all that. I wouldn't even be upset if they did this to a human. Cause seriously, it'd be fucked up, but it really is just the way the cookie crumbles, even if the cookie is a shitty cookie that tastes like butthole.

[RedWorker]

Appalled with the degree of sympathy so-called "radical leftists" have for living beings which DIDN'T EVEN HAVE EBOLA being randomly executed by the bourgeois state headed by a right-wing party and then defending the decision or even aligning one self with it. Oh, and if you're thinking like Nazis then I'll spell it out. People not taking the comparison seriously is because of a defence mechanism + the failure to really understand what went on with the Nazis. (thinking they just "didn't like Jews" rather than it was a structural problem in how they thought)

[Hrafn]

Why ? Do you have any proper motivation for this, other than your moral outrage and bombastic words?

[RedWorker]

I'm not "outraged" nor were my emotions affected in any way by this conversation. I just thought it was an interesting story to post (and I was describing the protests by the workers + the calls for resignation of the minister etc.) along and got hit by a wave of bullshit. I was just posting some sense really.

[BIXX]

I like my viewpoint, not caring more if its a human. Am I a Nazi?

[Hrafn]

First you're "appalled", then you're "not affected at all". Sure makes sense.

[RedWorker]

@dirty doxxer: At least not yet.
@Hrafn: I was just poking fun at people's leftist cred with that one post where I say I'm appalled. :D

[RedWorker]

Podemos complaining about Excalibur's death. That's the kind of social democracy I like. :laugh:
DDR, ¡¡TE DIJE QUE PABLO IGLESIAS TENÍA LA CURA AL EBOLA!! Nos va a salvar a todos.

[Red Son]

If an animal has a potentially deadly, contagious disease (be it ebola or rabies), it's being put down and buried at sea / burned, no question. I'm not risking my life and that of my fellow human beings because we decided dogs are sooo cuuuute and we want to keep them as pets for reasons that elude me.
I don't see how there is any debate about whether or not you kill and dispose of an animal if it poses that kind of threat. if a human being poses the same threat, that option is still on the table but is not the go-to because a human dying could leave someone without a loved one and denies the chance to do a wealth of things available to humans - not just fetching stuff and wearing funny outfits for holdiay cards for the amusement of the owners.
This turned into a rant, which was not my original intention, apologies if I've ruffled feathers or offended anyone but a dog being put down for this reason is not a tragedy.

[RedWorker]

A "loved one"? And what do you think a dog is for the people around them? Also, dogs are not there to entertain humans.

[Futility Personified]

This thread is the biggest waste of time. The dog had a disease that can kill a human being in a fucking nasty way. At a time when the sandwich board lunatics are probably smiling in that creepy psuedo-benign way of apocalyptic "I-told-you-so" because this outbreak is reasonably serious, the survival of one animal is not really paramount.

Either this is some pretty blatant trolling or everyone has been caning meth in this thread and i'm just grumpy because noone bothered to spare me any.

[RedWorker]

He didn't have Ebola. It's in doubt whether dogs can even catch it. And also, in the case he had it, how hard it is to put him in some locked up room until he gets cured or dies?

[Slavic]

Why ? Do you have any proper motivation for this, other than your moral outrage and bombastic words?

And yet Redworker fails again to even deliver a simple argument as to why dogs should be held to a higher standard then other living beings like bacteria.

All show no substance. You don't win people over to your views by calling everyone a Nazi for not agreeing with you, and then not even bothering to explain your reasoning. It is very childish.

[RedWorker]

Who cares if a bacteria disappears? Not even the bacteria itself would care about its imminent death, as it cannot even think of the concept. The bacteria is not aware, doesn't care about life, does not enjoy or suffer, does not have a family, is not loved or cared about by anyone. The bacteria is, in the relevant senses, literally nothing more than and not different from a pixel on a screen, even if it is technically classed as life.

The dog is lively and happy. He gives enjoyment to the people around him, which are affected if anything happens to him (to the extent that random people from far away clashed with police to prevent execution). He enjoys and suffers. He has a family. He is loved and cared about by the people around him. He experiences intense feelings. To him, the difference between life and death is everything, and to the ones around him so it is. Thinking about death, he must feel sad. The dog also has empathy and cares about others.

No matter how much you put it, animals' wellbeing and rights are a genuine issue, whereas the "bacteria argument" is merely a pathetic pseudo-argument set off by Internet jokers with no purpose but to dynamite conversation, which is completely non-insightful, non-creative, and has no effect in the real world. It shows a complete lack of knowledge about any theory of ethics. And this fact will remain no matter how much we delve into the topic.

