Artificial food coming soon.

On Mar 14, 7:05*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Howard Brazee wrote:
On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 20:01:04 -0700, Fred J. McCall
wrote:

So you're a vegan, are you? *Don't wear leather, either?

Leather without hair somehow isn't nearly as evil as leather with the
hair attached.

Nah. *It's just that it's easier to attack country clubs (where the
furs are) than motorcycle clubs (where the leather is).

The Harley biker gangs certainly are more intimidating than the
emaciated runway models.

But my understanding is that those who vehemently protest the hairy
leather while remaining silent on the hairless leather (maybe even
wearing such to their protests) claim to see a huge distinction
between the method of killing. They oppose the drawn out agonizing
pain involved with leg-gnawing traps, while being ok with the quick
bolt shot between the eyes.

I see their motivations to be driven more by valuing foxes and such as
being cuter than cows, while at the same time valuing their pleasure
in eating steaks and hamburgers far more than they value the lives of
the cows.

This angle is very similar to those who are outraged by horsemeat, but
don't think twice about going through the McDonald's drive thru to
grab a Big Mac on their way to the rally.


=Dustin

On Mar 14, 7:48*am, Jeff Findley wrote:

I was a vegetarian for a number of years, for health reasons. *I've
since given it up, but I still eat a lot less meat than the average
American and I make sure that very little of that is red meat. *So far,
that (combined with moderate exercise) has kept my blood pressure and
cholesterol levels where my doctor wants them so I don't have to be put
on medication that can have undesired side effects.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of vegetarians who are just completely
irrational about the issue. *In my book, killing a cow, pig, chicken, or
fish is not the moral equivalent of killing a human being. *On top of
that, humans are not the only animals on the planet who eat meat.
Eating meat fits into the natural order of things quite nicely.

I'd be interested to learn of a few examples of vegetarians who see
the killing of, say, a factory farmed chicken as being the moral
equivalent of killing a person. It's clear to me that there is a
spectrum. And you yourself may be surprised with value judgements you
arrive at. Consider this...

You are faced with the choice of killing one of two sentient being,
one a human and the other an animal. The scenario is that, for
whatever reason, one will be killed and you have been given the
authority for the decision. Here's the choice you're presented with:

- The animal is a big cat from a near-extinct species. You learn that
she is the very last female.

- The human is a 93-year old celibate hermit who has no family or
friends. This person has long been inflicted with an excruciating
illness. With tears in her eyes, she is begging you to kill her in
order to end her pain.

Jeff, you've voiced objection to animal life being treated as
equivalent to human life. Is it not possible that there are
situations where you yourself will value the life of an animal *over*
the life of a human? Your call.


And finally, every farmer and hunter I know tries to make sure that the
animal is killed quickly and as painlessly as possible. *On top of that,
they all try to use as much of the animal as possible. *There are
doubtless exceptions to this (PETA loves it when they find those
exceptions and try to paint entire industries with that brush), but
that's not been my experience when dealing with individuals.

I do not disagree that killing quickly and painlessly is more
compassionate than some other form of killing.

....but it is also clear to me which is more compassionate between the
alternatives of slaughter versus free-range unabbreviated living.

=Dustin

On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 11:51:38 -0700 (PDT), Dustin Dewynne
wrote:

But my understanding is that those who vehemently protest the hairy
leather while remaining silent on the hairless leather (maybe even
wearing such to their protests) claim to see a huge distinction
between the method of killing. They oppose the drawn out agonizing
pain involved with leg-gnawing traps, while being ok with the quick
bolt shot between the eyes.

And mink farms, which don't use leg traps, approach (but not very
closely), the terrible conditions of poultry farms.

--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."

- James Madison

On Mar 18, 2:33*pm, Dustin Dewynne wrote:
On Mar 14, 7:48*am, Jeff Findley wrote:

I was a vegetarian for a number of years, for health reasons. *I've
since given it up, but I still eat a lot less meat than the average
American and I make sure that very little of that is red meat. *So far,
that (combined with moderate exercise) has kept my blood pressure and
cholesterol levels where my doctor wants them so I don't have to be put
on medication that can have undesired side effects.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of vegetarians who are just completely
irrational about the issue. *In my book, killing a cow, pig, chicken, or
fish is not the moral equivalent of killing a human being. *On top of
that, humans are not the only animals on the planet who eat meat.
Eating meat fits into the natural order of things quite nicely.

