 |
| |
|
|
Kuciwalker
|
 |
of Schmooism
Feb 2001
time: 00:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Immortal Wombat
1. Abortion is "OK" while the foetus is not in independant living thing and could not survive without a mother around it: while it is effectively an extension of the mother. AFAIK, nobody seriously advocates or promotes abortion. All credible defenses of abortion admit that it is almost always preferable to let the foetus develop, but that it isn't the place of government to force this to happen while the foetus is still part of the mother.
Wild animals aren't the possession of anyone, so the argument "It's mine, let me torture it" fails. The government does have juristiction, for better or worse, over the defining of Rights For Foxes. While foxes are independant living things, then torturing them for no reason other than human amusement is wrong. |
What about pets? Should owners be able to kill them, or just release them and not feed them?
quote:
Personally, I (and reds, and Mr Fun, et al) find the idea of torturing anything which can display pain that emotively utterly repugnant. Ok, so maybe seeing a live, wailing fox have its guts pulled out by bloodhounds doesn't cause you to bat an eyelid - but even if it is not biologically/philosophically wrong to torture foxes since the "aren't aware of pain" or whatever bollocks you want to wrap it in, it's one of those things which is probably bad for the human involved as well. It's like putting an 18-certificate on a film, or preventing incestuous marriages. Imagine it as an infinity-certificate on hunting. |
I find torture for the sake of torture completely repugnant. I find gay sex repugnant too  seriously, though, while I may not necessarily think hunting is a good thing to do, I do not think it is a restriction of liberties.
quote:
2. Name me a single animal which tortures and maims its prey and deliberately uses inefficient methods of execution, for no other reason than entertainment (and/or tradition), and maybe this point would have some relevance. |
Lynx?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
General Ludd
|
 |
Minion of the Dominion
Aug 2001
time: 05:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Azazel
BRAVO BRAVO YOU'VE ALL PICKED UP ON ME NOT ELABORATING THE OBVIOUS, HOW ABOUT A BIG MEDAL.
Obviously, my comment was made with regards to the pain as a clearly biochemical concept. The fact that this biochemical effect has a stressful influence on some biochemical system, is of little consequence to me. Obviously, it will have a lot of consequence for me if is made to a human, which is a biochemical system, that generally, barring any other parameters, I am interested in its' successful survival and advancement, because it will make me feel better ( recieve positive biochemical feedback), and just because I've been programmed to do so. |
 I remember having an argument that touched something similiar to this about altruism some time ago. I can't remember if you where one of the people claiming everything was done for selfish purposes or not, but I'm guessing you where?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
General Ludd
|
|
Minion of the Dominion
Aug 2001
time: 05:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Ludd claimed that foxes are like people because you can train them to respond in different ways to stimuli. I said robots could too, therefore any argument applying to foxes because of that applies to robots. He said robots could not be trained, which is completely false. Therefore, my point stands. |
Robots can't be trained, they are programmed. To be trained implies that you are taught to do something against your nature, or alien to you. A robot is built and created with a specific task in mind, and has only a single purpose to it's existance. It can be programmed through interaction after it has been built, but only because it has been programmed to "learn". You could not teach a robot that has been built to learn how to navigate through different kinds of mazes how to build a maze itself.
Niether does a robot have any choice. A dog, when it is trained, is presented with multiple choices. To draw on my previous example:
It is given the choice obey it's master. It doesn't have to, but it can - and if it's trained through violence it will probably do so out of fear of being beaten (a choice made on a future potential event, not a reaction to stimuli) which again clearly demonstrates a state of awareness and understanding of the concept of pain.
It can also choose to follow the scent given to it. "Mechincally" speaking one would think that the dog would be more inclined to follow other scents that it passes while tracking - like food or other dogs, but it can choose to ignore these scents and instead follow the scent given to it, which has no real meaning outside of what importance it has to it's master, which again shows an awareness and understanding of another being's sentience. (and their wants, desires, ect...) Likewise, it could also choose to chase the scent alone or lead it's master along the trail, which again shows a similiar understanding.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kuciwalker
|
|
of Schmooism
Feb 2001
time: 00:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by General Ludd
Robots can't be trained, they are programmed. To be trained implies that you are taught to do something against your nature, or alien to you. |
WTF?!
quote:
v. trained, train·ing, trains
v. tr.
