Glad I'm not an Aussie. But must Tarantula's are harmless, and wouldn't live in a computer case anyways. They don't like noise (which fans cause) and they dig (which can't be facilitated by metal).

Are Huntsmen dangerous at all? Something about a spider that can grow in excess of 4 inches wide scares the piss out of me. How big was the first one??

------------------
-=I'm the wang of this here site, and it's HUGE! So just imagine how big I am.=-
1337Yectiwan
OSC Returns!!
10 of 14 -- 27 Lives On

Septic Yogurt:

Once again, you prove that you know nothing about the species you're quite happy to not only villify, but kill. Spiders that stay in the open for long, get eaten by birds, not to mention attacked by other predators. Thus they have an instinctive desire for cover. Leave the panel outside in the open for a short while, perhaps only a half an hour, and they'll be gone.

As I stated before (you obviously didn't take it in) I've done similar things with intricate objects before. I've watched them leave. Spiders don't like the open, Q, E and D.

Oh I don't recall offering my opinion on anything other than the issue of animal cruelty in this thread, perhaps you're thinking of someone else...

Or perhaps you're just making a lame attempt at a generalised insult that impacts on me and my LOGICALLY PROVEN case, with all the force of viciously thrown confetti.

Really, is this the best you can do, pro-animal-abuse camp? I've given you plenty of time to formulate other arguments, and yet you're still reduced to petty and childish jibes?

------------------
Spider AL
--

I shall now end this thread... thank me latter.

Umm, the "post your pic" thread is elsewhere, Mech.



------------------
Spider AL
--

and the computer case isnt cover enough? the fact of the matter is, its much less hassle to throw it in the bath, doesnt involve finding keys, getting dressed, putting shoes on or anything, and since you stated that your point was never in doubt, i think that makes it pretty clear that you're confident your opinion on the matter is right, and i'd like to point something else out about your argument... killing spiders is simply an action, and morals are just something invented by people, actions are not, books were invented by people, oxygen was not, not everybody reads, but everybody breathes.

by the way, i dont really care about the whole debate, just arguing for the sake of arguing.

[edit] on another note, leaving something outside where its ripe for the picking of anybody who spots it? thats just stupid behaviour.[/edit]

------------------
mmm, smells like something burning.

[This message has been edited by Septic Yogurt (edited January 08, 2004).]

The COVER wouldn't be cover enough. Prop it up and watch them fly.

Dressed? Jin was NAKED? Urgh. There's a nightmarish scenario.

Firstly I dispute whether putting it outside is more hassle than putting it in the bathroom. Both involve getting up out of your computer chair, opening doors... and one involves running a damn bath, and drying the thing afterwards. I think putting it outside is less hassle.

BUT EVEN IF IT WAS MORE HASSLE, what's a couple of minutes? These things are ALIVE. They deserve consideration because they are alive and because KILLING them serves no PURPOSE.

Yeah, but mate, I have proven it logically. That usually makes things "right" as we'd understand the word.

You people on the other hand have done nothing but attack me personally, threaten to butcher loads of spiders in an attempt to annoy me, (lol) and repeat the SAME old REPETITIVE easily disproven NONSENSE over and over and OVER, NEVER recognising a single LOGICAL POINT. By god, if my point hasn't been proven IN SPADES not only by my logic but by the IMMATURITY OF THE OPPOSITION, then I'm a martian.

Duh. I already stated that my argument will only appeal to MORAL people. If you're not a moral person, OF COURSE you won't care. But at least admit yourself to BE amoral.

That's fine, you're giving me airtime, you self-confessed troll you.

[This message has been edited by Spider AL (edited January 08, 2004).]

sure he said something about having a towel wrapped around him or something, and remember my point about filthy snatchers getting access to stuff outside.

how big is a baby huntsman anyway? i'm imagining them to be about an inch or so long, since the adults look fairly massive, and the biggest spiders we get here are about an inch and a half long, theres a whole load of em living behind our video player during the summer, they always go on missions at night, its horribly annoying when theres a spider on the lightswitch, and its too fragile to remove without wiping it out.

[edit] trolls cause disruption and upset, i just like arguing because its fun, why else would i be taking part in an argument about spiders [/edit]

[edit again] you clearly just stated in the last post, YOUR logic, so bleh, just thought i'd point it out... i better stop skimming so much so i can post without two edits[/edit again]

------------------
mmm, smells like something burning.

