I want to hunt every poacher in Africa with a high-powered rifle

[Aaron]

I hate hunting. What do people think of it? How can it not be completely outlawed? This is a serious discussion.

[Mister_Che]

I don't see the problem if you actually eat your kill. Have you ever had venison meatballs?

Besides, it's a good way of controlling explosive population growth.

[Aaron]

I have no problem with either farming or subsistance living, but hunting for "sport" disgusts me.

[beso negro]

hunting should be legal especially if there is an overpopulation of an animal. we have deer season here because there's way too many of them.

what's with all these damn commies wanting to ban everything christ

[Mister_Che]

Ah, you should have been a little more specific then.

[beso negro]

hunting for sport is pretty lame imo too but making it illegal would be even lamer

[PerpetualBurn]

hunting should be legal especially if there is an overpopulation of an animal. we have deer season here because there's way too many of them.

what's with all these damn commies wanting to ban everything christ

I don't think overpopulation is a problem with a lot of what people go on hunting tours in Africa for.

Do people not even read the full thread titles any more?

[Hababi]

I don't think overpopulation is a problem with a lot of what people go on hunting tours in Africa for.

Do people not even read the full thread titles any more?

The lion population in Tanzania causes quite a problem.

That's one of the few areas where hunting is a positive influence though. And elephant and gorilla hunting/poaching is disgusting.

[Aaron]

The lion problem is a problem because men have killed their food. Think before you post.

[Reaganista]

i dont think there's anything you could do to an animal besides train it to attack and kill people that should really be regarded as wrong
maybe gorillas shouldn't count as animals idk but lions who cares what people do to lions

[Aaron]

I hope that's sarcasm.

[Reaganista]

no why would it be

[sweboy]

i dont think there's anything you could do to an animal besides train it to attack and kill people that should really be regarded as wrong
maybe gorillas shouldn't count as animals idk but lions who cares what people do to lions

may i ask you what you base your ethics on

[Reaganista]

value

[Jude]

I have no problem with either farming or subsistance living, but hunting for "sport" disgusts me.

This

I would actually much prefer to eat meat that was hunted in the wild than that was raised in a tiny pen in shitty conditions

[mph4ever]

see, these poacher fellows, you can't blame them. they have clients. what they do is evil. at the same its the asian, american and european customers who drive the demand and hence the activity

[VomitStainedCretin]

The lion population in Tanzania causes quite a problem.

That's one of the few areas where hunting is a positive influence though. And elephant and gorilla hunting/poaching is disgusting.Elephants are generally considered more of a problem than lions tbh as they can be highly destructive and damage eco-systems already under pressure if there are too many in one area.

[beso negro]

i dont think there's anything you could do to an animal besides train it to attack and kill people that should really be regarded as wrong
maybe gorillas shouldn't count as animals idk but lions who cares what people do to lions

right on bro

[Amit]

I hate hunting. What do people think of it? How can it not be completely outlawed? This is a serious discussion.

it's a stupid animal

the only people who object to proper hunting are as mindlessly stupid as the animals they're pointlessly defending

[Iscariot]

aaron go take a walk through the african plains and when you get attacked by a rogue lion which is pretty much 100% sure to happen we'll see if you still whine about people killing lions

it's not like they're going out and obliterating entire prides they typically kill males and there is an over abundance of them roaming around fighting for control of established prides and eating africans as it is

[Der Übermensch]

I hate hunting. What do people think of it? How can it not be completely outlawed? This is a serious discussion.

Because Duck and Venison taste good?

[Reaganista]

likewise dog fighting should be legal because watching dogs fight is fun and so is gambling

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

Poaching is by definition already illegal and therefore banned.

/thread

[BridgeToSolace]

Poaching is by definition already illegal and therefore banned.

/thread

That would only be /thread of that had something to do with the thread.

Which it doesn't. Phail.

-

Yeah, I'm fine with population control hunting and sustenance hunting. Pleasure hunting (haha) is retarded, but I wouldn't ban it, just discourage it.

[beso negro]

likewise dog fighting should be legal because watching dogs fight is fun and so is gambling

i knew you bring dog fighting into this thread at some point

[Hababi]

Elephants are generally considered more of a problem than lions tbh as they can be highly destructive and damage eco-systems already under pressure if there are too many in one area.

There are also a lot fewer elephants.

[guitarded_chuck]

Hunting for food is fine. I mean, when is the last time you ate meat? It came from an animal which was more than likely bred and raised on a farm with the sole intention of eventually getting killed and sold as food for profit. That sounds a lot worse than people in Africa hunting for food, or anywhere else.

Poaching (and hunting for sport too imo) is different though. There is no need. Especially of endangered, threatened, or keystone species. It is definitely something that should be regulated more, but we're talking about Africa here.

