Well, erislover, in light of your clarification, here is my reasoning.
It is wrong to deprive A of L because it is L which is being deprived. B, C, …, X have L. It is wrong to deprive B, C, …, X of L.
If one states that it is wrong to deprive A of L because it is L which is being deprived of A, then I state that the reasoning is chauvinistic. It’s that simple. If you’re content to have law that is chauvinistic in one way, it permits chauvinism based on any other set of properties one chooses.
In regards to your disagreement that L(A) = L(B) implies that L(a1) = L(a2) = L(b1) = L(b2), what do you think it implies.
Pertaining to Gaspode’s diatribe about the differences in the properties which result in the characteristic of life, surely the properties have variations in their realization. The characteristic of life does not. An entity can have metabolic processes m1, m2, m3, …mx. An entitiy can either possess the characteristic L or not possess the characteristic L. It’s one or the other.
If that is what you are saying then we are back to your proof that all life is equal, which I don’t agree with either.
Having a subjective preference does not make one’s actions illogical, it makes them self-motivated. That doesn’t offer protection from illogical thoughts, though, of course.
Furthermore, this argument boils down to your opinion of equality being “better” than mine, which I will continue to disagree with because you are trying to remove preferentialism. If you want me to use my mind to understand your side, you need to accept that because I will die without my mind, I find my mind more important than your mind. I always will, with the possible exception of Lib’s “giant squid scenarios.”
Because members of my own species are far more valuable to my survival than any other species, there is always a survival based preference there. Morals or not.
The last one was late because when I came back from a meeting I found that I hadn’t hit “submit.” heh.
This is NOT TRUE, as you yourself stated. There are perfectly valid reasons to do deprive X of its L status. What IS true is that you want that status change to occur only under your conditions: very chauvinistic, if you ask me
I don’t see why it “permits” that, though I agree it doesn’t “stop” it. Each case of preferentialism must be made on its own for me. I don’t “accept a law because it embraces preferentialism”, were that the case then it would indeed permit other preferential laws on whatever grounds at all. I embrace laws that happen to be preferential, and sometimes propose preferential laws.
That things that are alive are alive. That’s about it. I cannot put any real meaning to “L(a[sub]1[/sub])” since L isn’t a function of a. Besides which, you agreed that you are not the equivalent of a gorilla. If I bought your “L(a[sub]1[/sub]) = L(b[sub]1[/sub])” then we should be able to do just that: replace Nen for a gorilla. We cannot. So I do not know what you mean by “L(a[sub]1[/sub]) = L(b[sub]1[/sub]).”
Yes, there are reasons to deprive an element of life. I thought we had agreed on those exceptions. The wanton deprivation of life was implied. Sorry about that.
Cute, but not true.
Well, if you are going to accept a law because it grants preferential treatment in such a way that you benefit from it, supporting other laws by others utilizing the same rationale is also justifiable despite the fact that you may not be the recipient of the preferential treatment.
No, to say that one could replace me for a gorilla would be to say that a[sub]1[/sub] = b[sub]i[/sub]. To say that the characteristic of life present in me is identical to the characteristic of life present in a gorilla would be to say that L(a[sub]1[/sub]) = L(b[sub]1[/sub]). (Now I’m beginning to question my wording, perhaps I should state a[sub]1/sub = b[sub]1/sub). I think this statement follows from the definition of life. There isn’t a definition of life stating that this particular metabolic process and this particular form of reproduction and this particular such-and-such yields this particular type of life of this particular value whereas this other particular metabolic process and this other particular form of reproduction and this other particular such-and-such yields this other particular type of life of this other particular value. An entity either possess the characteristic of life or it doesn’t. There are only two values which correspond to it.
We do not agree on those exceptions, because I find killing an animal for any reason is generally not bad. That is, I wouldn’t hold it against a person for doing so for whatever reason their tiny little mind conjured up.
You seem to require justification of any action which removes life from anything alive, and that justification must meet your standards. I see no reason, apart from survival, to consider standards of another species on equal footing with my own species. While I perhaps take it to extremes with my “don’t ask don’t tell” attitude toward animal torture, I still don’t feel you’ve come any closer to explaining why it should be a felony.