[This message has been edited by Septic Yogurt (edited January 08, 2004).]

I think the risk of someone stealing a computer-case-panel placed outside one's back door for half an hour is pretty small. Not as small as the risk of getting harmed by a spider though, which is a very very very small risk. AMAZINGLY small. Anyway, I'd have watched the thing if I didn't have a back garden.

blow it away gently, pick it up gently, whatever you will. It's all easy. You squeamish little munchkin you.

(edit)
A troll's a troll. They argue for no reason other than argument. But as I say, that's fine. You're ensuring that there's a balanced view represented in this thread. ie. my view, by me.

My logic? Logic is logic. Logic is universal everywhere. What's your point?
(/edit)

[This message has been edited by Spider AL (edited January 08, 2004).]

actually, its pretty entertaining to move your finger slowly behind a spider, so it detects your heat and runs a few centimetres forward, oh yea, you didnt answer me, how big will these baby huntsman have been?

on another note... generally, you gotta move these spiders a long distance from the switch, i think there must be some kinda psychadellic spider drug in the plaster and plastic, the little buggers love our kitchen lightswitch, i've crushed one or two before by hitting the switch in the dark and then getting spider guts on my hands.
[edit]
logic is the process of reasoning, some people reason in other ways than others.

and i would say trolls post for the sole purpose to annoy, i'm simply trying to raise valid points, and question the parts of your argument i find questionable, not annoy you.

i'm gonna wait till you post again or edit to make a point, since this argument-via-editing is getting quite out of hand [/edit]
------------------
mmm, smells like something burning.

[This message has been edited by Septic Yogurt (edited January 08, 2004).]

[This message has been edited by Septic Yogurt (edited January 08, 2004).]

You find that entertaining? Do you also find pushing a bottletop around on a table entertaining? Sheesh. Annoying spiders seems to be your main field of endeavour.

Oh you were asking me? Seemed rhetorical. Well it would depend on how young or old they were. If they were juvenile, bigger, if they were infants, smaller. Why do you want to know? It hardly makes any difference, alive is alive, regardless of stature.

I kill things accidentally too. Killing things intentionally when you're not going to eat or use their carcasses in any way, is not moral.

------------------
Spider AL
--

Vacuum cleaners are your friend

Just keep one of those smaller portable ones nearby and suck up any insects that try to mess with you. In the summer time we always get an invasion of flies over here... so I going on a killing spree with my vacuum. Takes me 2 minutes to suck up 15 flies.

------------------
"Life is like a vending machine, sometimes you don't get nothing."

ok, fresh post, read my edits, and lets end the whole silly edit thing... i usually do the finger thing to get spiders out of my room, since they seem to enjoy dropping from the ceiling and onto me, scaring the bejesus out of me, and i just find it humerous.

and i'd like to know, because i've never come across a particularly large spider before, and i'm simply curious.

------------------
mmm, smells like something burning.

That would be one hell of a bloody mess.


------------------
-=I'm the wang of this here site, and it's HUGE! So just imagine how big I am.=-
1337Yectiwan
OSC Returns!!
10 of 14 -- 27 Lives On

especially if you use one of the many dog control devices available on the market



------------------
mmm, smells like something burning.

Septic:

I doubt the spider finds it amusing. And it doesn't scare you, YOU scare yourself, irrationally.

Which is really what this whole debate is about, isn't it. It's about people doing things to cater to their own overemotional irrationality. It's like an alcoholic catering to his or her addiction; it's not good for them, but they do it anyway. Why? Because irrationality is gratifying to the irrational. It's gratifying to them because it excuses all sorts of immoral behaviour, the sort of behaviour that Jin described doing in this thread. That means they can step all over other life forms, other people and other nations if it suits them...

And they won't have to feel bad about it. They'll continue to firmly believe themselves to be great people.

Illogic by its nature doesn't make any sense, and so it allows the hypocrite to think of himself as righteous. Funny really.

Ehehehee. Ehehe. That's absolutely ridiculous. No mate. Logic isn't one of those things that is what we call "subjective". Either you use logic, or not.

Trolls post for argument's sake. That's what you said you were doing. QED.