[ringworm]

it's a stupid animal
this is why i feel no sympathy for people

anyone who thinks they are somehow above other life on this planet need to be ejected from it

[Amit]

this is why i feel no sympathy for people

anyone who thinks they are somehow above other life on this planet need to be ejected from it

lol

take some science classes to understand just how different humans are from animals; i hate all these politically correct anthropomorphic fallacies floating around non-scientific america

oh wait you probably wouldn't understand them

[Iscariot]

this is why i feel no sympathy for people

anyone who thinks they are somehow above other life on this planet need to be ejected from it

when a lion can make me a ham and cheese sandwich then i'll consider it equal with myself

[Reaganista]

i knew you bring dog fighting into this thread at some point
it's a good way to illustrate that youre arbitrarily deciding which animals are ok to kill for sport and which arent
this is why i feel no sympathy for people

anyone who thinks they are somehow above other life on this planet need to be ejected from it
i happen to be above all nonhuman life and most humans
also arent you a hillbilly
dont you hunt

well regardless you have to kill stuff in order to eat, if indirectly

[ringworm]

take some science classes to understand just how different humans are from animals

*sigh

we're here on a mere coincidence of events far more significant than our existence, yet your highly developed brain thinks we are a different form of living organism than anything else :/


i happen to be above all nonhuman life and most humans
yeahok
also arent you a hillbilly
dont you hunt

i guess i could be considered a hillbilly, well, not really

and no, i have no interest in shooting an animal, but i fully support the right to, but it still baffles me why a father wants to bond with a son over a dead carcass they just imploded?

now poaching and the like, thats different thing, they rate close to child offenders, imo

[Reaganista]

now poaching and the like, thats different thing, they rate close to child offenders, imo
hows that

[Amit]

we're here on a mere coincidence of events far more significant than our existence, yet your highly developed brain thinks we are a different form of living organism than anything else :/

is it "demonstrate a complete lack of knowledge behind evolution and human evolution" day already?

three things humans have that every animals doesn't and which automatically make us and different (and infinitely superior) to all of them

1) language
2) abstraction/mimesis/complete theory of mind
3) culture

well, at least most of us have those things :lol:

[ringworm]

hows that

because
is it "demonstrate the complete lack of knowledge behind evolution and human evolution" day already?

feel free to explain how we were destined to walk the planet
*very badly as well

feel free to dabble on large extinctions of other animals by random floating objects in space (which is far more interesting) that made it possible for other species to evolve and ultimately, make a nice cozy retreat for us to stumble in like a bad next door neighbor

[Amit]

feel free to explain how we were destined to walk the planet
*very badly as well

we weren't destined

through natural selection and evolution, we acquired that right with the above 3 things

feel free to dabble on large extinctions of other animals by random floating objects in space (which is far more interesting) that made it possible for other species to evolve and ultimately, make a nice cozy retreat for us to stumble in like a bad next door neighbor

unfortunately for you, that's completely irrelevant to the current discussion

lol it's so cute when non-science hicks from the intellectual minor leagues try to scale heights that just aren't appropriate for them

i'm sure you're reading up the wikis on theory of mind, mimesis, culture, and all the other unfamiliar things i've mentioned so far; take your time! dinner won't be a while

[Reaganista]

because
go on

[ringworm]

lol it's so cute when non-science hicks from the intellectual minor leagues try to scale heights that just aren't appropriate for them
lol

its funny, a few post earlier, i was going to apologize for talking so far above you

intelligence is something thats just shown, not advertised, just so ya know :thumb:

people like ashman, smokey and many others i know i am leaving out just have the air of it, being around for a long time, i see that people who loudly proclaim their smarts, usually arent

[Amit]

oh i understand that completely; i'm just doing yet another victory dance around yet another dumb white person

nice job completely dodging the rest of the posts like i knew you would; you're simply making the rest of the trailer park proud!

time for dinner!

[Iscariot]

*sigh

we're here on a mere coincidence of events far more significant than our existence, yet your highly developed brain thinks we are a different form of living organism than anything else :/

how is evolution and domination of the food chain a coincidence and not perfectly valid natural progression of a species trying to adapt to an ever changing environment

you're not nearly as smart as you seem to think you are :\

[Volumnius Flush]

I am all for eating meat, but pointless killing is beyond me.

I just can't see any real reason to kill an animal just to have it mounted on the wall. Unless you eat the rest of it.

[Iscariot]

because a full grown stuffed grizzly bear makes one hell of a ****ing door stop

[ringworm]

nice job completely dodging the rest of the posts like i knew you would; you're simply making the rest of the trailer park proud!
sorry, once i quote, i dont keep looking back to check for edits :thumb:
You're not nearly as smart as you seem to think you are :\
eh, your question wasnt very smart either, and i never implied i am superior to anyone, besides that poke at amits constant billboard of credentials ( i like to troll the trolls :) they're so easy)

but if i would answer
how is evolution and domination of the food chain a coincidence
thats easy, because it is, depending on how far back you wanna go in the development of the universe

[Iscariot]

ok but how is it a coincidence and not standard natural progression of a species

[Reaganista]

if monkeys had won the millions of monkey vs person battles that have taken place through time then they would run everything and we would be endangered and living in jungles and zoos and ****

or what if bacterias grew arms and legs

[ringworm]

get your hands offa me you %$#@ dirty ape :mad:

