THE GREAT DEBATE
Pages
| Author | Topic: THE GREAT DEBATE |
|---|---|
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Thursday, April 28 2005 04:22
Profile
Bravo, Thuryl and TM! :D (I think a eugenics debate could be pretty neat...) Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 2984
|
written Thursday, April 28 2005 13:39
Profile
Homepage
quote:I couldn't come up with a better summary than that. :P -------------------- The Encyclopaedia Ermariana <-- Now a Wiki! "Polaris leers down from the black vault, winking hideously like an insane watching eye which strives to convey some strange message, yet recalls nothing save that it once had a message to convey." --- HP Lovecraft. "I single Aran out due to his nasty temperament, and his superior intellect." --- SupaNik Posts: 8752 | Registered: Wednesday, May 14 2003 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 5450
|
written Thursday, April 28 2005 22:34
Profile
Homepage
quote:I agree, but they wouldn't know what it is like to live life any different. If they had the intelligence of, say, a dolphin (no offence Dolphin) they would most likely not kill them-selves because they would not know any different lifestyle. However, they might try and etch out a better life for themsewlves. Stug, is your hand able to type? I'll be really interested in you and Ash having a debate over this topic that so many people are posting in. Every one should remember what was said in the first post: quote:2 people. Only. Don't get me wrong, I don't have any objections, but Stug and Ash should have a free field to discuss their views on the matter at hand. -------------------- I'll put a Spring in your step. Polaris Posts: 2396 | Registered: Saturday, January 29 2005 08:00 |
|
Guardian
Member # 3521
|
written Friday, April 29 2005 00:17
Profile
Patience, chap, patience. As I mentioned recently, I just need a few more days of healing until I can manage this debate. Until then, others are welcome to discuss it in any manner they wish. -------------------- Stughalf "Delusion arises from anger. The mind is bewildered by delusion. Reasoning is destroyed when the mind is bewildered. One falls down when reasoning is destroyed."- The Bhagavad Gita. Posts: 1798 | Registered: Sunday, October 5 2003 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 5450
|
written Friday, April 29 2005 00:44
Profile
Homepage
I'm not being impaitient, merely expressing my excitedness - well I'm not really 'excited', but more half excited. Anyway. Carry on, every-one. -------------------- I'll put a Spring in your step. Polaris Posts: 2396 | Registered: Saturday, January 29 2005 08:00 |
|
Triad Mage
Member # 7
|
written Friday, April 29 2005 02:45
Profile
Homepage
I don't think many people are making the connection between cows and cattle - cattle don't just stand around and graze in a meadow. -------------------- "At times discretion should be thrown aside, and with the foolish we should play the fool." - Menander ==== Drakefyre's Demesne - Happy Happy Joy Joy desperance.net - We're Everywhere ==== You can take my Mac when you pry my cold, dead fingers off the mouse! Posts: 9436 | Registered: Wednesday, September 19 2001 07:00 |
|
Shake Before Using
Member # 75
|
written Friday, April 29 2005 05:44
Profile
In any case, this topic's been corrupted enough in St's absence that I'm going to ask him and Ash Lael to start a new Great Debate topic for it, when St recovers. Posts: 3234 | Registered: Thursday, October 4 2001 07:00 |
|
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Friday, April 29 2005 07:14
Profile
Drakefyre's subtle distinction between cattle and cows is eluding me, since I would use 'cows' and 'cattle' interchangeably in most contexts. Is it supposed to be about how 'cattle' can include bulls? -------------------- It is not enough to discover how things seem to seem. We must discover how things really seem. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
|
Cartographer
Member # 995
|
written Friday, April 29 2005 07:56
Profile
incidentally, since the topic is vegetarianism, I'd like to point out the meat and/or veggie side has yet to address: fishing, whaling, deer hunting, and lobster traps... ...and, for that matter, non-US cultures. what about places (there are still such) where only primitive means are used to hunt (not raise) meat. a pure vegetarian argument would have to include why those people need to switch, as well, otherwise it's just "only the rich should be vegetarians" which lacks a lot of punch. Posts: 206 | Registered: Thursday, April 18 2002 07:00 |
|
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Friday, April 29 2005 08:09
Profile
Just why are we sure it is morally acceptable to eat vegetables? Some are much bigger than we are and can live much longer. If injured they react, albeit slowly. Wild plants would certainly seem to have richer and more exciting lives than their domesticated cousins, which have mostly been bred into weird shapes that make them dependent on humans. Perhaps vegetarianism, even veganism, doesn't go far enough. I'm not really just being facetious. The challenge for vegetarians is to formulate criteria that consistently permit herbivorism but forbid carnivorism. I don't think this is actually as easy as one might expect. -------------------- It is not enough to discover how things seem to seem. We must discover how things really seem. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 73
