User Name
Password

Go Back   Planetarion Forums > Non Planetarion Discussions > General Discussions

Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes
Unread 10 Oct 2006, 15:04   #1
CrashTester
I am an idiot
 
CrashTester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,145
CrashTester has a brilliant futureCrashTester has a brilliant futureCrashTester has a brilliant futureCrashTester has a brilliant futureCrashTester has a brilliant futureCrashTester has a brilliant futureCrashTester has a brilliant futureCrashTester has a brilliant futureCrashTester has a brilliant futureCrashTester has a brilliant futureCrashTester has a brilliant future
If Chimps are People too...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/prog...and/tx/chimps/

OK, so if Chimps were indeed to be classed as people too and afforded the same rights as people would it be socially accepable to call them names such as 'monkey' or 'jungle bunny' and make baboon noises at them?
CrashTester is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10 Oct 2006, 18:08   #2
Malice
not the daddy...
 
Malice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Chino Hills, CA.
Posts: 117
Malice is a splendid one to beholdMalice is a splendid one to beholdMalice is a splendid one to beholdMalice is a splendid one to beholdMalice is a splendid one to beholdMalice is a splendid one to beholdMalice is a splendid one to behold
Re: If Chimps are People too...

When a chimp can explain to me the discourse between Jute and Mutt from Joyce's "Finnegans Wake"...I will consider each and every one of them as people.
__________________
Discussions in general...
Malice is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10 Oct 2006, 18:50   #3
dda
USS Oklahoma
 
dda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 2,500
dda has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.dda has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.dda has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.dda has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.dda has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.dda has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.dda has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.dda has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.dda has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.dda has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.dda has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: If Chimps are People too...

A chimp could be a sensation as a Labour candidate.
__________________
Ignorance is curable, stupidity is not.
dda is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10 Oct 2006, 23:54   #4
Apothos
Not Dark or Handsome
Treasure Diver Champion, Alien Commander Champion, Magic Ball Champion
 
Apothos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Cwmbru
Posts: 2,587
Apothos contributes so much and asks for so littleApothos contributes so much and asks for so littleApothos contributes so much and asks for so littleApothos contributes so much and asks for so littleApothos contributes so much and asks for so littleApothos contributes so much and asks for so littleApothos contributes so much and asks for so littleApothos contributes so much and asks for so littleApothos contributes so much and asks for so littleApothos contributes so much and asks for so littleApothos contributes so much and asks for so little
Re: If Chimps are People too...

Look at the spectacular job that one is doing as president of the US! </obvious joke>
__________________
"You can't drink a pint of Bovril."
Apothos is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10 Oct 2006, 23:59   #5
Furious
SpamBot
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Yam Yam land
Posts: 172
Furious will become famous soon enoughFurious will become famous soon enough
Re: If Chimps are People too...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Malice
When a chimp can explain to me the discourse between Jute and Mutt from Joyce's "Finnegans Wake"...I will consider each and every one of them as people.

I feel less human all of a sudden..
__________________
[F-Crew] - You know when you've been [FC]uked

<TomKat> my signature is the greatest on the entire internet
Furious is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11 Oct 2006, 12:18   #6
Alessio
deserves a medal
 
Alessio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,211
Alessio is a pillar of this Internet societyAlessio is a pillar of this Internet societyAlessio is a pillar of this Internet societyAlessio is a pillar of this Internet societyAlessio is a pillar of this Internet societyAlessio is a pillar of this Internet societyAlessio is a pillar of this Internet societyAlessio is a pillar of this Internet societyAlessio is a pillar of this Internet societyAlessio is a pillar of this Internet societyAlessio is a pillar of this Internet society
Re: If Chimps are People too...

If you can have sexual intercourse with the opposite sex,
then a chimp would only be one small step further
__________________
"I have with me two gods, Persuasion and Compulsion."
Alessio is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11 Oct 2006, 12:30   #7
CrashTester
I am an idiot
 
CrashTester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,145
CrashTester has a brilliant futureCrashTester has a brilliant futureCrashTester has a brilliant futureCrashTester has a brilliant futureCrashTester has a brilliant futureCrashTester has a brilliant futureCrashTester has a brilliant futureCrashTester has a brilliant futureCrashTester has a brilliant futureCrashTester has a brilliant futureCrashTester has a brilliant future
Re: If Chimps are People too...

A small step I think Dace has already taken. That boy just keeps breaking through barriers!
CrashTester is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11 Oct 2006, 13:31   #8
Nodrog
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 8,476
Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: If Chimps are People too...