I'd be interested to learn of a few examples of vegetarians who see
the killing of, say, a factory farmed chicken as being the moral
equivalent of killing a person. *It's clear to me that there is a
spectrum. *And you yourself may be surprised with value judgements you
arrive at. *Consider this...

You are faced with the choice of killing one of two sentient being,
one a human and the other an animal. *The scenario is that, for
whatever reason, one will be killed and you have been given the
authority for the decision. *Here's the choice you're presented with:

- The animal is a big cat from a near-extinct species. *You learn that
she is the very last female.

- The human is a 93-year old celibate hermit who has no family or
friends. *This person has long been inflicted with an excruciating
illness. *With tears in her eyes, she is begging you to kill her in
order to end her pain.

Jeff, you've voiced objection to animal life being treated as
equivalent to human life. *Is it not possible that there are
situations where you yourself will value the life of an animal *over*
the life of a human? *Your call.

And finally, every farmer and hunter I know tries to make sure that the
animal is killed quickly and as painlessly as possible. *On top of that,
they all try to use as much of the animal as possible. *There are
doubtless exceptions to this (PETA loves it when they find those
exceptions and try to paint entire industries with that brush), but
that's not been my experience when dealing with individuals.

I do not disagree that killing quickly and painlessly is more
compassionate than some other form of killing.

...but it is also clear to me which is more compassionate between the
alternatives of slaughter versus free-range unabbreviated living.


* afflicted

My bad.

....and the scenario could be extended to point out that in the land
this is happening in, one choice is called murder while there is no
law at all protecting the animal's life.

=Dustin

Dustin Dewynne wrote:
On Mar 18, 2:33 pm, Dustin Dewynne wrote:

You are faced with the choice of killing one of two sentient being,
one a human and the other an animal. The scenario is that, for
whatever reason, one will be killed and you have been given the
authority for the decision. Here's the choice you're presented with:

- The animal is a big cat from a near-extinct species. You learn that
she is the very last female.

- The human is a 93-year old celibate hermit who has no family or
friends. This person has long been inflicted with an excruciating
illness. With tears in her eyes, she is begging you to kill her in
order to end her pain.


* afflicted

My bad.

...and the scenario could be extended to point out that in the land
this is happening in, one choice is called murder while there is no
law at all protecting the animal's life.

The example is interesting. (In what sense do you use *sentient* for
the cat, though? Do you imply that it thinks just the same as the human,
or use the traditional philosophical sense?)
Anyhow, your extended scenario muddies the waters further. Were it
not implied that the killer would be considered a murderer, the choice
to kill the ancient hermit, even if she were healthy and not pleading to
die, would be the obviously morally right one. However, if doing so
would in addition endanger the life of the perpetrator, this would
represent an additional burden. It would then, be the same as being
asked to choose between killing two healthy people (useless hermit +
killer punishment == valuable cat).

--
You'd be crazy to e-mail me with the crazy. But leave the div alone.
*
Whoever bans a book, shall be banished. Whoever burns a book, shall burn.

On Mar 18, 8:45*pm, Patok wrote:
Dustin Dewynne wrote:
On Mar 18, 2:33 pm, Dustin Dewynne wrote:

You are faced with the choice of killing one of two sentient being,
one a human and the other an animal. *The scenario is that, for
whatever reason, one will be killed and you have been given the
authority for the decision. *Here's the choice you're presented with:

- The animal is a big cat from a near-extinct species. *You learn that
she is the very last female.

- The human is a 93-year old celibate hermit who has no family or
friends. *This person has long been inflicted with an excruciating
illness. *With tears in her eyes, she is begging you to kill her in
order to end her pain.

* afflicted

My bad.

...and the scenario could be extended to point out that in the land
this is happening in, one choice is called murder while there is no
law at all protecting the animal's life.

* *The example is interesting. (In what sense do you use *sentient* for
the cat, though? Do you imply that it thinks just the same as the human,
or use the traditional philosophical sense?)

Sentience does not require the ability to do integral calculus. All
sentience means is the ability to feel. From the Latin 'sentire',
meaning 'to feel'. That is all. (All other usage is distortion of
this pure meaning.) If you've got a nervous system, you're sentient.
A banana slug is sentient. All cats are sentient. Humans are
sentient. Now what humans have that cats (and beetles and
tapeworms ...) don't have is *sapience*. This appears to be the
quality you are referring to, and it's where the term homo sapien
comes from. It is the quality that sets humans apart from the rest of
the animal kingdom. Or at least the *vast* majority of the animal
kingdom. It's been estimated that at least 99.999% of animal species
are not sapient.

