Print

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

[MaxTheFox]

Ethical to genocide them in order to reduce overall suffering?

The fuck kinda question is that? They're sapient right? This means they are above all nonsapient life, no questions asked. Let them eat meat. I don't care if food animals suffer. I care when sapients suffer. Yes there will be more suffering overall if we let them live and all switch to veganism, but reducing nonsapient suffering simply doesn't matter.

This is why I am not a vegan. I intentionally eat as much meat as possible without health problems. I took the "pledge" on PETA's website just so I could violate it. I once printed PETA's flag and then burned it in the same pile as Soviet and Nazi flags.

[Egan_BW]

Ah, then if sapience is such a hard cutoff for you, let's hear you define it, hmm?~

[Rolan7]

(ninja'd)
That's a matter of being able to define sapience (see the AI rights thread) and then the implication that there's something wrong with eating meat from sapients.  The actual atrocity is farming sapients in poor conditions, right?  I believe we're doing that right now on a factory scale.  Pigs in particular are as anthropomorphic as cats and dogs, we just don't see them as having emotions and affection because they live and die far from our plates.

Edit: In response to Max's edit - I mean, PETA is pretty shit, though I haven't tried eating meat just to spite them

[MrRoboto75]

The ending of Far Cry 5 made me WTF today.  The big choice was somehow even more ridiculous than the one in Far Cry 3, and fucking none of what happened made sense.  I was hoping for any sort of closure, not...

I did like how it sorta referenced the vastly superior ending of Far Cry 2.

(Fun game though, and it runs better than 3 while looking much better!  But the story, fuck...)

Far Cry 4 is the best.  You do literally nothing, then you win.

[MaxTheFox]

Ah, then if sapience is such a hard cutoff for you, let's hear you define it, hmm?~

Fully intellectually mature adults of the species have a similar or greater intelligence to average intellectually adult humans. Dolphins and certain apes arguably count. Pigs don't.

Also cats and dogs aren't sapient. But their suffering still matters because humans are easily attached to them, thus killing or harming them mentally harms humans. Dogs are also useful. Also, killing or torturing even non-sapient animals for literally no reason is fucked up. It shows that you get off to suffering.

[Rolan7]

I'd be hard pressed to choose between Far Cry 2 and 4 as best.  And I *love* 3, particularly its massive co-op campaign.  The mechanics evolved from 2-5 but 4 and 5 are maybe a little too generous with the powers.

5 looks beautiful and runs smoothly on my old hardware and I have to respect that, and the world feels more open than ever.  The mood even feels good, there are so many NPCs providing color.  And the allies, oh my gosh, they really did take the best part from 2!  My only real gripe is the main plot, and feeling a bit too much like a superhero.

Edit:  You're a superhero until the plot demands you get captured - which happens at EVERY major plot point, to a truly ridiculous degree.  They almost did it well - enemies do arrive to capture you, mostly wherever you happen to be, they just have plot-ammo.  It could have been better:  Increasing waves of enemies until you're finally overwhelmed.  Let me fight against the plot progression, don't just dart me while I'm stuck in dialogue with a quest NPC.

[Egan_BW]

Defining sapience just off of humans is problematic to me, especially if you're using that as a hard cutoff, below which you literally don't care about their suffering at all. What makes us special? There's nothing in particular, we just happen to have quite large brains and developed a lot of things as a result. There's no reason to believe that we're the most intelligent possible animal, or that anything below us is fundamentally different.

[Yoink]

The ending of Far Cry 5 made me WTF today.  The big choice was somehow even more ridiculous than the one in Far Cry 3, and fucking none of what happened made sense.  I was hoping for any sort of closure, not...

I did like how it sorta referenced the vastly superior ending of Far Cry 2.

(Fun game though, and it runs better than 3 while looking much better!  But the story, fuck...)

Far Cry 4 is the best.  You do literally nothing, then you win.

Pretty short game, though.

I liked the first one, with its derpy level editor and split-screen multiplayer.   


Edit: am I having a stroke or is Egan making some really good points?   
Suffering is suffering, even if the creature doing the suffering isn't "advanced" enough to post on social media about their problems.   

[MaxTheFox]

Defining sapience just off of humans is problematic to me, especially if you're using that as a hard cutoff, below which you literally don't care about their suffering at all. What makes us special? There's nothing in particular, we just happen to have quite large brains and developed a lot of things as a result. There's no reason to believe that we're the most intelligent possible animal, or that anything below us is fundamentally different.

I firmly believe in "humanity first". I believe the ultimate goal of humanity is to first put as much of Earth's nature under control (don't destroy it), then spread to other planets and colonize them, then repeat. Caring much about nonsapients kind of goes in the way of that. We are the most advanced animal on Earth, thus we are superior to every other Earth species.

[Yoink]

Wait, so... black text means that was intentionally nonsensical, right? Thank the gods.   

[Rolan7]

Defining sapience just off of humans is problematic to me, especially if you're using that as a hard cutoff, below which you literally don't care about their suffering at all. What makes us special? There's nothing in particular, we just happen to have quite large brains and developed a lot of things as a result. There's no reason to believe that we're the most intelligent possible animal, or that anything below us is fundamentally different.

It also implies distasteful things about humans who deviate from the norm.  Should we judge them worthy of eating us or being eaten?  I think most people would disagree, which I think reveals a fault in that justification.

[MaxTheFox]

Wait, so... black text means that was intentionally nonsensical, right? Thank the gods.   

I guess you really don't want to argue then. Same for me, to be honest.

And no, I really do believe that.

Defining sapience just off of humans is problematic to me, especially if you're using that as a hard cutoff, below which you literally don't care about their suffering at all. What makes us special? There's nothing in particular, we just happen to have quite large brains and developed a lot of things as a result. There's no reason to believe that we're the most intelligent possible animal, or that anything below us is fundamentally different.

It also implies distasteful things about humans who deviate from the norm.  Should we judge them worthy of eating us or being eaten?  I think most people would disagree, which I think reveals a fault in that justification.

Sapience applies to the entire species, as I implied before with "average". Thus humans who intellectually deviate from the norm still shouldn't be eaten.

[TheSteppeWolf]

This... is an interesting argument. As for myself, I try to keep somewhat of a balance between meat and vegetables (because it's more healthy that way). I don't really see the appeal in being vegan.

[Yoink]

Defining sapience just off of humans is problematic to me, especially if you're using that as a hard cutoff, below which you literally don't care about their suffering at all. What makes us special? There's nothing in particular, we just happen to have quite large brains and developed a lot of things as a result. There's no reason to believe that we're the most intelligent possible animal, or that anything below us is fundamentally different.

It also implies distasteful things about humans who deviate from the norm.  Should we judge them worthy of eating us or being eaten?  I think most people would disagree, which I think reveals a fault in that justification.

[INSERT INCREDIBLY TASTELESS "EAT YOUR VEGETABLES" JOKE HERE]   

[Rolan7]

This... is an interesting argument. As for myself, I try to keep somewhat of a balance between meat and vegetables (because it's more healthy that way). I don't really see the appeal in being vegan.

Same.  I think many people today over-consume meat due to the machinations of corporations and the market.  I am opposed to the conditions in factory farms.  I don't think it's wrong to kill and eat animals, just the systemic horror we visit on them.  This is why I hate my love of cheese - dairy cows are abused just as meat animals are.