Humans Only
Pages
| Author | Topic: Humans Only |
|---|---|
|
Shaper
Member # 7472
|
written Saturday, November 4 2006 17:49
Profile
Homepage
quote:I have to disagree. There are certain people that, no matter what upbringing they have, they turn out goo or evil. Generally, in this case, it's evil. Other then that, I think this topic is having a bizarre effect on people. [ Saturday, November 04, 2006 17:50: Message edited by: Nioca ] -------------------- I tried to think of something witty to put here. Needless to say, I failed. Posts: 2686 | Registered: Friday, September 8 2006 07:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Saturday, November 4 2006 17:56
Profile
quote:Predictably, emotional content gives rise to emotional outbursts. I'd say this is a completely normal effect, but it just hasn't been seen with frequency for quite a while now. -------------------- quote: Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 2820
|
written Saturday, November 4 2006 18:40
Profile
Really? I thought we were all turning into goo. :) This so-called effect you may notice is not really due to the nature of the topic in itself, though. -------------------- Thuryl: I mean, most of us don't go around consuming our own bodily fluids, no matter how delicious they are. ==== Alorael: War and violence would end if we all had each other's babies! ==== Drakefyre: Those are hideous mangos. Posts: 1415 | Registered: Thursday, March 27 2003 08:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 7472
|
written Saturday, November 4 2006 18:47
Profile
Homepage
My keyboard has a better sense of humor then I do. I'll leave the typo in there, because it's just more fun that way. quote:Maybe this topic has ripped a hole in the space-time continuum. -------------------- I tried to think of something witty to put here. Needless to say, I failed. Posts: 2686 | Registered: Friday, September 8 2006 07:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 3364
|
written Saturday, November 4 2006 18:49
Profile
Homepage
Citizen 70% Altruist 60% I couldn't find out how to combine with my second to get my result, though I didn't look that hard. Does ripping ants apart count as hurting small animals? I really had no compassion for bugs. A little more now if they don't bite/get into my food, but not much. Whether or not humans are good or evil depends on the ruleset. Was Indiana Jones evil for killing Nazi's? The Nazi's would say yes. But I do think that most humans tend to do what is good in their sight. I doubt terrorist think they are evil. They are fighting for their own just cause. There are always exceptions to the rule, i.e. Dintiradan. -------------------- "Even the worst Terror from Hell can be transformed to a testimony from Heaven!" - Rev. David Wood 6\23\05 "Do all the good you can, by all the means you can, in all the ways you can, in all the places you can, at all the times you can, to all the people you can, as long as you ever can." - John Wesley Posts: 1001 | Registered: Tuesday, August 19 2003 07:00 |
|
Councilor
Member # 6600
|
written Saturday, November 4 2006 18:56
Profile
Homepage
Originally by Garrison: quote:We are. Bloop, bloop, gurgle, bloop. Dikiyoba finds it very difficult to type with piles of ooze instead of fingers. Posts: 4346 | Registered: Friday, December 23 2005 08:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 7472
|
written Saturday, November 4 2006 18:58
Profile
Homepage
quote:I had some trouble with that question too. The first thought that popped into my mind was, 'define hurt and define small animals'. I'm pretty sure that I don't harm mice when I throw them out of the house, but I'm sure it hurts. -------------------- I tried to think of something witty to put here. Needless to say, I failed. Posts: 2686 | Registered: Friday, September 8 2006 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 7420
|
written Saturday, November 4 2006 19:57
Profile
Homepage
I don't think hurting small animals makes you evil. They have no feelings. It does, however, make you weak an insecure. If you cause a human pain and enjoy their pain, you are evil. However, since animals have no feelings, the only thing you have to enjoy is a feeling of dominence. Not evil, just pathetic. -------------------- You lose. Posts: 2156 | Registered: Thursday, August 24 2006 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 7472
|
written Saturday, November 4 2006 20:15
Profile
Homepage
quote:What kind of crap is that? Animals feel fear, pain, love, you name it. In fact, humans are animals. Do you think we are gifted with something they are not? Because, and I will blatantly say this, you're wrong. To intentionally kill an animal for means other than survival is no less than murder. In other words, it is evil. No matter how you look at it. -------------------- I tried to think of something witty to put here. Needless to say, I failed. Posts: 2686 | Registered: Friday, September 8 2006 07:00 |
|
His Mighty Tentacle
Member # 627
|
written Saturday, November 4 2006 20:21
Profile
