Total Posts:31|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Animal Cruelty

leet4A1
Posts: 1,986
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2009 2:49:34 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
There's been a bit of talk about animal cruelty lately, it always seems to come down to "animals don't have rights, so animal cruelty doesn't matter."

If this is your view, can you please elaborate? Nags, Ragnar? Would you, or have you ever been known to, torture an animal for your own pleasure? If you walked past a bunch of kids kicking a cat or dog around, or cutting of its ears or anything similar, would you stop it or would you allow it to continue?
"Let me tell you the truth. The truth is, 'what is'. And 'what should be' is a fantasy, a terrible terrible lie that someone gave to the people long ago. The 'what should be' never did exist, but people keep trying to live up to it. There is no 'what should be,' there is only what is." - Lenny Bruce

"Satan goes to church, did you know that?" - Godsands

"And Genisis 1 does match modern science... you just have to try really hard." - GR33K FR33K5
leet4A1
Posts: 1,986
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2009 2:50:41 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Ok, pretty sure this should have been posted in Society. My bizzle.
"Let me tell you the truth. The truth is, 'what is'. And 'what should be' is a fantasy, a terrible terrible lie that someone gave to the people long ago. The 'what should be' never did exist, but people keep trying to live up to it. There is no 'what should be,' there is only what is." - Lenny Bruce

"Satan goes to church, did you know that?" - Godsands

"And Genisis 1 does match modern science... you just have to try really hard." - GR33K FR33K5
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2009 2:56:25 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Would you, or have you ever been known to, torture an animal for your own pleasure?
What a boring pasttime. So no on that grounds alone.

If you walked past a bunch of kids kicking a cat or dog around, or cutting of its ears or anything similar, would you stop it or would you allow it to continue?
I'd ask if it was their cat.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
leet4A1
Posts: 1,986
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2009 2:58:32 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/27/2009 2:56:25 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Would you, or have you ever been known to, torture an animal for your own pleasure?
What a boring pasttime. So no on that grounds alone.

If you walked past a bunch of kids kicking a cat or dog around, or cutting of its ears or anything similar, would you stop it or would you allow it to continue?
I'd ask if it was their cat.

So there is nothing about the sight of a dog getting its ears cut off which repulses you enough to act on its behalf? What if it were a baby human? Equally incapable of self-defense, equally capable of feeling pain.
"Let me tell you the truth. The truth is, 'what is'. And 'what should be' is a fantasy, a terrible terrible lie that someone gave to the people long ago. The 'what should be' never did exist, but people keep trying to live up to it. There is no 'what should be,' there is only what is." - Lenny Bruce

"Satan goes to church, did you know that?" - Godsands

"And Genisis 1 does match modern science... you just have to try really hard." - GR33K FR33K5
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2009 3:02:54 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I echo Ragnar, but I think that personally, I'd give in and try to stop them. Non-human animal suffering reminds me too much of human suffering. Also, I like cats, and I think that humans who perform acts of torture on non-human animals are not doing anything immoral, but I interpret it as a sign of psychological dysfunction.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
leet4A1
Posts: 1,986
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2009 3:06:51 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/27/2009 3:02:54 PM, Kleptin wrote:
I echo Ragnar, but I think that personally, I'd give in and try to stop them. Non-human animal suffering reminds me too much of human suffering. Also, I like cats, and I think that humans who perform acts of torture on non-human animals are not doing anything immoral, but I interpret it as a sign of psychological dysfunction.

It's the "not doing anything immoral" that I really can't understand, and I've tried. I'm not saying you guys are wrong and I'm right, I'm just trying really hard to understand your position.

Human beings are animals, right? I doubt I'll get any argument from you guys there. What is it about human torture which is immoral which doesn't apply to other animals?
"Let me tell you the truth. The truth is, 'what is'. And 'what should be' is a fantasy, a terrible terrible lie that someone gave to the people long ago. The 'what should be' never did exist, but people keep trying to live up to it. There is no 'what should be,' there is only what is." - Lenny Bruce

"Satan goes to church, did you know that?" - Godsands

"And Genisis 1 does match modern science... you just have to try really hard." - GR33K FR33K5
leet4A1
Posts: 1,986
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2009 3:08:42 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/27/2009 3:06:51 PM, leet4A1 wrote:
At 9/27/2009 3:02:54 PM, Kleptin wrote:
I echo Ragnar, but I think that personally, I'd give in and try to stop them. Non-human animal suffering reminds me too much of human suffering. Also, I like cats, and I think that humans who perform acts of torture on non-human animals are not doing anything immoral, but I interpret it as a sign of psychological dysfunction.

