Print

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

[Thecard]

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.

I really don't know about that.  We obviously are above animals intellectually, and that's really what matters.
But that doesn't mean we should cause unnecessary death and/or pain to them.  I mean, I'd save a human over an animal any day, but I wouldn't torture anything.  Including plants.
Why do people always forget about plants?

Oh, and fuck evolutionary potential.  They aren't going to become any more sentient than they are now.  They do feel, they do have social structure, but they've had that since way before recorded history.

But I guess that may just be how I see it.

[MonkeyHead]

There's the evolutionary potential card.

Then you have to consider our potential to evolve into something better, something beyond where we are now.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Plants lack the centralized nervous system necessary for perception.

[Scoops Novel]

Consider the difference between homo sapiens and it's immediate predecessor. I was surprised at how little time it took, personally. Evolution is constant and what with the pressures we've been exerting on everything, there's quite a bit of incentive. If faced with killing the last of a barely survivable breeding population of all apes or a infant, i could not choose the latter.

[GlyphGryph]

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

Your question suffers from a severe categorical error that makes it completely unanswerable. In addition to this categorical error, it seems to be working off of several additional assumptions I find myself uncomfortable with i.e. it's okay, or at least more okay, to kill organisms that are inferior to us in some way.

Please expand your question by resolving the core categorical error and explaining your assumptions, if you legitimately want a worthwhile answer.

[Descan]

That's a good point, that I didn't think to raise.

Inferiority of something and the license to kill it are two separate issues. I can think something, or even someone, inferior, without feeling like I deserve to kill it.

AND vice versa.

[Thecard]

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

Your question suffers from a severe categorical error that makes it completely unanswerable. In addition to this categorical error, it seems to be working off of several additional assumptions I find myself uncomfortable with i.e. it's okay, or at least more okay, to kill organisms that are inferior to us in some way.

Please expand your question be resolving the core categorical error and explaining your assumptions, if you legitimately want a worthwhile answer.

I'm starting to have doubts you aren't human.  I've got this nagging feeling you're either an alien sent to observe us and our social interactions or to determine our weaknesses.  You know, you've already discovered sending a giant fly baby made out of plants to Earth would not work out very well.  Especially if it is a murderapist trying to kill someone.

That, or you work in a PR department.  'Course, "a rose by any other name..."

[GlyphGryph]

If I was not human, would I have had to edit my post to correct that typo in the last line?

I think not. No non-human would make that sort of elementary mistake. Only a human. So clearly I am a human.

[Nadaka]

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

Your question suffers from a severe categorical error that makes it completely unanswerable. In addition to this categorical error, it seems to be working off of several additional assumptions I find myself uncomfortable with i.e. it's okay, or at least more okay, to kill organisms that are inferior to us in some way.

Please expand your question be resolving the core categorical error and explaining your assumptions, if you legitimately want a worthwhile answer.

This isn't explicitly related to the morality of killing. It is a question related to this conversation from before it was spun off from the sad thread. Several people here have taken exception to placing humanity above animals. I want them to explain that to me.

And yes, I do believe that the acceptable set of reasons and methods used to kill creatures varies based on the qualities of the creature, and acceptable methods and reasons are most limited for humans.

[misko27]

Yes, I agree. I can neve sympathize with anyone who claims a animal is equal to a human. Yes, I love animals. No, that doesn't make them human.

[GlyphGryph]

You persist in continuing your categorical error. It is quite literally impossible to place humans above animals, on account of the simple fact that humans are animals.

You can, I suppose, place us above other animals, but it would be nice for general purposes if you qualify which attributes, exactly, you personally think are worthwhile in determining that elevated status. Is it our mental faculties? Does this mean we are similarly elevated amongst those humans who lack them? Is it our genome? Would neanderthals have been extended your human elevation?

Do these attributes actually require humanity, or is humanity just a shortcut you use since humanity is the only animal that has the attributes you feel are important, as far as you know?


Ultimately, I feel like attempting to answer you would be meaningless, since your own thoughts on the issue appear muddled and confused, mixing up separate elements into a stance that is primarily ideological instead of rational - and inconsistently ideological at that. Actual communication will have to wait until we clarify our thinking and establish a common basis from which to work.

[Thecard]

I think Descan puts it quite well and simply here.

That's a good point, that I didn't think to raise.

Inferiority of something and the license to kill it are two separate issues. I can think something, or even someone, inferior, without feeling like I deserve to kill it.

AND vice versa.

[Criptfeind]

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

GG for head hypocrite, 2012.

This is why I voted for you at least, too bad that damnable electoral college stole my vote, you would have won for sure.

So: Mandatory treatment for suicidal people!

How do you draw the line here? We pretty much force them into treatment until they agree to our world view. When the definition of crazy is that you don't agree with me, how do you stop abuse? Do not forget that a generation actions are minor, but the policies they set can echo though the ages. Even if we all agree that suicidal people should not kill themselves, is it worth taking the steps down the start of this path of such control?

[Nadaka]

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.

[kaijyuu]

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.