[Amit]

if monkeys had won the millions of monkey vs person battles that have taken place through time then they would run everything and we would be endangered and living in jungles and zoos and ****

or what if bacterias grew arms and legs

and i wouldn't object to them running the earth because hey

i wouldn't even have the neurophysiology to conceive of such things

[Aaron]

1) language
2) abstraction/mimesis/complete theory of mind
3) culture

So do orangutans:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/04/28/eaorang128.xml

[Reaganista]

fishing with a sharpened stick after watching people do it is
1) language
2) abstraction/mimesis/complete theory of mind
3) culture

o ok

[Amit]

hahaha well played

[Aaron]

fishing with a sharpened stick after watching people do it is
1) language
2) abstraction/mimesis/complete theory of mind
3) culture

o ok
it's how you learnt to talk

[Amit]

oh bjornnnnnnnnnn

[WhoDidTheElf]

Should lock those kids up that fry ants with a magnifying glass.

Sicken me

[Futue te Ipsum]

sustainable hunting is fine

[GreyHam]

may i ask you what you base your ethics on

trolling

[ringworm]

ok but how is it a coincidence and not standard natural progression of a species
because we are here due to numerous catastrophic coincidences

[Jude]

it's how you learnt to talk

Not really

[Amit]

because we are here due to numerous catastrophic coincidences

gb2biologyclass

[Futue te Ipsum]

yeah man it's not like being able to form massive social groups, use complex tools or anything is a huge survival advantage

[Reaganista]

it's how you learnt to talk

if i was a parrot then ya

[ringworm]

gb2biologyclass

feel free to elaborate why

[TBrown87]

I hunt deer sometimes. I dont need it for food, but I always eat it anyway. Venison is a lot healthier than beef anyway.

[Aaron]

if i was a parrot then ya
Tell me how a parrot learning to talk and an infant learning to talk is any different. I'd like to see the distinction in the learning process...

[Iskandar]

An infant learns semantics over time. A parrot never gets beyond the mimicking stage.

[Amit]

feel free to elaborate why

i did already but you skipped over it?

[Lufnoops]

i knew before i entered this thread that everyone would shoot it down. which is exactly what should happen

http://www.peta.org/

[Jude]

Tell me how a parrot learning to talk and an infant learning to talk is any different. I'd like to see the distinction in the learning process...

Oh my God

Take psycholinguistics

Humans have actually evolved brain functions specifically to learn language and grammar

Parrots just give you back phrases that they've heard

[Aaron]

Oh mah gawwwwd

Not entirely. You can ask a parrot a question and it answers doesn't it?

[Orange Piggy]

I wonder about this greater than thou approach to species. So, if an alien species came along that possesses a more expressive and succinct language, has a greater ability to abstract, has culture more varied, intricate and efficient than our own and have more abilities than we possess, are they rightly justified in doing with humans as they please? Does your moral system justify them anal probing you?

I don't like anthropromorphism as much as the next guy, but I think sometimes people take its rejection to extremes. We have to be careful about automatically assigining experiences and behaviour that we go through to animals, but it is no ground to say they don't. As an example, its bizarre to say an elephant doesn't experience pain when evidence points to the contrary. The biological reasoning behind it is identical to pain in humans.

[Jude]

Oh mah gawwwwd

Not entirely. You can ask a parrot a question and it answers doesn't it?

Um

It might answer you with a sentence that it's heard you say before but it won't understand your meaning, and create and completely new and original sentence in response to what you're saying, which is what kids do all the time while learning language

[Amit]

I wonder about this greater than thou approach to species. So, if an alien species came along that possesses a more expressive and succinct language, has a greater ability to abstract, has culture more varied, intricate and efficient than our own and have more abilities than we possess, are they rightly justified in doing with humans as they please? Does your moral system justify them anal probing you?

except there's no spectrum of capabilities associated with humans; it's binary

you're either up here (with the humans and rhetorical aliens) or down there (with all the stupid animals)

[TBrown87]

This thread got really stupid really fast.

Parrots? Come on.

[gregulus]

Regardless of the evolutionary advantages that have come our way, I don't see how that justifies the arbitrary killing of whole species for something that isn't inherently beneficial for human-kind as a whole. In fact, doing so may tilt the balance of the ecosystem that we're still a part of too far to one side. That said, claiming that we evolved through "coincidence" or equating the speech of a parrot to that of a human infant is erroneous. Denying that human beings are a more advanced species than any other species on earth is also erroneous. Yes, prokaryotes are relatively complex organisms when you consider about how specific cellular functions are. The human mind, however, is light-years ahead of any other species' on the planet.

