In Jeff’s defense on this thread, while I don’t love the personal attacks that get thrown in fights between you and folks like him on the board, much though I can appreciate the freedom of speech it illustrates…
No personal attacks were launched in this thread, and his posts were on topic.
I also kinda agree that the average Trump voter may not be as bad as you make them out to be. To say nothing of the right wing more generally.
Though I feel like the answer to the sick animal question may in part have to do with their status as human beings, and the idea that acting uninformed or misinformed and thereby causing damage is not necessarily evidence of moral wrongdoing so much as incompetence. Of which many are guilty in their beliefs, political or otherwise, and should not perhaps be killed for it despite the damage those beliefs can cause. Likewise, many believe that you shouldn’t kill those who aren’t actually malevolent or who seem “innocent” in their moral intentions. Not saying the defense always holds if a person’s life is actively and imminently in danger, but I do get it.
I don't see jeffs posts, I blocked him as his posts were near invariably just shitthrowing. I just decided they likely were and replied in kind.
Edit: I did see his post you were quoting and saw he did not see human life as being of any innate worth. I wasn't surprised ,he comes off as a libertarian ayn rhand type who believes he is superior and would probably be hunting poor homeless people on horseback or from a helicopter if he could get away with it.
Maybe human life does have no value. The chinese government sure believes that, so millions of people are basically slave labor in factories from birth to death because their lives are valueless. Dissidents are murdered and their organs sold because the money means more than their lives.
Most people don't want to live in a world where human life has no value. Maybe libertarians with fantasies of being supermen like John Galt want to because they believe they'd be freer in that world, but most people don't want a world like that, so we have laws and religion thru human history. Neither have been perfect solutions but both relfect the desjere of most to have human lives matter. Edit.
I read a very strange sf novel long ago called 'the godwhale' (it was better than the title) that featured a society basically ran by a super AI that was under an inviolable, absolutely inviolable, command against killing people for any reason at all. Two people wondered about it and were told if the AI, which was more intelligent than humans, were allowed to kill even only extreme circumstances, it could use it's greater intelligence to rationalize and justify killing anyone or everyone. So it was hardwired against killing anyone ever period.
In America we have too much rationalized killing of people as is. Passively or actively America kills people daily for rational reasons. People die of easily treatable medical issues because it's rationalized that healthcare corporate profits are more important than human life. People die from unsafe products because manufacturers rationalize a few lawsuits or bribibg judges is more cost effective than making safer products.
I don't want to see killing mentally ill people rationalized. It has to go to bad places.