Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Thecard]

What categorical error? It is an incredible and dubious stretch of the imagination to assume I believe that humans are not animals given the context of the question.

I've already listed those qualities that set us apart quite explicitly. The capacity for rationality, culture and science and participation in the noosphere that grant our species nearly limitless opportunity for advancement. Very nearly all humans have this capacity with the exception of the severely brain damaged. No other animals have this capacity with a few possible marginal exceptions I previously mentioned.

Well, humans are animals.  There isn't a "Homo Sapiens" kingdom.  I don't really know what you would call other animals, except "other animals."

As for your question...
Yeah.  I don't know what your asking, to be honest.  Are you asking for someone who values the lives of non-humans over human lives to explain it?  I... I don't see anyone here who thinks that...  Most of us seem to think animals are beneath us, but still deserve our sympathy.
Frustration at someone not answering your question makes no sense.  Neither does justifying your argument further.  You seem to be trying to argue with people who think the same way you do. 

Maybe you should ask your local hippie?  I think they may be listed in the yellow pages...

[Criptfeind]

I've skipped most of this thread. I just want to ask how does one think that humans are NOT superior to animals?

What special quality do animals have, that humans don't, that compensates for our capacity for rationality, culture and science to make them our equal?

It is completely unfathomable to me.

A) Why do they have to be our equals to deserve empathy?
B) Some animals are better at us at certain things, just like we're better at some things than they are. We're smart, but some animals are fast, are adapted to cold or hot weather, can swim, can fly, and/or can live in depths of the sea we've barely explored. Comparing these things is comparing apples to oranges.
C) Your qualifiers for value (rationality, culture, science, whatever) are as equally valid as any other, as value is a subjective thing. Ask a cheetah if humans are better than him overall, and he'll laugh and comment at how pathetically slow we are. We have to cheat with tools to even come close to catching up with him. How could we possibly be as good as cheetahs? It's unfathomable.

Look beyond your nose, imagine things outside your own perspective, and maybe you'll be able to fathom something.

A) No one ever said they have to.
B) So? That's just basic body stuff that we already almost outstrip in every way with our brains. If that's your reason for respect then... Well. I don't see any reason to respect say, birds anymore, since we have supersonic jets. Out of everything in your list I think we only need to upgrade our underwater capabilities before we beat them all.
C) How is it cheating to use our only advantage? You might as well say it is cheating for a cheetah to use their legs in a race. And what you said there actually pointed out something pretty important. The cheetah would not give a single damn about us, even with all it's vaunted superiority.

If what you are saying is true and the advantage of intelligence is not more respect worthy then all the other advantages, why are you using it to hold us to a higher standard then you hold every other animal?

[misko27]

Fine. I'll admit it. I prefer my own species for speciesist reasons. I think we're better. So does the Cheetah, I admit that. The difference is I can impose my view, and my world, on the cheetah. Hell, if the cheetah were in our position, would he think about how everyone is equal in their own special way? Pf course, that point is moot, because he CAN'T TALK.  Sure it can run fast! Who cares? It can't produce anything of any value of anything but to itself or it's own species at best.
 
Humans are superior, at the end of the day, simply because thye have the morality to ask whether they are superior, and the ability to carry out their descision. Cheetah's can't do that. THAT'S, the difference.

[Caz]

Look beyond your nose, imagine things outside your own perspective, and maybe you'll be able to fathom something.

I like your conclusions. *tips hat*

[kaijyuu]

@Cript:

You misinterpret me if you think I stated my reasons for respect and empathy in that post. I was countering Nadaka's assertion that superior traits are why we deserve such things.

I've stated my qualifications for respect and empathy earlier.


As for #1, if you kill something unnecessarily you sure as hell don't have empathy for it.


@Misko27

Just so long as you stay logically consistent, I won't raise any objections to what you said.

[Criptfeind]

Once again no one is claiming that killing unnecessarily is a good thing.

Maybe you should take a moment to look past your own nose?

[Nadaka]

I've skipped most of this thread. I just want to ask how does one think that humans are NOT superior to animals?

What special quality do animals have, that humans don't, that compensates for our capacity for rationality, culture and science to make them our equal?

It is completely unfathomable to me.

A) Why do they have to be our equals to deserve empathy?