[Jude]

I would make it simpler and just say that just because animals are dumb doesn't mean they can't suffer and feel pain, and just because they can't usually communicate that pain in words doesn't mean that it's ok to do cruel things to them

however I have nothing against eating them, I'd just rather they weren't raised in hellhole conditions where they live in a tiny box their whole life because that has to cause some suffering

[spitfirejunky]

Regardless of the evolutionary advantages that have come our way, I don't see how that justifies the arbitrary killing of whole species for something that isn't inherently beneficial for human-kind as a whole. In fact, doing so may tilt the balance of the ecosystem that we're still a part of too far to one side. That said, claiming that we evolved through "coincidence" or equating the speech of a parrot to that of a human infant is erroneous. Denying that human beings are a more advanced species than any other species on earth is also erroneous. Yes, prokaryotes are relatively complex organisms when you consider about how specific cellular functions are. The human mind, however, is light-years ahead of any other species' on the planet.

My issue with this debate is this idea of superiority. People seem to be evaluating our dominion over animals by how much more capable we are of surviving than other animals while said animals are around.

This is kinda like saying a motherboard is superior to a keyboard, all while admitting that the motherboard is useless without the keyboard.

Do we have traits that are fundamentally more useful for our survival (and even the survival of other organisms) than other organisms? Yes, but this does not negate our dependence on other organims. I find it difficult to establish superiority if this relationship exists.

(I'm just elaborating on your post, btw.)

[gregulus]

My issue with this debate is this idea of superiority. People seem to be evaluating our dominion over animals by how much more capable we are of surviving than other animals while said animals are around.

This is kinda like saying a motherboard is superior to a keyboard, all while admitting that the motherboard is useless without the keyboard.

Do we have traits that are fundamentally more useful for our survival (and even the survival of other organisms) than other organisms? Yes, but this does not negate our dependence on other organims. I find it difficult to establish superiority if this relationship exists.

(I'm just elaborating on your post, btw.)
Of course. I touched on this briefly in discussing the ecosystem and what not.

[ringworm]

i did already but you skipped over it?
i feel like i keep trying to talk fairly deep, yet amit is stuck on campfire phrases like, "does a tree make a noise if no one is around when it falls."? :)





Do we have traits that are fundamentally more useful for our survival (and even the survival of other organisms) than other organisms? Yes, but this does not negate our dependence on other organims. I find it difficult to establish superiority if this relationship exists.

and wouldnt a higher species figure out a way to live without jeopardizing its own inhabitants and resources

the dumb ones dont have any problems in that area

[Amit]

i feel like i keep asking ringworm to address my points yet he is stuck on talking about how he is actually counter-trolling me in a really elaborate and convoluted way (which sort of defeats the purpose but i don't think he got that far yet)

if anyone wants to talk about mimesis, theory of mind, or shared intentionality, i'll be here

[J Rad]

hi amit how's it going buddy

[Amit]

sup

i'm sorry that you got banned man; thatsucks :[

[J Rad]

it's ok i deserved it

not so much for the "lol mac" but more for the indulging vf's requests for me to kill him

i'll be back tomorrow :)

[Amit]

okay good!

[Smokey D]

except there's no spectrum of capabilities associated with humans; it's binary

you're either up here (with the humans and rhetorical aliens) or down there (with all the stupid animals)

You can't honestly believe that intelligence is binary.

Or failing that, you can't honestly say that intelligence isn't trinary. Who's to say the aliens aren't as such quantum leap ahead of as as we are of animals.

[Amit]

You can't honestly believe that intelligence is binary.

Or failing that, you can't honestly say that intelligence isn't trinary. Who's to say the aliens aren't as such quantum leap ahead of as as we are of animals.

well who's to say that there aren't other aliens which aren't an even more of a quantum leap (what a terrible word) ahead of those aliens

i'll concede that cognitive capacity is trinary but since we have absolutely nothing that falls into that third, higher category, it's effectively binary

[Smokey D]

well who's to say that there aren't other aliens which aren't an even more of a quantum leap (what a terrible word) ahead of those aliens


No one. That's the point.



i'll concede that cognitive capacity is trinary but since we have absolutely nothing that falls into that third, higher category, it's effectively binary

Okay but that doesn't really answer Orange Piggy's question.


On a separate note:


I wonder about this greater than thou approach to species. So, if an alien species came along that possesses a more expressive and succinct language, has a greater ability to abstract, has culture more varied, intricate and efficient than our own and have more abilities than we possess, are they rightly justified in doing with humans as they please? Does your moral system justify them anal probing you?

You eat meat.

[Amit]

who is orange piggy?

and i don't understand the point :[

[Reaganista]

it's wrong to anal probe us because the we have the ability to value not being anal probed
Tell me how a parrot learning to talk and an infant learning to talk is any different. I'd like to see the distinction in the learning process...
when we say words they mean something

[Smokey D]

Orange Piggy is the guy who you responded to by saying 'intelligence is binary.

I wonder about this greater than thou approach to species. So, if an alien species came along that possesses a more expressive and succinct language, has a greater ability to abstract, has culture more varied, intricate and efficient than our own and have more abilities than we possess, are they rightly justified in doing with humans as they please? Does your moral system justify them anal probing you?

