Look.
Other people understood my point, enough to agree with it.
If you disagree, that's fine, I won't hold it against you. But please stop trying to say I haven't explained it properly. I made it fairly clear as to why I think what I do. It's not even a very complex matter. To be perfectly honest, it really does just seem like you're trying to over-complicate things in order to make a point completely unrelated to what I was saying (and I know what that point is).
I can't explain it any clearer than I have, and you are the only person complaining about not being able to understand it. So the rest is on you to understand it, at that point. Maybe you just don't get it. And that's fine. Nobody understands everything.
Sorry for lashing out a bit in the last post, but sincerely, I can't give you a clearer explanation than I already have. I've already handed you something pretty darn transparent. What you're asking me to explain is like asking me to explain why you shouldn't murder someone after I've just said "because it's taking someone's life away against their will, hurts those who loved them, and will likely cause you life in prison, or at least you'll have some people who now hate you".
I wasn't sure what your position was, honestly, but I had an idea. You didn't answer my question after I re-presented it in (I think) a clearer manner.
I hope you believe me when I say I have no ulterior point.
My first point is to open debate and encourage critical thought (because all things have a
why, and can get appreciatively complicated when attempting to explain the why
. We're discussing ethics, but more on that later). I can't argue against moral assertions that have no justifications, no
why. So, I was trying to draw the justifications of your stance, the
why of it, out. After that happened, I was hoping to move to my second point, the actual argument over your statement. More on that later, again.
Okay, so, ethics. It troubles me when people say we shouldn't murder, but don't actually provide reasons. Reason being is that the position is very flimsy, and the potential exists for poor quality arguments to shove aside that wariness of murder. I believe this has happened a lot in history, they just call murder by another name to soothe cognitive dissonance and make their ideas more palatable. Ethnic cleansing, war, and so on.
In that, you're goddamn right. I'm asking you something similar. I'm asking questions like "
Why is it wrong to take someone's life against their will? What makes a life sacred? Why is hurting people bad? Why is hate bad? I won't accept 'because that's how it is.'"
In this case, it's (if this is your position) "
What makes dog lives sacred to the point where we should attempt to save them at all costs?"
To be honest, a big reason why I go after arguments instead of making my own comprehensive points is that 1. people usually don't care what you have to say if you disagree with them blatantly while not having their personal trust. 2. My viewpoints on ethics are very societally unorthodox and are likely to incur such ignoring and belittling, which is why I try to focus on making people accept debate and discourse first. 3. I... haven't fully taken my own position. But that's why I like argument, it helps me refine mine. When I've gotten to the point where I think I can make it without reasonable people marginalizing it right out of the gate, I won't hesitate to post it. It's about hearts and minds, you know?
I don't want to take this any further because I think it will go in circles no matter what I say, and I'm going to bed so I can hopefully stay awake through an all-night stream about a virtual blue rodent.
Goodnight. <3