It was not long ago that the so-called radical materialists* of the time declared that the [gay rights/equivalent] are nothing more than a "liberal petty-bourgeois cause" which "promotes decadence and distraction from the real issue". Not only gay rights, but every issue from the history of antiquity was ridiculed with all kinds of pseudo-arguments, and attacked from all camps. And yet they all pushed through in the end, and the people realized: "How foolish were we just 50 years ago". 100 years ago nobody cared about animal rights. Now people slowly start caring. And like with all other causes, it will triumph in the end, and the great foolishness will be shown once again.

* edit: clarification: Stalinists, not Marxists

[Lord Testicles]

I'm going to see if I can buy dog meat anywhere.

[RedWorker]

Which would be very similar to eating many other kinds of meat, but often causes an outrage from people with emotional and racial-hierarchy thinking, or who have a slight awareness about the issue but have no real knowledge about the structure of the problem.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

It was not long ago that the so-called radical materialists of the time declared that the [gay rights/equivalent] are nothing more than a "liberal petty-bourgeois cause" which "promotes decadence and distraction from the real issue".

Except they didn't. The Marxist movement was opposed to oppression of homosexuals from the beginning - it took the degeneration of the revolution in Russia to instil homophobia in some sections of the movement, along with pressures of bourgeois society of course.

Not to mention that gay people are people, overwhelmingly workers in fact. When was the last time dogs held a protest against their treatment?

[RedWorker]

Yes, it was Stalinists who denounced gay rights, who fit under so-called "radical materialists".

Can a slave liberate himself? It took Abraham Lincoln to liberate them. Does this mean the cause of abolition was less worthy? No. MIA's Encyclopedia of Marxism notes: "Slave society had produced no class capable of overthrowing it, of making a social revolution; atomised and reduced to the level of draught animals, the slaves were incapable of meaningful rebellion or escape, let alone of seizing power"

[Lord Testicles]

Which would be very similar to eating many other kinds of meat, but often causes an outrage from people with emotional and racial-hierarchy thinking, or who have a slight awareness about the issue but have no real knowledge about the structure of the problem.

Drop some knowledge upon us then. Personally, I think eating meat is as morally reprehensible as eating plants, which is to say it's non-issue.


Can a slave liberate himself?

Evidently. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haitian_Revolution)

[RedWorker]

Drop some knowledge upon us then. Personally, I think eating meat is as morally reprehensible as eating plants.

Standard defence mechanism of the one who cannot handle the fact that he is financing the systematical mass murder of millions of living beings who suffer. To this nothing can be said, because it is so obviously wrong and the problem is in the mind of the one with the defence mechanism, and other formulations of it will emerge no matter how much every specific expression is defeated.


Evidently.

There will always be outliers to a trend. The point is that there are some forms of oppression where the oppressed one cannot liberate himself - animals' rights under the present conditions is a good example - and this is no reason to dismiss the cause.

[DDR]

RedWorker, you draw the line in complex nervous systems, I do in setience. Why my position is nazism and yours not? For me it seems as arbitrary as mine.

[RedWorker]

Because I hold no kind of racial hierarchical or supremacist thinking. For example, I can see that ending the life of a plant is inherently bad, yet less harm is produced than by ending the life of an animal. Therefore, someone who eats plants rather than meat is doing less harm. It is based on that, and not that I believe plants to be inferior in any way.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Says the one not being eaten

[RedWorker]

The human would experience severe harm if he were to starve, yet the plant won't experience anything if being ate. The human averts the harm to himself and causes no harm.

[Lord Testicles]

Standard defence mechanism of the one who cannot handle the fact that he is financing the systematical mass murder of millions of living beings who suffer. To this nothing can be said, because it is so obviously wrong and the problem is in the mind of the one with the defence mechanism, and other formulations of it will emerge no matter how much every specific expression is defeated.

LMAO! Listen, if you pay taxes then you are financing the systematical mass murder of millions of human beings, so I literally couldn't give a flying fuck about the meat industry's effect on non-human animals. I don't need a defence mechanism because I seriously don't care.

How do you reconcile your love for life and the fact that your existence facilitates the death of millions of living beings?

[Lord Testicles]

The human would experience severe harm if he were to starve, yet the plant won't experience anything if being ate. The human averts the harm to himself and causes no harm.

Are you saying that plants cannot experience extremal stimuli?

