All those posts were from a new poster, just registered today, named 'down with all kings'. His account was nuked, which means that all of his posts were automatically deleted. I thought this was an over-the-top reaction to his comments, until it occurred to me that he might have been someone who was banned before. The powers-that-be can check IP addresses.
It would be murder, and it would be wrong.
Why would it be qualitatively different than a lion killing and eating a wildebeest?
I'm not sure where the question to which you were responding came from, but I'll form a response to your response, in the absence of context, and hope that I don't miss the mark.
Human beings are differentiated from animals in that they have the cognitive and frontal brain function necessary to restrain impulsive and instinctive behavior, and act in accordance with the dictates of reason.
I think that men are not beasts. Our powers of reason raise us to the level where each of us is of great significance; and killing one of us is morally wrong. The creationist, however, if you take away the literal truth of Genesis, would not agree with me.
The above was drafted before I noticed OWK's excellent post #120. I agree with him, and I'll also stick with what I had drafted.
From #142:
Now, if I may play devil's advocate, the logic of this breaks down in the leap from being free myself to pursue my happiness, to having a moral imperative to allowing others the same freedom. Why not, if I have the power, run roughshod over other's rights, if it advances my own desires (rational or otherwise)? The problem I see with your proposed code is that it is a matter of preference, not of imperative.
There are societies that operate as you describe. Idi Amin's Uganda is a great example. Rational people reject such societies.