This isn’t because I don’t understand your view of the equality of life, as clouded as our conversation may have made it. It is because I see no compelling reason to share your opinion on its equality.
For example, we may demonstrate that the general life action L[sub]1[/sub] has an instance in a[sub]1[/sub] and an instance in b[sub]1[/sub]. You say that, if I am species A, I avoid should avoid acting on a[sub]1[/sub] specifically because a[sub]1[/sub] is a specific case of the general L[sub]1[/sub] process? That is, acting on any instance of L[sub]n[/sub] is truly what the felony should be, except in limited circumstances.
I still say to you: limited circumstances? First you “create” an abstract relation between me and an ameoba, then you say it is forbidden for me to act on an ameoba in a way that if we used our abstract relation and “turned” an ameoba into a human I would be doing a bad thing to a human. But THEN you say there are, actually, times when doing something to an animal is tolerated by whatever justification you have. Is that action justified toward humans as well, I asked some time ago, and I am still unclear on your answer.
If I am hungry, can I kill a child for food?
I find no path in your argument that would forbid this line of thought. I still find it as absurd to treat a gorilla with the same respect as I would treat Nen when not only would I never expect the same treatment in return, but I couldn’t expect the same treatment in return, and I would actually lose aspects of personal value if I were to replace Nen with a gorilla. Under no system of thought except yours can we find equality of the species; and even in yours we find it necessary to break the chain of life. For one who expects such levels of justification, I am unclear why you can justify something which goes against something so fundamental as “equality by definition.” Seems to me like you would have your definitions wrong when such a situation arose.
erislover, I am not stating that all species are equivalent. One cannot expect the same response from me and a gorilla in many situations. One cannot expect to debate a gorilla. One can expect to debate me. One can expect similar treatment in other situations. One can expect that a gorilla would not kill oneself barring motivation from self preservation. One can expect that I would not kill oneself barring motivation from self preservation.
Nor am I asking that the deprivation of life from any entity meet my standards. I am stating that consistency is logical. If it is wrong to deprive a human of its life with the exception of self preservation, I maintain that it is wrong to deprive an element of another species of its life under the same conditions. This tenet is not a matter of treating species equally in all regards; it is a matter of treating the characteristic of life present in all species equally.
I know I have not provided adequate reasoning for you to treat life equally. Similarly, you have not provided adequate reasoning for me as to why I should treat life preferentially.
Well, my reasoning for justifying the status of felony rests on the equivalence of life. Temporarily suspending your denial of the validity of that premise, is the reasoning logical? Apparently, I cannot prove the validity of that tenet. One can state that there are differences between species. One can then be preferential toward that species in certain contexts, e.g., I prefer humans to paramecia with respect to conversation, I prefer duck to sea urchin with respect to food and I prefer cats to wildebeast with respect to pets. Preferentialism is physiologically grounded in these cases. With respect to life, there is no gradation. An entity possesses it or does not. Something isn’t better at be alive than something else (unless the other thing is dead). I see no reason to state that one life is of greater value than another in and of iteself.
Yup.
I’m confused. Firstly, I don’t recall stating that “doing something to an animal is tolerated by whatever justification you have.” That statement is completely contradictory to everything else I have posted. I also don’t recall turning an amoeba into a human. I do recall stating that the characteristic of life in both is equal. I don’t see what it is that you are asking. If you’re asking whether or not it’s okay to kill a dog for food, the answer is yes. If you’re asking whether or not it’s okay to kill a dog for fun, the answer is no. If you’re asking if it’s okay for a dog to kill a human for food, the answer is yes. If you’re asking if it’s okay for a dog to kill a human for fun, the answer is no. If this isn’t a clear response, it’s because I wasn’t clear on the question.
Yup, but the child would be justified in killing you should you try to do so. I would imagine that genetic programming would virtually eliminate this type of action. Species generally do not consume members of their own species.
