Print

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

[hector13]

I believe in the superiority of humans (and other hypothetical sapient species) over non-sapient species. There is no need to "balance things out".

Well see, there's your problem. Cruelty is inherent in such a viewpoint. Hopefully one day you realise that!    

I know that. And I don't care that I am supporting cruelty. I have very little empathy for cows, pigs, sheep, and other farm animals. Why should I, when they are non-sapient, not endangered, and their sole purpose in life is to provide food (or wool)?

Also I enjoy the taste of meat, which, for me, is enough of a reason to continue to eat it.

Indeed.

If sapience is your benchmark here, what are your thoughts on the mentally disabled?

Dont you enjoy the taste of meat of the mentally disabled?

Only if they’re free-range.

[Naturegirl1999]

How do we know other animals lack sapience? How can we possibly know whether other animals are thinking?

[hector13]

It's a shame, to refuse to even slightly utilise one of humanity's best aspects - our capacity for compassion (or at least basic empathy).

Therein lies the problem with humanity, and the probability that sapience isn’t a universal human trait: people assign arbitrary lines between acceptable and unacceptable behaviours, and those lines differ from person to person, for other arbitrary reasons.

[pisskop]

My opinion on the matter of disabled/elder care:

It evolved pretty early in human society.  We're social creatures, and care of the members of your particular is paramount to building trust and cohesion.  You may not be obligated to care for the 'other', but only the most backwards societies will not care for their own (with the caveat that if they lack the resources or to do so would endanger an axiom they hold).

Sure, people can be more domineering or seen as cruel, but they society as a whole exists to be a framework to care for the individuals.  Nobody will want to serve a system that will not ensure the survival of its people.

I also think its easy to say 'we must care for every person regardless of ability' without specifying what that standard of care needs to be at minimum, or if it has to be provided on public dime.  For instance, do we need to provide a hospice for them?  Food?  Wages/work?  And if we can view things like castration/euthanasia as a primitive form of, say, gene modification or behavior/cognitive modification: do these latter ones, where we theoretically modify an embryo/sperm or a grown man, any more ethical?

[Mathel]

I believe in the superiority of humans (and other hypothetical sapient species) over non-sapient species. There is no need to "balance things out".

Well see, there's your problem. Cruelty is inherent in such a viewpoint. Hopefully one day you realise that!    

I know that. And I don't care that I am supporting cruelty. I have very little empathy for cows, pigs, sheep, and other farm animals. Why should I, when they are non-sapient, not endangered, and their sole purpose in life is to provide food (or wool)?

Also I enjoy the taste of meat, which, for me, is enough of a reason to continue to eat it.

Indeed.

If sapience is your benchmark here, what are your thoughts on the mentally disabled?

Choosing by sapience is not not viable, true.
How about this:
Harm needs to be within reason. In the end, one prefers oneself over strangers and one's own species over other species. But even then, any harm done should have a reason to be done.

How much reason one needs would depend on each person's conscience, but generaly, the more distant the species the less reason there usualy needs to be.

Most people would not be surprised at someone casualy killing spiders. But kick a dog and everyone is outraged. This is because spiders are alien enough for people to not care.

You can harm animals, but you should only do so, if you are gaining something by doing so. The closer they are related to humans, the more you should be gaining from it. If the animal is human, you should be gaining equal or greater value to what harm you are willing to cause.

Note that this is not intended to promote crime. If you do something, you create a precedens. For example, you would not want to steal, because you do not want people to steal from you. So regardless of laws, you should not do anything, you do not want other people to do in your situation.
Laws of course decrease value of criminal behavior further by punishing those caught.

[ChairmanPoo]

I believe in the superiority of humans (and other hypothetical sapient species) over non-sapient species. There is no need to "balance things out".

Well see, there's your problem. Cruelty is inherent in such a viewpoint. Hopefully one day you realise that!    