It's the "not doing anything immoral" that I really can't understand, and I've tried. I'm not saying you guys are wrong and I'm right, I'm just trying really hard to understand your position.

Human beings are animals, right? I doubt I'll get any argument from you guys there. What is it about human torture which is immoral which doesn't apply to other animals?

Also sorry I missed you in the chat room Klepto. You lived up to your name with the wallet-snatch. :D
"Let me tell you the truth. The truth is, 'what is'. And 'what should be' is a fantasy, a terrible terrible lie that someone gave to the people long ago. The 'what should be' never did exist, but people keep trying to live up to it. There is no 'what should be,' there is only what is." - Lenny Bruce

"Satan goes to church, did you know that?" - Godsands

"And Genisis 1 does match modern science... you just have to try really hard." - GR33K FR33K5
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2009 3:08:50 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/27/2009 2:58:32 PM, leet4A1 wrote:
At 9/27/2009 2:56:25 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Would you, or have you ever been known to, torture an animal for your own pleasure?
What a boring pasttime. So no on that grounds alone.

If you walked past a bunch of kids kicking a cat or dog around, or cutting of its ears or anything similar, would you stop it or would you allow it to continue?
I'd ask if it was their cat.

So there is nothing about the sight of a dog getting its ears cut off which repulses you enough to act on its behalf? What if it were a baby human? Equally incapable of self-defense, equally capable of feeling pain.

I think that RR's point is that baby humans have baby human rights, and dogs don't.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2009 3:09:55 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/27/2009 3:08:42 PM, leet4A1 wrote:
Also sorry I missed you in the chat room Klepto. You lived up to your name with the wallet-snatch. :D

I have no idea what you're talking about. You best keep your accusations to yourself.

*shifty eyes*

>.>

<.<
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
leet4A1
Posts: 1,986
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2009 3:10:14 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/27/2009 3:08:50 PM, Kleptin wrote:
At 9/27/2009 2:58:32 PM, leet4A1 wrote:
At 9/27/2009 2:56:25 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Would you, or have you ever been known to, torture an animal for your own pleasure?
What a boring pasttime. So no on that grounds alone.

If you walked past a bunch of kids kicking a cat or dog around, or cutting of its ears or anything similar, would you stop it or would you allow it to continue?
I'd ask if it was their cat.

So there is nothing about the sight of a dog getting its ears cut off which repulses you enough to act on its behalf? What if it were a baby human? Equally incapable of self-defense, equally capable of feeling pain.

I think that RR's point is that baby humans have baby human rights, and dogs don't.

So where do these "rights" come from? Are they granted to humans solely because they are a human construct to begin with? I'm no expert on rights (or anything really), so please help me out.
"Let me tell you the truth. The truth is, 'what is'. And 'what should be' is a fantasy, a terrible terrible lie that someone gave to the people long ago. The 'what should be' never did exist, but people keep trying to live up to it. There is no 'what should be,' there is only what is." - Lenny Bruce

"Satan goes to church, did you know that?" - Godsands

"And Genisis 1 does match modern science... you just have to try really hard." - GR33K FR33K5
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2009 3:11:02 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/27/2009 2:49:34 PM, leet4A1 wrote:
Would you, or have you ever been known to, torture an animal for your own pleasure?

Nevah! I love animals.

If you walked past a bunch of kids kicking a cat or dog around, or cutting of its ears or anything similar, would you stop it or would you allow it to continue?

If they were the same size as me, I'd probably fight them.

I had a debate here: http://www.debate.org... if you want to know more.

Basically, I think in legal terms, it should be illegal to torture or commit animal cruelty -- just for the sake of maintaining civility. Also, many animal torturers go on to become serial killers. But ethically, I think it is permissible.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2009 3:15:00 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/27/2009 3:10:14 PM, leet4A1 wrote:
So where do these "rights" come from? Are they granted to humans solely because they are a human construct to begin with? I'm no expert on rights (or anything really), so please help me out.