|
written Friday, April 29 2005 10:21
Profile
Plants, unlike animals, have no brains, and thus cannot have "exciting" lives. -------------------- The Lyceum - The Headquarters of the Blades designing community The Louvre - The Blades of Avernum graphics database Alexandria - The Blades of Exile Scenario database BoE Webring - Self explanatory Polaris - Free porn here Odd Todd - Fun for the unemployed (and everyone else too) Famous Last Words - A local pop-punk band They Might Be Giants - Four websites for one of the greatest bands in existance -------------------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Posts: 2957 | Registered: Thursday, October 4 2001 07:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 4445
|
written Friday, April 29 2005 11:57
Profile
I think that vegetarians could start, although this would by no means cover all plants used as food, by saying that many of the vegetables and all of the fruits that we eat are, in fact, grown by the plant for the express purpose of being eaten and digested so that the seeds can emerge intact and fertilized from the consumer of the fruit. Animals, however, do not have a part whose sole function is to be eaten and excreted in order to disperse their young. Posts: 293 | Registered: Saturday, May 29 2004 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 5437
|
written Friday, April 29 2005 12:58
Profile
quote:One could argue that part of animal's purpose is to be part of the food chain. That's not to say they are here solely to feed others, but for anything to live something else living must be eaten. -------------------- Nena Posts: 2032 | Registered: Wednesday, January 26 2005 08:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Friday, April 29 2005 15:08
Profile
Homepage
quote:Utilitarianism has an easy answer to this, if you go in for that sort of thing. Animals are conscious; by killing them for food you generally cause them at least some suffering and always deprive them of future enjoyable experiences. Plants aren't conscious, so the only moral effects of growing plants for food are indirect ones. Unless you really want to try to argue that plants are conscious on the basis that they're capable of exhibiting reactions to injury, in which case the same argument can be extended to bacteria and our immune systems are all guilty of attempted genocide. [ Friday, April 29, 2005 15:09: Message edited by: Thuryl ] -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Friday, April 29 2005 15:44
Profile
Animal species that are 'R-strategists', having huge numbers of offspring, are arguably producing a lot of individuals whose sole purpose is to be eaten by predators, in order that a few of their siblings may survive. Are we sure plants, and bacteria, aren't conscious? I don't really suppose that they are, but here's the point: if we can eat anything that isn't conscious, and creatures can lack consciousness because of insurmountable physiological limitations, then perhaps we can also eat some animals, even if they exhibit defensive responses to threat or injury, as long they also lack consciousness. Having a brain may be a necessary condition for consciousness, but is it sufficient? Can we eat insects? Earthworms? Krill? Once it's a matter of deciding how good a creature's brain is, perhaps the dividing line really should be drawn well above cows? In other words, doesn't the supposedly moral issue of vegetarianism become a question of scientific fact, instead? -------------------- It is not enough to discover how things seem to seem. We must discover how things really seem. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 5450
|
written Friday, April 29 2005 16:26
Profile
Homepage
quote:If that is not enough, then what do you suppose vegetarians do? I'm curious as to what your answer is. quote:I suppose we could if we really had to, but lets face it. They are small. It would take many to be a decent meal, and if every-one kills earthworms for their meat, they will die out much faster than if we left them alone. -------------------- I'll put a Spring in your step. Polaris Posts: 2396 | Registered: Saturday, January 29 2005 08:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Friday, April 29 2005 16:47
Profile
Homepage
quote:Well, one still needs some sort of an ethical system to say that certain things are wrong in the first place. If you're talking to someone who thinks cannibalism is perfectly okay despite the suffering it causes to the unfortunate people he's been boiling alive, you're probably not going to convince him that there's much wrong with eating cows. As regards the scientific aspects of the issue, there have indeed been some claims that the brains of fish don't have the neural apparatus necessary for conscious processing of pain and fear, which would presumably make it less bad to eat them. These claims have been disputed, though. -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
E Equals MC What!!!!