[RedWorker]

Well, I directly finance it since I eat meat. Ad hominem fallacies aren't gonna work here. And someone could forgo paying taxes or push for reforming/abolishing them.


Are you saying that plants cannot experience extremal stimuli?

They don't suffer. Now stop being stubborn, it only proves you are incapable of forming a genuine argument.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Oh so you've lived as a plant and can speak authoritatively on this subject? Personally I'm more shocked by your Nazi attitude towards ebola. Why shouldn't it be allowed to live on the earth as it wills? Why should it be quarantined?

[RedWorker]

Once again Internet jokers (most of whom are under defence mechanisms) prove they are unable to form any serious argument.

[Lord Testicles]

And someone could forgo paying taxes or push for reforming/abolishing them.

Well, I'm sure those efforts to reform/abolish will really comfort those that get blown to piece by drones and what have you.


They don't suffer. Now stop being stubborn, it only proves you are incapable of forming a genuine argument.

Maybe they don't suffer as you or I but just because their suffering is alien to us does that give us good reason to dismiss it? Plants do experience and respond to extremal stimuli, what's to say they don't suffer?

[RedWorker]

"Suffer" has a meaning, and an even more defined meaning in the theory of ethics. In the same way I could say that making a chatbot and then shutting it off means someone is "receiving external stimulus" - which could actually be construed of as being wronger than eating plants, see the ethical arguments around e.g. Data in Star Trek.

[DDR]

The weird thing in this reasoning is that to napalm bomb zillions of cockles and mussels it's ok, but if one kills a dog (because it may or may not have an infectous dissease with 90% mortality rate) one is a nazi.


Personally I'm more shocked by your Nazi attitude towards ebola. Why shouldn't it be allowed to live on the earth as it wills? Why should it be quarantined?

Viruses are not life, bacteria are. E. Coli askatu!

[Lord Testicles]

"Suffer" has a meaning, and an even more defined meaning in the theory of ethics. In the same way I could say that making a chatbot and then shutting it off means someone is "receiving external stimulus" - which could actually be construed of as being wronger than eating plants, see the ethical arguments around e.g. Data in Star Trek.

A chat bot isn't alive like a plant.

To suffer means to experience or be subjected to something bad or unpleasant what the definition of it in ethics?

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

You eat meat and you came in here to gripe about a dog being euthanized?

[RedWorker]

Plants can't go through something "bad" or "unpleasant" because that requires a nervous system and they don't have one.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I think RedWorker's grown tired of shilling for Podemos and is trying to be the next BeaArthur.

[RedWorker]

Well, Podemos complained about Excalibur's execution, so this could be part of RedWorker's plot of social democratic apologism. Also, I think Pablo Iglesias may have the cure to Ebola.

[Lord Testicles]

Plants can't go through something "bad" or "unpleasant" because that requires a nervous system and they don't have one.

Of course plants can go through something "bad" if I don't give a plant light for a couple of days it starts to starve and die, that is demonstrably "bad" for the plant. Even though they have no nervous system they can still respond to external stimuli, some even display signs of kin recognition, some can "dance" and some show signs of chemical communication (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg12717361.200-antelope-activate-the-acacias-alarm-system.html) so it would seem that they don't need a central nervous system to be aware of and respond to their immediate surroundings.

[RedWorker]

If I turn my computer off it will stop making sound and become completely inactive. It is responding to external stimuli and clearly aware of it and its immediate surroundings.

[Lord Testicles]

If I turn my computer off it will stop making sound and become completely inactive. It is responding to external stimuli and clearly aware of it and its immediate surroundings.

No it's not, maybe if your computer could detect your presence and turn itself on you might have a point but your computer isn't responding to external stimuli it's responding to your commands and inputs.

[RedWorker]

Well, it could easily be made to do that with a webcam.

[Tim Cornelis]

You are discriminating by capabilities which was yet another point of the Nazis.

Everyone discriminates. I would prefer a doctor with the proper education over a 'doctor' with no education -- discrimination by capabilities. Discrimination in and of itself is not bad. So you cannot appeal to discrimination as a reason for why something is bad. Only specific forms of discrimination can be bad.

The plant-argument, though, is utterly ridiculous. Plants don't and can't suffer. And now computers? Shot op.

[Lord Testicles]

Well it could easily be made to do that with a webcam.

After you've programmed it to do that, which is to say make it respond to your commands. Are you suggesting that plants have been "programmed"?

[RedWorker]

Everyone discriminates. I would prefer a doctor with the proper education over a 'doctor' with no education -- discrimination by capabilities. Discrimination in and of itself is not bad. So you cannot appeal to discrimination as a reason for why something is bad. Only specific forms of discrimination can be bad.