Denial of the validity of that premise? Whoa, pahtnuh, I think you’re stretching things a little thin now. I certainly am better at living than a fly. Watch how fast I can kill him. Watch how little he can do to stop me from doing so. If it ever came down to a struggle between me and a fly, I would win in every way. If he tried flying away I’d spray him with water and bog him down. If he tried landing on me I’d use my limbs which can access every spot of my body to shoo him off so I can go back to killing him. I can remove his food from him before he can remove mine from me.
In any struggle between a fly and myself, I win. I am uncertain of why you feel that fly is special in any way. I really don’t find the quality of life to be inherently valuable at all; if it were, I would hate regular doctors with more passion than the wacky-pro-lifers-that-kill hate abortion clinic docs. Hell, I’d hate myself for having an immune system to kill stuff that tries to “share and share alike” the resources of my metaphysically equal body.
They’re just trying to live, after all :rolleyes:
Any argument I make against flies does not automatically apply to humans just because they happen to share one trait. That trait isn’t what is under discussion! See? Me: I hate cars because they are red. You: well, boats have steering wheel-like protubances as well so you should feel the same way about them as you do about cars.
No.
Me: We make a crime a felony because it represents a danger to humans. You: we should make animal torture a felony because it acts against life, and isn’t needed for survival.
What? Pick any cow on any pasture anywhere one the world that is slotted for slaughter and tell me that that cow needs to be killed, and why. It doesn’t. We kill cows for food because they taste good, they are a high source of energy, etc etc. We don’t need to kill them. We don’t need to build our houses out of chemically treated pressed wood either. We don’t need metal-work shops for the nails. We don’t need television, rifles, railroads, and domesticated animals.
Hell, buddy, I’d be hard pressed to find one fucking thing I do all day that I need to do for survival. Honestly, I resolved some time ago that I’m going to perform actions which entail me not having to worry about survival, and that includes supporting the idea that our species is “better at living” than other species.
Complacency? Gritty realism? Argument from evolution? I don’t know quite what to call it, other than not bothered in general by the suffering of creatures which have already been dominated by my species long ago.
The species I grew up with had formed a society that was determined to get what it wanted out of its time of life. I have no idea what else life would be for other than to enjoy it. If that results in the “unfortunate” death of some members of other species, well, I’m not going to say I’m sorry. I’m not.
Of course, this isn’t to say there aren’t good reasons for conservation systems, endangered species acts, etc etc. There are; I feel those systems are good systems because they act to keep us, generally, ahead of “just surviving.” We’re learning to think before we act as a society, as a civilization, etc.
We didn’t get here without indescriminate killing. I don’t see how we could. I don’t see why we would want to, what purpose it would serve, other than satisfying a moral code we imposed upon ourselves for no other reason than to impose a code on ourselves which requires breaking. Sort of like confession: do your sins, feel guilt, but say you’re sorry and move along, move along.
I feel that calling a child the equivalent of a felon the equivalent of a guy who skins cats alive just because he is searing ants with a magnifying glass to be a very distorted view of reality, and I don’t mind saying so. I don’t mind saying so because I feel that somewhere, deep down, you also feel that you have important needs, and if you have to kill some plants and cows to satisfy it then so be it. you’ve almost said as much yourself. Now it is just a matter of determining those needs, which I think is impossible.
I am still willing, completely, for animal torture to be considered a misdemeanor. There are other ways to pass the time, and while they may not be quite as gratifying they certainly won’t piss as many people off, either. But a felony? I ain’t arresting my kid for spraying bees with the hose. I’m not even going to consider him criminal for it, and I’m certinaly not going to punish him. Hell, I’m not even going to scold my cat for toying with his prey before he kills them, even though I could impose my will on the cat to uphold your “equivalence” by stopping needless torture.
Take for example, the case where a woman rear-ended a man in his car by accident and he became so enraged he grabbed her dog out of the car and threw it into oncoming traffic (where it ultimately got hit and died). The mentality of this man is obviously questioned, not to mention what he did to that dog! Crimes like this need to be looked at from many different angles. I believe what he did could be classified as a felony. What is he capable of doing if something really bad happened? Not to mention, people should not be afraid to “speak” for animals… they are completely defenseless and I believe it’s our job to protect them.
