|
drilldo squirt posted:If your not ok with killing an animal but still eat meat that's actually super hosed up. Nah it's reality.
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 01:51
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 11:39 |
|
|
I think if your against killing animals for meat and still eat meat that's a fundamental betrayal of yourself.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 01:52
|
|
|
I'm not okay with killing animals yet I leave out poison traps for ants, bug zappers on my porch, and don't think twice about burning yellow jacket nests, am I fundamentally betraying myself?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 01:54
|
|
|
Do you eat the meat even though you think its wrong?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 01:54
|
|
|
drilldo squirt posted:If your not ok with killing an animal but still eat meat that's actually super hosed up. It's interesting to live in Washington state because farmers and city folks are in a state of constant interaction. One of the favorite stereotypes the flatlanders from east of the mountains have about us "coasties" is that we don't know that milk and beef comes from cows. Of course, I also had a girl from Nampa once tell me that if we didn't eat beef there would be too many cows and they would wander onto the highways. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 01:55
|
|
|
Twelve by Pies posted:I'm not okay with killing animals yet I leave out poison traps for ants, bug zappers on my porch, and don't think twice about burning yellow jacket nests, am I fundamentally betraying myself? Also it sounds like your ok with killing bugs which I'm all for.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 01:55
|
|
|
I hate bugs too and have no issues with killing them but they're living things too right? I mean why is it okay for me to see a wasp crawling on the porch and stomp it without a second thought when I definitely wouldn't kill a possum or raccoon on my porch even if I had the means to? Killing animals for meat probably isn't ideal but I'm still going to eat meat because it's delicious. If lab-grown meat becomes a thing and it's also tasty then I'm all for that too and would probably eat it instead. I don't think killing animals is wrong exactly but if I can still get meat without killing an animals there's really no reason to kill one.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 02:01
|
|
|
So your ok with killing animals then.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 02:03
|
|
|
Twelve by Pies posted:I'm not okay with killing animals yet I leave out poison traps for ants, bug zappers on my porch, and don't think twice about burning yellow jacket nests, am I fundamentally betraying myself? Meh, with their incredibly simple nervous systems insects are pretty much just biological robots. They have no inner life
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 02:03
|
|
|
I have no desire to hunt animals. I don't think I can become skilled enough to do a more humane job of killing them than slaughterhouse workers. Thanks, slaughterhouse workers, for doing a job I'm not disciplined enough to do.  Make sure to attend counseling sessions regularly so you don't become inured to all suffering!
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 02:07
|
|
|
drilldo squirt posted:So your ok with killing animals then. Not indiscriminately but yes. Torka posted:Meh, with their incredibly simple nervous systems insects are pretty much just biological robots. They have no inner life Interesting, so vegetarians would have no problem with say, eating crickets or ants as food as is done in some countries?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 02:10
|
|
|
Animals being killed per se doesn't bother me but factory farms seem like specifically designed hell for animals that are smart enough to really understand suffering, especially pigs. They also put out truly scary pollution with those pig poo poo lagoons that give people brain lesions and they contribute to anti-biotic resistance too. More generally meat production puts out a lot of greenhouse gas. Vat grown meat, by being much more centralised will be a lot more energy efficient and a lot less polluting which is probably its main benefit. On that note I'm already happy eating Quorn most of the time and would be willing to try insect derived protein if that becomes a thing too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 02:11
|
|
blowfish posted:
Why? This seems like a weird overreaction. Obviously we can't now, but if we could manipulate the biosphere to this level wouldn't it be our obligation to do so? To end all suffering?