------------------
Spider AL
--

meh, it gives me a shock because something falls from nowhere and lands on me, its got nothing to do with it being a spider, and still... i think you've got the definition of trolls all wrong, maybe if my posts were along the lines of "OMG YUO SUX I AEM GONNA HAXOR YUO SPIDERS SUX LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL"... of course, that message wouldnt be a reply, it would be a new topic, since thats the kinda thing which trolls do, not have an argument and consider one anothers viewpoints... and of course, i would highly expect something i placed outside to be stolen, a kid i know on my street left his plastic football outside (you know, the ones which cost about 50p) and it got stolen very quickly.

------------------
mmm, smells like something burning.

Captain Irony to the rescue!



Haha. Hahaha. You're mad!
See, killing 200 blue whales? That hurts the species.
Killing 200 spiders? There are literally hundreds of trillions of spiders on this planet. They don't need our help to survive, and even if we all stomped around on spiders all day we would barely put a scratch in the population.

If anything, killing the spiders that get in our way does two things: 1.) It removes the competition for other spiders. Again, they reproduce in batches of 200 for this reason.
2.) It kills off the genetic descendants of a spider that entered his home. Maybe if we're really lucky, after a few thousand years of extermination spiders will have evolved to stay out of our homes?

Frankly, you don't know your information. You just cover it up with twisted logic and zeal to make yourself feel elitist, quite a lot like many PETA members.
Silly. Just silly.

yeah, that was fun to read, there can be a thin line between crudity and logic.

------------------
mmm, smells like something burning.

Septic Yogurt: Already addressed all three of those points,

1: Fright/shock vis-a-vis spiders
2: Definition of trolling
3: Theft

And you've said nothing nor asked any questions that would alter my answers or demand new ones, so frankly, why are you just repeating the questions/disagreements?

Jon'C:

Sigh. Are you going to start calling me a troll now Jon? I think you might find your accusations of zeal and fanaticism hard to justify if you're calling me a troll, trolls don't care about the subjects they debate about, according to you I care too much... so do use some logic, hmm?

Ugh, is extinction the limit of your vision? Is that your ONLY reason for not wanting to kill blue whales? "They might become extinct"? No issues of cruelty, pointlessness, nothing like that? Anyone who claims that Jin's actions alone put Huntsman spiders in the endangered category is a fool, and you're being foolish if you think that I've ever said anything of the sort. The issue is moral, and principle. If you have neither as you seem to, there's little point in your trying to get your head round the concept. LAW does not equal RIGHT. MORAL equals right.

And don't be so naive to think that spiders have such large populations that they're immune to our effects. I'll give you an example: Fen spiders are dying out of western Europe because of human intervention. Not because they've "picked the wrong places to breed". So if you have any other points, now's the time, those ones are dead and buried.

The only thing that killing spiders does is decrease the spider population. And as I mentioned before, (you're still not reading properly) spiders have so many natural predators that they do NOT need our help keeping their population in check, thank you very much.

WHAT? You can't just make totally unqualified statements like that and expect people to take them seriously! What kind of foolish nonsense is that? Exactly WHAT do I not know? WHERE have I been wrong? WHICH point of logic is incorrect? pfft. Is that the best you can do? You remind me of a guy called Ardent, a strong proponent of the "You're wrong. SO I WIN!!!111" school of debating. QUALIFY.

Ooohhh. I see. You already have preconceived negative notions about a major hard-line animal rights group. I'm getting a picture now... It's looking distinctly rural.

Despite the fact that you've been unable to effectively dispute one single point I've made, instead resorting to feeble, illogical generalisations and stock prejudices, YOU seem to think you've shown the stronger argument.

lol.

------------------
Spider AL
--

You ARE aware, I hope, that many bugs flushed down toilets live to see the sewers, right?

If we're concerned about the wellfare of the spiders (which we aren't), we could argue that we're helping them by putting them in an environment overflowing with cockroaches for them to eat.

Oh, but not the cockroaches! I'm so mean for letting a big nasty carnivore eat those sweet little cockroaches! They eat trash! They're hard as hell to kill, how cool is that? I think they're cool so nobody should kill cockroaches ever again omg wtf lol rofl!!!111

We can argue evolution here though - if most spiders that are caught inside a person's house die, and the ones that either stay hidden or outside tend to survive, then by killing them, aren't we helping to build a better spider, one that stays out of our damned way?

Al, the point of this arguement is not Massassi vs. Spider All arguing as equals.
It's that Massassi kills spiders, just like everybody else in the world, and that Spider Al won't shut up so we keep yelling at him.
------------------
Duel Zero : Released the beta. Probably the end of it. Not to worry though, I'm working on Randsaber, which is a lot better.