Guess you missed those “When animals attack” shows, and every other nature show which details insects, plants, and animals defenses against each other.
Oh, you mean against humans? Their not defenseless; we’re just better, in most cases. Tell you what: you go fuck with a “defenseless” rhino and tell me what happens.
I am speaking mostly of shoving dynamite up a dog’s ass and watching him blow up for the sake of entertainment… not taunting a rhino with a stick and seeing him get pissed off at me (there IS a difference). I am speaking mostly of domesticated animals (where people have a RIGHT to adopt them, raise them, breed them, etc…). You think all of these cats and dogs want to live with conceited humans?! I laugh when someone gets attacked by a dog. Unofortunately, I have more compassion for animals than humans. Dogs don’t weigh out choices of right and wrong, humans can.
I find that holding animals as more important because they can do less a very strange way of valuating things. Is this how compact cars became so popular?
As far as sticking explosives in a dogs ass for fun, I still don’t see why that should be my concern, none-the-less the concern of society itself. If every owner of a dog killed that dog, I somehow don’t think society would collapse. Call me crazy. If every person who owned a gun decided to shoot a person with it, something tells me the ramifications would be a teensy bit larger than “Iams” laying off some employees.
You’ve got it. You’ve been stating that the premise isn’t valid; ergo, you’ve been denying the validity of that premise.
Well, by that logic, I tiger is better at living than you. If I put you in a cage with a tiger, I’d put my money on the tiger. What about the tse-tse fly? You may squash it if you’re deft enough (how often do you really swat a fly with your bare hands and succeed in your goal–they’re quick little buggers). But what happens if it bites you and you contract some kind of disease? How do you judge being better at living?
Your immune system doesn’t attack helpful entities, e.g., certain bacteria which aid in digestion. Your immune system attacks entities which pose a threat to your survival.
Not quite. Were we talking about some kind of environmental law, the positions would be something more like this. You: We should only ban red cars because I don’t like red. Me: We should ban all cars because they all pollute the environment (you know, that thing with all the wildlife and stuff).
Nope, we don’t need to kill that particular cow. We do need to kill something in order to sustain ourselves. Aside from a few herbavores and flora, killing is necessary to sustain an element of any species. As to the rest of it, we do need those things to survive in this particular society. Were we to change our minds about what is really important, perhaps we wouldn’t utilize the products you mentioned.
Do you work? If so, your work provides you with income. That income provides you with a means to purchase items. Some of those items are food, shelter, et cetera. Some of those items are things necessary for survival. Tell me you don’t work to survive. Your income may be high enough that you can do more than just survive, but it is partly devoted to survival. And I don’t see how “performing actions which entail me not having to worry about survival” necessitates that you “support the idea that our species is ‘better at living’ than other species.” Could you explain that one?
Wait a second. I thought it was okay to wipe out a species in your mind. I thought that those species didn’t matter with respect to our survival. Are you changing your mind?
Animals can do less? Less than what? Than a human? Nope. They can do different things, not less things. Can you lick your ass? I doubt it. A cat can. Can you lift a tree trunk? That depends on how heavy it is. An elephant can lift one much heavier than you can. Can you walk on two feet? Yup (assuming you aren’t paralyzed or an amputee). Can a fish? Nope. On a case by case basis you can state that elements of this species can perform this action better than elements of that species (generally speaking). To do otherwise is making broad generalizations which are unfounded.
Oops. Gaudere, could you delete the post above. It should have looked a bit more like this. “Use the preview” should become my new mantra.
You’ve got it. You’ve been stating that the premise isn’t valid; ergo, you’ve been denying the validity of that premise.
Well, by that logic, I tiger is better at living than you. If I put you in a cage with a tiger, I’d put my money on the tiger. What about the tse-tse fly? You may squash it if you’re deft enough (how often do you really swat a fly with your bare hands and succeed in your goal–they’re quick little buggers). But what happens if it bites you and you contract some kind of disease? How do you judge being better at living?
Your immune system doesn’t attack helpful entities, e.g., certain bacteria which aid in digestion. Your immune system attacks entities which pose a threat to your survival.