They do if you are asking for equal empathy and consideration, which people did.

B) Some animals are better at us at certain things, just like we're better at some things than they are. We're smart, but some animals are fast, are adapted to cold or hot weather, can swim, can fly, and/or can live in depths of the sea we've barely explored. Comparing these things is comparing apples to oranges.

You are right, none of those abilities compare. All of those have specific limits. All of those abilities can be superseded by our intelligence.

C) Your qualifiers for value (rationality, culture, science, whatever) are as equally valid as any other, as value is a subjective thing. Ask a cheetah if humans are better than him overall, and he'll laugh and comment at how pathetically slow we are. We have to cheat with tools to even come close to catching up with him. How could we possibly be as good as cheetahs? It's unfathomable.

But it is fathomable, we do have the tools for it.

Look beyond your nose, imagine things outside your own perspective, and maybe you'll be able to fathom something.

I do this constantly. It is why I am asking you and others to explain your position, so I can determine its validity for myself.

[GlyphGryph]

GG, continuing to insist that things that every actually understands the meaning of is unclear in the most unclear way he can.

The meaning was not unclear. It was just invalid. Especially in situations like this where the question aggressively wrong, likely intentionally, in an attempt to control the framing, I have no intent on letting that fly. That's the tactics of someone with an agenda, not someone asking a legitimate question.

What categorical error? It is an incredible and dubious stretch of the imagination to assume I believe that humans are not animals given the context of the question.

So it was intentional, rather than a mistake. Yeah, bullshit. You know the answer to the question (obviously by considering different attributes, most likely the ability to feel pain and fear, as being equal enough for the purposes being discussed), you just feel like arguing with someone. And your question still isn't what you're asking, anyway.

Not everyone values the same things you do. It's that simple. And no one denied that humans are superior in a variety of ways. The question of import is whether that superiority matters any more than the fact that fish are superior to us at swimming.

It's pretty trivial for a person to value an animal more than a person - a random person may be superior to my dog at doing complex maths, but they are distinctly lacking in the loyalty department in comparison. Why should I value a random stranger I don't know as more important than a creature that has contributed an incredible amount of happiness to my life, a creature I have chosen to be responsible for, a member of my family that loves me, maybe not in the same way humans do, but in its own way? Is that sort of thinking really so hard for you to grasp? Because if someone tried to kill my dog, I would drop that motherfucker. He can take his vaunted superiority and shove it, because none of that matters two fucks to me - if he's intent on killing someone I care about, he is worth far, far less.

The logic you're using here is the exact same sort of logic that has been used time an again throughout history to do terrible, horrific things. Because let's be honest - we're superior in some way to those we are committing these atrocities against, so they can't really be atrocities, now can they?

A) Why do they have to be our equals to deserve empathy?

They do if you are asking for equal empathy and consideration, which people did.

That's certainly a statement, that right there.

To bad it's nothing more, eh?

[kaijyuu]

Once again no one is claiming that killing unnecessarily is a good thing.

Didn't this whole debate start with something about veganism?

Unless you're wanting to get into an argument about "necessary." Killing something is (currently) necessary for meat on your plate, but is meat necessary on your plate? And so on. Not a debate I want to get into, because it'll end with someone imposing their own moral axioms on others, and all I want to do here is make people lay their own bare.

Maybe you should take a moment to look past your own nose?

"No you."

A) Why do they have to be our equals to deserve empathy?

They do if you are asking for equal empathy and consideration, which people did.

The logical conclusion of this assertion is that humans who aren't equal (due to some sort of handicap) are less deserving of empathy and consideration, as others have been bringing up.

B) Some animals are better at us at certain things, just like we're better at some things than they are. We're smart, but some animals are fast, are adapted to cold or hot weather, can swim, can fly, and/or can live in depths of the sea we've barely explored. Comparing these things is comparing apples to oranges.

You are right, none of those abilities compare. All of those have specific limits. All of those abilities can be superseded by our intelligence.

C) Your qualifiers for value (rationality, culture, science, whatever) are as equally valid as any other, as value is a subjective thing. Ask a cheetah if humans are better than him overall, and he'll laugh and comment at how pathetically slow we are. We have to cheat with tools to even come close to catching up with him. How could we possibly be as good as cheetahs? It's unfathomable.