[This message has been edited by Checksum (edited January 08, 2004).]

Who mentioned anything about flushing insects/spiders down toilets? Did I miss that? Did Jin do that?

Oh wait, it's Checksum.

Well it's worth pointing out that while some arthropods may survive brief immersion in water, some will not.

Heh heh. The old "We're HELPING these things by killing them" argument. Okay, first prove that your idea of "a house" has any relevance to the natural world. How will the intangible power of natural selection tell the difference between your distinctly unnatural dwelling and the world outside? The sound of Jerry Springer coming from the TV perhaps? Maybe in a few thousand years spiders will have evolved the ability to tell an animal-abuser's house from a hole in the ground, but that doesn't make you any less amoral.

Kid, cockroaches carry disease and infest our food, so we have a rational reason to eradicate cockroaches IN OUR PROPERTY. So what's your point exactly? Spiders don't carry disease. Do you have a point? apparently not. Kthxbai.

I particularly like the way you claim to speak not only for everyone who hasn't posted in this thread, but the admittedly few people who have posted in this thread and agree with some or all of what I say. Feel the arrogance.

And this is Spider AL vs. Animal Abusers, with Spider AL making sure a balanced argument is viewed by anyone less closed-minded than Checksum. Nuff.

(edit)
Ohoohoo! Look at Checksum try and fail to make his post less obviously egotistical with an edit! Last paragraph there.
(/edit)

------------------
Spider AL
--

[This message has been edited by Spider AL (edited January 08, 2004).]

Speaking of animal abusers, that dead horse over there is really starting to smell.

------------------
Hahaha, clownsuit.

Ok, I'm pretty dumb, but here's advice anyway, AL.

If ya wanna convince people, you should form your stance with more than an argument of morality. A common subconcious mentality is that if one's not effecting an irrevocable death of something, it's not a big deal. An example: since each spider of its species are like another to a person--and in killing one they aren't dealing an ultimate death to the species--they aren't going to even rethink it. If you question their immorality of killing a spider, they're gonna say, "It's an annoyance, it's only one (out of however many spiders), and hence I don't find it immoral."

In other words, since it ultimately doesn't matter, it doesn't matter to people. You're not going to convince them with nothing to back it.

I would advise anyone who may be losing any sleep over this thread to stop replying to it, because the more you feed Spider Al the more he will puke back at you. Its been happening for years now.

However, if you are entertained by it, by all means have at it.

------------------
"Guns don't kill people, I kill people."

Yeah, I was thinking right after I replied, "what the hell did I just do?"

And now I'm thinking, "why the hell am I posting this?"

And now I'm done posting here. Bye.

[This message has been edited by moneyobie (edited January 08, 2004).]

moneyobie:

Of course it matters, cumulatively. Don't make the mistake of thinking you live in isolation not only from the natural world, but from the actions of all other humans.

Secondly, basically your stance, boiled down, is that you don't think an argument based on morals is enough to convince people. I heartily agree. I'm more about appealing to the already moral than I am about instilling morals in the amoral.

KOP_Snake:



Ooh, feel the disdain. Don't be a kibitzer mate, I respond to posts directed at me, discussing me and/or questioning some aspect of my argument. The only thing I get fed on the Massassi forums is a hearty dose of nonsense, and a dash of superior claptrap from folks like yourself every so often. Nobody's forcing me, these other posters or yourself for that matter, to post in this thread... those who are interested in the debate like myself, should definitely air their views. Those who wish to snipe at the posters themselves... well, there's no law against it. But there is a moral question. Enough said on that subject, I will no longer respond to any jibes or backhanders from you or anyone else in this thread.

------------------
Spider AL
--

Hey, cool, a discussion about philosophy disguised as a discussion about spiders. I'm intrigued...

A question for Spider Al: what is your basis for claiming that spiders and other animals are morally equivilant to humans? I'm sorry if you said it before and I missed it, but I'm just curious. Why should a spider's life be worth the same as a human's? (I'm assuming that's your position, from what I've read -- correct me if I'm wrong, of course). I'm curious to see where you're coming from with this, and what your logical basis is.

------------------
"Well, it could be worse -- it could be windy!" -popular Canadian saying.

I kind of feel bad for Jin. He entertains us with his exciting story - as opposed to picking fights or complaining about this or that - and it all ends up in grief anyways.

------------------
Shut up. I'm GOING to do this whether you like it or not.

