User Controls
We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
-
2018-06-19 at 12:42 PM UTC
-
2018-06-19 at 12:45 PM UTCWhen you mow your grass
The “fresh cut grass smell”
Is actually their way of screaming in pain.
Sweet smelling pain and agony...every 5 days 😎The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-06-19 at 2:13 PM UTC
-
2018-06-19 at 2:42 PM UTC
Originally posted by -SpectraL Reported.
You're still not actually responding to anything relevant to the topic. You'd given up trying to defend your retarded position, which is good, it's just slinking away from the thread instead of simply saying "I was wrong" is pretty much the bitchiest way to do it. -
2018-06-19 at 2:50 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny You're still not actually responding to anything relevant to the topic. You'd given up trying to defend your retarded position, which is good, it's just slinking away from the thread instead of simply saying "I was wrong" is pretty much the bitchiest way to do it.
Hey, kid. My point was that it's morally unproblematic to eat bugs, as they do not feel pain as higher forms of animals do. I provided evidence to backup my point. As for you, all you've done is posted off topic, made threats, made insults, tried to come off as superior, but you haven't contributed a single thing of worth to this thread. So start contributing, or just shut the fuck up. -
2018-06-19 at 2:52 PM UTC
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-06-19 at 2:56 PM UTC
Originally posted by -SpectraL Hey, kid. My point was that it's morally unproblematic to eat bugs, as they do not feel pain as higher forms of animals do. I provided evidence to backup my point.
Which was immediately shown to be untrue. If you want to admit that you were wrong about insects not having a CNS and change your argument to "insects do not have 'pain receptors' within their CNS and thus are not morally considerably" then we can discuss that, but you haven't yet done this. You just stopped posting when I called you out on your lie. Seeing as your argument was predicated on the existence or absence of a CNS in insects and you seem to think this is what makes insects morally considerable or not, this is directly relevant to the topic of the thread. -
2018-06-19 at 3:28 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny Which was immediately shown to be untrue. If you want to admit that you were wrong about insects not having a CNS and change your argument to "insects do not have 'pain receptors' within their CNS and thus are not morally considerably" then we can discuss that, but you haven't yet done this. You just stopped posting when I called you out on your lie. Seeing as your argument was predicated on the existence or absence of a CNS in insects and you seem to think this is what makes insects morally considerable or not, this is directly relevant to the topic of the thread.
The ventral nerve cord in insects is not the same as the spinal cord in humans. This makes a huge difference in how stimuli is interpreted. -
2018-06-19 at 3:34 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny Which was immediately shown to be untrue. If you want to admit that you were wrong about insects not having a CNS and change your argument to "insects do not have 'pain receptors' within their CNS and thus are not morally considerably" then we can discuss that, but you haven't yet done this. You just stopped posting when I called you out on your lie. Seeing as your argument was predicated on the existence or absence of a CNS in insects and you seem to think this is what makes insects morally considerable or not, this is directly relevant to the topic of the thread.
Why do you pick which lifeforms are morally considerable and which lifeforms are not? -
2018-06-19 at 7:12 PM UTC
-
2018-06-19 at 7:14 PM UTC
Originally posted by benny vader insect repellents work by causing discomfort to insects.
But the point is whether those reactions are the result of pain, or merely triggered responses. There's a big difference there. Just because the bug responds dramatically does not directly translate to the bug being either in a state of discomfort or pain. -
2018-06-19 at 7:15 PM UTC
-
2018-06-19 at 7:18 PM UTC
Originally posted by -SpectraL But the point is whether those reactions are the result of pain, or merely triggered responses. There's a big difference there. Just because the bug responds dramatically does not directly translate to the bug being either in a state of discomfort or pain.
then what makes them to go away ????? -
2018-06-19 at 7:46 PM UTC
Originally posted by benny vader then what makes them to go away ?????