Not quite. Were we talking about some kind of environmental law, the positions would be something more like this. You: We should only ban red cars because I don’t like red. Me: We should ban all cars because they all pollute the environment (you know, that thing with all the wildlife and stuff).
Nope, we don’t need to kill that particular cow. We do need to kill something in order to sustain ourselves. Aside from a few herbavores and flora, killing is necessary to sustain an element of any species. As to the rest of it, we do need those things to survive in this particular society. Were we to change our minds about what is really important, perhaps we wouldn’t utilize the products you mentioned.
Do you work? If so, your work provides you with income. That income provides you with a means to purchase items. Some of those items are food, shelter, et cetera. Some of those items are things necessary for survival. Tell me you don’t work to survive. Your income may be high enough that you can do more than just survive, but it is partly devoted to survival. And I don’t see how “performing actions which entail me not having to worry about survival” necessitates that you “support the idea that our species is ‘better at living’ than other species.” Could you explain that one?
Wait a second. I thought it was okay to wipe out a species in your mind. I thought that those species didn’t matter with respect to our survival. Are you changing your mind?
Animals can do less? Less than what? Than a human? Nope. They can do different things, not less things. Can you lick your ass? I doubt it. A cat can. Can you lift a tree trunk? That depends on how heavy it is. An elephant can lift one much heavier than you can. Can you walk on two feet? Yup (assuming you aren’t paralyzed or an amputee). Can a fish? Nope. On a case by case basis you can state that elements of this species can perform this action better than elements of that species (generally speaking). To do otherwise is making broad generalizations which are unfounded.
[ As far as sticking explosives in a dogs ass for fun, I still don’t see why that should be my concern, none-the-less the concern of society itself. If every owner of a dog killed that dog, I somehow don’t think society would collapse. Call me crazy. If every person who owned a gun decided to shoot a person with it, something tells me the ramifications would be a teensy bit larger than “Iams” laying off some employees. **
[/QUOTE]
Maybe it’s not YOUR concern, but is is to people who don’t want dogs blown up and other cruel acts, such as animal rights activists. What if there were no people to stick up for animals? Then what? What if nobody stood up for humans being murdered? Hmm… what makes you think it’s ok for animals to be treated cruel but not anyone/anything else? Because they don’t speak english or vacuum? Re-think this. Just because animals don’t drive little fucking pretentious Volvos does NOT mean their lives should not be equally protected. And mind you, killing a cow for food is quite different than torturing housepets to ease some sicko’s mind.
I am unaware of how to respond to you any longer Nen. If you feel this gives you the argument, you can have it. What I quoted above is so incredibly, obviously wrong that to hear anyone claim it to be true over the course of two pages leads me to more frustrations than I can handle.
Put me in a cage with a tiger? Stacking the odds in its favor, aren’t you? Not using your “universal equality” fairly, are you?
An animals greatest offense, in this case, is its claws, speed, and size. In a human’s case-- me, of course-- my greatest strength are the tools I have created, aided in creating, and supported throughout my life.
When you place me in a cage with a tiger, you remove my “claws.” Tell you what, declaw the tiger, put a muzzle on him, and then you’ll have an evolutionary “fair” fight. I’d bet on myself, then.
Jellen
I think I have presented my case pretty clearly on the previous page, but I’ll give you a short summary anyway.
[li]Humans are better adapted to survival than other species, at least at this point in history.[/li][li]Humans, being pack animals, depend largely on community to survive. As such, to a human, other humans are very important. More important than any other species.[/li][li]Because humans are most important to humans, humans shouldn’t kill or otherwise harm other humans.[/li][li]Animals, as a source for power, labor, food, entertainment, and god knows what else, are ultimately not as important as humans to humans. We may replace rabbit meat for deer meet for beef; but we may not replace a mother or culture with an individual or group of other animals.[/li][li]We deem a crime to be a felony because it significantly increases the risk-- if not actually acted out such things-- for harm to other humans, or whole groups of humans.[/li][li]Killing animals does not do this.[/li]
No, not because of that. I wouldn’t kill a child, and children can’t speak full english or vaccuum. Sheesh.