I wonder about this greater than thou approach to species. So, if an alien species came along that possesses a more expressive and succinct language, has a greater ability to abstract, has culture more varied, intricate and efficient than our own and have more abilities than we possess, are they rightly justified in doing with humans as they please? Does your moral system justify them anal probing you?


And since you concede that it's possible for intelligence to be trinary, the question is would the alien race be as justified in killing humans as we are in killing animals?

when we say words they mean something

When an animal exhibits body language, they mean something.

[Amit]

Orange Piggy is the guy who you responded to by saying 'intelligence is binary.

ahhhh; i didn't see the changed username and only recognized by avatar

And since you concede that it's possible for intelligence to be trinary, the question is would the alien race be as justified in killing humans as we are in killing animals?

I would have to agree with Tway's point about us valuing not being anally probed. But I think this is the limits of my understanding/ability to discuss the subject; I have all this neuroscience/psychology/anthropology information, but I don't know how to apply it unlike some of you here!

[Reaganista]

no amount of intelligence they have could possibly make us less intelligent

well without them acting upon us in a way that would be immoral

[Smokey D]

I would have to agree with Tway's point about us valuing not being anally probed. But I think this is the limits of my understanding/ability to discuss the subject; I have all this neuroscience/psychology/anthropology information, but I don't know how to apply it unlike some of you here!

Bear with me for a bit longer. This is interesting.

While I agree that an animal can't place value on experience in the same way that we can. But it's pretty clear that some animals at least prefer certain outcomes to others. If our reasoning seemed as basic to the aliens as the pleasure/pain basis for animal though and behavior, then our ability to value not being anally probed would be inconsequential.

no amount of intelligence they have could possibly make us less intelligent

well without them acting upon us in a way that would be immoral

So?

[Reaganista]

So?
i dont see how this is a meaningful question

While I agree that an animal can't place value on experience in the same way that we can. But it's pretty clear that some animals at least prefer certain outcomes to others. If our reasoning seemed as basic to the aliens as the pleasure/pain basis for animal though and behavior, then our ability to value not being anally probed would be inconsequential.
in that case the aliens are behaving unethically due to incomplete information our only recourse would be to hope that they manage to realize what they're doing before anihilating us which they should if they're so super smart

[Smokey D]

If the aliens are operating at a level where they perceive our cognitive abilities in the same way we perceive a cow's, then they aren't going to be swayed by our moral calculus.

in that case the aliens are behaving unethically due to incomplete information our only recourse would be to hope that they manage to realize what they're doing before anihilating us which they should if they're so super smart

Then we should afford the same to animals.

[Amit]

While I agree that an animal can't place value on experience in the same way that we can. But it's pretty clear that some animals at least prefer certain outcomes to others. If our reasoning seemed as basic to the aliens as the pleasure/pain basis for animal though and behavior, then our ability to value not being anally probed would be inconsequential.

The first sentence was something we've covered rather extensively in neuroscience classes (I even took a class on Neural Decision Making this semester) simply because of how important it is in single unit electrode recording to try and understand best what the monkey is going through as it makes a decision.

I think that the simplistic evaluation of outcomes in experiments as demonstrated by primates as advanced as even chimpanzees could be reproduced in a computer simulation fairly easily. Much of it is tied into simplistic counters and up/downstream modulators for pleasure and pain. Hell, one could draw the circuits for the aplysia sea slug on a small napkin in under a minute.

However, when moving to human evaluation of experience, there is just way too much to deal with (at the moment and in foreseeable future) in trying to reproduce neural decision making in humans. We feebly understand the loops involving the basal ganglia, frontal cortex, association cortex, and amygdala, but to really approach human NDM in a meaningful way, we need to attack the giant pink elephants in the room: consciousness and theory of mind.

But man, I haven't even thought about the second.

:mulls:

[Reaganista]

it's not an issue of our perception there is no point you can be possibly be removed to where our mental capabilities become even similar to that of a cow they are different in clear absolute terms

[Smokey D]

Well obviously the aliens would recognise that we are smarter than cows in the same way we recognise that cows are smarter than jellyfish. It doesn't mean they'd ascribe the same value they ascribe to themselves to us.

[Against Miik!]

I'm a bit late here, but whatever. My thoughts.

Don't be mad at the poachers in Africa. If somebody can find something to do in that God forsaken country, good for them. I'd say your problem is with the rich folks who buy fur coats or whatever they make out of ivory.

I'm guilty of that. I hate people who wear fur. Its not even attractive. But I do have ivory bridge pins on my acoustic guitar. They sound sooo smooth. You wouldn't think they would make a difference, but really, thats where all the tone comes from.

[Smokey D]

The eating people discussion was moved to Trolley Dilemma thread because it was essentially a discussion of the same principles.

[Jody LeCompte]

If you want to look at hunting as a means of keeping yourself alive, then it's a biological thing. If you don't have the option of going to Burger King, Walmart, etc, if you have to kill to eat then it's a matter of food chains and survival of the fitest. The law that has been around since whatever belief system you have about the first life.