Basically, programming. Triggered responses, not emotional responses. Big difference between the two. And when I said insects do not have a central nervous system, I was assuming the context of a human nervous system - in that, in a human, there is an emotional response tied to the makeup of the human central nervous system. The brain and ventral nerve cord of an insect does not have the capability to produce an emotional response, merely a triggered response. For most vegans, it is the animal's suffering which forms the basis of the argument, but in regard to insects, that position breaks down rapidly. -
2018-06-19 at 8:09 PM UTC
Originally posted by -SpectraL Basically, programming. Triggered responses, not emotional responses. Big difference between the two. And when I said insects do not have a central nervous system, I was assuming the context of a human nervous system - in that, in a human, there is an emotional response tied to the makeup of the human central nervous system. The brain and ventral nerve cord of an insect does not have the capability to produce an emotional response, merely a triggered response. For most vegans, it is the animal's suffering which forms the basis of the argument, but in regard to insects, that position breaks down rapidly.
so lets say if i kick your balls.
is that thing your feeling an emotional response of a triggered one ??? -
2018-06-19 at 8:40 PM UTC
-
2018-06-19 at 9:14 PM UTC
-
2018-06-20 at 12:28 AM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe How do you know what does and doesn't have moral consideration?
The easy pure logic answer is that I don't, and nobody can. By default, just based on the limits of human knowledge, everything else could be a P-zombie and from my point of view, I would have zero reason to extend them moral consideration, and I would act like an asshole to everything if I could get away with it. That's the right game theory answer too, and it would maximize your upside relative to your downside. So for example, if I could get away with it every time, I would definitely steal things.
However, I am willing to give things the benefit of the doubt and do my best to infer based on things I do know have moral considerability, chief amongst them being myself. I believe doing so, I give things an (initially) arguably unreasonable amount of consideration (I don't do things I would probably get away with), and give up my ability to maximize my upside relative to my downside, but in exchange, I can minimize my absolute downside.
So for example, instead of trying my best to not get caught stealing, I'll minimize my chances of getting arrested by not stealing at all. I do this to attain safety, which is desirable to me by self interest, and for me this means having the lowest possible absolute downside. Therefore I make the subjective judgement that I am willing to give up some upside in order to minimize my absolute downside, and extend things moral considerability based on some "landmarks" and inferrences, even if I don't know they deserve it 100% for sure. -
2018-06-20 at 12:38 AM UTCNutshell example: if I see a dog sleeping, I could probably kick him if it gives me subjective pleasure, and stomp it to death.
However, if it's cute, then I'll know it's probably not a threat, and the cuteness and the emotional response we have to avoiding hurting cute things might just be an evolutionary marker to tell when an animal is non-threatening. Who knows? But it doesn't give me subjective pleasure, and it would in fact do the opposite, I couldn't live with myself. This appears to me to be because we can tell certain animals are probably nonthreatening and we have some sort of soft "don't kill them" approach for them, where we understand that we can just not fuck with them, or help them, and they'll be fine, they will probably not violate your rights even by their natural impetus, or might even be helpful to you, to have around. It seems plausible that these emotional markers might be a simple way for humans to assess how to handle different people and animals.
I don't know for sure the dog has any level of moral considerability, and maybe it will in fact kill me, even if I avoid it. In this case, I can probably reactively kill it in self defense and not feel bad at all. That seems like a pretty straightforward connection between my emotional response to another living being, and my ability to assess it as a threat to myself. -
2018-06-20 at 4:27 AM UTC
Originally posted by -SpectraL The ventral nerve cord in insects is not the same as the spinal cord in humans. This makes a huge difference in how stimuli is interpreted.
We can discuss wether this is true or not, once you admit that insects do, in fact, have a central nervous system. There's no point in discussion nervous structure if you deny the existence of these animals' CNSs.
Originally posted by Obbe Why do you pick which lifeforms are morally considerable and which lifeforms are not?
I don't and have never claimed toThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