[This message has been edited by Tracer (edited January 08, 2004).]

Why should a human's be worth more?


------------------
When bread becomes toast, it can never go back to being bread again.

Flexor: That's just the thing, where does the concept of "worth" come from at all? Why do we even value other human beings' lives? I wanted to get Spider Al's view on this (so I would know the context of the debate, and not argue against some position he doesn't even hold) before presenting my side. Maybe we don't even really disagree on the important points at all, for all I know.

------------------
"Well, it could be worse -- it could be windy!" -popular Canadian saying.

your post towards me simply shows your arrogance and elitist stance towards everybody else with your opinion towards everything, since no matter what anybody says, you won't think about the point they make, and seem very narrow minded with your point of view, i was raising the point that your definition of troll seems to suit you, and so does your definition of everything else, and you continue to force it down everybodies throat.

i'm tired of your arguing style now, i'm gonna go hunt for somebody new.

------------------
mmm, smells like something burning.

Boyz! Boyz! Lets just say your both trolls and agree to disagree...

Krig_the_Viking:

Okay, I've never said anything of the sort. I've never implied anything of the sort. I've never suggested anything of the sort. I don't know WHERE you got it from to be honest.

My position is that all lifeforms should be treated UNIQUELY. And more importantly, RATIONALLY. You don't treat an angry male funnelweb spider the same as you treat a harmless Huntsman spider. I might be tempted to kill the GENUINELY DANGEROUS funnelweb myself, though I'd try to throw a large bowl over it first. Likewise a human intruder in your home is one of the most dangerous intruders, so extreme force is morally acceptable. But why kill harmless things? Where's the logic? Where's the morality?

Treat things RATIONALLY. A Huntsman spider in your home is not dangerous, so why kill it? Why destroy its life? Jin had no rational reason for doing so, and none of the other animal abusers in this thread have any rational reason for the fear of the harmless breeds of spiders that they kill, and even less reason for the killing itself.

Humans aren't rational... but that doesn't make it RIGHT or morally ACCEPTABLE. Humans should TRY to be rational.

What I'm attacking in this thread is the BOASTING and self pity that Jin indulged in when starting this thread... Which in essence is about the destruction of lots of little harmless animals. Where was the pity for the animals? Where was the guilt? The answer? There wasn't any.

It's REPRIHENSIBLE. And I'm here to support and demonstrate the anti-animal-abuse stance that morality dictates I take, to set an example for open minded people, and people who are moral or concerned about being moral.

Tracer:

Try feeling bad for the harmless animals Jin killed. An "exciting" story about animal abuse. Hoo-fraggin'-ray.

Krig again:

Interesting... Your question is now "why should we value LIFE at all?" Well I'll give you three reasons:

1: Benefit of the doubt - We must assume that life has value, because while there is no simple evidence that it has any value, there is equally no evidence that it does NOT have value, therefore we must morally seek not to damage what we cannot repair. We can't GIVE life BACK to other lifeforms, so giving "worth" the benefit of the doubt is the only moral course. We give other lifeforms the benefit of the doubt when it comes to the intrinsic worth of their life. Unless you can prove logically that life has NO intrinsic value, morally we must take this view.

I'm not going to discuss theology or religion, I find such things too prone to subjective interpretation. Plus, there's the next point:

2: Rationality - To be rational is a BASIC responsibility. Most of the suffering and hardship the world has seen has come from people's irrational behaviour and beliefs. Religious wars, Nazism, Witch-burning, Chinese foot-binding, you name it, we got it. Being irrational is self-indulgent and bratty.

3: Unnecessary expenditure of energy - While it takes more energy to create than to destroy, it takes even LESS energy to just leave things the heck alone. I only kill when I have rational, moral cause to... and thus I save energy. I can't even imagine the amount of energy Jin expended rushing around, making himself/herself afraid, running baths, desperately trying to think of ways to deal out death, when simple, calm action would have served just as well.

Septic Yogurt:

YOU'RE the one who fails to see reason and logic. YOU'RE the one who never alters his arguments no matter how thoroughly they've been disproven, and YOU'RE part of the camp that simply tries to SILENCE dissent, so who's forcing what down whose throat exactly?

As for my definition of troll, it's this: A troll starts and continues argument for the sake only of the argument itself. YOU admitted to doing this, so that makes you a troll. If you think that definition applies to me, you're just misguided.

