Getting The Shot Vs Ethical Behaviour

geekpower said:
takesome1 said:
geekpower said:
Suppose, for some unspecified reason, I kick a dog on my way to work in the morning. Then on the way home, I come upon the same dog. According to your logic, I must say to myself, "gee, if I don't kick this dog again, people will think I'm a hypocrite, and that's the worst thing a person can be", and then proceed to kick the dog again with a clear conscience.

Choosing not to kick the dog the 2nd time certainly doesn't forgive my actions earlier in the day, but it's still the right thing to do.

There are laws addressing animal cruelty that protect dogs from abusive people.
There are no such laws for insects that I am aware of.
Perhaps you should contact your local government and see if you can get one passed.

you are completely missing the point and apparently also don't understand the difference between morality and legality.

it isn't about whether kicking a dog or rejecting a refugee is anything like squishing a bug. it's about whether or not hypocrisy justifies an action.

Morality is the basis of the majority of laws. Apparently you do not realize that.
Your example of kicking the dog repeatedly is a very poor one to represent hypocrisy. Apparently you do no not fully understand what hypocrisy is.
 
Upvote 0
takesome1 said:
geekpower said:
takesome1 said:
geekpower said:
Suppose, for some unspecified reason, I kick a dog on my way to work in the morning. Then on the way home, I come upon the same dog. According to your logic, I must say to myself, "gee, if I don't kick this dog again, people will think I'm a hypocrite, and that's the worst thing a person can be", and then proceed to kick the dog again with a clear conscience.

Choosing not to kick the dog the 2nd time certainly doesn't forgive my actions earlier in the day, but it's still the right thing to do.

There are laws addressing animal cruelty that protect dogs from abusive people.
There are no such laws for insects that I am aware of.
Perhaps you should contact your local government and see if you can get one passed.

you are completely missing the point and apparently also don't understand the difference between morality and legality.

it isn't about whether kicking a dog or rejecting a refugee is anything like squishing a bug. it's about whether or not hypocrisy justifies an action.

Morality is the basis of the majority of laws. Apparently you do not realize that.
Your example of kicking the dog repeatedly is a very poor one to represent hypocrisy. Apparently you do no not fully understand what hypocrisy is.

it's ok if you can't be logical and emotional at the same time. it happens to the best of us.
 
Upvote 0
geekpower said:
takesome1 said:
geekpower said:
takesome1 said:
geekpower said:
Suppose, for some unspecified reason, I kick a dog on my way to work in the morning. Then on the way home, I come upon the same dog. According to your logic, I must say to myself, "gee, if I don't kick this dog again, people will think I'm a hypocrite, and that's the worst thing a person can be", and then proceed to kick the dog again with a clear conscience.

Choosing not to kick the dog the 2nd time certainly doesn't forgive my actions earlier in the day, but it's still the right thing to do.

There are laws addressing animal cruelty that protect dogs from abusive people.
There are no such laws for insects that I am aware of.
Perhaps you should contact your local government and see if you can get one passed.

you are completely missing the point and apparently also don't understand the difference between morality and legality.

it isn't about whether kicking a dog or rejecting a refugee is anything like squishing a bug. it's about whether or not hypocrisy justifies an action.

Morality is the basis of the majority of laws. Apparently you do not realize that.
Your example of kicking the dog repeatedly is a very poor one to represent hypocrisy. Apparently you do no not fully understand what hypocrisy is.

it's ok if you can't be logical and emotional at the same time. it happens to the best of us.

Emotional, why do you think there is emotion involved in the post? Like the rest of your comments your evaluations you missed the mark.
If your original scenario was meant to be logical you failed as it was flawed.
 
Upvote 0

Don Haines

Beware of cats with laser eyes!
Jun 4, 2012
8,246
1,939
Canada
kaihp said:
chauncey said:
I wish that I had a picture of a dead horse with someone kicking it...supposedly to make it move.
It won't move and neither will the minds of the obstinate.
Such as this?
Yes, but is it ethical to kill a cartoon horse just to make your point?
 