* *Anyhow, your extended scenario muddies the waters further. Were it
not implied that the killer would be considered a murderer, the choice
to kill the ancient hermit, even if she were healthy and not pleading to
die, would be the obviously morally right one. However, if doing so
would in addition endanger the life of the perpetrator, this would
represent an additional burden. It would then, be the same as being
asked to choose between killing two healthy people (useless hermit +
killer punishment == valuable cat).

Yeah, I know it was convoluting the original point. I through it in
there because I felt that posting just to correct a word error was
really lame. That, and I did find the extended moral conundrum to
tickle a few more neurons.

I don't, however, arrive at the same conclusion you've presented. A
major aspect being introduced by the extension is threat to personal
safety. So the real issue I see is whether a person is willing to
make a decision they see to be right even when their own comfort is
hanging in the balance.

The strongest moral stance that any person can hold is the willingness
to die for what they believe is the right thing. And that's without
figuring your own personal loss into any equation of greatest good /
least harm, etc.

(Of course, this opens a brand new can of worms. Allah akbar, as just
one example.)

=Dustin

In article 66564428-1304-4448-b952-aba657b2ec23
@t16g2000yqt.googlegroups.com, says...

On Mar 14, 7:48*am, Jeff Findley wrote:

I was a vegetarian for a number of years, for health reasons. *I've
since given it up, but I still eat a lot less meat than the average
American and I make sure that very little of that is red meat. *So far,
that (combined with moderate exercise) has kept my blood pressure and
cholesterol levels where my doctor wants them so I don't have to be put
on medication that can have undesired side effects.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of vegetarians who are just completely
irrational about the issue. *In my book, killing a cow, pig, chicken, or
fish is not the moral equivalent of killing a human being. *On top of
that, humans are not the only animals on the planet who eat meat.
Eating meat fits into the natural order of things quite nicely.

I'd be interested to learn of a few examples of vegetarians who see
the killing of, say, a factory farmed chicken as being the moral
equivalent of killing a person. It's clear to me that there is a
spectrum. And you yourself may be surprised with value judgements you
arrive at. Consider this...

You are faced with the choice of killing one of two sentient being,
one a human and the other an animal. The scenario is that, for
whatever reason, one will be killed and you have been given the
authority for the decision. Here's the choice you're presented with:

- The animal is a big cat from a near-extinct species. You learn that
she is the very last female.

This is a b.s. scenario, IMHO. I see this sort of thing at work all the
time. Someone else's failure to properly manage something (in this
case, the population of an endangered species) is somehow made into my
problem and I need to make a decision like this "at the last minute".
But I suppose I'll accept this, for now.

- The human is a 93-year old celibate hermit who has no family or
friends. This person has long been inflicted with an excruciating
illness. With tears in her eyes, she is begging you to kill her in
order to end her pain.

This is a separate assisted suicide scenario in and of itself. Anyone
who supports assisted suicide in the case of terminally ill patients who
are experiencing pain that can't be successfully, medically, managed
would assist regardless of the other half of your scenario.

Only someone completely opposed to assisted suicide would need to
consider the other half of your scenario.

Jeff, you've voiced objection to animal life being treated as
equivalent to human life. Is it not possible that there are
situations where you yourself will value the life of an animal *over*
the life of a human? Your call.

The fact that I chose to examine the human's situation first is a clear
indication to myself that I value human life over that of animals.

In the end, I'd go by what was legally my best option. Laws are created
and enforced for this very reason. So my answer would depend on the
laws of the state and federal government when it comes to assisted
suicide and killing an endangered species. The option which carries the
lightest penalty for violating the law would be my choice. My own
"moral compass" isn't as important as those of the society in which I
live.

And finally, every farmer and hunter I know tries to make sure that the
animal is killed quickly and as painlessly as possible. *On top of that,
they all try to use as much of the animal as possible. *There are
doubtless exceptions to this (PETA loves it when they find those
exceptions and try to paint entire industries with that brush), but
that's not been my experience when dealing with individuals.

I do not disagree that killing quickly and painlessly is more
compassionate than some other form of killing.

...but it is also clear to me which is more compassionate between the
alternatives of slaughter versus free-range unabbreviated living.