Discrimination in the definition relevant here. The key of his argument was arguing that a dog's life is less worth than a human's, but that was covered by the façade it was "mankind" in danger, just like a Nazi may argue that Jews need to be mass murdered because "mankind's in trouble". Yes, Ebola was possible here and after making a reasoning in certain cases it may have been better to execute the dog, but the point is that he clearly had a view of "human's life is more worth and of more value than that of a dog" underneath. It is indeed possible to make an ethical argument that it may be good to execute a fly if it's threatening a human's life without engaging in any kind of supremacism or discrimination (of the kind of which we speak of here), but this must also not rely on, for example, how intelligent the animal is (although the emotions he experiences etc. would be relevant but for other reasons).

[Nakidana]

the point is that he clearly had a view of "human's life is more worth and of more value than that of a dog" underneath.

Do you equate the value of a dog with that of a human? I'm sure all of us support animal welfare, but support for animal rights is just ludicrous. I guess in your opinion controlling the rodent population in the sewers is morally equivalent to the Holocaust? Do you also refuse medical treatment considering the amount of biomedical research conducted on animals?

[Magón]

He didn't have Ebola. It's in doubt whether dogs can even catch it. And also, in the case he had it, how hard it is to put him in some locked up room until he gets cured or dies?

Really? So instead of euthanizing the dog, if it did have ebola, you'd rather lock it up somewhere when no one knows how to cure ebola in a dog, or you'd rather have it suffer the symptoms of ebola until it's dead, instead of just euthanizing it. That, makes no sense.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I value the lives of some dogs I've interacted with over the lives of some humans I've interacted with. Haven't you had similar experiences? It doesn't seem that odd to me.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Oh hell yeah blue name. Look upon my works and despair ye plebs

[Red Commissar]

I don't think it's really helpful to pontificate over what issues "the left" should care about. There's a lot of shit going on right now- we have a lot of events, from tropical storms in the Pacific, regional conflagrations in the Middle-East (one of which is unfolding pretty terribly in Kobane), South Sudan's sprialing further into a broken state, Somalia is still broken, Taliban is going along their mess in Afghanistan and Pakistan, Gazans live in a broken city and have had to bury many of their kin, and nevermind the fact that this Ebola epidemic has made itself the most deadly in West Africa, where we are nearing 4,000 dead and communities being torn apart as fear of the disease ends up causing people to even abandon their family members on the streets.

Nevermind the everyday struggles- animals are put down routinely in shelters due to space problems or after research, homeless and hunger issues, police brutality, poverty, inequality, finding work... there's a lot of stuff for people to focus on and people aren't going to rank these issues in the same order of importance or immediacy. Personally I don't really see this as all that important as some other issues (how a dog has elicted this kind of response from some people compared to the nameless thousands dead in West Africa from the same disease says a lot I think...) but I can understand why people would.

It's very easy to browbeat and pontificate for why x group doesn't care about y issue in the same way you do but it's not particularly productive. What else do you want people to do in the thread? If we all agreed there'd be no point for a forum.

What happened to Excalibur was pretty terrible, but what else should they have done? I don't know if they took a titer to see if the dog had produced antibodies to ebola, but it is very likely the dog did contract ebola from his owner once she began manifesting symptoms. As I and others have said in the science thread about this we know dogs can carry the virus which will replicate readily within it though without any symptoms, though it has never been observed to've been able to transmit to humans.

But, no you have a dog with ebola. Who is going to adopt it if his owner dies? How would that go over for a potential owner showing up at a shelter- 'oh by the way this dog has ebola, but don't worry you probably won't get it'. I don't think anyone would take it. Even a well-intentioned person from would probably be overly cautious around it because of that fear at the back of their heads.

Would the owner even feel safe taking the dog back if she recovers? Be willing to take responsibility for it if someone got licked or bit by it and the person spazzes out thinking they got Ebola (no) and sue her over it? This dog is going to be isolated and kept away from other dogs out of fear that it could spread it to others (since we aren't sure how any of it works in dogs beyond replicating). At best, the dog would end up in a scientific facility but utterly isolated and seen as a case study rather than a companion until the end of its days. And the fact that is the best case scenario should say enough. The dog's life was ruined the moment he was exposed to his owner.