Upvote 0
takesome1 said:
Emotional, why do you think there is emotion involved in the post? Like the rest of your comments your evaluations you missed the mark.
If your original scenario was meant to be logical you failed as it was flawed.

Well, that may be. You haven't provided any argument as to why it was flawed, so let's have some fun with logic. This time, we can use symbols instead of analogies, so we can avoid those pesky emotion things.

We have the question, "is it ok to harm/kill our photography subjects?"

We can express that as "A or (not A)"

Sally has the opinion that we shouldn't. So we can say that she believes "(not A)".

CanonFanBoy points out that Sally kills bugs by driving her car to the country to take pictures of bugs, and so in that decision, she believes "A".

CanonFanBoy sees the hypocrisy in this. It can't be both A and not A at the same time. We can write that as:

"not (A and (not A))"

This is troubling indeed for Sally, for she is convinced in her heart of "(not A)", yet CanonFanBoy is convinced of "A", and whenever she tries to make her case, he tells her that her opinion is invalidated by her hypocrisy.

"not (A and (not A))" has too many confusing negations. let's turn it into a positive statement.

Thanks to clever fellows named Augustus De Morgan and George Boole, we now know that "not (A and (not A))" can be rewritten as "A or (not A)".

But wait! That takes us right back where we started!

Indeed, good readers, it does. Sally may be a hypocrite, but that in itself does not prove which of her beliefs is wrong, merely that one or the other must be, and conversely, one or the other must be right. This might remind us of the old idiom, "a stopped clock is right twice a day." Alas, we know that much is true, but can't know when, exactly, it is right or wrong without further investigation.

Tedious as this all may be for those who either already understood, or who are incapable of understanding basic logic, I offer you this well beaten horse as a sacrifice to the gods of open discussion, in hopes that those who do have opinions on this subject can discuss them freely, without people like CanonFanBoy shouting them down with ad hominem attacks, trying to squelch the debate when open questions still remain.
 
Upvote 0

Ozarker

Love, joy, and peace to all of good will.
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,933
4,336
The Ozarks
geekpower said:
takesome1 said:
Emotional, why do you think there is emotion involved in the post? Like the rest of your comments your evaluations you missed the mark.
If your original scenario was meant to be logical you failed as it was flawed.

Well, that may be. You haven't provided any argument as to why it was flawed, so let's have some fun with logic. This time, we can use symbols instead of analogies, so we can avoid those pesky emotion things.

We have the question, "is it ok to harm/kill our photography subjects?"

We can express that as "A or (not A)"

Sally has the opinion that we shouldn't. So we can say that she believes "(not A)".

CanonFanBoy points out that Sally kills bugs by driving her car to the country to take pictures of bugs, and so in that decision, she believes "A".

CanonFanBoy sees the hypocrisy in this. It can't be both A and not A at the same time. We can write that as:

"not (A and (not A))"

This is troubling indeed for Sally, for she is convinced in her heart of "(not A)", yet CanonFanBoy is convinced of "A", and whenever she tries to make her case, he tells her that her opinion is invalidated by her hypocrisy.

"not (A and (not A))" has too many confusing negations. let's turn it into a positive statement.

Thanks to clever fellows named Augustus De Morgan and George Boole, we now know that "not (A and (not A))" can be rewritten as "A or (not A)".

But wait! That takes us right back where we started!

Indeed, good readers, it does. Sally may be a hypocrite, but that in itself does not prove which of her beliefs is wrong, merely that one or the other must be, and conversely, one or the other must be right. This might remind us of the old idiom, "a stopped clock is right twice a day." Alas, we know that much is true, but can't know when, exactly, it is right or wrong without further investigation.

Tedious as this all may be for those who either already understood, or who are incapable of understanding basic logic, I offer you this well beaten horse as a sacrifice to the gods of open discussion, in hopes that those who do have opinions on this subject can discuss them freely, without people like CanonFanBoy shouting them down with ad hominem attacks, trying to squelch the debate when open questions still remain.