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 02:15
|
|
|
rakovsky maybe posted:Why? This seems like a weird overreaction. Obviously we can't now, but if we could manipulate the biosphere to this level wouldn't it be our obligation to do so? To end all suffering? The whole idea is hardly more than a cross between a power fantasy and fuzzy feelgood policy. Also it presumes that animals suffer meaningfully enough to make us do it, and that we, having evolved in a context where caring about others suffering makes sense, have a Twelve by Pies posted:I hate bugs too and have no issues with killing them but they're living things too right? I mean why is it okay for me to see a wasp crawling on the porch and stomp it without a second thought when I definitely wouldn't kill a possum or raccoon on my porch even if I had the means to? Not all life is equal. My gut flora merits no respect beyond keeping it sufficiently intact to prevent indigestion. I'm in favour of vat grown meat as well (though I'd still have "real" meat from time to time if it tastes better), because it should have less impact via green house gas emissions and land use.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 02:34
|
|
|
Torka posted:Meh, with their incredibly simple nervous systems insects are pretty much just biological robots. They have no inner life So, what, robots aren't deserving of personhood, even though they are potentially more intelligent than any animal can ever be?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 02:35
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:So, what, robots aren't deserving of personhood, even though they are potentially more intelligent than any animal can ever be? Robots are a dude in a box reading out answers and it's weird that people don't get this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 02:37
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:So, what, robots aren't deserving of personhood, even though they are potentially more intelligent than any animal can ever be? ...ugh  He meant currently-existing dumb unfeeling robots 
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 02:37
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:So, what, robots aren't deserving of personhood, even though they are potentially more intelligent than any animal can ever be? I meant in the sense of a mindless machine that just takes an input stimulus and spits out the appropriate output. Maybe automaton would have been a better word, if you associate the word robot with some future consciousness-possessing AI we might invent
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 02:38
|
|
|
Torka posted:I meant in the sense of a mindless machine that just takes an input stimulus and spits out the appropriate output. Maybe automaton would have been a better word, if you associate the word robot with some future consciousness-possessing AI we might invent What, and animals don't count as a "machine that just takes an input stimulus and spits out the appropriate output"? The point I'm making is that "well, that thing isn't really alive/thinking/conscious", by itself, is no better than "well, it doesn't have a soul so it doesn't count as a human" in that it's entirely subjective and based on your own perceptions, rather than actually drawing a firm line based on actual observable cognitive criteria. Hell, five hundred years ago the Pope had to explicitly declare that Native Americans were persons with souls (not that the conquistadors listened), because there was literally disagreement about it. Making sweeping declarations about entire families of animals based on your personal feelings about those groups is almost as bad.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 02:57
|
|
|
Nah, that's dumb. Insects aren't conscious.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 02:59
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:What, and animals don't count as a "machine that just takes an input stimulus and spits out the appropriate output"? The point I'm making is that "well, that thing isn't really alive/thinking/conscious", by itself, is no better than "well, it doesn't have a soul so it doesn't count as a human" in that it's entirely subjective and based on your own perceptions, rather than actually drawing a firm line based on actual observable cognitive criteria. Hell, five hundred years ago the Pope had to explicitly declare that Native Americans were persons with souls (not that the conquistadors listened), because there was literally disagreement about it. Uh... what about an AI that starts by moving around a coordinate grid, and uses a statistics package to bias its movement away from coordinates that say "don't go here" by correlating the probability of a field saying "don't go here" with some other variables you wrote into the coordinate field? It certainly exhibits learned avoidance of a noxious stimulus (people keep trying to redefine pain to mean this for some reason), so should it have a right not to feel pain?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 03:04
|
|
|
The lines being blurry is a problem worth thinking about but if you want to live in the world and not be paralysed with inaction you need to make a decision at some point, and that's where mine is regarding killing insects. I'm comfortable making the inference from the simplicity of their nervous systems that they have no inner experience worth acknowledging at a moral level.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 03:07
|
|
|
Torka posted:Nah, that's dumb. Insects aren't conscious. Define conscious. What if I say a turtle isn't conscious? Or a rat? Or a cat? Or an infant human? What are you going to use as a foundation for disagreeing with me, other than "they're larger, less annoying, and are easier for me to anthropomorphize"? Where are you going to draw the line? What criterion are you going to use to draw that line?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 03:12
|
|
|
The truth is that lots of things in this world are arguably people. Existence is a horrorshow in which things with feelings devour other things with feelings as they struggle and scream. All roads lead to zero. Farewell.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 03:22
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Define conscious. What if I say a turtle isn't conscious? Or a rat? Or a cat? Or an infant human? What are you going to use as a foundation for disagreeing with me, other than "they're larger, less annoying, and are easier for me to anthropomorphize"? Where are you going to draw the line? What criterion are you going to use to draw that line? Ignore your post? In all seriousness though, eating meat in North America is a religious experience, and will never change. Also other animals are more important, and cool, literally, than war-making apes. Eat apes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 03:38
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:Ignore your post? Yeah other animals might be more important but what are they going to do about it, nothing, because they are stupid animals and exists only because we choose to let them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 03:51
|
|
|
Mankind is a direct result of the natural processes of life, the fact that we haven't burnt earth to a crisp yet is because of conscious effort.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 03:52
|
|
|
drilldo squirt posted:Yeah other animals might be more important but what are they going to do about it, nothing, because they are stupid animals and exists only because we choose to let them. I'd say African poachers deserve to be flayed and their villages burned to the ground wholesale without any verification of who is involved, but then I am a stupid animal  .