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
i'm rather annoyed i missed this programme.

i think it's immoral not to give them certain rights. but i'm willing to deny them these rights in order to further science/medicine for my own bennefit and for humans i deem worthy of the sacrifice.
my moral stance would change on the merits of each test of course, for instance i wouldn't accept the testing for purposes i deem unworthy.
You'd better make sure that most research labs have your phone number so that theyre able to run their proposed experiments by you first.
Nodrog is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11 Oct 2006, 13:55   #9
gzambo
Fightin-irish for life
 
gzambo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: guinness brewery
Posts: 2,177
gzambo has a brilliant futuregzambo has a brilliant futuregzambo has a brilliant futuregzambo has a brilliant futuregzambo has a brilliant futuregzambo has a brilliant futuregzambo has a brilliant futuregzambo has a brilliant futuregzambo has a brilliant futuregzambo has a brilliant futuregzambo has a brilliant future
Re: If Chimps are People too...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Malice
When a chimp can explain to me the discourse between Jute and Mutt from Joyce's "Finnegans Wake"...I will consider each and every one of them as people.
im screwed i dont know the differance but then i never could start a book by joyce nevermind finish one ,
__________________
Ascendancy, now with added Irish

"In the absence of orders, find something and kill it."
-Rommel
gzambo is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11 Oct 2006, 17:46   #10
Dante Hicks
Clerk
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 13,940
Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: If Chimps are People too...

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
edit: i forgot to mention i'd also be willing to allow the testing on humans without their consent, again under certain circumstances.
Which humans?

Also, this thread title is pretty stupid. I didn't see the program but people need to shut up that "sharing 99% of our DNA" crap.
Dante Hicks is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11 Oct 2006, 19:36   #11
Maladoni
Infrequent
 
Maladoni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 186
Maladoni has much to be proud ofMaladoni has much to be proud ofMaladoni has much to be proud ofMaladoni has much to be proud ofMaladoni has much to be proud ofMaladoni has much to be proud ofMaladoni has much to be proud ofMaladoni has much to be proud of
Re: If Chimps are People too...

Quote:
Originally Posted by CrashTester
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/prog...and/tx/chimps/

OK, so if Chimps were indeed to be classed as people too and afforded the same rights as people would it be socially accepable to call them names such as 'monkey' or 'jungle bunny' and make baboon noises at them?
Do you take the p*** out of French people with a German accent?
__________________
S.H.I.T
Self Harm In Tyneside
Maladoni is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11 Oct 2006, 21:15   #12
_Kila_
break it down!
 
_Kila_'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,087
_Kila_ is a pillar of this Internet society_Kila_ is a pillar of this Internet society_Kila_ is a pillar of this Internet society_Kila_ is a pillar of this Internet society_Kila_ is a pillar of this Internet society_Kila_ is a pillar of this Internet society_Kila_ is a pillar of this Internet society_Kila_ is a pillar of this Internet society_Kila_ is a pillar of this Internet society_Kila_ is a pillar of this Internet society_Kila_ is a pillar of this Internet society
Re: If Chimps are People too...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maladoni
Do you take the p*** out of French people with a German accent?
I know I do.
_Kila_ is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 12 Oct 2006, 09:56   #13
CrashTester
I am an idiot
 
CrashTester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,145
CrashTester has a brilliant futureCrashTester has a brilliant futureCrashTester has a brilliant futureCrashTester has a brilliant futureCrashTester has a brilliant futureCrashTester has a brilliant futureCrashTester has a brilliant futureCrashTester has a brilliant futureCrashTester has a brilliant futureCrashTester has a brilliant futureCrashTester has a brilliant future
Re: If Chimps are People too...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maladoni
Do you take the p*** out of French people with a German accent?

Well f**k me - doesnt everyone???
CrashTester is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 12 Oct 2006, 16:45   #14
Yahwe
I am.
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,580
Yahwe has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Yahwe has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Yahwe has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Yahwe has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Yahwe has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Yahwe has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Yahwe has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Yahwe has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Yahwe has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Yahwe has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Yahwe has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: If Chimps are People too...

Dante's point is presumably that it is extremely silly to use 'percentage of shared genetic code' as the basis for a system of taxonomy
__________________
hi
Yahwe is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 12 Oct 2006, 17:42   #15
milo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,094
milo is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himmilo is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himmilo is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himmilo is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himmilo is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himmilo is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himmilo is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himmilo is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himmilo is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himmilo is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himmilo is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like him
Re: If Chimps are People too...

so basically you want to classify chimps as retarded humans and breed retarded humans...so you can test on them?

what about the reclusive deepwater starfish of outer mongolia? it shares 50% of our dna so shouldn't it be given some rights?

personally we can't make babies with monkeys so i don't consider them human. Im willing to test on those who are able to consent to the test, and although in theory id be willing to test on those that can't consent (because they have no comprehension of it and hence it doesn't matter) i won't do in practise because they may have made their feelings clear before going into a vegetative state, or they may come out of their vegetative state and have to live with the 'results' of testing. Animals can never truly comprehend what we're doing to them so i have no problem with testing on them, any feelings of reluctance on my part anthropomorphic bollocks.
__________________
boobs
milo is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 12 Oct 2006, 18:59   #16
milo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,094
milo is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himmilo is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himmilo is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himmilo is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himmilo is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himmilo is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himmilo is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himmilo is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himmilo is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himmilo is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himmilo is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like him
Re: If Chimps are People too...