Because of the decimation of so many predator species (by humans), your
so called "free-range unabbreviated living" would lead to mass suffering
of deer if their population was not actively managed through legal
hunting. Sorry, but humans have an obligation to manage the messes
we've created, even if that means legally killing deer during hunting
season in order to manage their population.

Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. "
- tinker

On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 23:05:25 -0700 (PDT), Dustin Dewynne
wrote:

Sentience does not require the ability to do integral calculus. All
sentience means is the ability to feel. From the Latin 'sentire',
meaning 'to feel'. That is all. (All other usage is distortion of
this pure meaning.) If you've got a nervous system, you're sentient.
A banana slug is sentient. All cats are sentient. Humans are
sentient. Now what humans have that cats (and beetles and
tapeworms ...) don't have is *sapience*. This appears to be the
quality you are referring to, and it's where the term homo sapien
comes from. It is the quality that sets humans apart from the rest of
the animal kingdom. Or at least the *vast* majority of the animal
kingdom. It's been estimated that at least 99.999% of animal species
are not sapient.

Of course, we are very good at modifying our definition of sapience to
exclude animals we don't want to include.

* *Anyhow, your extended scenario muddies the waters further. Were it
not implied that the killer would be considered a murderer, the choice
to kill the ancient hermit, even if she were healthy and not pleading to
die, would be the obviously morally right one. However, if doing so
would in addition endanger the life of the perpetrator, this would
represent an additional burden. It would then, be the same as being
asked to choose between killing two healthy people (useless hermit +
killer punishment == valuable cat).

Yeah, I know it was convoluting the original point. I through it in
there because I felt that posting just to correct a word error was
really lame. That, and I did find the extended moral conundrum to
tickle a few more neurons.

I don't, however, arrive at the same conclusion you've presented. A
major aspect being introduced by the extension is threat to personal
safety. So the real issue I see is whether a person is willing to
make a decision they see to be right even when their own comfort is
hanging in the balance.

The strongest moral stance that any person can hold is the willingness
to die for what they believe is the right thing. And that's without
figuring your own personal loss into any equation of greatest good /
least harm, etc.

There are things that (for many people) are harder to do than to die
for a cause. And most evil in the world today is done by Righteous
people.

--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."

- James Madison

On Mar 19, 10:11*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 66564428-1304-4448-b952-aba657b2ec23
@t16g2000yqt.googlegroups.com, says...

On Mar 14, 7:48 am, Jeff Findley wrote:

I was a vegetarian for a number of years, for health reasons. I've
since given it up, but I still eat a lot less meat than the average
American and I make sure that very little of that is red meat. So far,
that (combined with moderate exercise) has kept my blood pressure and
cholesterol levels where my doctor wants them so I don't have to be put
on medication that can have undesired side effects.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of vegetarians who are just completely
irrational about the issue. In my book, killing a cow, pig, chicken, or
fish is not the moral equivalent of killing a human being. On top of
that, humans are not the only animals on the planet who eat meat.
Eating meat fits into the natural order of things quite nicely.

I'd be interested to learn of a few examples of vegetarians who see
the killing of, say, a factory farmed chicken as being the moral
equivalent of killing a person. *It's clear to me that there is a
spectrum. *And you yourself may be surprised with value judgements you
arrive at. *Consider this...

You are faced with the choice of killing one of two sentient being,
one a human and the other an animal. *The scenario is that, for
whatever reason, one will be killed and you have been given the
authority for the decision. *Here's the choice you're presented with:

- The animal is a big cat from a near-extinct species. *You learn that
she is the very last female.

This is a b.s. scenario, IMHO. *I see this sort of thing at work all the
time. *Someone else's failure to properly manage something (in this
case, the population of an endangered species) is somehow made into my
problem and I need to make a decision like this "at the last minute".
But I suppose I'll accept this, for now.

It certainly is a bogus, fabricated scenario. But pointing to an
extreme corner outside the bounds of reality can help to shed light on
cases that can occur, and have occurred.

- The human is a 93-year old celibate hermit who has no family or
friends. *This person has long been inflicted with an excruciating
illness. *With tears in her eyes, she is begging you to kill her in
order to end her pain.

This is a separate assisted suicide scenario in and of itself. *Anyone
who supports assisted suicide in the case of terminally ill patients who
are experiencing pain that can't be successfully, medically, managed
would assist regardless of the other half of your scenario.

Only someone completely opposed to assisted suicide would need to
consider the other half of your scenario.

Either that, or the situation could force the person to rethink their
position.

