Comment Page
Page Archive:
2019181725242322
- Mystic Rev.
- 9 Lifes
- World Break
- Blackbird
- Crowfeathers
[FULL LIST]
(List Changes Every Other Hour)
- 9 Lifes
- World Break
- Blackbird
- Crowfeathers
(List Changes Every Other Hour)
| Latest News: ARTWORK IX (Friday) | Visit the Community Forums |
| by pretty_blossom @ 02 July 2007 01:47 am |
| I've got a reason for u - it's wrong to kill, and what humans do is also wrong. Now we need to define what "wrong" means. It's obiously not a natural concept - there is no wrong or right in nature, where it's a dog eat dog. The thing is, once u start to wonder what wrong is, u're no longer part of nature, and thus deserve... I don't know - special treatment, I guess. It's wrong to kill a sentient being, unless there's really no other alternative. If the angels are so superior, they should know what they're doing is wrong, because they're dealing with beings that can communicate with them. Orson Scott Card defined it well in his Ender series. The 4 classes of being different:
1) the same species but from a different city. 2) the same specied but from different planet. 3) a different species that can communicate, 4) a different species that is too different to ever reach a mutual understanding. In the fiest 3 cases, a compromise can be reached and mutual slaughter should be avoided. In the last case there can be no compromise, and usually one side or the other gets wiped out eventually. Since Angels are under category 3 (as far as u've told us), they can reach a compromise - seperate territories or move to another planet or whatever. There is no real need for the conflict, and therefore it's wrong, in a sense that there are better options. This reminds me of a lot of other books that have covered the subject - Arture C Clark's Childhood's End is pretty good, with regards to the next step of human evolution. |
| by pretty_blossom @ 02 July 2007 02:00 am |
| oh, btw - there's always the old instinct for survival - it's not naturally wrong for another species to try to wipe out ur own species, but it's wrong for u not to fight to survive. Nature in a nutshell. |
| by Jason @ 02 July 2007 08:55 am |
| So humans are special because they can differentiate between morality...thus giving them the right to "play God" and manipulate other species as they please? Or from Orson Scott Card's argument...because humans are too different to reach an understanding with these lesser, moral-less creatures?
Let's consider the lion which is also high up there on the food chain and falls in category four with their prey. Lions kill for food and occasionally to train new hunters in the pack. As far as I understand, they rarely hunt solely for pleasure, despite being the 'superior' species in their ecosystem. Humans, however, use resources excessively...far beyond the survival necessity. Worse yet, humans supposedly have this concept of morality developed in their minds...yet that doesn't seem to apply when it comes to anyone other than humans. As for the argument, why is it wrong for Angels to kill humans -- I know, the Angels are just being ass-holes lol. I can't really say much about them since, in short, they simply think they are the next level on the evolutionary chain, and have a different concept of right/wrong. As for the second comment, I'm focusing on the ethics of the predator killing the prey beyond survival necessities rather than the prey resisting the predator. Nevertheless, I refer back to the lion example where despite being the top of the food chain, lions don't "try" to wipe out another species. Anyway, to sum it all up...the point is that humans are no better than what the Angels are doing. Heck, humans will even kill those on category 1 and 2 of the same species... |
| by Ameides @ 02 July 2007 04:58 pm |
| Pretty Blossom: I love Childhoods End. Arthur C Clarke is one of my favourite authors. And a different species that can communicate doesnt really mean that a compromise can be reached. They would have a totally different mindset and everything.
Jason: I always thinks its pretty sad what we do with the killing for pleasure and all. Theres a lot of arguments to be had about this topic... But Im not going to start because I dont have the attention span to write the gigantic amounts that Pretty Blossom can. XP Howvever, I still stand by what I said earlier. Its not 'Killing us isnt a good thing to do' its 'We dont wanna die!' |
| by Jason @ 02 July 2007 11:06 pm |
| Well, regarding the "we dont wanna die" comment...I'm focusing on the predator because, unlike the prey, the predator has a choice to kill or not (remember, I'm talking about killing at an excessive level). If attacked, the prey should, of course, fight back...in fact it's unethical to NOT fight back (apathy, one of the seven deadly sins). |
| by Tom @ 03 July 2007 06:29 am |
| The angels have right to kill all game hunters and fishermen (in the case where very rarely people eat the fish). And they have the right to imprison, to a degree, who keep pets. Sadly I can't imagine anyone taking the time from killing to distinguish between the groups. |
| by pretty_blossom @ 03 July 2007 12:49 pm |
| I agree with Tom - I don't kill what I don't eat, also try not to pollute too much and to recycle what I can ect.
I don't believe in cruelty to animals, animal experiments, wearing leather or fur. I do eat meat but never anything that got hunted, and I do try to limit myself. The human body requires meat to exist and frankly it's too much bother to go for the vegeterian option. All in all I know quite a lot of people like me - more than those that think animals are nothing but human's playings. As for lions and other animals that hunt for fun - there is a balance in nature of predator and pray - otherwise the pray would multiply over the ability of the enviorment to contain it. Actually humans are the main problem - they multiply without anything to limit them except other people, and the occasional disease. No selection to get the best and the fittest, but the modification o fthe enviorment to fit all humans. Phylosophycally it's sad, but then again I doubt the angels would limit themselves to killing only the sick and old, like natural preadators do. The up side of human intelligence is that we can work out more food-sources, so we probably won't get to a point where the food really runs out (yeast and seeweed are showing promise). If we ever do reach a state of war over food, then probably there would be a good excuse for killing everything different. Until then, co-operation is the best way to improve science and get more food-sorces. |
| by pretty_blossom @ 03 July 2007 12:50 pm |
| Regarding the Ender series by Card - u really should read it and see what I'm trying to say. Basically the humans there run into 3 kinds of aliens - a sort of bee-like creature that has many bodies but only one mind; a thing that looks like piggies that has a complicated life-cycle that includes being a tree as the adult stage; an unknown alien culture that uses viruses for communication and sent out a killer virus to the planet where the piggies live and basically made them what they are.