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
neither do i. it might be worth pointing out that not all humans can make babies either though.
We were talking on a species level.


Quote:
i can't say i'd particularly care about the views held by a non existent being (lolz god), although i wouldn't consider it a very nice thing to tell someone who held such rubbish views that i was going to do it anyway. it might be a bit stressful for them :/
I have absolutely no idea how this was meant to counter my point. I wouldn't object to testing on those who can't consent because the comprehension that comes with consent wouldn't be present. To give a related example; sexually abusing a newly born baby is not worse than raping a 25 year old woman, neither is abortion worse than capital punishment.

Quote:
well they probably won't be able to write a concise antithesis to your point when you put this point to them, but surely there are lesser levels of comprehension, forinstance the kind of comprehension a chav might offer. i guess i'll need to ask you how you define comprehend. it appears fear and distress to the action you're making isn't enough, you put that down to anthropomorphis in your next point.
If animals were able to communicate to a suffecient level id be willing to 'talk' to them. Id apply a test similar to this

Quote:
p.s would you torture dogs and chimps if it made a tastey drink at the end of it? i mean torture like stabbing in the eye, acid baths, burning alive, beating, decapitating etc. AFTER ALL THEY HAVE NO SOUL LOL
yes! aside from foie gras the conditions in factory farms for hens are apparently 'unpleasant' i couldn't give a damn as long as they taste good. If it affects their taste its obviously a bad thing.
__________________
boobs
milo is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 12 Oct 2006, 19:51   #17
MrL_JaKiri
The Twilight of the Gods
 
MrL_JaKiri's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 23,481
MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: If Chimps are People too...

Quote:
Originally Posted by yahwe
Dante's point is presumably that it is extremely silly to use 'percentage of shared genetic code' as the basis for a system of taxonomy
Except it isn't; phylogeny increasingly uses genetic methods instead of traditional methods, such as cladistics. There's still some problems, of course; the seperation of the arthropods into distinct groups is controversial, with genetic evidence disagreeing with other kinds.

The problem is, and always has been, that people don't realise how much 1% difference actually means.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
would you torture dogs and chimps if it made a tastey drink at the end of it? i mean torture like stabbing in the eye, acid baths, burning alive, beating, decapitating etc. AFTER ALL THEY HAVE NO SOUL LOL
I wouldn't, I wouldn't object to other people doing it though.
MrL_JaKiri is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 12 Oct 2006, 19:51   #18
Dante Hicks
Clerk
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 13,940
Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: If Chimps are People too...

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
well they probably won't be able to write a concise antithesis to your point when you put this point to them, but surely there are lesser levels of comprehension, forinstance the kind of comprehension a chav might offer.
The difference is reflection. An animal can sense pain in a manner quite similar to us I'm sure, but there does not seem to be any evidence they can reflect on this pain in the same way that any human being can (who isn't brain dead or whatnot). It seems likely that we only have this ability to reflect because of the relatively rapid (in evolutionary terms) brain growth which accompanied our switch to a meat centred diet -which also was probably the same period for language development and drastically increased abilities in abstract reasoning and the like. Given that these processes all developed at roughly the same time it's quite probable they are linked (historically in terms of development and cognitively in terms of function).

Talking about testing on human retards is misleading because even if we had vast number of heavily brain damaged people sitting about to pour acid on (whose bodies were otherwise healthy through some miracle) we would find considerable difficulties when dealing with the living relatives of these people. The reason we treat the dead with respect is (partially) because we don't want to piss off their grieving relatives who are likely to sue us or beat us up.

As for growing human beings who cannot think or who have tailor made cognitive capacities and healthy bodies, I am not aware we have these capacities in a reliable fashion and if we're fantasising why don't we just develop warp drives so we can get these cures from the Vulcans ahead of schedule?

Even if we could grow human bodies in such a fashion it sounds like a rather expensive endeavour even for people with as deep pockets as our beloved drug companies.
[quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
p.s would you torture dogs and chimps if it made a tastey drink at the end of it? i mean torture like stabbing in the eye, acid baths, burning alive, beating, decapitating etc. AFTER ALL THEY HAVE NO SOUL LOL
No I wouldn't for the same reason I don't squeeze oranges to make orange juice; I am lazy and there is easier ways of getting a drink. Like MrL I wouldn't mind others doing it though.
Dante Hicks is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 13 Oct 2006, 07:07   #19
JonnyBGood
Banned
 
JonnyBGood's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: If Chimps are People too...

