If you want to continue posting in Great Debates, you will knock off the personal insults.
[ /Moderating ]
So what is your point here? That sentience requires not just perception, but also specific neuro-physiological structures? Because both myself and Martin Hyde agree with that entirely. That in fact was his whole position, and one that you rejected.
When Martin said that the issue of animal sentience is debatable because, amongst other things, they lack specific neuro-physiological structures, you said that was incorrect. You said that the issue was black and white. You said that the equation was simply perception=sentience regardless of which specific neuro-physiological structures were lacking.
Now you want to move the goalposts and say that sentience requires not just perception, but also specific neuro-physiological structures. I’m happy to let you get away with that because it forces you into total agreement with Martin Hyde’s original point.
So let’s just clarify where we stand now shall we? Sentience =/= perception. Sentience isn’t that black and white. And we know this because plants are capable of perception. Sentience requires not just perception, but also specific neuro-physiological structures.
Yeah, coz “Science” and “Nature” are known for using impreise terms, and we shoudl accept your terminology over that of the world experts in plant physiology publishing in the world’s premier science journals.
:rolleyes:
Once again, a blatant attempt to move the goalposts.
Your position was that perception = sentience. If you want to retract that ridiculous position and argue that “conscious awareness” = sentience that’s great.
I encourage that because arguing that “conscious awareness” is black and white, as you have been attempting to do for sentience, becomes absolutely laughable, since what consciousness is, much less who has it, is a matter massive debate in both scientific and philosophical circles. And I can prove that so easily with references that it will make your claim that plants can’t perceive seem positively non-ignorant.
Bullshit.
You said “I see no debate there. Clearly animals are aware. Clearly they are finely sensitive in perception and feeling.” That isn’t a clip from a larger quote, that was the entire response that you posted.
You are the one jumping on ONE word in the whole definition and stating that is the defining characteristic.
So what? What definition of sentience includes the qualifier “in an organism with a brain and a central nervous system and nerves”?
You’re moving the goalposts so far here that they’re now in the carpark.
Once again, you are moving the goalposts. You start with one definition from one source, and when that is shown to be ridiculous now you want to jump to another. I’m happy to use whatever definition you like here. But pick a single one and stick to it.
In this case you need to establish that a dog is capable of "having specified facts or feelings actively impressed on the part of a **person **that feels, thinks, perceives, wills, and especially reasons.
That’s gonna be kinda tough don’t you think, since your entire argument hinges on the fact that we all agree that a dog is not a person.
:rolleyes:
Have you any idea how wild animals die when left alone? Have you seen how a pack of wolves takes down a moose, tearing bits and pieces off the fleeing prey for miles on end? Have you watched a lion eating the rear end of a still-living antelope with a broken back?
Do you know what happens to the lucky moose that don’t get torn up by wolves? They die of starvation once their teeth wear down enough. I have no idea idea what it’s like to die of hunger, but I’m sure it’s all kinds of painful.
Death by bullet or arrow is by far the least painful way for a wild animal to die. People worrying about animal suffering should be in the woods, gun in hand, making sure no animal needs to go through the torment of a “natural” death.
Eating hunted meat lessens suffering.
When hunting and stupidity are both declared equally immoral, we might have something to work with. Until then, look at it it sensibly. If you don’t like hunting, don’t hunt. If you don’t like stupidity, try to learn as much as possible. In the meantime, mind your own damn business.
An 82 year old ex-forest ranger, hunting guide, and writer in the Adirondacks writes an occasional column for the newspaper. He states that when he first went up there in 1958 at the start of hunting season, all you saw were red plaid jackets; the whole town, the bars, restaurants and diners, was overflowing with hunters. He would issue dozens, a hundred camping permits. This year, the ranger in his old territory issued a total of three permits a couple years ago. He also reports the regular big game season is in effect right now, and he’s seen only a couple of hunters so far. So - hunting in the Adirondacks is pretty much a thing of the past.
Killing a prey animal like a deer, not immoral. That is what their here for IMO
Killing a predator like a lion, perhaps unless it’s a threat
Ever see a housecat play with a mouse?
Animals hunt for enjoyment, too. The hunt, the chase, and the kill are deeply hardwired into our brains, and there’s nothing immoral about exercising that enjoyment as long as it’s not wasteful or excessively cruel. Personally, the hunters I know are far more responsible and humane than my tabby is.
I don’t think hunting is wrong. People need to accumulate calories to stay alive. Plants can provide a lot of it. Meat can too.
To many the act of hunting is repulsive. To actually enjoy killing an animal when you don’t have to, is beyond my grasp. I would get no enjoyment out of tracking down and killing a deer or elk. I understand there are people who feel differently about that. I don’t have that drive and I can not relate to it. I feel bad when my dog kills a groundhog in the garden.