1. To coach in or accustom to a mode of behavior or performance.
2. To make proficient with specialized instruction and practice. See Synonyms at teach.
3. To prepare physically, as with a regimen: train athletes for track-and-field competition.
4. To cause (a plant or one's hair) to take a desired course or shape, as by manipulating.
5. To focus on or aim at (a goal, mark, or target); direct. See Synonyms at aim.
6. To let drag behind; trail.
v. intr.
1. To give or undergo a course of training: trained daily for the marathon.
2. To travel by railroad train. |
Nowhere is "against one's nature" mentioned.
quote:
A robot is built and created with a specific task in mind, and has only a single purpose to it's existance. It can be programmed through interaction after it has been built, but only because it has been programmed to "learn". You could not teach a robot that has been built to learn how to navigate through different kinds of mazes how to build a maze itself.
Niether does a robot have any choice. A dog, when it is trained, is presented with multiple choices. To draw on my previous example:
It is given the choice obey it's master. It doesn't have to, but it can - and if it's trained through violence it will probably do so out of fear of being beaten (a choice made on a future potential event, not a reaction to stimuli) which again clearly demonstrates a state of awareness and understanding of the concept of pain.
It can also choose to follow the scent given to it. "Mechincally" speaking one would think that the dog would be more inclined to follow other scents that it passes while tracking - like food or other dogs, but it can choose to ignore these scents and instead follow the scent given to it, which has no real meaning outside of what importance it has to it's master, which again shows an awareness and understanding of another being's sentience. (and their wants, desires, ect...) Likewise, it could also choose to chase the scent alone or lead it's master along the trail, which again shows a similiar understanding. |
You're claiming there is some mystical thing that allows the dog not to obey physical laws but instead act in an entirely arbitrary manner? You're stupider than I thought.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Immortal Wombat
|
 |
in perpetuity
Dec 2000
time: 05:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MrFun
When killer whales hunt sea lions, they sometimes wound them, and then flip them into the air over and over before finally munching on them. |
Do you have a cite for this? Its not that I don't believe you, only I can't find anything about it (and sea lions are freaking massive)
quote:
Plus, when killer whales hunt larger whales in packs, the killer whales will rip off chunks of the whale as a means of eating it alive.
|
As UR said, ripping chunks off a whale is the only thing they can do. The vertebrae of a large whale is so deep in its blubber that it would take some fairly determined mining to get to it, whereupon the carcasse would sink out of eating range anyway. I saw an interesting documentary about this. Orcas very seldom get anywhere near all the flesh off their prey before it dies and sinks, and there are species of shark and lamprey and whatnot that live on the ocean floor surviving solely on the sunken carcasses of shark-kills.
quote:
Another example is the mother cheetah who teaches her cubs to hunt by releasing a wounded young gazelled for her cubs to pursue (this exmaple is not for enjoyment, but it is still a form of torture).
|
Yes, lots of cats exhibit this behaviour, but it does serve a purpose: that being the education of the young in methods of survival. When it becomes necessary for man to pass on fox-hunting techniques to survive, then it becomes valid.
Kuci, pets, yeah maybe. Generally there's enough of an attachment to a pet that people wouldn't want to torture it. The sick mf who put his hamster in a helium balloon has probably got a little cubicle in hell reserved for him, mind you. Since Cruelty to Animals (where animal is defined as any domesticated creature) has been an offense since 1849, and since there isn't a three hundred year old tradition of buying pets and then watching them be ripped apart, its less of an issue.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:18
|
|
Kuci, I have read the whole of your argument, and there is one fundamental flaw in it.
You consider that self-awareness is the same as sentience. And I haven't seen anything to prove this claim except the fact that you "use the terms interchangeably". A rhetorical convenience is however not an argument.
And then you claim that self-awareness is a prerequisite for feeling pain. Again, this is not backed up.
