BF2S Forums Animal rights vs property rights

presidentsheep wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

presidentsheep wrote:

The murder of an animal affects that animal to. Why are some lives worth more, or less, than others?

You really believe that all lives are equal in the grand scheme of things? A persons value is derived from their net positive impact on others. A jobless basement dweller is rather valueless in comparison to a businessman who started a company from scratch and now employs thousands of people. A wealthy socialite may or may not have more value than a firefighter who risks his life running into buildings and saving the life of others based on their level of philanthropy. It's all about that net positive impact. Striving for mediocrity in life doesn't help anyone.

As far as a life goes, yes. nothing normally gives you the right to take that away from something else. Net impact on others seems to involve monetary worth, personally i'd judge it based on other things.

Ahh, but we're all paid in some way or another. Generally, the higher the positive impact someone has in society, the higher they are paid. Now, you can point at entertainers and feel you've found a flaw in that idea, but they have the impact of making people happy. If people didn't enjoy watching baseball they wouldn't attend games, watch them on tv, or buy the merchandise sold by MLB. Granted, they don't have any measurable impact on our lives, but there is a discernible euphoric gain whenever we watch our team win. It makes us happy. One can say 'well isn't a firefighter more important than a baseball player'? Perhaps, but the baseball players effect is more widespread, and making people happy helps them contribute to the rest of society in a more positive light.

Possessing wealth is far from a perfect indicator of a persons value because there are of course people who accumulate it via devious means. It does however give us a starting point from which to work.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Ahh, but we're all paid in some way or another. Generally, the higher the positive impact someone has in society, the higher they are paid. Now, you can point at entertainers and feel you've found a flaw in that idea, but they have the impact of making people happy. If people didn't enjoy watching baseball they wouldn't attend games, watch them on tv, or buy the merchandise sold by MLB. Granted, they don't have any measurable impact on our lives, but there is a discernible euphoric gain whenever we watch our team win. It makes us happy. One can say 'well isn't a firefighter more important than a baseball player'? Perhaps, but the baseball players effect is more widespread, and making people happy helps them contribute to the rest of society in a more positive light.

Possessing wealth is far from a perfect indicator of a persons value because there are of course people who accumulate it via devious means. It does however give us a starting point from which to work.

The problem of the entertainers is that you can point to a single person and say 'they made my life better because I like to watch them on TV', but how much did the guy that developed that TV get paid?  or the guys who developed the transmission systems, etc...  It's flawed because it's overly simplistic.  The people that make things are the people that probably have the greatest impact on your life.  I get your point, but I wish that we as a society would stop glamorizing athletes and paying them waaay more than they are realistically worth.  What does Tiger Woods produce?  Compare him to people that actually do something.

one of the dumbest OP's ever on bf2s.