Or maybe just trolling.

Good day.

------------------
Spider AL
--

and you argue for any other reason than "to argue", thats all arguing is from any angle, i just enjoy it.

[edit] i apologise for posting again, just i felt physically sickened by the whole affair and was forced to raise the next point[/edit]

please dont quote me again, so i can leave this trivial rubbish alone.

------------------
mmm, smells like something burning.

[This message has been edited by Septic Yogurt (edited January 09, 2004).]

Hi Al, enjoyed your post. Now on to the nitty gritty...

Regarding a moral equivilancy between the worth of a spider's life and the worth of a human's life:



Ok, ok, that's what I was trying to find out. Now we're getting somewhere. So would I be wrong to say that your position is, essentially, that it is morally wrong to treat living things without rationality (treating the threat according to its actual danger, etc)? I'm just trying to make sure things are as clear as possible, since the degeneration of a debate into shouting match is invariably caused by both sides not understanding the other's position.

Alright, the points about why we should value life (I'll get to your response to my first post shortly):



I agree completely here. If we don't know if the life of a creature has value or not, it would be folly to destroy that life. It's always (morally) better to be on the safe side. However, I do think we have a responsibility to find out the truth so that we can behave in a manner appropriate to the situation. You can be on the safe side and treat all animal life as if it were of the same value as a human's, or you can refuse to care and treat all animal life as if it were worthless, but both positions are acting out of ignorance. While it might be morally good to treat animal life with the benefit of the doubt, it would be morally better to find out what animal life is actually worth, if anything, and behave accordingly. Knowledge is always better than ignorance.



I agree completely here, as well. Letting yourself be controlled solely by your emotions is irresponsible. Mind you, the opposite end of the spectrum is just as bad. Cold, unfeeling rationality can be just as brutal as rampant irresponsibility. Just look at Lenin or Stalin. However, that's not really part of this discussion, so I'll leave it at that.



I don't really see what this has to do with why we should value life. Even if this were true in all cases (which it's not -- if a spider was crawling on my arm right now, it would take far less energy to simply swat it and flush it than it would to take it all the way outside and release it) it's still a matter of practicality rather than a reason for why we value life. After all, I don't value my best friend's life simply because it takes less energy to let him live than it does to kill him, right? We should only kill when it is morally acceptable to do so, I agree. But the level of energy required for an action really has no bearing on whether it is moral or not.

Back to the rationality thing and your response to my first post:



That's just the thing, Jin did have a rational reason for killing the spiders. The spiders were annoyance to him (more than that, due to his arachnophobia they terrified him and violently disrupted his life), and since Jin attached no moral worth to the spider's lives, he decided it would be better to kill the spiders once and for all rather than leave them alive and risk having them return. Yes, Jin was in a highly agitated state, but he still behaved rationally. The issue here is not the rationality of his actions, but the question of moral worth.

As a further example: say I have a flower garden in my front yard, which is my pride and joy. I constantly strive to make it better and more beautiful. Then one day I find a giant ragweed growing right in the middle of it. I could either carefully dig it up and transplant it elsewhere in my yard (where its seeds might spread back to my garden), or I could uproot it and burn it so that it never grows in my garden again. Is it irrational to uproot the ragweed and burn it (ie, kill it)? Of course not, in fact, in this case it's the more effective action. If that ragweed's life had moral worth, however, then it would be morally wrong to kill it. The question isn't about rationality, it's about moral worth. Rationally, what makes spiders different from ragweeds? Should we give ragweeds the benefit of the doubt and refuse to kill them, as well?

To bring my post to a conclusion:


Jin had reason to boast. He was confronted by a major, consuming fear, and demonstrated considerable bravery in overcoming it. It would be the same if he was afraid of heights and found himself in the CN Tower, or afraid of closed spaces and found himself in a mineshaft. You're right though. He didn't demonstrate any pity or guilt -- because he didn't feel any was required. He attached no moral worth to the lives of those spiders. Which leaves us with the question: should he have?

------------------
"Well, it could be worse -- it could be windy!" -popular Canadian saying.

Septic Yogurt:

Just SAYING it doesn't make it so. I argue my point because I believe in what I say. Arguing for argument's sake is trolling, something that you've admitted to indirectly.

Post again please, prove your word to be worth little once more.

Whoops, Septic wants to have the last word, I think. Don't worry, next time you post I won't reply to it. You can have it.