I never said anybody's opinion is valid or invalid, you nit-wit. Opinions can be valid or invalid. That is what makes them opinions. My lens X is better than your lens Y is opinion. The truth is entirely different.

However, the truth is always true. It is never untrue. Don't go into "my truth" vs "your truth". That is just silly. Nobody owns the truth. The truth stands on its own.

Hypocrisy isn't about truth or untruth. It isn't about validity or not. It has nothing to do with opinion either.

Hypocrisy has to do with the finger wagger accusing and condemning the other guy for doing essentially the same thing as the wagger is doing. Can't you see this? Are you really that dense?

You see, with hypocrisy BOTH sides can be wrong hypocrites having stupid opinions without a shred of truth to them. DUH!

Geekpower, you are quite outclassed. Tramp on through the field for your landscape shots while you look on in disdain at the man chilling a bug... telling us how you are so much the better man than he is.

By the way, how many refugees are you going to allow to share your house? That's what I thought. NIMBY
 
Upvote 0
CanonFanBoy said:
However, the truth is always true. It is never untrue. Don't go into "my truth" vs "your truth". That is just silly. Nobody owns the truth. The truth stands on its own.
While it's true that "the truth" is never false, it's often the case that it's not (yet) possible for us mere humans to discern "the truth;' e.g., how many galaxies or grains of sand exist at any given instant. Without an omniscient narrator, we are often left with perceptions. For more on this topic consult a philosopher, you can find one through your local philosophers guild.
 
Upvote 0

Ozarker

Love, joy, and peace to all of good will.
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,933
4,336
The Ozarks
Orangutan said:
CanonFanBoy said:
However, the truth is always true. It is never untrue. Don't go into "my truth" vs "your truth". That is just silly. Nobody owns the truth. The truth stands on its own.
While it's true that "the truth" is never false, it's often the case that it's not (yet) possible for us mere humans to discern "the truth;' e.g., how many galaxies or grains of sand exist at any given instant.

You are correct. However, the truth is, "We don't know." :D
 
Upvote 0

Ozarker

Love, joy, and peace to all of good will.
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,933
4,336
The Ozarks
geekpower said:
takesome1 said:
Emotional, why do you think there is emotion involved in the post? Like the rest of your comments your evaluations you missed the mark.
If your original scenario was meant to be logical you failed as it was flawed.

in hopes that those who do have opinions on this subject can discuss them freely, without people like CanonFanBoy shouting them down with ad hominem attacks, trying to squelch the debate when open questions still remain.

Are you actually the one protesting ad hominem attacks?:
Your logic is the same used by the racist xenophobes who cry out that we should help our homeless/veterans/seniors/<insert group who needs help here> before we help any refugees.
 
Upvote 0
Just follow the law.

No one has the right to tell you what you can or cannot do with your time or money so long as what you are doing is legal or legally acquired.

If you are part of a community with certain standards then you should follow it.

If you disagree then get out.

If you are not party then they have no say.

In the Philippines and other developing nations ethics is a sore subject among birders. One side want it be done a certain way without economic benefit to the community living in the subject's habitat.

This is appalling when those living in the habitat often survive on $1/day and have no alternative but to eat endangered fauna and sell off endangered flora.

To these people, they should live life with so little for at least a year to have a better understanding if their ethics is really ethical.
 
Upvote 0

Valvebounce

CR Pro
Apr 3, 2013
4,555
450
57
Isle of Wight
Hi Chauncey.
This piqued my interest, but I haven't been able to find further information on this, please can you elaborate, is it due to personal injury or what I have heard else where, bug zappers are often used in kitchens and eating establishments and the zapped bugs explode showering bug parts on the food, or is it really about hurting the bugs? ;D
I'm not getting in to the ethics, I drive.