However, that's not the case. We kill for sport, we kill out of spite, and we kill just for the pure hell of setting a mouse trap or firing a gun. It's just a mouse and a lion scenario. If some uber awesome space babes came down and probed us we'd deserve it. If we're not the top of the food chain then we're not, that's all there is to it. I just can't help but wonder though if perhaps the reason we haven't been introduced to aliens, is because if they're so advanced then we're probably just simply just worth their time...

And to end my two cents, venision is so good. So is duck.

[ringworm]

i feel like i keep asking ringworm to address my points
jesus tap dancing christ amit, maybe if you'd stop going back and editing them, they'd get answered, post#36 has been changed 3 times

a 3rd grader understands we have more cognition than an ape

1) language
2) abstraction/mimesis/complete theory of mind
3) culture
no **** sherlock
you're totally missing it, somehow i say
anyone who thinks they are somehow above other life on this planet need to be ejected from it
and you think i mean we are no more mentally developed than Jojo the circus chimp :/

i mean anyone who feels that we have evolved to be the highest form of life on this planet but still chooses to act like the dumbest by treating everything else around them like a handmaid put here to serve their needs isnt really worth the effort that made that person possible in the first place.

You keep wanting to talk about cognitive difference between us like I dont understand this simple mundane concept while I keep going back even further by demonstrating how lucky we are to even be here in the first place.

[Amit]

we aren't lucky to be here in the first place

evolution and the ascension of homo sapiens as the dominant species has absolutely nothing to do with luck sorry

just hundreds of millions of years worth of mutations and natural selection

i mean anyone who feels that we have evolved to be the highest form of life on this planet but still chooses to act like the dumbest by treating everything else around them like a handmaid put here to serve their needs isnt really worth the effort that made that person possible in the first place.

so you're against all forms of biological, psychological, pharmaceutical, and neuroscientific research

okay cool good to know that the nobel prize winning researchers who have made your life and the lives of the people you love possible through animal research are the dumbest people around

[beso negro]

it's wrong to anal probe us because the we have the ability to value not being anal probed

what do you mean? If i anal probe my cat everyday eventually it will learn to hide when it sees me with a probe will it not

[Amit]

what do you mean? If i anal probe my cat everyday eventually it will learn to hide when it sees me with a probe will it not

that doesn't mean it has values

even bacteria exhibit what you're describing and we have no problem washing our hands now do we (at least i hope not)

[sweboy]

I don't see what difference in mental capacity between organisms (cows, humans, aliens etc.) has to do with how one should treat a given organism. I think an organism should be treated in consideration only with it's own characteristics, and considering what we know about pain and evolution, it is reasonable to assume that animals alike us don't like pain and therefore it is unethical to subject animals to pain. It is however for example not unethical to keep in captivity an organism that can't grasp the concepts of captivity/freedom (unless of course the captivity conditions leads to physical or mental suffering for the organism).

[Mr. Ron]

I don't see what difference in mental capacity between organisms (cows, humans, aliens etc.) has to do with how one should treat a given organism. I think an organism should be treated in consideration only with it's own characteristics, and considering what we know about pain and evolution, it is reasonable to assume that animals alike us don't like pain and therefore it is unethical to subject animals to pain. It is however for example not unethical to keep in captivity an organism that can't grasp the concepts of captivity/freedom (unless of course the captivity conditions leads to physical or mental suffering for the organism).

123

[mph4ever]

lets just deal with one species, take homo sapiens.

humans have constantly acted like aliens on this planet. some humans have constantly considered other races to be inferior, humans have constantly invaded parts of the planet where we were aliens.

one of the main improvements as knowledge evolved is in transportation. the wheel, the ship, the airplane, the combustion engine, the rocket, the space shuttle. and with each and every step forward with these technologies has come new frontiers and our willingness to colonise it.

if we were to get off this rock first and actually go somewhere with life on it then it is a given that it will be inferior to us, or certainly its defensive and offensive capability will be. i deduce since they have not managed to figure out how to get here first. we would subordinate them to us and use them for our benefit, like what we are doing in the sweat shops of india or china. the reverse is also true, if, any time soon, aliens were to visit us here then we would be viewed as a resource for them. they wouldn't breed with us and they wouldn't integrate with us, they would exploit us. thats the nature of the beasts.

(by the way, last time i looked, the chances of us ever going anywhere else with life or the chances of life outside of earth ever coming here, is sooooo small, it ain't ever going to happen, we aint going there and they aint never coming here)

[Amit]

I don't see what difference in mental capacity between organisms (cows, humans, aliens etc.) has to do with how one should treat a given organism. I think an organism should be treated in consideration only with it's own characteristics, and considering what we know about pain and evolution, it is reasonable to assume that animals alike us don't like pain and therefore it is unethical to subject animals to pain. It is however for example not unethical to keep in captivity an organism that can't grasp the concepts of captivity/freedom (unless of course the captivity conditions leads to physical or mental suffering for the organism).

what about bacteria or lice

[sweboy]

what about bacteria or lice

This is a scientific question, not an ethical one. With bacteria, you can do whatever you want because they have no feelings at all. Lice are insects and therefore probably have some kind of pain although most likely not as elaborate/much as in mammals, so yeah it's not cool to hurt them though not as uncool as hurting mammals.