I know that. And I don't care that I am supporting cruelty. I have very little empathy for cows, pigs, sheep, and other farm animals. Why should I, when they are non-sapient, not endangered, and their sole purpose in life is to provide food (or wool)?

Also I enjoy the taste of meat, which, for me, is enough of a reason to continue to eat it.

Indeed.

If sapience is your benchmark here, what are your thoughts on the mentally disabled?

Dont you enjoy the taste of meat of the mentally disabled?

Only if they’re free-range.

As far as I'm concerned if you run slower than me you're fair game

[hector13]

I believe in the superiority of humans (and other hypothetical sapient species) over non-sapient species. There is no need to "balance things out".

Well see, there's your problem. Cruelty is inherent in such a viewpoint. Hopefully one day you realise that!    

I know that. And I don't care that I am supporting cruelty. I have very little empathy for cows, pigs, sheep, and other farm animals. Why should I, when they are non-sapient, not endangered, and their sole purpose in life is to provide food (or wool)?

Also I enjoy the taste of meat, which, for me, is enough of a reason to continue to eat it.

Indeed.

If sapience is your benchmark here, what are your thoughts on the mentally disabled?

Dont you enjoy the taste of meat of the mentally disabled?

Only if they’re free-range.

As far as I'm concerned if you run slower than me you're fair game

Usain Bolt is most assuredly the apex predator.

[TD1]

approximately 30 people have liked me over three days.

It's now 45. People be boooooored.

[pisskop]

So why dont you, you know, set up a date?

[TamerVirus]

How can we possibly know whether other animals are thinking?

Why don't you just ask them?

[TD1]

So why dont you, you know, set up a date?

45 likes, not matches. I've only had about five matches and one long-term conversation.
I may be slightly picky.

Besides, social distancing, etc.

[Jopax]

Nothing stopping you from having a romantic skype dinner or something :p

In my WTF, the wonders of the banking system, finally got the chance to visit the bank since last week they'd close before I got off work, only to be told that no, my card is perfectly fine (all my online purchases were being declined) and if I want to solve my problem I'd have to contact the call center and have them check it out. So I did, only to be told that what I actually need to do is send an e-mail to the support so they can check in with the bank I was just in and see if my online purchases are deactivated or not.
Having sent the mail I'm half-expecting them to reply with a 'no you actually have to do this ritual sacrifice to dumb bureaucracy gods to have the card activated'

[MaxTheFox]

I believe in the superiority of humans (and other hypothetical sapient species) over non-sapient species. There is no need to "balance things out".

Well see, there's your problem. Cruelty is inherent in such a viewpoint. Hopefully one day you realise that!    

I know that. And I don't care that I am supporting cruelty. I have very little empathy for cows, pigs, sheep, and other farm animals. Why should I, when they are non-sapient, not endangered, and their sole purpose in life is to provide food (or wool)?

Also I enjoy the taste of meat, which, for me, is enough of a reason to continue to eat it.

Indeed.

If sapience is your benchmark here, what are your thoughts on the mentally disabled?

Still humans. I believe it's very unethical to eat humans unless absolutely necessary for survival. I have empathy unlike what Yoink implied, however I only really use it for pet animals, "cute" animals, endangered species, and humans.

How do we know other animals lack sapience? How can we possibly know whether other animals are thinking?

We don't. They don't seem to act very smart, however. I'm very angry at people killing, say, primates or dolphins or whales (or dogs or cats) without a good reason, because those are relatively smart animals. Also those three don't really interfere with humanity and aren't usually used as food so it's unethical to kill them for no good reason. I don't know why, but seeing a cow or pig get slaughtered just... doesn't really "click" for me.

Of course if the food animal is killed without being used for meat, or in a cruel way, it's still unethical. After all, they can still suffer and causing suffering without a good reason is bad.

[KittyTac]

I sometimes wonder if this thread isn't just for WTFs, and is also a general "debate area".

[TamerVirus]

I sometimes wonder if this thread isn't just for WTFs, and is also a general "debate area".

Fool! The mega-feeling threads does as they please!