|
DarkCrawler posted:I think you can already have legal protection even if you can't be held legally responsible for your actions. Children, mentally handicapped, etc. on the other hand people also have a legal duty to stop and restrict them from doing criminal actions. Harder in the case of dolphins who get up to some pretty sick poo poo actually. It's a pretty difficult question - should be intervene in inter-chimpanzee wars and the like? You know what? "I want to save an animal I like more from an animal like less", while understandable, is ridiculous when put into practice. If you do it enough, then go and enjoy your ecosystem full of cute fuzzy animals that may or may not be capable of suffering in meaningful ways while (now lacking predators to kill them dead in horrible painful ways) turning the whole place into an overexploited barren shithole only slightly slower than the average Asia Pulp & Paper operation ca.1990. Oops, that means they'll suffer again, so better manage every loving aspect of the ecosystem yourself, turning it into an open air zoo. Moralising about ~nature~ and how its constituent parts are worthy of moral consideration is what I've been hearing for all my loving life from uneducated dumb shits who would sooner let an entire habitat get bulldozed than allow the terrible terrible practice of letting people catch some specimens and feel good about it in their local conservation club. Also idiots who think all hunting should be banned but winter feeding continued (think of the poor starving deer  ) while deer populations are so ridiculously large they disrupt forest seedling recruitment enough to let natural forest regeneration be defined by the characteristic of "trees here are not tasty".Please think of nature as a series of interlocking mechanisms we don't yet fully understand first and as a collection of cute intelligent feeling animals a distant second, and don't join the well intentioned but undereducated idiots who make a mockery of actual conservation. suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 00:48 on Dec 6, 2014 |
#
¿
Dec 6, 2014 00:46
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 07:17 |
|
|
KiteAuraan posted:Because an animal with a sense of self may be suffering needlessly by human actions if it doesn't have the rights of personhood and a situation like that is immoral under any humane metric. Animals suffer needlessly in nature every single day by the millions. What should we do about that?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2014 11:16
|
|
|
KiteAuraan posted:but if it's within our power to stop suffering in any form I would say that as rational beings we have a moral imperative to stop it.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2014 11:55
|
|
|
KiteAuraan posted:No, but we should certainly afford protection to animals that we feel the need to put in captivity, certainly the more intelligent of them at least. Why not? It's ~within our power~.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2014 12:09
|
|
|
KiteAuraan posted:Because it's not exactly a problem we created and are therefore responsible for, whereas when we take an animal out of it's habitat or breed it in captivity we should have a moral duty to make it's life comfortable since the humans responsible for the situation would be responsible for any suffering. Ok so according to that logic I should just keep driving when I see the car in front of me do a hit and run instead of stop and help since I am not responsible for the situation (as long as I don't run the person over again myself  ).I mean yes, it's taking your argument to the extreme, but assigning moral value to the suffering of animals tends to opens a can of worms either way.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2014 12:29
|
|
|
rakovsky maybe posted:I'm not sure how serious you are, but the philosophical case has been made that even though we can't do it now, eventually humans will have the genetic/biological knowledge to basically convert the entire ecosystem to into an herbivorous mode of existence. And that it would be morally wrong not to do so. eSports Chaebol posted:It's certainly not in our power to take that sort of stewardship over wild animals, but if in the future if it is, we should. If we could deploy nanobots or whatever to release selective analgesics to ease animal suffering without hindering necessary survival instincts based on pain, why not?  ...and that's where the animal rights discussion leaves the realm of reason and enters the domain of intellectual circle-jerking. I sincerely hope that none of the nonsense you propose is done even if it eventually becomes possible.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2014 00:29
|
|
|
drilldo squirt posted:Plants feel pain though? "feel" In the same way that Conway's Game of Life is artificial life.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2014 00:36
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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: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
|
|
|
furiouskoala posted: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. Not everyone is a fan of tin pot dictators Cantorsdust posted: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? You know what? This is actually a good post and makes a better distinction between pain and suffering than many other arguments for animal rights, especially compared to people making the case for insect rights (this is actually a thing  )
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2014 11:15
|
|
|
ClearAirTurbulence posted:I think lifeforms that don't have specialized nerve cells or brains may not be worth protecting from suffering, as there doesn't appear to be a mechanism for experiencing suffering. That might be where I have to draw my line. Jellyfish? They have nerves. e: Hive organisms? Self-organisation along simple rules does not necessitate animals (or any sort of awareness), I see no reason to rate a honey bee more highly than a solitary bee. suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 20:46 on Dec 7, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2014 20:38
|
|
|
Peel posted:Could you reference this? It sounds fascinating, whatever it is. http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/2011/12/decision-making-bee-swarms-mimics-brains http://www.nbb.cornell.edu/seeley.shtml Bees advertise their finds of potential sites for establishing a new hive and convince other bees to join them and stop other bees from advertising their choice until enough bees have voted for one site (or they deadlock and take forever to sort themselves out). Compare this to excitatory and inhibitory neuronal signalling.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2014 01:42
|
|
|
WorldsStrongestNerd posted:The point, you retard, is not that mentally deficient people are animals, but that certain intelligent animals should be raised to and have the same protections as retards. I find that insulting to retards :iamafag:
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2014 20:12
|
|
|
Twelve by Pies posted:Wasps (and yellow jackets) are literally the worst living things on the planet and everyone should kill them at every possible opportunity. Ok good enjoy drowning in a sea of caterpillars
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2014 12:03
|
|
|
Rorac posted:At least caterpillars turn into things that are fairly pleasing to look at and won't try to murder you. Except for all the caterpillars which will give you anaphylactic shocks, have anticoagulants and make you bleed out, or destroy your kidneys so you die a slow and painful death Not to mention the moths that release defensive hair and cause asthma in people living in the general area.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2014 17:09
|
|
|
We recognise ourselves in animals too easily.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2014 17:49
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 07:17 |
|
|
Rexicon1 posted:Can we all at least agree that just because a thing does an action like people do, does not make them people? 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2014 01:05
|
|