[Amit]

This is a scientific question, not an ethical one. With bacteria, you can do whatever you want because they have no feelings at all. Lice are insects and therefore probably have some kind of pain although most likely not as elaborate/much as in mammals, so yeah it's not cool to hurt them though not as uncool as hurting mammals.

bacteria and lice both feel pain

[guitrguy]

I didn't know we could tell what bacteria senses.

[sweboy]

lice do as i said, bacteria don't (if you think they do please show this)

[J Rad]

bacteria respond accordingly to most any sort of stimulus

if you poke it with a needle it pulls away in response, i think that shows some level of pain recognition

[mph4ever]

bacteria and lice both feel pain

don't interpret natural reactions to something higher organisms can interpret as pain. nervous systems react and transmit, doesn't mean there is any interpretation. although i am still confused by the oscillascope electro magnetic readings that appear when a plant it ripped out of its pot.

when was the last time you heard some bacteria crying out as it was loaded into the lorry going to a slaughter house or shout "ouch that hurt"

[J Rad]

not being able to communicate pain =/= not feeling pain

[mph4ever]

not being able to communicate pain =/= not feeling pain

like i am all for this idea that the central nervous system is an extension of the brain and can work its own way but i can't see how something without a brain can interpret anything.

[sweboy]

bacteria respond accordingly to most any sort of stimulus

if you poke it with a needle it pulls away in response, i think that shows some level of pain recognition

Do you honestly believe this? If so do you also believe that single molecules, or for that matter single atoms, which also respond to stimulus, feel pain too?

[J Rad]

lice don't have brains but you agree that they feel pain

[mph4ever]

lice don't have brains but you agree that they feel pain

i don't know what they feel but i don't expect it is anything like what we feel when we experience pain. they may have a mechanism to react to certain stimulii, buts that all it could be surely

[sweboy]

lice don't have brains but you agree that they feel pain

lice have brains :/

a brain is not necessary for a nervous system though

[guitrguy]

not being able to communicate pain =/= not feeling pain

It also means you really can't say it does.

[ringworm]

we aren't lucky to be here in the first place
lol, who knows what the earth would be like if a large planet hadn't struck the earth and consequently formed a moon, who knows what life would be like if the large impact hadn't devasted the planet with massive extinctions so smaller critters would thrive and evolve into other mammals…

does this finally explain?



so you're against all forms of biological, psychological, pharmaceutical, and neuroscientific research

okay cool good to know that the nobel prize winning researchers who have made your life and the lives of the people you love possible through animal research are the dumbest people around
kinda? extreme torture to see if hairsprays affect vision of a rabbit so it's safe for us to use?

or laboratory testing on cells?

big difference




to respect all life is far more advanced and intelligent

it would also make daily living better if everyone could catch up on a very simple concept of an ideal society



I don't see what difference in mental capacity between organisms (cows, humans, aliens etc.) has to do with how one should treat a given organism. I think an organism should be treated in consideration only with it's own characteristics, and considering what we know about pain and evolution, it is reasonable to assume that animals alike us don't like pain and therefore it is unethical to subject animals to pain. It is however for example not unethical to keep in captivity an organism that can't grasp the concepts of captivity/freedom (unless of course the captivity conditions leads to physical or mental suffering for the organism).

excellenté

[Amit]

lol, who knows what the earth would be like if a large planet hadn't struck the earth and consequently formed a moon, who knows what life would be like if the large impact hadn't devasted the planet with massive extinctions so smaller critters would thrive and evolve into other mammals…

does this finally explain?

well chances are, if there weren't any of the massive extinctions in earth's history, then you wouldn't even have anything resembling hominids on earth and there would probably be just as much of a chance that nothing that matches the intelligence/cognitive capabilities of humans would appear on earth

so your specific point is completely moot

haha cute though

lol who knows what would have happened if the sperm that half of you came from failed to fuse with the egg first (actually i do; you wouldn't be here)

or what would have happened if any of the initial protein transcription sequences failed to replicate properly (actually i do; you wouldn't be here or you'd be severely deformed/mentally retarded)

following your logic, since you wouldn't be here to argue that meaningless point, i'm automatically correct

you can argue rhetorical situations all you want, but it's completely useless in a discussion about evolutionary biology

but if you really want my answer on this:

if humans switched places to chimpanzees, then i would have no problem with humans being test subjects for their neuroscience experiments

because then, humans would be as stupid as a chimp and wouldn't even understand concepts of ethics or freedom

here's a far more relevant rhetorical question that i invite everyone to discuss:

if humans developed space travel and left earth completely for a couple hundred million years, scientists believe that the next dominant species won't actually be chimpanzees but octopi

now, if we returned after a couple hundred million years, and assume that the neo-octopi are at the same cognitive level as us (and are peaceful), what rights do they have?

