There is no need for the ox to recognize the nature and consequence of his actions.
Exodus 21:28 28 If an ox gore a man or a woman, that they die: then the ox shall be surely stoned, and his flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall be quit. |
The ox is an animal who could can neither murder nor be murdered. That verse is largely about not transferring the responsibility for the act onto the owner. Now again, we aren't under Mosaic law, but within that context that's the point.
lain: That's literally a silly argument, preceding from a flawed foundation as noted above.
You were not clear about what you believe is a flawed foundation for my argument, and "noted above" is not a good argument.
So, using a different take on his logic, you're an animal when you sleep, because at that point you can't recognize the nature and consequence of anything. Meaning anyone who wants to kill someone should just wait until they nod off...or kill someone who is significantly impaired. Because, you know, they aren't human according to gen.
What excuse would you give for not putting a man-killing animal to death?
If a man is killing people in his sleep, being asleep should not be an acceptable excuse for not applying the death penalty to that man.
I didn't use a straw man, didn't misrepresent what you didn't think through thoroughly. You reduced right and humanity to a level of cognitive function. That's not the standard, which is why you aren't less than human when you sleep or if you're profoundly impaired.
That's right. We don't try animals. They don't have the same rights as we do and if one poses a danger it can be put down. An animal can neither murder nor be murdered. Comparing it to a man is mistaken in foundation. Continuing...
And that's where you veer out of the rational lane and into oncoming sarcasm. You might have a reaction to a drug that takes you out of the ability to understand the nature and consequences of your actions. You don't stop being human. When you're asleep you don't stop being human. If you're profoundly impaired in terms of cognitive function for other reasons, including genetics, you don't stop being human.
Are you an extreme leftist or are you just pretending to be one?
| animal a human being considered chiefly as physical or nonrational |
Of course you did.
And you completely changed my argument as if I was talking about just killing anyone you want to kill just because they took a nap.
No, you're just looking in the wrong place. I explained that, but you don't want to see it, so you don't.
No, I didn't. You're not looking at the problem you cause for yourself. It's in the first part, not the attempt to qualify the application.
Stop trying to fool yourself.
I am sure you are omitting the FACT that I was talking about someone who commits a capital offense and that I specifically used the term man-killer when describing why the animal is put down.
If you did not intentionally produce the straw man argument you are trying to defend, then there is something seriously wrong with how you think.
I am not reshaping my argument into a different argument, I am providing more emphasis on the main points of my argument for people that are expecting it to be written for a sixth grade reading level.
Stop being defensive. Your argument was fatally flawed in its premise.
Doesn't matter. Here's YOUR standard again:
It's not a strawman argument and there's literally nothing wrong with how I think that you'll demonstrate, whereas I just demonstrated, again, the problem with your attempt. The better move would have been for you to laugh at it yourself and try again.
lain:
It was your inability to think rationally that was flawed.
No, here is my standard again:
When is a person that is a man-killer not human? When he is unable to recognize the nature and consequences of its actions.
You seem to want to include drinking to excess as a new criteria for declaring that someone is not human.
No, but I'll try to help you through your blind spot again, just to be optimistic.
No animal has the rights of a human being. We put down animals for less, for multiple biting incidents or anything that constitutes a public menace. It doesn't have a defense at law. There is no hearing on the capacity of a dog that kills a child, by way of. If we know the dog is the dog that killed the child we put the dog down. Capacity has nothing to do with the decision.
So you've made two statements in that. The first is that if a person doesn't understand the nature and consequence of its actions it isn't human. And because that person is an animal it can be put down if it is a man-killer. Your mistake appears to be founded in your belief that capacity has some relation to how we treat animals. And then you try to use that to bridge the gap between the two for how we should then treat people.
Rather, I was noting that a lack of capacity isn't necessarily a bar to prosecution. If you do something that causes that foreseeable incapacity it is different than having a genetically caused inability to grasp.
Yep.
Try again, without creating a straw man argument next time.
| A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man." |
I see that you are actually capable of understanding.