Krig_the_Viking:

We'll give knowledge the benefit of the doubt too. But frankly I doubt that there is any way to know if the property of life itself has intrinsic worth.

Are we blessed beings,.. or merely an accident of a random universe, the only wondrous thing about us our utter conviction that we are wondrous?

These are questions best left to priests and theologists, faith, while valuable, is subjective and unsupportable. Thus it has little place in a debate on the rationale of morality... The ABSENCE of the answers to these questions however, is key to such a debate.

It would take even less energy to blow it away still living, or even just let it crawl on you until it got tired of the heat and left. Presuming that it wasn't venomous.

I disagree, since we are in part basing our evaluation of what is moral on the practicality of various courses of action, I think the practical plays a large part in determining what the moral course of action is in a given situation. The first question we must ask before deciding whether lethal force is moral, is naturally a practical one: Is this thing dangerous to me?

We say we shouldn't kill arbitrarily because:

A: We don't know whether life has intrinsic value or not, (moral)

B: We shouldn't kill without REASON because it is our responsibility to be rational, and through irrationality we may wreak damage we are unable to undo. (moral/practical)

And my third point was

C: We shouldn't expend the energy necessary to kill creatures that cannot affect us, when we could quite happily not expend any energy at all, and let them live. Thus, WE save energy. (practical)

In Jin's case, I've mentioned several scenarios in which he/she could have allowed some or all of the spiders infesting the PC to live, while expending equal or less energy.

Personally I think the practical and the principle go hand in hand in this and every other case. Furthermore I mentioned it as many of the pro-killing camp suggested that killing things is less work than letting things live... well from a rational standpoint it is not.

Perhaps you're right though, maybe it's not so much a reason why we should personally VALUE life as just another reason why we shouldn't TAKE life arbitrarily.

Since we have already established that killing things arbitrarily (without reason) is amoral, it's not a huge leap to say that a killing that springs from an IRRATIONAL FEAR (arachnophobia), self-created, is amoral. Being afraid of something doesn't free one of all responsibility when it comes to conduct and behaviour. I've used the race example many times in this debate... A lot of racists are genuinely frightened of the ethnic group they choose to hate. Their lives, by your rationale, are equally "disrupted" by the presence of these members of another race in their community...

But of course, the moral course of action is clear there. Nothing excuses the behaviour of the KKK in the last century, or the Nazis, or the Khmer Rouge, even though the people that made up these groups believed that they were justified in what they did. Their belief doesn't make them moral. Their fanaticism doesn't make them moral. In short, irrational and/or emotional drives BEHIND amoral acts, don't make the acts any less amoral. And someone who commits amoral acts and doesn't feel remotely guilty about it, is an amoral person.

Of course he didn't behave rationally, he was driven to his actions, which were in no way reasonable or proportionate to the situation, by an even more irrational fear! A fear, not IMPOSED upon him by the spiders, but SELF-CREATED. Maybe he was conditioned that way by his older siblings, friends or family... but that doesn't make his actions moral, the abused becoming the abuser is a good analogy there.

Well I hate to blow a hole in that analogy, but gardening itself is no more rational than Chinese foot-binding was, it is no more rational than having breast-implants is, and I can think of some good arguments to suggest that foot-binding at least was amoral. Who is to say whether gardening itself is amoral, because it is direct interference in a microcosmic ecosystem, and arbitrary slaying of species that don't conform to an irrational cosmetic ideal in the mind of the gardener.

Gardening to grow CROPS to EAT is purely logical and rational, and then we remove weeds because weeds might make our crops suffer. Gardening to serve some idea of beauty that changes every generation is not logical nor rational, and any damage that results from it is therefore irresponsibly amoral.

He didn't OVERCOME his fear. He gave IN to it. He showed irrational cowardice, and abused his power over creatures that were helpless before him. He had no reason to boast, he had reason to be ASHAMED!

By learning about spiders (plus many more species) and learning to treat them rationally and morally, I overcame my arachnophobia, which was acute. Flexor is trying to according to him. This is moral. This is practical.

Yep, if we consider being moral to be preferable. We've already established the "benefit of the doubt" principle. That applies here. QED.

------------------
Spider AL
--

Here endth the thread.

------------------
Cantina Cloud | BCF | The Massassian 1 & 2 | Gonkmeg
Corrupting the kiddies since '97

THREAD REVIVAL

... you're all pansies

Um, why?

PS: I actually remembered this thread.