I can't speak for him, but that's how I see it. Cutting a dog, cutting a tree, it's pretty much the same thing in terms of rights. We tend to be really upset by the sight of a tortured animal because it reminds us of being tortured ourselves. The more easily we can anthropomorphize something, the more rights we assume it has.

Chopping up a watermelon while it is still alive is okay. Chopping up a fish while it is still alive is less okay. Chopping up a cat while it is still alive is not okay. Chopping up a baby while it is still alive is very very very not okay.

My two cents.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2009 4:24:29 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/27/2009 3:15:00 PM, Kleptin wrote:

I can't speak for him, but that's how I see it. Cutting a dog, cutting a tree, it's pretty much the same thing in terms of rights. We tend to be really upset by the sight of a tortured animal because it reminds us of being tortured ourselves. The more easily we can anthropomorphize something, the more rights we assume it has.

I read that while eating smiley face potatoes and kind of lost my appetite =\
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2009 4:25:04 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
We are at the top of the food chain...

thats how i see it...
you can always be like Dennis Kucinich and just be a vegan b/c you believe every creature god created was sacred.
leet4A1
Posts: 1,986
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2009 5:40:19 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/27/2009 4:25:04 PM, comoncents wrote:
We are at the top of the food chain...

thats how i see it...
you can always be like Dennis Kucinich and just be a vegan b/c you believe every creature god created was sacred.

Of course this is how I see it too; I eat meat and love doing it. I was talking more about unnecessesary animal cruelty, like torturing them or otherwise inflicting pain upon them with no benefit or reason.
"Let me tell you the truth. The truth is, 'what is'. And 'what should be' is a fantasy, a terrible terrible lie that someone gave to the people long ago. The 'what should be' never did exist, but people keep trying to live up to it. There is no 'what should be,' there is only what is." - Lenny Bruce

"Satan goes to church, did you know that?" - Godsands

"And Genisis 1 does match modern science... you just have to try really hard." - GR33K FR33K5
patsox834
Posts: 406
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2009 5:57:40 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I realize people love to go around claiming "rights" stem from rationality, but my question is, how does that mean we have "rights?"

Really, nobody has rights. It's a funny little concept some douchebags thought up to assuage their intrinsic superiority complexes. Rights are nothing more than a concept people applied to themselves...and we deserve them due to our rationality? Ok, then why isn't Stephen Hawking overlord of the galaxy? And why do severely retarded people have as many rights as your typical Joe Schmo? They're not exactly equal in terms of rationality.

People have different ideas as to what constitutes "rights." This in itself kinda makes the whole idea trivial. How can we really have rights if it isn't objectively established what constitutes them?

The people who go around abusing animals utterly disgust me. Same thing with the people who are ok with it. For fu­ck's sake, animal abuse is a sign of severe mental illness -- if you can watch someone beat the fu­ck out of a cat, then you're fu­cked up.

But no, it's ok, since these animals don't have "rights." Yeah, since this idea which is a result of human thinking and nothing more isn't applicable to the cats, that makes it fine to beat the sh-t out of them. That makes sense, right? ...not so much.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2009 5:58:14 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/27/2009 5:40:19 PM, leet4A1 wrote:
At 9/27/2009 4:25:04 PM, comoncents wrote:
We are at the top of the food chain...

thats how i see it...
you can always be like Dennis Kucinich and just be a vegan b/c you believe every creature god created was sacred.

Of course this is how I see it too; I eat meat and love doing it. I was talking more about unnecessesary animal cruelty, like torturing them or otherwise inflicting pain upon them with no benefit or reason.

i see...
i am a chef and we did a study that showed stressed animals who are eaten do not taste as good.
Also, animals who are treated with care do seem to taste better, and give people less upset stomachs.

My teachers are "out there", but they seem to believe that what ever the animal you eat feels, so will you.

It will raise the cost if they have to be treated less cruelly.
so is it worth it for you to have your food go up in price, by half in some cases.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2009 6:05:55 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/27/2009 2:58:32 PM, leet4A1 wrote:
At 9/27/2009 2:56:25 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Would you, or have you ever been known to, torture an animal for your own pleasure?
What a boring pasttime. So no on that grounds alone.