Your argument with the robots is a useless artifact. Nobody but you here is talking about robots. Why do you insist using this artifice to explain the difference between human and animal pain? Why cannot you explain directly the difference between the pain experienced by a human and an animal (and don't answer "read the thread", I've read all your posts, and I haven't seen this assertion backed with a reasoning)? In my experience, a reasoning which is based solely on comparisons and allegories is fragile at best, because allegories cannot match the real situation perfectly, and because it doesn't adress the issues directly.
Your argument rests in part on the idea that a being is either self-aware, or not. Immortal Wombat quoted an empirical article explaining how self-awareness progressed in the human mind, during early childhood. The measurements used for self-awareness also show various degrees of self-awareness among animals.
Now, I do think that self-awareness has nothing to do with pain, but you have been refuted on this point (the belief that self-awareness is an either/or), and you haven't adapted your argument.
Finally, since you won't bother replying to me if I don't do it: I oppose abortion once the nervous system of the fetus has appeared, precisely because I think embryos should be terminated before they can feel pain. However, since it is very hard to make a law with "the development of the nervous system" as a factor, I support laws that allow abortions up to a certain date, that is generally accepted as the time when an embryo grows a nervous system: 3 or 4 months.
I support the killing of animals (the torture of animals even) if it serves a purpose for mankind, like fooding, clothing, or research. I oppose that we inflict pain to animals for no utilitarian reasons. I also oppose any extra pain that would be inflicted to animals suring a productive process, if such pain brought no extra utility (for example, boiling crabs alive, instead of killing them right before)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
I think the important thing to remember is that robots are the wave of the future. They can get beyond the old ways of evolution, and can evolve themselves, and at a much faster rate also.
Also, if you consider the possibilties of robots with nuclear weapons, you realise that that is ultimate.
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
General Ludd
|
|
Minion of the Dominion
Aug 2001
time: 05:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kuciwalker
quote:
Originally posted by General Ludd
Robots can't be trained, they are programmed. To be trained implies that you are taught to do something against your nature, or alien to you. |
WTF?!
Nowhere is "against one's nature" mentioned. |
What is the point of training someone to do a task which is already in their nature?
Learn to think within the context of a conversation, rather than relying on text books for preconceived thoughts.
quote:
quote:
A robot is built and created with a specific task in mind, and has only a single purpose to it's existance. It can be programmed through interaction after it has been built, but only because it has been programmed to "learn". You could not teach a robot that has been built to learn how to navigate through different kinds of mazes how to build a maze itself.
Niether does a robot have any choice. A dog, when it is trained, is presented with multiple choices. To draw on my previous example:
It is given the choice obey it's master. It doesn't have to, but it can - and if it's trained through violence it will probably do so out of fear of being beaten (a choice made on a future potential event, not a reaction to stimuli) which again clearly demonstrates a state of awareness and understanding of the concept of pain.
It can also choose to follow the scent given to it. "Mechincally" speaking one would think that the dog would be more inclined to follow other scents that it passes while tracking - like food or other dogs, but it can choose to ignore these scents and instead follow the scent given to it, which has no real meaning outside of what importance it has to it's master, which again shows an awareness and understanding of another being's sentience. (and their wants, desires, ect...) Likewise, it could also choose to chase the scent alone or lead it's master along the trail, which again shows a similiar understanding. |
[quote]You're claiming there is some mystical thing that allows the dog not to obey physical laws but instead act in an entirely arbitrary manner? You're stupider than I thought. |
Excuse me?
"physical laws"? 
Oh yeah, dogs are just machines - they have no choice but to do as a human says. 
It's a good thing that humans have souls something unexplainable which makes them different then that. 
And yet my scenarios show that a dog possesses the same sort of awareness, understanding, and analytical abilities that a human does. What does this "mystical" soul really do?
Seriously, adress the scenarios I have made in regards to training an animal that is supposedly unaware, unthinking, and even unsensing. You say that you have demonstrated a Fox feels pain in the same way a robot does (ie. it doesn't), and that a human feels pain differently than either (ie. it does), but all you have done is stated so and offered no explanation. When confronted with any arguments that contradict your statements, you have been unable to respond beyond using the  emote and saying "read what I said!!!"
It's a strange world where a fox is more akin to a chunk of metal and plastic than a fellow mammal.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:18.
Apolyton Time is 00:18. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
20-11-2004 06:12
|