We share 85% of our DNA with mice. Ergo a fully grown mouse is equivalent to a 16 year old. Quod erat demonstrandum.
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
JonnyBGood is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 13 Oct 2006, 07:28   #20
Alessio
deserves a medal
 
Alessio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,211
Alessio is a pillar of this Internet societyAlessio is a pillar of this Internet societyAlessio is a pillar of this Internet societyAlessio is a pillar of this Internet societyAlessio is a pillar of this Internet societyAlessio is a pillar of this Internet societyAlessio is a pillar of this Internet societyAlessio is a pillar of this Internet societyAlessio is a pillar of this Internet societyAlessio is a pillar of this Internet societyAlessio is a pillar of this Internet society
Re: If Chimps are People too...

Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyBGood
We share 85% of our DNA with mice. Ergo a fully grown mouse is equivalent to a 16 year old. Quod erat demonstrandum.
A 16 year old kid consists of human DNA for a full 100%.. not 85%
__________________
"I have with me two gods, Persuasion and Compulsion."
Alessio is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 13 Oct 2006, 07:30   #21
JonnyBGood
Banned
 
JonnyBGood's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: If Chimps are People too...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alessio
A 16 year old kid consists of human DNA for a full 100%.. not 85%
You are, without a doubt, an idiot.
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
JonnyBGood is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 13 Oct 2006, 07:45   #22
Alessio
deserves a medal
 
Alessio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,211
Alessio is a pillar of this Internet societyAlessio is a pillar of this Internet societyAlessio is a pillar of this Internet societyAlessio is a pillar of this Internet societyAlessio is a pillar of this Internet societyAlessio is a pillar of this Internet societyAlessio is a pillar of this Internet societyAlessio is a pillar of this Internet societyAlessio is a pillar of this Internet societyAlessio is a pillar of this Internet societyAlessio is a pillar of this Internet society
Re: If Chimps are People too...

Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyBGood
You are, without a doubt, an idiot.
I love you too <3
__________________
"I have with me two gods, Persuasion and Compulsion."
Alessio is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 13 Oct 2006, 11:17   #23
CrashTester
I am an idiot
 
CrashTester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,145
CrashTester has a brilliant futureCrashTester has a brilliant futureCrashTester has a brilliant futureCrashTester has a brilliant futureCrashTester has a brilliant futureCrashTester has a brilliant futureCrashTester has a brilliant futureCrashTester has a brilliant futureCrashTester has a brilliant futureCrashTester has a brilliant futureCrashTester has a brilliant future
Re: If Chimps are People too...

Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyBGood
We share 85% of our DNA with mice. Ergo a fully grown mouse is equivalent to a 16 year old. Quod erat demonstrandum.

Whats you point dude? Ive been to disney world and after seeing Mickey and Minnie I'd say that are better than a 16 year old.
CrashTester is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 13 Oct 2006, 13:11   #24
JonnyBGood
Banned
 
JonnyBGood's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: If Chimps are People too...

Quote:
Originally Posted by CrashTester
Whats you point dude? Ive been to disney world and after seeing Mickey and Minnie I'd say that are better than a 16 year old.
I dunno I thought I was going to go with A=A but then I just thought the hell with it and went for A=B and although I wasn't too sure at the time I think it's worked out well in retrospect.
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
JonnyBGood is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 16 Oct 2006, 19:10   #25
MrL_JaKiri
The Twilight of the Gods
 
MrL_JaKiri's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 23,481
MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: If Chimps are People too...

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
so reproduction is a superfluous issue?
No, but the comparison you made is. There's a significant difference between "This can never takes place" and "This sometimes doesn't take place". And similar arguments to the rest of the post, yadda yadda.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
sn't it the kind of gut wrenching feeling you get when you see someone beating the shit out of a dog that makes you question previous moral paradigms that seemed to fit so well?
Just because I don't like something doesn't mean that the moral framework that allows something is wrong. People have "gut reactions" against homosexuals, against black people, against science. My "gut reactions" are no more important than another person's.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
hopefully with time that will change.
Why?
MrL_JaKiri is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 16 Oct 2006, 19:28   #26
MrL_JaKiri
The Twilight of the Gods
 
MrL_JaKiri's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 23,481
MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: If Chimps are People too...

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
because some fantasies are more viable than others. the gist i get from most articles written on stem cell research and such is that the main restraint is not scientific/engineering ability, it's legislation and lack of funding.
And scientific ethics. Furthermore, what's involved in stem cell research is not really the same as creating full grown, but brainless, humans.

That's what television is for.
MrL_JaKiri is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 16 Oct 2006, 21:29   #27
Maladoni
Infrequent
 
Maladoni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 186
Maladoni has much to be proud ofMaladoni has much to be proud ofMaladoni has much to be proud ofMaladoni has much to be proud ofMaladoni has much to be proud ofMaladoni has much to be proud ofMaladoni has much to be proud ofMaladoni has much to be proud of
Re: If Chimps are People too...