If you walked past a bunch of kids kicking a cat or dog around, or cutting of its ears or anything similar, would you stop it or would you allow it to continue?
I'd ask if it was their cat.

So there is nothing about the sight of a dog getting its ears cut off which repulses you enough to act on its behalf?
No

What if it were a baby human?
I'm ambigous, because the science is unclear as to when rationality enters a baby. I wouldn't have a problem with laws preventing the torture of babies, simply because of this lack of clarity and the high probability the timing varies, but I wouldn't go all vigilante over something I'm uncertain about.
By toddlerhood this ambiguity is definitely gone though.

Human beings are animals, right? I doubt I'll get any argument from you guys there. What is it about human torture which is immoral which doesn't apply to other animals?
You're attacking a rational being. Other rational beings who may have periods of low personal defense will be rationally motivated to kill someone who attacks people during such periods (such as sleep), among other things, as such a person is a danger to themselves. This means that it's rational not to engage in such actions, e.g., there is a right ( a proper limit) to such actions.

I realize people love to go around claiming "rights" stem from rationality, but my question is, how does that mean we have "rights?"
See above.

As for the question of the tastiness of meat, that isn't very involved with the moral question, but "Traditional" standards of tastiness of meat, keep in mind, seem significantly based around a rather high fat content-- a fat happy cow may be tasty to some but it isn't as healthy (Personally I've always thought game meats, which definitely are high-stress, are the best, but it's a different sort of high-stress to the low-cost sort of high-stress.)

On the other hand, some people prefer the taste of veal or fois gras, which results not from cost-cutting stress nor hunting stress and isn't really healthy, but essentially damn near torture-for-torture's sake stress levels (I've never tried either as such dishes are unusual, so I wouldn't know, but both preparation methods seem simply unappetizing :).
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
leet4A1
Posts: 1,986
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2009 6:19:44 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/27/2009 6:05:55 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 9/27/2009 2:58:32 PM, leet4A1 wrote:
At 9/27/2009 2:56:25 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Would you, or have you ever been known to, torture an animal for your own pleasure?
What a boring pasttime. So no on that grounds alone.

If you walked past a bunch of kids kicking a cat or dog around, or cutting of its ears or anything similar, would you stop it or would you allow it to continue?
I'd ask if it was their cat.

So there is nothing about the sight of a dog getting its ears cut off which repulses you enough to act on its behalf?
No

Do you have any pets?

What if it were a baby human?
I'm ambigous, because the science is unclear as to when rationality enters a baby. I wouldn't have a problem with laws preventing the torture of babies, simply because of this lack of clarity and the high probability the timing varies, but I wouldn't go all vigilante over something I'm uncertain about.
By toddlerhood this ambiguity is definitely gone though.

What do you mean by rationality anyways? They feel pain, isn't that enough? They are, after all, human.

Human beings are animals, right? I doubt I'll get any argument from you guys there. What is it about human torture which is immoral which doesn't apply to other animals?
You're attacking a rational being. Other rational beings who may have periods of low personal defense will be rationally motivated to kill someone who attacks people during such periods (such as sleep), among other things, as such a person is a danger to themselves. This means that it's rational not to engage in such actions, e.g., there is a right ( a proper limit) to such actions.

I realize people love to go around claiming "rights" stem from rationality, but my question is, how does that mean we have "rights?"
See above.

As for the question of the tastiness of meat, that isn't very involved with the moral question, but "Traditional" standards of tastiness of meat, keep in mind, seem significantly based around a rather high fat content-- a fat happy cow may be tasty to some but it isn't as healthy (Personally I've always thought game meats, which definitely are high-stress, are the best, but it's a different sort of high-stress to the low-cost sort of high-stress.)

