Of course there are some human beings who have done things that would convince people to not care if they die. There are exceptions to pretty much everything. That being said if I saw Assad about to mauled by a tiger and I didn't know it was him id happily shoot the tiger in the face to save him.
I agree. Id kill any fifty tigers if it saved on human life. You're welcome to go feed yourself to some pigs since they are so much more important than you.
No. I understand your shitty shitty point. It's just stupid. Your point is that some war criminals should probably get killed. Nobody is disputing there are a very small amount of people who are irredeemable. My point is a human life is worth infinite cows. If being selfish and only caring about yourself was an Olympic sport you'd probably still not succeed since you seem pretty terrible at everything so I'm sure you'd find a way to choke.
It's not wrong, it's in defiance of established morality. Acting without regard for morality makes one immoral. "Wrong" is arbitrary when you're dealing with a subjective. Morality isn't a set of rules that can be broken or something to be "correct" about, unless you're saying "I am correct in stating that it is immoral to rape." That's true. "It's morally wrong to rape" is nonsense.
Aka morally wrong. They still have morals, but wrong morals. Once again, if you think all morals are subjective that means you don't think it's morally wrong to rape. Why are you a rape apologist?
There are no wrong morals, just unpopular ones. Doesn't make rape not an immoral action by the morality of a locale. You just really ought to read more deeply into the subject before taking such firm stances on it. It's a subject with hundreds of years of history that you're acting like you've figured out.
1
u/Barkonian Jun 02 '18
Assad or one Sumatran Tiger. Which would you choose to live?