My head hurts.
__________________
S.H.I.T
Self Harm In Tyneside
Maladoni is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 18 Oct 2006, 16:24   #28
JammyJim
Godfather
 
JammyJim's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: England
Posts: 5,185
JammyJim has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JammyJim has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JammyJim has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JammyJim has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JammyJim has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JammyJim has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JammyJim has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JammyJim has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JammyJim has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JammyJim has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JammyJim has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: If Chimps are People too...

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
i'm rather annoyed i missed this programme.

i think it's immoral not to give them certain rights. but i'm willing to deny them these rights in order to further science/medicine for my own bennefit and for humans i deem worthy of the sacrifice.
my moral stance would change on the merits of each test of course, for instance i wouldn't accept the testing for purposes i deem unworthy.

edit: i forgot to mention i'd also be willing to allow the testing on humans without their consent, again under certain circumstances.

Its on uknova if you wish to get it. Google for it. Theres also a signup script somewhere to avoid the awful 'omg i have to wait for someone to be deleted before i can signup' crapola they do.
__________________
Forum Administrator
Mail : [email protected] // IRC : #forums
__________________
It's not personal, it's just business.
JammyJim is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 18 Oct 2006, 16:39   #29
All Systems Go
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: London
Posts: 3,347
All Systems Go has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.All Systems Go has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.All Systems Go has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.All Systems Go has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.All Systems Go has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.All Systems Go has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.All Systems Go has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.All Systems Go has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.All Systems Go has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.All Systems Go has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.All Systems Go has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: If Chimps are People too...

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
i don't have a pc jj
You still living in the gym?
__________________
The 20th century has been characterised by three developments of great political importance. The growth of democracy; the growth of corporate power; and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy.
All Systems Go is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 18 Oct 2006, 21:43   #30
MrL_JaKiri
The Twilight of the Gods
 
MrL_JaKiri's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 23,481
MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: If Chimps are People too...

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
sure, but if we accept that there are no real objective moral values
Which there aren't, yes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
what else does an attempt to map out a moral framework aim for?
An extension of the concept of "human rights" does reasonably well, with conflicts being decided by favouring the one which reduces rights less. For example, stopping murder because the right of someone to commit a murder is somewhat lesser than the right of someone to do anything at all. This also has the side effect of being much more situational than current laws; thou shalt not steal is all well and good, but there's a significant difference in the level of criminality between a poor person stealing food to eat, and a rich person stealing diamonds to test out their new diamond crushing machine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
the ones i've heard of generally venture to fit (in a logical fashion), "gut feelings", whether they be that happiness is good, deceit is bad, as is ending another's life and so on...
Happiness is a very hard thing to actually define, so it's not really relevent. And you can be opposed to murder in a completely abstract, non-""gut feeling"" way. I couldn't really give a damn about most of the random people walking around me in society, yet I'd still support their right to not get murdered.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
if we don't use these "gut feelings" as a guide then we might aswell focus on the most ergonomic technique for buttering toast and simply label it a "moral code".
Ignoring the false dichotomy, sure. You can use that as a basis for a moral code all you like. There's nothing "wrong" with that at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
in the thread so far we have all accepted the (supposed) truism that it is wrong to inflict "unnecessary pain", and indeed to test on another human being (ignoring those with severe brain damage etc). this in itself has crossed the is-ought gap and outside of a validification using a social contract* has no real justification other than "it just seems wrong".
Putting to one side the gibberish that makes up most of this, there are quite a few reasons that, off the top of my head, are valid ones for opposing the causing of pain in humans.

The fact it's our own species, is one.
The fact that humans are unique in showing such an advanced level of cognitive capacity, is another.
The fact that the sky is blue, is a third.

Moral arguments do not need justification. They do not need argument. If I say something (such as, say, putting butter on ham sandwiches) is anathema, axiomically, to my moral code, then you have no argument other than that you consider me to be lying, which even you can probably see isn't really very constructive. Morality has no abstract to it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
I'd argue that because the dichotomy offered by dante and i assume yourself and milo between humans and (what appears to be) all other animals is unclear and poorly defined
Lets just do it by relative brain size, that's a trivial one. Or a species-wide capacity for smartness or whatever.

There are an enormous number of things in biology that are unclear and poorly defined. Species, for example. Life. Evolutionary mechanisms.

The fact that humans are smarter than other creatures is not among them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
ergo we shouldn't entirely dismiss that little twinge in our minds that says "i'm not sure i feel too good about cooking this chimp alive in an oven when just a second ago it was playing with me with what seemed a higher degree of intelligence than my 6 month year old nephew".
Evolutionary artifact, like yawning causing other people to yawn and the way that fatty things taste nice. Hardly something to base a system of ethics upon.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
because i like neuroscience
Not sure how this is relevent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
(and don't like the idea of people needlessley torturing animals, particularly those with larger brains)
I don't like the idea of people endlessly quoting tired internet memes, doesn't mean I'd ban it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
i sort of bundled scientific ethics in with legislation.
No you didn't. Furthermore, when and if you reply to this, you should bear in mind that the full stop at the end of the previous sentence has all possible counterarguments to your points bundled in with it.