[Magón]

I don't think it's really helpful to pontificate over what issues "the left" should care about. There's a lot of shit going on right now- we have a lot of events, from tropical storms in the Pacific, regional conflagrations in the Middle-East (one of which is unfolding pretty terribly in Kobane), South Sudan's sprialing further into a broken state, Somalia is still broken, Taliban is going along their mess in Afghanistan and Pakistan, Gazans live in a broken city and have had to bury many of their kin, and nevermind the fact that this Ebola epidemic has made itself the most deadly in West Africa, where we are nearing 4,000 dead and communities being torn apart as fear of the disease ends up causing people to even abandon their family members on the streets.

Nevermind the everyday struggles- animals are put down routinely in shelters due to space problems or after research, homeless and hunger issues, police brutality, poverty, inequality, finding work... there's a lot of stuff for people to focus on and people aren't going to rank these issues in the same order of importance or immediacy. Personally I don't really see this as all that important as some other issues (how a dog has elicted this kind of response from some people compared to the nameless thousands dead in West Africa from the same disease says a lot I think...) but I can understand why people would.

It's very easy to browbeat and pontificate for why x group doesn't care about y issue in the same way you do but it's not particularly productive. What else do you want people to do in the thread? If we all agreed there'd be no point for a forum.

What happened to Excalibur was pretty terrible, but what else should they have done? They did not take a titer to see if the dog had produced antibodies to ebola (indicating infection), but it is very likely the dog did contract ebola from his owner. As I and others have said in the science thread about this we know dogs can carry the virus which will replicate readily within it though without any symptoms, though it has never been observed to've been able to transmit to humans.

But, no you have a dog with ebola. Who is going to adopt it if his owner dies? How would that go over for a potential owner showing up at a shelter- oh by the way this dog has ebola, but don't worry you probably won't get it. I don't think anyone would take it. Even a well-intentioned person from would probably be overly cautious around it because of that fear at the back of their heads.

Would the owner even feel safe taking the dog back if she recovers? Be willing to take responsibility for it if someone got licked or bit by it and the person spazzes out thinking they got Ebola (no) and sue her over it? This dog is going to be isolated and kept away from other dogs out of fear that it could spread it to others (since we aren't sure how any of it works in dogs beyond replicating). At best, the dog would end up in a scientific facility but utterly isolated and seen as a case study rather than a companion until the end of its days. And the fact that is the best case scenario should say enough. The dog's life was ruined the moment he was exposed to his owner.

Hey, shut up, all those points are moot and insignificant when we're talking about a single famous-for-being-not-famous-but-is-famous-now-kinda dog.

(This is sarcasm)

[Nakidana]

I value the lives of some dogs I've interacted with over the lives of some humans I've interacted with. Haven't you had similar experiences? It doesn't seem that odd to me.

Well I'm sure some people even value the life of their homegrown plants over the lives of some humans they've interacted with. Does that mean we should consider the life of a plant equal to that of a human? That does seem odd to me. If you argue that animals have the same rights as humans, then suddenly having a pet is slavery and killing a rat is murder.

Considering RedWorker eats meat, I don't think he principally believes in animal rights. The reason he's getting worked up is because we're talking about a pet dog here. So exterminating rodents to prevent disease is a-ok, but killing a dog is a big nono because...it's man's best friend?

I believe in animal welfare, we shouldn't hurt animals for fun etc, but if it presents a threat and could spread disease then I don't see anything wrong with it. I also don't see anything wrong with biomedical research on animals.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Well I guess my point is that of you can think of individual instances where you would place the life of a specific animal, or even potted plant I guess, over the life of a specific human, someone doing that on broad level isn't so unbelievable after all. Whether one could actually put it into practice is something else

[ℂᵒиѕẗяᵤкт]

To RedWorker,

I like how you can compare us to Nazis for not caring very much at all that a dog was killed, then you turn around and suggest it ought to have been locked up until it died.

Do you do anything on these boards besides trolling?

[DDR]

To RedWorker,

I like how you can compare us to Nazis for not caring very much at all that a dog was killed, then you turn around and suggest it ought to have been locked up until it died.

Do you do anything on these boards besides trolling?

Spamming for Pablemos

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I think if there was a dog getting bitten by a wasp, we would be within our right to kill the wasp, for the sake of the dog. It's not just that humans discriminate between humans and animals regarding basic worth, it's that humans discriminate between animals and other animals!

I feel sorry for the dog and it's sad it was put down, and perhaps they only needed to quarantine it. The fears the the dog were sick had some legitimacy though (bats are carriers of the disease for instance so it can impact a bunch of different mammal species) and the people who made that choice were not somehow comparable to Nazis over their action. If the dog really was sick, then he would just be condemned to a painful death. I don't think the nurse who owned the dog would have wanted that, and his suffering would have been meaningless.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Spamming for Pablemos

Crying about the mens.