Cheers, Graham.

chauncey said:
Perhaps you should contact your local government and see if you can get one passed.
FWIW...bug zappers are illegal in Colorado.
 
Upvote 0

Don Haines

Beware of cats with laser eyes!
Jun 4, 2012
8,246
1,939
Canada
chauncey said:
In years past I spent many summers with a friend in Pueblo, Colorado and bugs were a PITA...
being from Michigan where those zappers were common, I suggested buying one.
Can't do it he said...they're illegal in Colorado. That's the extent of my knowledge on the subject. :eek:
I remember reading something about someone getting electrocuted when they stuck their finger in one..... That might be the reason......
 
Upvote 0

IMG_0001

Amateur photon abductor
Nov 12, 2013
364
0
I'm a bit late to the party but I'd like to have a second opinion on the hypocrisy of declaring finger pointers as the worst class of human being...

Also, the debate appears to me as somewhat in fringe of the legal sphere. Laws are often quite late to deal with emerging trends (and sometimes rather old problems) and there is place for discussion on what should be done (as opposed to what must be done). Ethics and philosophy often provide useful guidance when a problem is perceived but laws are absent. Not to mention that all laws are not in perfect alignment with ethics and morality...
 
Upvote 0
Don Haines said:
chauncey said:
In years past I spent many summers with a friend in Pueblo, Colorado and bugs were a PITA...
being from Michigan where those zappers were common, I suggested buying one.
Can't do it he said...they're illegal in Colorado. That's the extent of my knowledge on the subject. :eek:
I remember reading something about someone getting electrocuted when they stuck their finger in one..... That might be the reason......

i haven't read anything about that law in colorado, but i have read a few articles that were anti bug zapper. apparently there have been studies that show that bug zappers don't kill biting insects like mosquitoes (which are attracted to carbon dioxide, not light/heat). they mostly kill midges, which deprives the fish stock of a major source of food.
 
Upvote 0
CanonFanBoy said:
I never said anybody's opinion is valid or invalid, you nit-wit. Opinions can be valid or invalid. That is what makes them opinions. My lens X is better than your lens Y is opinion. The truth is entirely different.

However, the truth is always true. It is never untrue. Don't go into "my truth" vs "your truth". That is just silly. Nobody owns the truth. The truth stands on its own.

Hypocrisy isn't about truth or untruth. It isn't about validity or not. It has nothing to do with opinion either.

Hypocrisy has to do with the finger wagger accusing and condemning the other guy for doing essentially the same thing as the wagger is doing. Can't you see this? Are you really that dense?

You see, with hypocrisy BOTH sides can be wrong hypocrites having stupid opinions without a shred of truth to them. DUH!

Geekpower, you are quite outclassed. Tramp on through the field for your landscape shots while you look on in disdain at the man chilling a bug... telling us how you are so much the better man than he is.

By the way, how many refugees are you going to allow to share your house? That's what I thought. NIMBY

oh yes, i am certainly outclassed. if by outclassed, you mean i only know how to win arguments by resorting to logical reasoning, unlike you, who have mastered the art of completely disregarding all intelligent thought and resorting to petty name calling and bullying. you are a true wonder. your heroes Dunning and Kruger must be very proud.

and AGAIN, since your reading comprehension is also apparently very classy, i never said that i am necessarily against chilling, killing, setting on fire, eating, whatever. my argument is that anybody who does want to state their reasons should be allowed to do so without being shouted down for being a hypocrite. it serves no purpose but to sensor the debate.

as for refugees, whether or not i am hypocritical on that topic is irrelevant to the discussion of bugs, just as hypocrisy is irrelevant to all debate, but since you are curious, no, i don't plan to host any in my home. i am not trained in social work, and would not be very good at helping them to get established. luckily for them, i live in a social democracy, and in the recent federal election i voted for a party who's platform was pro-refugee, and they happened to win. i trust the new government to spend my tax dollars appropriately, and for the government agencies involved to use their expertise to provide much better help than i could directly.
 
Upvote 0