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 03:52
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:I'd say African poachers deserve to be flayed and their villages burned to the ground wholesale without any verification of who is involved, but then I am a stupid animal No, your a living breathing person with his own mind and opinions and I also disagree with burning african villages to the ground.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 03:56
|
|
|
drilldo squirt posted:No, your a living breathing person with his own mind and opinions and I also disagree with burning african villages to the ground. I'm just really mad about elephant killings, because they might be too stupid to defend themselves, but they certainly act like defeated human beings after the trauma.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 03:57
|
|
|
drilldo squirt posted:No, your a living breathing person with his own mind and opinions and I also disagree with burning african villages to the ground. No I'm pretty sure humans are a kind of Dumb Animal, not a Dumb Plant, or a Dumb Protist.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 03:58
|
|
|
We are way smarter than all those other animals though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 04:20
|
|
|
disheveled posted:Do chimps and other highly intelligent animal species deserve a large subset of human rights? Absolutely and without a doubt. If there is an argument that chimpanzees should not be held in captivity, make it on its own merits, and devise a separate category to protect them and give them legal rights. Lab experimentation on chimps is basically dead in the water in the US — and I fully agree with that choice — and that was achieved without any tenuous personhood arguments. Seriously. Every society worth living in has some sort of law against senselessly mistreating animals, and many have tighter regulations for some of the more intelligent species. What, specifically, do these Nonhuman Rights Project people want that couldn't be handled by expanding those laws?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 04:26
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:What, and animals don't count as a "machine that just takes an input stimulus and spits out the appropriate output"? The point I'm making is that "well, that thing isn't really alive/thinking/conscious", by itself, is no better than "well, it doesn't have a soul so it doesn't count as a human" in that it's entirely subjective and based on your own perceptions, rather than actually drawing a firm line based on actual observable cognitive criteria. Hell, five hundred years ago the Pope had to explicitly declare that Native Americans were persons with souls (not that the conquistadors listened), because there was literally disagreement about it. Making sweeping declarations about entire families of animals based on your personal feelings about those groups is almost as bad. No, it isn't, because animals aren't worth as much as humans. But you know what us pretty hosed up? Comparing the slaughter of natives to saying that a cow doesn't have all the same rights as a person.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 04:41
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Uh... what about an AI that starts by moving around a coordinate grid, and uses a statistics package to bias its movement away from coordinates that say "don't go here" by correlating the probability of a field saying "don't go here" with some other variables you wrote into the coordinate field? It certainly exhibits learned avoidance of a noxious stimulus (people keep trying to redefine pain to mean this for some reason), so should it have a right not to feel pain? See, this is the problem that I have. Most animals will withdraw, escape, etc in response to some noxious stimulus. Is that pain? Plants, too, will sometimes withdraw from noxious stimuli, the mimosa plant being chief among them. Is that pain? If you've ever taken a close look at insects, you can tell that they are little more than biological robots. They march around, they follow a few simple rules, and they keep marching even if they lose a leg. Do they really experience pain? My point is that you can have "responses to noxious stimuli" and "pain" without ever having suffering. Even in people, too. As a medical student, I've done a number of neurological exams on unconscious/comatose people. They will withdraw to pain, flex an extremity to pain, etc. But as far as anyone can tell, they aren't actually "experiencing" pain. They certainly aren't experiencing fear, anguish, or existential terror. Is pain what we as humans truly dislike, or is it suffering? And how many animals suffer? I would argue few others, if any. Personally, I would refrain from hurting anything with a demonstrable sense of self. Dolphins, gorillas, etc. Anything that passes a mirror test or shows empathy for others. But many animals, even if they experience pain, don't really suffer. I don't worry about them nearly as much.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 04:57
|
|
|
I would say no. It seems like personhood involves rights and duties. While an intelligent ape or dolphin or crow should perhaps have certain rights, they don't have any duties. In other words, an ape should probably not be tortured or eaten, and should be left alone to do its own thing, but it has no duty to contribute in any way to our society and isn't legally responcible for its actions. As a human in America, yes you have rights, but you also have duties, like voting, obeying the law, ect ect. Then again severly mentally handicapped people who can't contribute are considered people. It seems like we need a three tier system. People, intelligent animals that should have to same protections as handicapped people, and unintelligent animals that can be eaten and used. The problem lies in determining which animals are intelligent, and I can't think of anyway of doing that that isn't subjective. The only test that I can think of is whether or not an animal can mourn its own fate. If I was about to die, my life would flash before my eyes so to speak. I would be sad for all the things in the future that I would miss out on. I think a cow would simply be in the moment, ie, worried about the immediate danger and nothing else. Thats just my opinion and it may be complete bullshit. Like I said I think our society is just going to have to come to a sujective consensus on what intellegence is and run with that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 06:18
|
|
|
I agree severely mentally retarded people are no better than animals.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 06:48
|
|
|
*uses a sliding scale to determine your person tier* Sorry, your a monkey now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 06:49
|
|
|
WorldsStrongestNerd posted:The problem lies in determining which animals are intelligent, and I can't think of anyway of doing that that isn't subjective. Tool use is considered to be a big sign of intelligence and crows fit the bill and are among the smartest, if not the smartest animals on the planet after humans. There's even a video of a crow using a lid to snowboard down a roof which is super adorable.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 07:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 11:39 |
|
|
It's strange to see how many people think rights and duties are inextricably linked; there are plenty of human beings with rights and no corresponding duties.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 08:39
|
|