if they were similar cognitively, i'd argue they have the same rights as humans

kinda? extreme torture to see if hairsprays affect vision of a rabbit so it's safe for us to use?

or laboratory testing on cells?

big difference

i like how you neglect to mention any actual scientific examples

Animals have been used throughout the history of scientific research. In the 1880s, Louis Pasteur convincingly demonstrated the germ theory of medicine by inducing anthrax in sheep.[15] In the 1890s, Ivan Pavlov famously used dogs to describe classical conditioning.[16] Insulin was first isolated from dogs in 1922, and revolutionized the treatment of diabetes.[17] On November 3, 1957, a Russian dog, Laika, became the first of many animals to orbit the earth. In the 1970s, antibiotic treatments and vaccines for leprosy were developed using armadillos,[18] then given to humans.[19] The ability of humans to change the genetics of animals took a large step forwards in 1974 when Rudolf Jaenisch was able to produce the first transgenic mammal, by integrating DNA from the SV40 virus into the genome of mice.[20] This genetic research progressed rapidly and, in 1996, Dolly the sheep was born, the first mammal to be cloned from an adult cell.[21]

some of those are kind of important

i believe that ethical animal research should continue to be carried out when it is necessary; being unnecessarily cruel doesn't serve science or the scientist

oh and please don't post retarded polarized examples anymore

thanks!

to respect all life is far more advanced and intelligent

only if you actually believe the anthropomorphic tripe that disney has been shoving down your poor eyes and ears

and why are you still washing your hands then? do you take showers? antibiotics? what if you had a fungal infection? is use of anti-fungal creams a sign of less advancement/intelligence? lice infestation? human bot flies?

[Smokey D]

that doesn't mean it has values

even bacteria exhibit what you're describing and we have no problem washing our hands now do we (at least i hope not)

The concept of what an animal values fudges the question a bit. It is an attempt to describe utilitarian calculus in a higher, more abstract way. Whether or not an animal is capable of valuing something as such, it is pretty evident that lots of animals do have an understanding of pleasure and pain and that most animals prefer pleasure to pain.

[Amit]

The concept of what an animal values fudges the question a bit. It is an attempt to describe utilitarian calculus in a higher, more abstract way. Whether or not an animal is capable of valuing something as such, it is pretty evident that lots of animals do have an understanding of pleasure and pain and that most animals prefer pleasure to pain.

Except for very few specific instances, all organisms, whether it is a plant or an animal, prefer positive stimuli (pleasure being one of them) to negative stimuli (pain being the most significant). It's simply more evolutionarily advantageous to value conditions that lead to cell survival and growth over conditions that lead to cell destruction.

You don't need anything approaching a human mind for nocioceptive (pain) receptors, pathways, and neurotransmitters to work; maybe that's why people prescribe anthropomorphic characteristics to animals simply because the animals don't prefer pain (even though it's just a simple billion year old circuit).

But beyond that, I'm at the limits of what I can discuss.

oh hey i sent you your invite

[Smokey D]

Except for very few specific instances, all organisms, whether it is a plant or an animal, prefer positive stimuli (pleasure being one of them) to negative stimuli (pain being the most significant). It's simply more evolutionarily advantageous to value conditions that lead to cell survival and growth over conditions that lead to cell destruction.

That's intellectually dishonest. You can't say a plant has the same understanding of pain as an animal with a functional nervous system any more than you can say a cat has the ethical capacity of a human being.


You don't need anything approaching a human mind for nocioceptive (pain) receptors, pathways, and neurotransmitters to work; maybe that's why people prescribe anthropomorphic characteristics to animals simply because the animals don't prefer pain.

Surely being able to experience pain rather than just passively responding to stimuli should come into the situation some where.

[Amit]

That's intellectually dishonest. You can't say a plant has the same understanding of pain as an animal with a functional nervous system any more than you can say a cat has the ethical capacity of a human being.

I didn't say that nor did I want anyone to interpret it that way.

Surely being able to experience pain rather than just passively responding to stimuli should come into the situation some where.

Responding to stimuli via simple neural circuits is how just about every animal experiences pain or pleasure.

http://employees.csbsju.edu/hjakubowski/classes/ch331/signaltrans/habituation.jpg

[Smokey D]

Responding to stimuli via simple neural circuits is how just about every animal experiences pain or pleasure.

Hence experiencing something that is sensorily unpleasant is different to a plant growing towards the light.

[Amit]

Hence experiencing something that is sensorily unpleasant is different to a plant growing towards the light.

I'll concede that.

[Aaron]

There's a huge difference to an emotional and a chemical reaction to an event.

[sweboy]

Amit, what do you mean bacteria feel pain?

[ringworm]

who knows, one page he says im wrong, the next page he puts forth a post that reinforces exactly what ive been saying for multiple pages

he asked me to refrain from using rhetorical situations or polarized examples, then he uses several

who knows what he'll find in this post to twist and manipulate into more ammo

amit, ethical animal research, its ok with me man, stop trying to turn posts into what you want and just take them for what they say