But it is fathomable, we do have the tools for it.

I've no argument against these since it fits with your logic so far.

Look beyond your nose, imagine things outside your own perspective, and maybe you'll be able to fathom something.

I do this constantly. It is why I am asking you and others to explain your position, so I can determine its validity for myself.

Here's mine.


But yeah, really it comes down to the fact that if you determine we have value because of our prowess, then humans without prowess become inferior morally. You speak of intelligence a lot; are the mentally handicapped, incapable of building or operating tools that let us run faster than cheetahs, worth less?

[GlyphGryph]

And I'd argue that most people have no more than the potential for any of the bits of humanity that matters. Would I be alright, morally, if I only limited myself to killing those who are NOT Wealthy, Scientists, Engineers, or Artists?

After all, none of those other people are actually applying those attributes towards actually acquiring those limitless opportunities for advancement. Is some random wal-mart employee really more valuable than an animal? Hardly! Now, wealthy people, the movers and shakers, THEY are the important ones - that's why it's okay to lock normal people in jail for a long time, but we can't do such terribly things to actual worthwhile human beings, you know, the ones that actually make something of themselves.

Those who have the capability and choose not to use it are no more worthy of empathy than an animal is, through choice! Why, it could be argued that such a thing is WORSE.

Sure, we might want to extend our protections to cover scientists and engineers, and maybe artists, but I think everyone else is significantly less deserving of empathy, since they lack the attribute of actually propelling us forward that you find so important.

[Thecard]

Look beyond your nose, imagine things outside your own perspective, and maybe you'll be able to fathom something.

I do this constantly. It is why I am asking you and others to explain your position, so I can determine its validity for myself.

I'm a bit worried you haven't gotten this.  Kai's point?  Is your point.  He doesn't think animals are equal.

They do if you are asking for equal empathy and consideration, which people did.

Whoever that was, it wasn't us.  Don't ask us.

Also, I think I'm starting to smell some sarcasm in the air.  Unless GG has tragically misunderstood our human society.


Really there's only two new things I think we've established.
1.) Every animal (counting humans, duh) is an ignorant and speciesist bigot.

2.) GG is defiantly an alien killbot.  Yes, Defiantly, not definitely.

[PanH]

But yeah, really it comes down to the fact that if you determine we have value because of our prowess, then humans without prowess become inferior morally. You speak of intelligence a lot; are the mentally handicapped, incapable of building or operating tools that let us run faster than cheetahs, worth less?

That's my point too. If you're determining the value of a life through his attributes, then I think you're wrong.

[Criptfeind]

Didn't this whole debate start with something about veganism?

No. This whole debate started with 'something' about not understanding how people can be upset about child molestation and not animal cruelty. As in right that moment. When you hear about child molestation apparently you should not bemoan it BECAUSE ANMANL TORTURE!!!

"No you"

Not everyone who eats meat is a crazed animal torturer, so maybe you can stop acting like we are?

And yeah, I do hold dumber animals lives below my own enjoyment of eating their flesh.

[Nadaka]

Unless you are talking about someone that is more or less comatose, then all people are still capable of contributing their unique intelligence, knowledge, and experiences to enrich and advance human culture in one way or another.

And this whole debate started when someone said that they don't understand how someone can feel empathy for a person horrifically abused as a child when not caring as much about some chickens getting mutilated in factory farms (mostly in order to prevent the chickens from disemboweling each other).

[GlyphGryph]

Unless you are talking about someone that is more or less comatose, then all people are still capable of contributing their unique intelligence, knowledge, and experiences to enrich and advance human culture in one way or another.

Why should we care about what they are capable of if they are never going to actually do it? At least to no greater extent than a dog or work animal does.

Your explanation is simple: Your attributes, your cut off for empathic value, are entirely arbitrary. Good job. I mean, it's fine if you think your opinions are superior, but near as I can tell they aren't actually any more justified than anyone elses.

Of course, as far as I can tell, you're logic amounts to "I want this to be true, because humans are x,y, and z, and I have decided that means q, r, and s", which... isn't exactly a robust argument, when you are claiming some sort of confusion as to how other people can see things differently - after all, all they have to do is use the exact same "logic" with a different end in mine.