I see nothing particularly noble in defending creatures we spent the last couple thousand years dominating to get where we are, and who we will continue to dominate even if we do defend them from explosive anal implants.
Consider, jellen, owning a slave. But you treat it nice!!! :rolleyes: An animal cannot both be free and end up on your plate in its prime.
Erislover, the only thing you are trying to prove is that humans are better or more evolutionary than animals, therefore it’s ok to treat them with cruelty or have very minimal punshment to those who do such acts. Mind you, humans are just one form of an animal. You realize, Jeffrey Dahmer killed and mutilated dogs and cats in his youth and grew up to be a cold-blooded murderer/cannibal. Never ever assume that becuase someone that is cruel to an animal is not capable of other harm. What does owning a slave have to do with anything? What exactly should be done with people who are charged with animal abuse/neglect? A ticket? Working as a volunteer in an animal shelter, I can tell you what kind of dogs come in that have been abused. It makes me physically sick. If these dogs grew to be bi-pedal with thumbs, I would only wish they go beat their owners into a nice bloody pulp I guess I have a vengeful side, but I have low tolerance for abuse against animals.
erislover, what feels like eons ago, you stated that there isn’t equality of action between species. I concur. I disagree with the idea that humans can do more. I may change my mind with proof, although I do not believe you can provide it. And no, I do not believe that this gives me the argument. In fact, I don’t believe that this idea has anything to do with the argument.
Okay, we’ll take you out of the cage. You’re free to roam and so is the tiger. The tiger will still win in a fight unless you happen to get your hands on a gun. Is that what you mean by evolutionarily fair–you get a gun? If you don’t have the opportunity to win the fight without receiving a scratch, it isn’t fair? Is it only fair if you have the edge of technology on your side? Actually, I don’t think that giving you a gun would be fair–I highly doubt a gun is a tool you created for your survival.
Honestly, I don’t know how to respond to you either. Give me proof. Don’t make assertions you can’t or won’t support. Give me premises I can accept, i.e., premises which aren’t entirely based on your opinion. Come to a conclusion which follows logically from the accepted premises. The conclusion you arrive at now definitely follows logically from your premises, but I don’t accept the premises.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by erislover *
[li]Humans are better adapted to survival than other species, at least at this point in history.[/li][/quote]
Prove it. If members of a species are alive, then they have adapted to whatever niche(s) to survive. By what measure do you ascertain that one species is better adapted than another.
[li]Humans, being pack animals, depend largely on community to survive. As such, to a human, other humans are very important. More important than any other species.[/li]
I’ll grant that humans are generally pack animals. I disagree that that tendency dictates that community is necessary for survival. Hermetic life is a case in point. The concept that humans are more important to humans than any other species is therefore an opinion. It is not an opinion I maintain.
[li]Because humans are most important to humans, humans shouldn’t kill or otherwise harm other humans.[/li]
Again, I disagree with the first clause (the premise of your argument).
[li]Animals, as a source for power, labor, food, entertainment, and god knows what else, are ultimately not as important as humans to humans. We may replace rabbit meat for deer meet for beef; but we may not replace a mother or culture with an individual or group of other animals.[/li]
You could replace venison for beef, but you would not have the same dish. You could replace a mother with an aunt, but you would not have the same relationship. You can’t replace any member with another member interchangeably, regardless of species.
[li]We deem a crime to be a felony because it significantly increases the risk-- if not actually acted out such things-- for harm to other humans, or whole groups of humans.[/li]
I disagree with this conclusion. Please support it.
[li]Killing animals does not do this.[/li]
I disagree with this statement as well. If you kill my pet, it causes emotional harm.
Can you establish an argument with premises I accept that lead to the conclusion you desire?
Well, perhaps I will respond, again, in more detail. For now, I’d just like to mention that I really don’t intend to convince or prove anything to you. Animal cruelty is not a felony where I live, and I should expect it will stay that way for some time.
I guess I have a vengeful side, but I have low tolerance for abuse against animals.