Jeff, you've voiced objection to animal life being treated as
equivalent to human life. *Is it not possible that there are
situations where you yourself will value the life of an animal *over*
the life of a human? *Your call.

The fact that I chose to examine the human's situation first is a clear
indication to myself that I value human life over that of animals.

I would hope that *everyone* would examine the human's situation
first. Even if the decider's career was as a conservation zoologist.

In the end, I'd go by what was legally my best option. *Laws are created
and enforced for this very reason. *So my answer would depend on the
laws of the state and federal government when it comes to assisted
suicide and killing an endangered species. *The option which carries the
lightest penalty for violating the law would be my choice. *My own
"moral compass" isn't as important as those of the society in which I
live.

Wow. Very interesting answer. I expect you never drove faster than
55mph on the freeways during the 70s & 80s as well. Ha! The very
reason the speed limits were raised is because no one was following
that law. Or actually, the very few people who did follow that law
were creating a safety hazard to the vast majority who were all
driving significantly faster than 55.

If you want to follow the moral compass of society, I hope it's
evident to you that most people are willing to throw out the law in
favor of what their internal moral compass is telling them is the
right thing to do. And if you have that awareness, you would at least
ask yourself, in the contrived scenario, not what action carries the
least legal penalty, but what would the majority of society do if they
were faced with that predicament. And once you were aware of the
validity in that angle, you'd be faced with the limitations of finding
the answer to that - which puts you straight back to searching your
own moral compass for the best answer!

....either that, or taking a very limited poll of those you could reach
within the time you have to make your decision.

Point summary: Laws often do not reflect the moral compass of
society. What they reflect is the expediency of those in legislative
power ...at the time the laws were made.

And finally, every farmer and hunter I know tries to make sure that the
animal is killed quickly and as painlessly as possible. On top of that,
they all try to use as much of the animal as possible. There are
doubtless exceptions to this (PETA loves it when they find those
exceptions and try to paint entire industries with that brush), but
that's not been my experience when dealing with individuals.

I do not disagree that killing quickly and painlessly is more
compassionate than some other form of killing.

...but it is also clear to me which is more compassionate between the
alternatives of slaughter versus free-range unabbreviated living.

Because of the decimation of so many predator species (by humans), your
so called "free-range unabbreviated living" would lead to mass suffering
of deer if their population was not actively managed through legal
hunting. *Sorry, but humans have an obligation to manage the messes
we've created, even if that means legally killing deer during hunting
season in order to manage their population.

I agree that people have an obligation to help manage the populations
of animal groups that people have artificially changed. But culling
their numbers with rifles is not the only way to do that. In fact,
the word 'culling' comes from the Latin 'colligere', which means 'to
collect'. It doesn't mean 'to kill', at least originally.

It's not hard to imagine that 'culling' became synonymous with 'shoot
with rifle' because two camps found a strong mutual interest. The
hunters wanted to kill the wildlife, and the rangers wanted the
numbers reduced. A marriage made in carnivore heaven.

Now it's quite possible to divorce those two interests with a healthy
dose of Bambi-esque compassion. You know... tap into that emotion
that you felt when you were a young child and you actually cared about
the lives of the deer. If you apply human ingenuity to the issue, you
can find all kinds of creative solutions that do not require
slaughter. Already today, there are animal herds that are tracked to
the point where GPS tracking devices are inserted into female vaginas
to locate exactly where the babies are being birthed.

Yes, your tax dollars are paying for that person to chase these
critters down and hi-tech rape them. All in the name of love!

Anyone interested in seeing a photo, here's what one company sells:
Telonics Vaginal Implant Systems
http://www.telonics.com/products/tvit/

If you click over to the Company Info page, you'll find this:
"Telonics is best known for its adaptation of aerospace technologies
and reliability to the field of wildlife research."

Imagine that. Space technology applied toward the goal of animal
welfare.

=Dustin

In article 444ccea8-28a7-4388-97ff-58195b64dfd3
@t8g2000pbe.googlegroups.com, says...

On Mar 19, 10:11*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 66564428-1304-4448-b952-aba657b2ec23
@t16g2000yqt.googlegroups.com, says...