[RedWorker]

@Red Commissar: Honestly, I don't care much for Excalibur, I was just debating people on animal rights' issues (poor dog, though!). But thanks for the insight. I'm sure it could have been reasonable to execute him under some scenarios and the appliance of some ethics; I've never denied this. But that has nothing to do with some stupid shit being said here.

@Toxin: You know what is done to humans who have Ebola? They're locked up and then it's waited until they get cured or die. There is no cure, all that can be done is to alleviate their symptoms. You may have heard of this process, it's called "quarantine". I was suggesting the same thing done to the dog rather than execute him. Can you please stop making stupid emotional posts because it's me? I'm sure you'd rather do some studying on your coveted Kimilsungist Thought.

@Magón: The same, minus the comment on Kimilsungism Thought and stupid emotional posts.

@DDR: ¿Tienes carné del PCPE? Venga, vuelve a forocomunista.com.
P.D. No estoy enfadadx, me ha hecho sonreír tu comentario. :D

@Sinister Cultural Marxist: The only thing I said is that some arguments made here are made based on racial hierarchy rather than actual ethical theory. (which I would have no problem with)

[ℂᵒиѕẗяᵤкт]

To RedWorker,

If you want to talk about emotional posts, we can go back and revisit you comparing us to Nazis because we're not up in arms over killing a dog. I'm not sure how pointing out the irony in your post was emotional on my part, and talking about my "coveted" ideals as you did seems a bit more emotional than my mild amusement.

About quarantine, though, do you not see how horrible that is? It may be necessary to prevent the spread of disease and give patients a chance at survival through treatment (or waiting out the illness for a cure), but it is a sorrowful thing to experience. A human, though, can be told what is happening to him and understand it. He can still be visited in some capacity by loved ones, and he doesn't need their physical contact to experience their affection and best wishes. A human can tell his doctors about his discomfort and pain and receive precise treatment to relieve it.

A dog can't communicate intelligently and it cannot understand what is happening to it. Doctors can treat its discomfort to an extent, but its inability to communicate it specifcally (as in, besides through groans and whimpers) frustrates attempts to treat symptoms precisely. A dog is probably not going to receive visits, either, and it can't read or watch T.V. to pass the time. It'll be pacing around until it collapses, and it will lie on the ground in agony until it dies.

So yeah. Comparing the euthanasia of diseased animals to Nazi extermination of human beings is weak. The only way you can call this a "racial hierarchy" is by applying an archaic definiton of the word "race" in a dishonest way meant to usurp the credibility of actual analysis of racism.

[Slavic]

1The only way you can call this a "racial hierarchy" is by applying an archaic definiton of the word "race" in a dishonest way meant to usurp the credibility of actual analysis of racism.

So much this. This is the only argument that RedWorker has and it is utter wack-job antiquated science bullshit.

I also guarantee that RedWorker would drop his principles in a heart beat if confronted with a decision in which either his life or someone's pet dog's life is at stake.

[RedWorker]

If I must choose between saving two beings then I'll save the one I like the most. What does that have to do with anything? I think you haven't understood my arguments.

[John Nada]

For the opposite reasons, why didn't they keep it alive to study it's effects on canines? Even more fucked up than euthanizing it, but I guess they didn't want to take the risk.

[Slavic]

If I must choose between saving two beings then I'll save the one I like the most. What does that have to do with anything? I think you haven't understood my arguments.

If there is a hungry feral dog in the woods and it is attacking a pet rabbit for food, would you shoot the dog to save the rabbit?

If there is a hungry pet dog in the wood and it is attacking an orphan baby for food, would you shoot the dog to save the baby?

I'm going to assume that you would say save the baby and kill the rabbit but I would like to hear your reasoning. Since a lot of your reasoning seems to be emotional driven such as; the dog is loved, has a family, can feel emotions, etc.

Given that, you should shoot the dog to save the rabbit and kill the baby, since the baby and the dog are not loved and do not have families. Also if you are against "racial hierarchy" then the dog, rabbit, and baby should be on equal footing.

[ℂᵒиѕẗяᵤкт]

If I must choose between saving two beings then I'll save the one I like the most. What does that have to do with anything? I think you haven't understood my arguments.

Isn't that exactly what you've been arguing against, dude? I'd have thought liking a human more than a dog was a part of that "racial hierarchy."