On the other hand, some people prefer the taste of veal or fois gras, which results not from cost-cutting stress nor hunting stress and isn't really healthy, but essentially damn near torture-for-torture's sake stress levels (I've never tried either as such dishes are unusual, so I wouldn't know, but both preparation methods seem simply unappetizing :).
"Let me tell you the truth. The truth is, 'what is'. And 'what should be' is a fantasy, a terrible terrible lie that someone gave to the people long ago. The 'what should be' never did exist, but people keep trying to live up to it. There is no 'what should be,' there is only what is." - Lenny Bruce

"Satan goes to church, did you know that?" - Godsands

"And Genisis 1 does match modern science... you just have to try really hard." - GR33K FR33K5
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2009 6:22:33 PM
Posted: 7 years ago

As for the question of the tastiness of meat, that isn't very involved with the moral question, but "Traditional" standards of tastiness of meat, keep in mind, seem significantly based around a rather high fat content-- a fat happy cow may be tasty to some but it isn't as healthy (Personally I've always thought game meats, which definitely are high-stress, are the best, but it's a different sort of high-stress to the low-cost sort of high-stress.)

no you are right, i was just puting a diff spin on how chefs look at it.

On the other hand, some people prefer the taste of veal or fois gras, which results not from cost-cutting stress nor hunting stress and isn't really healthy, but essentially damn near torture-for-torture's sake stress levels (I've never tried either as such dishes are unusual, so I wouldn't know, but both preparation methods seem simply unappetizing :).

I work with fois all the time and it is a really bad process, but the winner of best fois came from someone in spain that is doing it with no torture.

Why is veal tortured?

well i was just saying for saying sake... not on moral... i feel as if my previous post hit on moral a little bit.

just to let you know... when done right...

fois can be the tastiest this you have ever eaten.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2009 6:25:37 PM
Posted: 7 years ago

Do you have any pets?
I live with two. I own neither.

What if it were a baby human?
I'm ambigous, because the science is unclear as to when rationality enters a baby. I wouldn't have a problem with laws preventing the torture of babies, simply because of this lack of clarity and the high probability the timing varies, but I wouldn't go all vigilante over something I'm uncertain about.
By toddlerhood this ambiguity is definitely gone though.

What do you mean by rationality anyways? They feel pain, isn't that enough?
Enough for what? Why would I care if a rat or something with similar consciousness levels felt pain?

They are, after all, human.
Human? Rational animal? That's precisely what the science is ambigous about. If you mean homo sapiens instead of the philosophical term human, so are the millions of sperm cells that die of exposure by my actions every night.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
leet4A1
Posts: 1,986
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2009 6:31:47 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/27/2009 6:25:37 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

Do you have any pets?
I live with two. I own neither.


What if it were a baby human?
I'm ambigous, because the science is unclear as to when rationality enters a baby. I wouldn't have a problem with laws preventing the torture of babies, simply because of this lack of clarity and the high probability the timing varies, but I wouldn't go all vigilante over something I'm uncertain about.
By toddlerhood this ambiguity is definitely gone though.

What do you mean by rationality anyways? They feel pain, isn't that enough?
Enough for what? Why would I care if a rat or something with similar consciousness levels felt pain?

You're a true catch.

They are, after all, human.
Human? Rational animal? That's precisely what the science is ambigous about. If you mean homo sapiens instead of the philosophical term human, so are the millions of sperm cells that die of exposure by my actions every night.

You can't tell the difference between a baby and the stain on your bed sheet without a textbook?
"Let me tell you the truth. The truth is, 'what is'. And 'what should be' is a fantasy, a terrible terrible lie that someone gave to the people long ago. The 'what should be' never did exist, but people keep trying to live up to it. There is no 'what should be,' there is only what is." - Lenny Bruce

"Satan goes to church, did you know that?" - Godsands

"And Genisis 1 does match modern science... you just have to try really hard." - GR33K FR33K5
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2009 6:32:47 PM
Posted: 7 years ago

They are, after all, human.
Human? Rational animal? That's precisely what the science is ambigous about. If you mean homo sapiens instead of the philosophical term human, so are the millions of sperm cells that die of exposure by my actions every night.

You can't tell the difference between a baby and the stain on your bed sheet without a textbook?

I can tell a number of differences. Which one are you arguing is relevant?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
leet4A1
Posts: 1,986
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2009 6:38:17 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/27/2009 6:32:47 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

They are, after all, human.
Human? Rational animal? That's precisely what the science is ambigous about. If you mean homo sapiens instead of the philosophical term human, so are the millions of sperm cells that die of exposure by my actions every night.

