[ 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

[(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.

[thezmage]

Yes, which is why a, as you put it, "sociopathic animal torturer" is not necessarily the same thing as a sociopathic people murderer. But they're still both not okay.

Even if you treat the dog as nothing more than an object, it is still wrong to take something irreplaceable that someone finds precious and destroy it in an attempt to hurt that person. And if you do that to your immediate superior, expect to get fired, not simply moved somewhere unpleasant.

[(Anonymous)]

To be fair, he didn't set out to destroy it, he set out to steal it with the presumable intention of eventually returning it; he just proceeded to destroy it in a dazzling display of overconfidence.

[(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.

[(Anonymous)]

PFFFFFFFWAAHAHAAHA

OK OK you got me.

[tree_and_leaf]

Because it isn't a cat?

[comma_chameleon]

There is so, so much truth to this. My cat is a mastermind. One who opens the fridge while I'm out, pulls my books off my bookcases to get me out of bed in order to feed her, and steals my hairties from a hidden space in my bathroom to play with.

I'd worry she might kill me in my sleep, but then she'd have no one to feed her. :|

[(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.

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT

Debatable. Plenty of moral philosophers would disagree on that point. But that's besides the point-- I think you're probably right in this situation. My point was not that they were evil for killing the Romulans trying to commit genocide; rather, the anon I responded to was implying 1. that Starfleet was always innocent/just and its enemies always guilty, 2. that general guilt (not specific and present extenuating circumstances) could render killing somebody morally acceptable (that is to say, if it is ethically acceptable to kill your attacker, it is surely because of their present danger, not their moral culpability; we do not accept revenge killings as ethical the way we accept self defense), and 3. the lives of a sentient human/human-like being can be evenly weighed against the lives of nonhuman animals.
I disagree with those points pretty strongly; I find the point you're making to be compelling, especially in this extreme situation.

/sorry for the novel; hope you're having a nice night!