[ SECRET POST #2239 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2239 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.
[Elementary]


__________________________________________________



03.
[Pokemon]


__________________________________________________



04.
[Noah, Power Rangers MegaForce]


__________________________________________________



05.
[Mass Effect]


__________________________________________________



06.
[Resident Evil]


__________________________________________________



07.
[Medaka Box]


__________________________________________________



08.
[Shameless]


__________________________________________________



09.
[Star Trek 2009]


__________________________________________________



10.
[Dreamwork's Sinbad, Avengers, American Gods, My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic
Batman, Gunnerkrigg Court, Grim Adventures, Trickster's Choice/Queen]


__________________________________________________



11.
[American Dad]


__________________________________________________



12.
[Laurell K. Hamilton]


__________________________________________________



13.
[my neighbour totoro]


__________________________________________________



14.
[Medaka Box]


__________________________________________________



15.
[Downton Abbey]


__________________________________________________



16.
[The Red Panda, Black Jack Justice]


__________________________________________________















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 04 pages, 080 secrets from Secret Submission Post #320.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[chardmonster]

Accidentally killing a dog is bad and worth punishing severely but killing all those enemies of Starfleet is A-OK

[(Anonymous)]

not saying i am pro-war or anything, but you...are an idiot.

[chardmonster]

Not saying I am pro-idiot or anything but just calling people stupid without explaining why is the go-to argument of anonymous morons.

[(Anonymous)]

i didn't explain because a) the bizarre and thoughtless perspective of your comment smacks of willful stupidity rather than ignorance, and b) it is so obvious why you're an idiot that nobody except you would wonder on the reasoning behind me saying so.

besides, your insistence on using an alias as opposed to going anon to comment here has made it so that i know precisely how pointless it is to engage in any kind of actual discussion with you. and really, this is all you're going to get from me on that, except to say it would greatly benefit you to go anon in the future.

[chardmonster]

it is so obvious why you're an idiot that nobody except you would wonder on the reasoning behind me saying so.

Haha, oh man. Okay. Let's see your argument.

besides, your insistence on using an alias as opposed to going anon to comment here has made it so that i know precisely how pointless it is to engage in any kind of actual discussion with you. and really, this is all you're going to get from me on that, except to say it would greatly benefit you to go anon in the future.

Wait, you don't appear to have one. You're just angry I mentioned your anonymity and how just calling me stupid is pointless.

[insanenoodlyguy]

Oh yes, the brave reasonable one is you, oh anon. That isn't cowardice to not have to stand behind your words, that's just us named punks being "insistent" on not adhering to your bullshit.

And your argument that it's not worth discussing with chard falls apart on account of YOU'VE BEEN DISCUSSING THINGS WITH CHARD.

Don't blame a name for an inability to articulate your shitty logic.

[(Anonymous)]

A dog is innocent. Their enemies are not. Please, a three-year-old could figure that out. 0/10 not your best effort.

[chardmonster]

A dog is a dog. A human is human.

Also it was an accident, he isn't a sociopathic animal torturer.

[thezmage]

It wasn't an accident, he purposely took that dog and put it through what he knew was an unreliable experimental procedure in order to punish its owner for not recognizing the glory that is Scotty.

[chardmonster]

Which is not the same as killing a sentient person.

Dogs aren't people. They're awesome, and we shouldn't abuse them, but they are not people.

[(Anonymous)]

GAHHHHH MUST RESIST TEMPTATION TO TROLL

I think there's a strong argument that can be made that the moral calculus here is somewhat wonky. I mean, war is one thing, it has its exigencies and its necessities. but the argument you're making seems to be that the life of a dog is more valuable than the life of a morally faulty human or other sentient creature. and that, I simply cannot agree with, and I think it's a little absurd.

[charming_stranger]

I find it highly amusing that this comment is right after chardmonster's and insanenoodlyguy's threads. I mean, good on you for resisting the temptation. =D

[(Anonymous)]

Damn right an innocent dog's life is more valuable than the life of a rapist or a pedophile or a murderer. If I had to choose which one I'd throw out of the airlock, it wouldn't be the dog.

[(Anonymous)]

+1

[(Anonymous)]

How can you tell if said dog isn't planning world/space domination?

[(Anonymous)]

Yes! Exactly!

Clearly the dog was actually a Founder scout.

[tree_and_leaf]

Because it isn't a cat?

[(Anonymous)]

So I fully recognize that this is a fictional universe etc blah blah but come the hell on really? "Their enemies are not [innocent]"? As a blanket statement, as if any given side in a war is *ever* innocent? War is war. Sometimes it may be considered necessary, but it does us no favors to pretend like there's really such a thing as totally innocent good guys who are justified in their every action just neutralizing horrible bad guys with no good reasons for the evils they perpetrate. You undermine any point you're trying to make with that kind of shoddy and naive reasoning.
Either way, human (and in ST universe, sentient and/or human-like) life has a particular moral value. Not saying poor behavior towards animals isn't bad; it is morally wrong and unjust, don't mistake me. But even radical animal rights advocates (viz. Peter Singer) admit that it is a substantially more unethical action to kill a conscious human than to kill any given animal. And no-- I really don't care if the person is "not innocent"-- it is a terrible wrong to kill them, and misleading at best to try to compare their death with the death of a nonhuman animal.

D- for effort.

[(Anonymous)]

If your enemies are trying to kill you then you have every moral right to try and kill them first.

This, of course, does not describe every war that was ever fought - in fact it probably describes very few of them.

However, in this particular Star Trek movie the enemies were trying to blow up PLANETS.

Killing them was a completely different, utterly not comparable situation.

OP

[(Anonymous)]

I would say that accidentally killing a defenseless dog while botching an attempt to show off is not really in the same category as deliberately killing one's opponents under orders in a combat situation. You can certainly make an argument that killing the enemies is not okay; you can also make an argument that it is okay. Ethics in war are sticky. The deaths of the opposing people are significant, but whether it was 'the right thing to do' can be argued. Killing the dog is a dumbass move at best, and the argument is about whether the act is significant.

tl;dr Different paradigms; don't compare.

Re: OP

[chardmonster]

So it'd be absolutely fine if someone had ordered him to put a defenseless dog in danger so Starfleet could show off?

I mean that's a different paradigm. Ethics in science are sticky.

Re: OP

[insanenoodlyguy]

Also, it's Scotty. He was no doubt convinced that it would work flawlessly and everybody who doubted him would feel stupid.

Re: OP

[(Anonymous)]

I think in that case I would put the blame more on the person giving the orders. I approve in theory of people refusing illegal orders, but I think it's setting the bar a little high to demand mutiny over killing an animal.

Ethics in science are sticky. That's why I can't unilaterally oppose animal research.

Re: OP

[(Anonymous)]

How the fuck do you think they tested the transporters when they invented them? Or even when they just made random improvements. Hell, they probably test them all before they let people use them.

Obviously they test them by using an animal.

[(Anonymous)]

These are not comparable things.

Largely due to motivation and circumstances.

Failing to kill your enemies might result in the death of your loved ones and other civilians.

Not using someone else's pet as part of your experiment (which by definition wasn't tested and thus could not have been reasonably assumed to be safe) does NOT result in the death of your loved ones and other civilians (as far as we know anyway).