Member # 5491
|
written Friday, April 29 2005 16:53
Profile
Homepage
quote:The only difference between 'cows' and 'cattle' is that the latter may include steers and bulls. This doesn't seem to add anything to their capabilities other than mating. Big deal. Some of the less domesticated breeds of cattle, such as those you'll get up in Queensland, do not stand around grazing in meadows. This is partly because of a complete lack of meadows, but it is quite true that they are much more active than the typical Jersey/Friesan/Hereford. On the other hand, these aren't the breeds that get locked up in small areas. Edit: Apparently, crayfish don't feel pain when they are boiled alive. So I hear, at any rate. [ Friday, April 29, 2005 16:55: Message edited by: Ash Lael ] -------------------- Sex is easier than love. Posts: 1861 | Registered: Friday, February 11 2005 08:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 4784
|
written Friday, April 29 2005 17:57
Profile
Homepage
quote:In my mind the difference between cows and cattle is in their product. Cows produce milk and are bred, fed, and housed for that purpose. Cattle instead are grown for slaughter. At least this is the difference I see, whether or not it is the one eluded to by Drakey I can't say. -------------------- Forever Always on Past the End tracihedlund@charter.net[/url] TrueSite for Blades - Blades Walkthroughs Pixle Profusion - BoE Graphics Archive Posts: 563 | Registered: Tuesday, July 27 2004 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 247
|
written Friday, April 29 2005 22:14
Profile
Homepage
There is no difference between cows and cattle. Where do you think hamburger comes from. A dairy cow will last maybe 6 years then be sent to a feed-lot, then to slaughter. Unless a farm likes having old cows around producing little milk and costing lost of money the turn-over rate is high. The U.S. especially, buys fresh heifers keeps them until they're dry then sells them. But then the U.S. also uses growth hormones on Dairy cattle. So who would drink their milk any way? I should also mention that a large number of animals on dairy farms are raised specifically for slaughter what else would you do with all the calves. Unless you are expanding you will have more calves than there is room very quickly. Disscounting odd cases of animal abuse cattle live better lives than a lot of people do. -------------------- I stop rubber at 160km/h, five times a week. CANUCKS RESPEK! My Style The Knight Between Posts. Posts: 2395 | Registered: Friday, November 2 2001 08:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 5585
|
written Saturday, April 30 2005 03:45
Profile
quote:I heard about a study they did regarding that, they injected some nasty chemicals into fish, and it was pretty obvious that they felt it. -------------------- Important Information about Stuff Posts: 258 | Registered: Wednesday, March 9 2005 08:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Saturday, April 30 2005 10:08
Profile
Homepage
Fish obviously respond to stimuli. They wouldn't survive very well otherwise. The question is whether or not they detect the sensation of pain or just respond at some reflexive level. —Alorael, who doesn't know enough about fish to guess. He doesn't even know how one would go about testing the way fish process sensations. Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
|
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Saturday, April 30 2005 11:11
Profile
This is precisely the problem I have: I don't see how we can tell. As far as I can see, any animal could well be 'just' a complicated machine, with reflexive responses to stimuli, and complex instinctive behaviors, but no-one 'there' inside, to actually experience fear, or pain, or anything at all. Humans have strong instincts to anthropomorphize behavior. We instinctively interpret even the utterly mechanical behavior of simple robots in terms of conscious planning and motivation. So although I do attach some weight to subjective reports that 'my cat is definitely conscious', I don't find them at all conclusive. On the theoretical side, it is not clear whether one should expect consciousness or intelligence to evolve first. Sufficient intelligence to make the complex plans that humans do would seem unlikely to work without consciousness, but prior to that stage, it is not clear which of the two would lead the way. Nor is it clear that consciousness is an all-or-nothing phenomenon; it may well be a matter of degree. Or it may not be. There are severely handicapped people, who may not seem much more intelligent than some animals; and yet, at least to my moral intuition, killing them is no whit less murder than slaughtering an Einstein. -------------------- It is not enough to discover how things seem to seem. We must discover how things really seem. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 5437
|
written Saturday, April 30 2005 11:34
Profile
I think consciousness would be relative to the species. That is to say a horse is more conscious than a bee. Both react to stimuli, but mammals have a different levels of understanding than insects. Animals such as deer are more instinct driven than intellectually conscious, but what about dolphins and monkeys? Higher forms of mammals are capable of learning. Gorillas can learn sign language, and communicate with humans, and dolphins and whales have complicated languages. For that matter my dog dreams at night. Sometimes he wags his tail, kicks his feet, or makes growling or small barking sounds. Is dreaming a sign of consciousness? It certainly isn't instinctually necessary. -------------------- Nena Posts: 2032 | Registered: Wednesday, January 26 2005 08:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Saturday, April 30 2005 12:07
Profile
Homepage
I don't think sleep is understood well enough to decide whether dreaming is necessary and at what level of complexity it becomes so. If dreams can produce the results of stimuli that aren't physically present, are they necessarily a sign of either consciousness or intelligence? —Alorael, who would like to draw some dividing line at whether or not an organism can have an individual personality, but that can of worms is at least as large as consciousness. Humans have personalities. Do dogs and cats? How about gorillas and dolphins? Most evidence suggests so. What about those deer? Or fish? Or a single bee? Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