On Mar 14, 7:48 am, Jeff Findley wrote:

I was a vegetarian for a number of years, for health reasons. I've
since given it up, but I still eat a lot less meat than the average
American and I make sure that very little of that is red meat. So far,
that (combined with moderate exercise) has kept my blood pressure and
cholesterol levels where my doctor wants them so I don't have to be put
on medication that can have undesired side effects.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of vegetarians who are just completely
irrational about the issue. In my book, killing a cow, pig, chicken, or
fish is not the moral equivalent of killing a human being. On top of
that, humans are not the only animals on the planet who eat meat.
Eating meat fits into the natural order of things quite nicely.

I'd be interested to learn of a few examples of vegetarians who see
the killing of, say, a factory farmed chicken as being the moral
equivalent of killing a person. *It's clear to me that there is a
spectrum. *And you yourself may be surprised with value judgements you
arrive at. *Consider this...

You are faced with the choice of killing one of two sentient being,
one a human and the other an animal. *The scenario is that, for
whatever reason, one will be killed and you have been given the
authority for the decision. *Here's the choice you're presented with:

- The animal is a big cat from a near-extinct species. *You learn that
she is the very last female.

This is a b.s. scenario, IMHO. *I see this sort of thing at work all the
time. *Someone else's failure to properly manage something (in this
case, the population of an endangered species) is somehow made into my
problem and I need to make a decision like this "at the last minute".
But I suppose I'll accept this, for now.

It certainly is a bogus, fabricated scenario. But pointing to an
extreme corner outside the bounds of reality can help to shed light on
cases that can occur, and have occurred.

- The human is a 93-year old celibate hermit who has no family or
friends. *This person has long been inflicted with an excruciating
illness. *With tears in her eyes, she is begging you to kill her in
order to end her pain.

This is a separate assisted suicide scenario in and of itself. *Anyone
who supports assisted suicide in the case of terminally ill patients who
are experiencing pain that can't be successfully, medically, managed
would assist regardless of the other half of your scenario.

Only someone completely opposed to assisted suicide would need to
consider the other half of your scenario.

Either that, or the situation could force the person to rethink their
position.

Jeff, you've voiced objection to animal life being treated as
equivalent to human life. *Is it not possible that there are
situations where you yourself will value the life of an animal *over*
the life of a human? *Your call.

The fact that I chose to examine the human's situation first is a clear
indication to myself that I value human life over that of animals.

I would hope that *everyone* would examine the human's situation
first. Even if the decider's career was as a conservation zoologist.

In the end, I'd go by what was legally my best option. *Laws are created
and enforced for this very reason. *So my answer would depend on the
laws of the state and federal government when it comes to assisted
suicide and killing an endangered species. *The option which carries the
lightest penalty for violating the law would be my choice. *My own
"moral compass" isn't as important as those of the society in which I
live.

Wow. Very interesting answer. I expect you never drove faster than
55mph on the freeways during the 70s & 80s as well. Ha! The very
reason the speed limits were raised is because no one was following
that law. Or actually, the very few people who did follow that law
were creating a safety hazard to the vast majority who were all
driving significantly faster than 55.

On the interstate highways, I typically drive about 10 over, because
that seems to be the socially acceptable amount over the limit. I
rarely hear of stories of anyone who was pulled over solely for going 10
over the limit. On other streets, I stay between the limit and 5 over,
partly due to safety concerns and partly due to the higher enforcement
of speed limits by local municipalities.

If you want to follow the moral compass of society, I hope it's
evident to you that most people are willing to throw out the law in
favor of what their internal moral compass is telling them is the
right thing to do. And if you have that awareness, you would at least
ask yourself, in the contrived scenario, not what action carries the
least legal penalty, but what would the majority of society do if they
were faced with that predicament. And once you were aware of the
validity in that angle, you'd be faced with the limitations of finding
the answer to that - which puts you straight back to searching your
own moral compass for the best answer!

...either that, or taking a very limited poll of those you could reach
within the time you have to make your decision.

Point summary: Laws often do not reflect the moral compass of
society. What they reflect is the expediency of those in legislative
power ...at the time the laws were made.

I tend to be pretty pragmatic as well as an "out of the box" sort of
thinker. In your scenario, others might assume that the law would not
come into play, but I didn't make that assumption. My intent for
choosing the one with the least legal penalty stems from my desire to
stay out of jail or at least to minimize my time in jail.

Yes I do have a moral compass, but what I do is often limited by the
law. For instance, I know people are starving all over the world, but
I'm not about to rob a bank in order to make a donation to charity.

If you would have worded the scenario such that I'd not be prosecuted
for the outcome of the scenario, my answer might have been different.

Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. "
- tinker