My dog drank to much eggnog. She is miserable and is seeking comfort. She has feelings. Her little brown eyes tell me everything. Seconds before an explosive detonation, she rolls her eyes back in to her skull, as if to say "Oh no, not again." She then closes her eyes, her snout crinkles from the effort of tensing up, and she lets one rip. She then looks at me with a guilty look... Guilt is an emotion. She is obviously feeling pain too. We all are in this house. -------------------- If I could make just one wish, I would want a tasty vlish. Geneforge IV. Still no tasty vlish. Posts: 1104 | Registered: Tuesday, February 12 2002 08:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 7420
|
written Saturday, November 4 2006 20:23
Profile
Homepage
When an animal approaches me and asks to be treated as an equal, I'll treat him as an equal. Until then, they have no sentience, no souls. "But Tullegolar, studies show that dolphins have sentience and-" I don't care, I have an opposable thumb, I get to make the rules. -------------------- You lose. Posts: 2156 | Registered: Thursday, August 24 2006 07:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Saturday, November 4 2006 20:27
Profile
Homepage
The ability to use language and the ability to have feelings are extremely different. Either of those things making a life of equal value as a human's is also quite controversial; it is unclear what places value on a life, human or otherwise. In other words, your posts appear to conflate at least three totally separate things. -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 7420
|
written Saturday, November 4 2006 20:38
Profile
Homepage
You know, there's a reason I gave this topic the title that it has. -------------------- You lose. Posts: 2156 | Registered: Thursday, August 24 2006 07:00 |
|
His Mighty Tentacle
Member # 627
|
written Saturday, November 4 2006 20:41
Profile
Dogs will come and ask you questions. Hard to understand what they are saying if you don't speak dog. Pack communication is highly complicated. It is a language of gestures, empathy, sounds, smells, and complex behaviour patterns. The animal technically could look down on you for being to stupid to understand. We silly naked apes have depended far to long on a spoken language and have abandoned much of our empathy and non verbal communication. -------------------- If I could make just one wish, I would want a tasty vlish. Geneforge IV. Still no tasty vlish. Posts: 1104 | Registered: Tuesday, February 12 2002 08:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 6388
|
written Saturday, November 4 2006 20:50
Profile
quote:You are the lowest slime I have ever had the misfortune to encounter and I will no longer be dignifying your idiotic posts with address in the second person. From now on any response I make to you will be for the sole purpose of edifying any passers-by as to why you are wrong. I neither can nor wish to edify you any further. Now, as I was saying: quote:Immanuel Kant argues that, because animals do not have reason, people have no duties towards them. However, he acknowledges that animals can suffer, and feels that treating animals cruelly reflects a personal cruelty that is readily extended to humans. Kant's perspective on the matter is the most clear-cut. (He also included an appeal in his original work to other creatures with reason - in his case, I do believe he was getting at angels and the supernatural, but it applies equally well to dolphins or great apes or aliens, if they are also capable of reason.) Other philosophical perspectives have broad room for debate. Utilitarianism hosts perspectives as diverse as animal-experimentation advocates and Peter Singer, who believes animals, suffering pain, deserve equal consideration to humans. (This is not to say they should have equal rights - but then, neither do all humans; what sense would it make for a man to have a right to an abortion?) quote:Rights theory is more complex; a Lockeian perspective, as ET seems to have crudely grasped here, can be construed to embody almost direct hostility to the rights of animals. However, the problem with Locke in animal ethics is that under a condition of defenselessness - lower animals, the crippled, what have you - the right to life, property, and the pursuit of happiness are are curtailed by an inability to persecute violators of the same, and the philosophy becomes very muddy. Locke can be used as an excuse to justify animal cruelty, but it isn't a coherent ethical platform for animal (or environmental) ethics. quote:Remember, gentle reader, that human ethics are formed as much by duties as by rights. Whether or not animals have any particular rights per se, it's an important open question of philosophy what kind of duties we have to animals. quote:Note that ET has shifted philosophical paradigms here, which is a no-no: he has clearly cherry-picked an ethical conclusion and abandoned one set of moral grounds when it became untenable. Here he appeals to a utilitarian perspective: the suffering of animals is less because they are incapable of addressing it. Peter Singer, pretty much the major philosopher of the