You can't tell this of course, but you're fairly experienced at reading what isn't there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
and of course stem cell research is hardly the only field of science that will lead to the kind of technology needed.
So we don't actually have the technology needed NOW? Surely, sir, you jest, as this is somewhat opposed in viewpoint to:

"because some fantasies are more viable than others. the gist i get from most articles written on stem cell research and such is that the main restraint is not scientific/engineering ability, it's legislation and lack of funding."

which you posted earlier on this very topic, and which is what I was replying to!
MrL_JaKiri is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 19 Oct 2006, 13:36   #31
Dante Hicks
Clerk
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 13,940
Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: If Chimps are People too...

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
what do you mean by reflection? they can certainly remember it... indeed they can be shown to learn from it. do you mean they can't experience the mental anguish of thinking they deserved the punishment?
I mean they can't mentally reflect on it. Or at least, I've seen no evidence. I'm not talking about "remembering" something - that seems fairly trivial - a log file is evidence of memory in some sense. I suppose I'm using reflection in the same sense Dennett uses the term second order introspection.
Quote:
because some fantasies are more viable than others. the gist i get from most articles written on stem cell research and such is that the main restraint is not scientific/engineering ability, it's legislation and lack of funding.
in relation to our ability at this moment in time. i "think" we can actually :/
I'm pretty sure we cannot grow full humans without functioning brains. Yes, some religious and ethical concerns are probably slowing research but this is not the same as saying if the Christian right in America collapsed tomorrow we'd have clones by next Thursday. Feel free to provide evidence to the contrary of course.

Even if we could make non-thinking humans, it's not really clear that all drugs would be better tested on them than on chimps (say). The interaction of the mind and the body isn't very well understood at all, and so the random bits of the bind you're turning off (again, I'm not sure this would be trivial to achieve anyway) might have effects on the use of the drugs.

Overall this is a bit of a silly argument. The choice (right now, as MrL emphasises) is in some cases testing on mammals or not testing at all (or having to move towards the human stage of clinical trials prematurely). We don't have a clone army to test on. If and when we do (and we need no added incentive in this area - "spare parts" would be more than enough reward) then the debate will be different. Similarly, if someone works out a way to model these sorts of things on a computer reliably then there'll be no need for clinical tests at all (well, maybe).
Quote:
isn't it the kind of gut wrenching feeling you get when you see someone beating the shit out of a dog that makes you question previous moral paradigms that seemed to fit so well?
On top of what MrL has already said on this topic I don't experience this reaction very strongly. Normally though these are just normal feelings of human empathy bleeding onto other subjects. As I've said previously, I once had a teacher who used to get strangely upset if books were mishandled, and even now (due to her influence) I still flinch if someone drops a book awkwardly on its "spine". I'd imagine most of the (fairly ridiculous in this country) animal empathy a lot of people seem to experience is cultural.

Our entire culture reeks of anthromorphism and from an early age we're taught to name individual animals, speak to them as if they could understand, that animals "love" us if we love them and so on. Hell, popular television programs and movies feature talking animals facing complex moral dilemmas, etc. In such an environment I'm not surprised that people experience "gut wrenching" feelings if they see someone beating a dog. To return to my book analogy, I'm sure in Saudi Arabia people would experience a gut wrenching reaction if someone burnt a copy of the Koran publicly - but so what?
Quote:
normally it's the seemingly logical "well that could be me in that position", feeling that forces you to rethink. unfortunately with animals, a lacking neuroscience allows you to dismiss this feeling as nonsense. hopefully with time that will change.
A lacking neuroscience? Lacking what? I'm not really sure what neuroscience could show us. Cognitive science or behavioural research would seem to be the key fields here. If aliens (or robots) were introduced to us who clearly demonstrated what I'd term intelligent behaviour then I wouldn't care if their brains were different to ours, or if they shared 0% of our DNA or were made of silicon not carbon or whatever else.

On balance, I don't really see the need for a lot of what others would term "animal cruelty" - if only because it seems to upset a great many people. So while I have some liberty objections to cruelty laws I'm not overly bothered with them. However, when the possible risk to reducing animal "cruelty" is an increase risk to human subjects of clinical trials, or worse still a reduction in the advancement of medical science then I'm going to have to insist on a much stronger argument than the queasy stomaches of a few white affluent liberals.
Dante Hicks is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 19 Oct 2006, 17:31   #32
MrL_JaKiri
The Twilight of the Gods
 
MrL_JaKiri's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 23,481
MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: If Chimps are People too...