You can't tell the difference between a baby and the stain on your bed sheet without a textbook?

I can tell a number of differences. Which one are you arguing is relevant?

The ability to feel and register pain. They're also less sticky. :D
"Let me tell you the truth. The truth is, 'what is'. And 'what should be' is a fantasy, a terrible terrible lie that someone gave to the people long ago. The 'what should be' never did exist, but people keep trying to live up to it. There is no 'what should be,' there is only what is." - Lenny Bruce

"Satan goes to church, did you know that?" - Godsands

"And Genisis 1 does match modern science... you just have to try really hard." - GR33K FR33K5
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2009 6:40:04 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/27/2009 6:38:17 PM, leet4A1 wrote:
At 9/27/2009 6:32:47 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

They are, after all, human.
Human? Rational animal? That's precisely what the science is ambigous about. If you mean homo sapiens instead of the philosophical term human, so are the millions of sperm cells that die of exposure by my actions every night.

You can't tell the difference between a baby and the stain on your bed sheet without a textbook?

I can tell a number of differences. Which one are you arguing is relevant?

The ability to feel and register pain.
Erm, yes, but why is it relevant?

They're also less sticky. :D
Depends on what they ate.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
leet4A1
Posts: 1,986
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2009 6:44:19 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/27/2009 6:40:04 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 9/27/2009 6:38:17 PM, leet4A1 wrote:
At 9/27/2009 6:32:47 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

They are, after all, human.
Human? Rational animal? That's precisely what the science is ambigous about. If you mean homo sapiens instead of the philosophical term human, so are the millions of sperm cells that die of exposure by my actions every night.

You can't tell the difference between a baby and the stain on your bed sheet without a textbook?

I can tell a number of differences. Which one are you arguing is relevant?

The ability to feel and register pain.
Erm, yes, but why is it relevant?

Don't worry about it... it's really not worth the time for either of us to discuss this. I've got more important things to do; balls to scratch, walls to stare at...

They're also less sticky. :D
Depends on what they ate.
"Let me tell you the truth. The truth is, 'what is'. And 'what should be' is a fantasy, a terrible terrible lie that someone gave to the people long ago. The 'what should be' never did exist, but people keep trying to live up to it. There is no 'what should be,' there is only what is." - Lenny Bruce

"Satan goes to church, did you know that?" - Godsands

"And Genisis 1 does match modern science... you just have to try really hard." - GR33K FR33K5
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2009 8:32:50 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/27/2009 5:58:14 PM, comoncents wrote:
i am a chef and we did a study that showed stressed animals who are eaten do not taste as good.
Also, animals who are treated with care do seem to taste better, and give people less upset stomachs.

That might have some scientific merit. Animals that are stressed would undoubtedly have different physiology. Do you have a source?
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2009 8:36:27 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/27/2009 6:05:55 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
You're attacking a rational being. Other rational beings who may have periods of low personal defense will be rationally motivated to kill someone who attacks people during such periods (such as sleep), among other things, as such a person is a danger to themselves. This means that it's rational not to engage in such actions, e.g., there is a right ( a proper limit) to such actions.

I don't think rationality in particular has anything to do with it, since other animals in nature act in self defense as well. The "rationality" is just an extension of nature. Having rationality to detect that a person will harm them even when the harm is not imminent is no different from an animal killing another animal based on scent gland secretions. Just a different mechanism for the same thing.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2009 8:50:12 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/27/2009 8:36:27 PM, Kleptin wrote:
At 9/27/2009 6:05:55 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
You're attacking a rational being. Other rational beings who may have periods of low personal defense will be rationally motivated to kill someone who attacks people during such periods (such as sleep), among other things, as such a person is a danger to themselves. This means that it's rational not to engage in such actions, e.g., there is a right ( a proper limit) to such actions.

I don't think rationality in particular has anything to do with it, since other animals in nature act in self defense as well.
They act in immediate self-defense, but they are not capable of abstracting from the state of what motivates one killing to what motivates another, especially in the course of a human lifetime, thus, their self-defense does not take the form this does.

Having rationality to detect that a person will harm them even when the harm is not imminent is no different from an animal killing another animal based on scent gland secretions.
It's obviously different, or humans would not be the dominant species on the planet.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.