animal rights movement, would counter that suffering is suffering, whoever suffers it, and must be avoided. Personally, I'm of the school that there are two factors to be avoided - pain and suffering. Suffering is caused by an understanding of pain, among other things, and is contingent upon rudimentary reasoning. An adult given a vaccination endures pain, but does not suffer; a jilted lover suffers, but endures no pain. Animals are capable of suffering, but to what degree is up in the air - and most animal pain is just pain. Pain is ethically significant - you don't want to cause it for no reason - but it is trumped by suffering. This is why we have vaccinations and chemotherapy and animal experimentation. What makes this ethically challenging is this: a human infant does not, so far as we know, have the power of reason necessary to suffer on the same level as an adult human, or even an adult great ape. On its face, this philosophy justifies cruelty to infants under the same circumstances as cruelty to animals. I do not really know of a way to solve that, but I'm working on it. [ Saturday, November 04, 2006 21:07: Message edited by: The Worst Man Ever ] Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 7420
|
written Saturday, November 4 2006 20:52
Profile
Homepage
An animal would endure great pain to save its life. Some humans would rather take their life than endure great pain. Animals can feel pain, but they can't know pain. -------------------- You lose. Posts: 2156 | Registered: Thursday, August 24 2006 07:00 |
|
The Establishment
Member # 6
|
written Saturday, November 4 2006 20:52
Profile
quote:Can you prove you have a soul, ET? Either way, as Kel said, feelings and sentience are two entirely different things. We know that many animals can feel pain and understand it, causing them reckless harm is pure cruelty, which is evil by just about any standard definition. quote:Yes, and many humans would endure great pain to save their lives too. What's your point? If anything, the argument humans would take their lives makes them worth less. [ Saturday, November 04, 2006 20:55: Message edited by: *i ] -------------------- Your flower power is no match for my glower power! Posts: 3726 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 7420
|
written Saturday, November 4 2006 20:57
Profile
Homepage
quote:No, because humans value the mind over the body. Animals exist to further their species, humans can exist for the sake of existing. That is what I mean by 'soul.' I did not mean soul literally. [ Saturday, November 04, 2006 20:57: Message edited by: Emperor Tullegolar ] -------------------- You lose. Posts: 2156 | Registered: Thursday, August 24 2006 07:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 6388
|
written Saturday, November 4 2006 21:18
Profile
quote:Here ET engages in a serious misunderstanding of the nature of human life. Does 'existing for the sake of existing' mean anything different from 'existing to further the species'? 'The sake of existing' would seem to be 'furthering the species', would it not? In essence, he's ascribed purpose to human life (a dramatic step which you shouldn't do without showing your figurative math) in order to denigrate animal life. He also apparently wishes to avoid the question of whether animals possess reason, but cannot do so: his primary arguments hinge on humans being capable of foreplanning and reason. What lesson should you take from this, mon lecteur, mon frere? There are a couple. Pick a moral foundation and stick with it. If an ethical dilemma shakes you from that, that's fine - but you have a lot of reassessment to do. You cannot, as ET does, glibly fly from platform to platform seeking ammunition, as they all prescribe dramatically differing and contradictory systems of ethics.Never start from the assumption and move down. Sometimes good philosophy will give you surprising answers, and cherry-picking assumptions will keep you away from them. If I had tried to find a justification for animal experimentation based on a gut approval of it, I wouldn't have found it to be troublingly equivalent to infanticide.Treat every question of duty with the gravity it deserves. There has been serious, thoughtful, and thought-provoking writing on whether or not plants, fungi, and inanimate objects possess rights which humans are bound to respect. It's intellectually lazy to glibly deny consideration to a group based on your personal preconceptions. [ Saturday, November 04, 2006 21:24: Message edited by: The Worst Man Ever ] Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 7420
|
written Saturday, November 4 2006 21:18
Profile
Homepage