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
what rights would they involve and who would decide what they are?
The right to do anything you please unless you impinge on someone else's right to do whatever they please.

If such things collide, then there's a deathmatch where the rights compete with the other against each other in a competitive cross-team one-on-one double challenge face-off round against one another.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
saying someones right is "lesser" than someone elses right is imposing a seemingly ungrounded moral assertion on an otherwise "objective" rights market equity.
You're trying to be clever but you're really not succeeding.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
let's take a less extreme example than what you've given to highlight the problem. let's say someone wants to punch someone else. which rights are being subdued and which ones utilized? which is the greater and which is the lesser?
I can get into this if you really want, but it'll take a reasonable amount of text to get the chain of thought across.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
it seems like a similar problem posed with measuring happiness which you label "irrelevent" because of such a flaw later on in this post.
I could spend the day in a foul mood because I burned my tongue on my morning tea, thus affecting everyone else's happiness. This doesn't seem, to me, to be a good basis for a system of governance or morality.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
let's define it as a relative increase to the original level of serotonin/noradrenaline/dopamine/endorphins etc.
If you like. Again, I think this would be impractical, but that's not really the point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
ok. maybe you could give a reason for why this is...
This being the murdered or the right to not get murdered?

The latter is because I consider, on an intellectual level, it to be true that people should be as free as possible (in the general arm-wavey american constitution definition of freedom, which I can clarify further if you so desire).

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
what part didn't make sense to you?
It all made sense, it was just put together in a way which tried its hardest not to.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
ok and i'm going to oppose causing pain to those of aryan desent, because i've got blue eyes and fair (ginger ) hair. i mean not very ginger, more like strawberry blonde actually. infact with gel it looks brown so let's just call it dirty blonde. rock&roll yo
If you want. I'm not really sure what kind of reaction you're trying to produce with this, other than waving national socialism about in an attempt to make me contradict my earlier statements.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
ok so if advanced cognitive capacity is the value by which we assign moral worth, or to be more precise the protection from pain/testing then is it relative or have you assigned a cut off point? for instance, exactly what cognitive capacity is required before you deem them worthy of protection?
Maybe you should ask someone who believes it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
maybe not to you, but i find when trying to convince others your plan is a good one, it certainly helps.
That's an entirely different matter. I don't need special equipment to breathe; I do need special equipment to breathe on the moon.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
first off, what do you mean "even you"? i can't quite work out how intentionaly insulting you're meant to be
Quite a lot. I think you're an utter idiot.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
anyway, i can not only call you a liar, i can also call you confused.
You can call me a gang of elk, it doesn't make it a reasonable point of argument.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
not that it matters, you seem to be reiterating my buttered toast point.
I would hardly call it a point; on one level it's like shouting "You believe 1+1 is 2!" as a counterargument to some piece of mathematics. On another, the one where I suppose you put forward the case that things are either based on ""gut reactions"" or nonsense doesn't really get you anywhere because you're ignoring the capabilities of the large squishy thing between one's ears.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
it seems ironic to suggest administering rights to a species based on it's collective* capacity for "smartness", and in the next sentence concede that species is one of the things in biology that is unclear and poorly defined?
Not really, the definition of "species" tends to be fairly nebulous only in areas which aren't those which we're talking about. Nigh on every definition you choose would result in humans being classed as a species.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
anyway, if "smartness" (and let's ignore the problem with definition and pretend it is a universally quantifiable factor) is the factor by which we assign moral worth... "then is it relative or have you assigned a cut off point?
Lets have the capacity, as a species, for the production of egg custard tarts. It really doesn't matter how or even if you draw a or the line on something that's almost axiomically true; stick someone of average intellect against an average member of any other species in a series of abstract tests and the human will win.

When we meet an intelligent species other than our own, then we can start debating this otherwise moot point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
"you can be opposed to murder of certain animals in a completely abstract, non-"gut feeling" way. I couldn't really give a damn about most of the random chimps walking around in africa, yet I'd still support their right to not get murdered."
Fine, but that wasn't what the point was about, you know. You said "ergo we shouldn't entirely dismiss that little twinge in our minds that says "i'm not sure i feel too good about cooking this chimp alive (blah)". I said that this was an evolutionary artifact, you can't then say that you meant to imply in what you said, especially given the context in which it appears, that this was a considered non-emotional response?

You said, earlier, you were pondering the issue of being insulted. You know why I insult you? Because you deserve it you idiot. If you don't want to get insulted stop changing what you think you're talking about with every reply.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
and i don't like the idea of people killing other people but that doesn't mean i'd.... oh no wait
Well, there you are then.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
i'm not so sure i should have bothered now. it appears you know what i mean better than i do.
SWEET EGO DUDE!
Whenever I read your posts, I wonder why I'm bothering. I refer you to the Reverend Charles Dodgeson:

If you cannot say what you mean, you cannot mean what you say.