All 3 races are different and potentially dangerous to humans, whether by having advanced technology (the queen bee), or carrying a lethal virus. The humans in the story eventually reach the conclusion that they shouldn't really kill any of them, after they managed to come up with a version of the virus that wasn't dangerous. They kept the 3rd race under surveilance until they could find a way to communicate properly with them, and reached a peace agreement with the other 2 races, despite attempts to kill the humans in the past. Card is quite optimistic that some sort of arrangement could be reached even with the most hostile creatures. Personally I'd have bombed the 3rd race's planet on the off-chance they'd find a way to kill off the human race, but that'd be a pre-emptive strike. As for somebody who can actually communicate with us - there's no reason why an agreement couldn't be reached, even if it is "my side - your side" thing of deviding the world into 2. Not everything has to end in violence, and co-operation is the best way to get things done, so long as nobody trys to take advantage of the others' work. at ameides - a whole different mind-set would make them type 4 aliens, not type 3 - if u can't make them understand at least some ideas, then it's not really communication. |
| by Tom @ 03 July 2007 03:34 pm |
| @ Pretty_Blossom a bit caffeinated today aren't you. :-)
Still I agree with the points you made, but where communication is possible conflict of intrests are likely to occur and they will compete until war finishes them. In the end we'll only ever got on with aliens that have completely different goals than us. |
| by Pnx @ 03 July 2007 06:50 pm |
| Ok first sorry for the longish comment it's so long that I had to break it into two pieces and say it in two comments (despite my best judgement but if I don't say this I'm sure to go insane).
And second I don't think you're getting the point. He's saying that it's not right to kill the angels and he's right. In truth it is never just to kill another creature; anything you say otherwise is just a justification of what is done. Be it plant or animal, sentient or thoughtless, it is never right to destroy a life even when it is necessary. But the major justification there that I would believe worth it would be that there is wrong still wrong and even though you can't prevent some wrongs you can still try to stop another one. To tell the truth humans are rather pathetic creatures. They tell themselves lies and have an inborn need to feel superior which ironically makes them inferior. Mostly this is because superiority is more conceptual then anything else, it is a flawed concept that is based on nothing but ego. Even though you may deny it you still try to feel superior, there is no escaping it its human nature, and even the act of deny it is likely just proving that you do need to feel superior. I'll admit I try to feel superior and scold myself for it yet I still do so. (Continued below) |
| by Pnx @ 03 July 2007 06:54 pm |
| In the end we cannot escape our nature we will continue to act arrogant and tell ourselves that we are far above the fly that we just squashed. Yet in truth it is the fly that is above us. The fact that we can destroy something does not make us better then it. If anything it makes us worse, the fly would not judge you but you would still judge the fly. How much worse does that make you seem?
Know who and what you are and strive to better yourself. That is the best you can do and all you can do. Though a battle may not be right it does not mean that fighting the battle is not right. If you like what you see in the mirror then you are surely wrong. Right? Wrong? People would argue about what these things are. They are conceptions, views. But that makes them no less important for our world is but a view, an illusion for the eye. It matters not. Killing because one kills you does not make it right. Killing because you have no choice does not make it right. Killing because you feel you must does not make it right. Yet I will agree with killing in this case because sometimes the world is just wrong and that makes it right. |
| by pretty_blossom @ 04 July 2007 03:38 am |
| @pnx - I like the way u thing, but in this comic's case u got it backwards. it's not the humans that's the problem, it's the angels. The angels are killing humans, and they seem to be in a better position, so the responsibility to be nice to lesser creatures is on them.
BTW - I agree that killing in any kind is wrong, but I recognise degrees of wrongness - if somebody tried to kill me, I'd defend myself. if that defence caused his death, then too bad, but I have as much right to live as he does. A bit more, because I don't actively try to kill anybody else. About the last line u wrote - I don't understand it, u'd better rephrase it. |
| by Jason @ 04 July 2007 11:36 am |
| *shivers* Look at all those words and long comments...I promise I'll read and respond to these later
Happy Fourth of July if you're a U.S. citizen |
| by :-) @ 07 July 2007 00:59 am |
| Uuummmm.... @Jason: Nice job so far on the comic! XD @EveroneElse: Shame on you... Commenting rather than posting... Make a debate topic and post away, dont just post on the comment page, use that for... I dont know... The colour... The background... Whatever! I just got over the flu and... You people make me feel sick again! |
| by Matt V. 3.0 @ 07 July 2007 07:37 am |
| This doesn't really pertain to the comic, but I am both surprised and impressed that Jason actually bothered to mention Canada.
As for the comics, they're great, as usual. |
| by Kojiki @ 07 July 2007 07:39 am |
| Nice... my first comment, better make it good. I like the story and the idea of morality over killing does seem common in a lot of series but your throwing an interesting skew on it since its Haruko and Yasu (I assume its Haruko... and really hope that wasn't an unintentional spoiler), waiting for the next part.
And I can't weigh in with the whole morality aspect really, except I could add, Knowing it's wrong to kill might not stop it being fun in some weird way. Could be the angels are stronger and just see it as fair they can do what they want. Wow... longer than I thought it would be... comics good. |
| by Jason @ 09 July 2007 01:08 am |
| Next update will be a few days late. Sorry, I've been busy the past week with stuff, so I haven't been responding to emails, comments, or visiting the forums. |
| by pretty_blossom @ 09 July 2007 11:11 am |
| don't u just hate it when real life gets in the way?... |