Alec: I never shifted philosophies, I just used more than one. Since the two are not fundamentally different, I see no problem with doing that. There is no reason I can't beleive that the suffering of animals is lesser than that of humans and that since it is lesser it does not deserve recognition. Was that the 'shift' you were talking about? By the way, I may think animals' pain is insignificant, but I never said that justified humans to cause it. I already explained that making animals suffer makes them weak, and if you know me, you know that I approve of the weak less than I approve of people that are actually evil. quote:Is a man who spends his life reading poetry and never fathering children furthering the species? [ Saturday, November 04, 2006 21:26: Message edited by: Emperor Tullegolar ] -------------------- You lose. Posts: 2156 | Registered: Thursday, August 24 2006 07:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 2820
|
written Saturday, November 4 2006 21:26
Profile
If you all get carpal tunnel syndrome typing out responses to Tully's backwards discriminatory posts, he will not be the only one laughing. Anyway, to say that animals don't suffer is ridiculous. The only reason why people hurt animals or bugs for no practical reason is to feel powerful. The only reason why normally people feel bad about hitting a dog, instead of a pillow for example, is that our human sense of empathy willingly extends to other living beings. Finally, cats are naturally evil. Discuss. -------------------- Thuryl: I mean, most of us don't go around consuming our own bodily fluids, no matter how delicious they are. ==== Alorael: War and violence would end if we all had each other's babies! ==== Drakefyre: Those are hideous mangos. Posts: 1415 | Registered: Thursday, March 27 2003 08:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 6785
|
written Saturday, November 4 2006 21:30
Profile
It's a pity that GF4 isn't out yet since there is a nice quote or two for this topic. So since I'll have to do without. Justifying your behavior to lower species by your position as a superior species, i.e causing small animals pain is not evil, means that you can now go down the slippery slope and say that people that you consider beneath you can also be treated that way. After all that is the justification by Islamic terrorists that you can do violence to non-believers since they are below them. Since there are quotes in the Koran saying that Jews and other non-believers are pigs, monkeys, and other animals there is justification from Allah to treat them as animals and not as humans. The Nazis did the same for Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, and others that didn't match the Aryan ideal. Once you adopt a position of superiority as a reason, then it comes down to defining inferiors. Posts: 4643 | Registered: Friday, February 10 2006 08:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 6388
|
written Saturday, November 4 2006 21:33
Profile
quote:Can someone answer this question? It's not a particularly useful one, so I leave it up to whoever else would like to. quote:Ah, classic ET. Here he uses weak again; it's a term he's yet to give a coherent definition for, and which represents everything he dislikes. Never make everything you hate into a single overarching negative. It's possible to do so coherently, but very, very difficult, and almost never constructive. Once more, never try and develop a philosophical justification for a personal odium; it will almost never fit into a larger, coherent philosophy. ET's snide dismissal of human duties to animals is, you will find, difficult to justify coherently without making some interesting implications. If animals do not have rights because they are incapable of defending those rights, what of the handicapped? If animals do not have rights because they are incapable of fully understanding pain, what of children and the severely retarded? Either of those are serious philosophical challenges to which ET's uncurious, top-down method of inquiry has left him blind. Avoid this error yourself; whether you wind up wrong or right, at least you will be coherent and succeptible to later correction. Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 7420
|
written Saturday, November 4 2006 21:54
Profile
Homepage
Humanity has no 'duty' to animals. Any kindness we extend to them, while a good thing, is already undeserved. An animal would not try to save a human in pain (unless it had been raised by humans, and thus would associate 'saving human' with 'get fed'). But a human would save an animal in pain for no reason other than empathy. If nothing else I've said proves human superiority, this must. As for children and retards, these two groups of people should not be grouped together. Children have potential to become full humans, and thus must be protected until reaching that point. As for the mentally retarded, well, we treat them pretty much the same way we treat animals as is. So... sure, whatever. -------------------- You lose. Posts: 2156 | Registered: Thursday, August 24 2006 07:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 1934
|
written Saturday, November 4 2006 21:54
Profile
Homepage
quote:I guess he would say the mentally handicapped are weak. Why should he care what happens to them. Tullegolar, you are a sorry waste of carbon. [ Saturday, November 04, 2006 21:55: Message edited by: Andraste ] -------------------- You acquire an item: Radio Free Foil Posts: 1169 | Registered: Monday, September 23 2002 07:00 |