You never say what you mean. Yes, I do understand what you mean better, because you don't seem to have any comprehension of what you say.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
anyway. yes. yes i did. to my mind most "scientific ethics" is legislated


, at least that's what i was taught during my A-level biology/psychology classes. if it was wrong, i don't really care, it's one of those pointless tangents i don't particularly care about.


Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
post less crap like this please you belligerent twat
I will when you stop demanding by your every useless post that I continue.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
WHAT A COCK UP LOL!!
Generally, it seems a good idea, when putting forward a collected series of statements, to have logical consistency so that an argument may be forthcoming. You just like to run around and drool on everyone until you evacuate your body of fluids.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
to my mind stem cell research is the main man.
In many ways it is. It wasn't what you were arguing though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
we may well need other technology,
To create brainless, but otherwise identical, humans? Of course not, all you need is a rubber band and some putty.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
**unless you're asserting that whatever moral whim you chose is to decide which rights take precedent over others aka the buttered toast dillemma !
There is no other incident of ** in your post.


As an aside, do you seriously believe that you're in any way putting forward a cogent line of thought? That you are expressing yourself well?
MrL_JaKiri is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 20 Oct 2006, 22:40   #33
MrL_JaKiri
The Twilight of the Gods
 
MrL_JaKiri's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 23,481
MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: If Chimps are People too...

The Austrian national anthem is for girls. The germans should show them how to make an anthem with some chest hair.

[edit]

Wait, no insult!

Piss off, ****face!
MrL_JaKiri is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 20 Oct 2006, 23:38   #34
MrL_JaKiri
The Twilight of the Gods
 
MrL_JaKiri's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 23,481
MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: If Chimps are People too...

Reply to Dante's post first, old chap. He must be positively straining to rejoin this discussion on tech intermaweb.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
get over yourself please. finding a flaw in your argument isn't tantamount to someone "trying but not succeeding" to be intelligent. i can't believe you actually typed this.
That wasn't a flaw in my argument, that was a load of meaningless pretentious bollocks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
i can't say i desperately want to read anything you have to say but i've given up hoping you'll stop replying so go ahead...
If you want me to stop replying, why do you continue to do so yourself? I'm terribly confused as to what your goals are.

Anyway!

There are some things which are rather core to the human experience. Being alive, for example. As I've said previously, someone's right to be alive somewhat overrules someone else's right to throw custard pies at someone.

With that as a basis, you can then go on to describe a greater system of comparisons. What rights are exmployed by punching someone in the face that can't be performed otherwise? (I of course refer to things such as the right to move one's arms and fingers, and that kind of whatnot.) Surely only the actual right to perform the act of punching someone in the face?

What result does this cause in the person punched? It's highly likely that they will be injured in some way, and injury, or rather its lack, is firmly linked to such things as being alive. Next step down, as it were; injuries tend to stop people doing things they could do otherwise (such as a knee injury stopping someone from rowing, or playing football) which would suggest that a high probability of causing one is A Bad Thing, and therefore overrules ones right to be able to do one sort of thing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
i think you're missing the point. i'm not necessarily suggesting it would be a good basis for a system of governance or morality. i'm suggesting the argument you gave for dismissing it as such is a problem for your own moral code.
I disagree. But then I hold my moral code, so I would say that wouldn't I.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
ok cool. i'd prescribe that same intellectual altruism to animals.
So your system of morality would include them. How many times do I have to say this before you stop pursuing this line?

"Well, as I said earlier all forms of morality are equally valid in an abstract sense, EXCEPT HORN'S BECAUSE HE'S A BIG FAG oh crap I've lost the argument!"

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
the kind that makes you think/realise that supporting the rights only of those "beings" similar to you is not a morally sound position. UNLESS YOU'RE A NAZI !
I hope I don't have to wear those boots, my knees have enough problems as it is.

Anyway, you seemed to have most of the threat wizzing over your head when you said "not a morally sound position"; morally sound positions are relative at best.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
so i guess this is where you point out i've read into something that isn't there again and reel off about how i don't know what i'm talking about?
ok well i'm going to have to ask you to make it as clear as possible, because when you said,
"...reasons that, off the top of my head, are valid ones for opposing the causing of pain in humans [....] The fact that humans are unique in showing such an advanced level of cognitive capacity." i thought you meant that one reason for opposing the causing of pain in humans was because of their advanced level of cognitive capacity.
where did i go wrong o fount of knowledge?
I also said that the sky being blue was a valid reason. That line of argument was based around the proof that any line of moral reasoning was valid, not that I hold them all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
no i'm not. i haven't suggested we act on gut reactions without subjecting them to reason, as i made quite clear in my first reply to you... "which is why we should probably add a caveat of subjecting these "gut feelings" to rational thought/analysis before giving them all equel precedent.", for instance.
I'd say that, even with a vetting process, things that are exclusively formed from gut reactions are based on gut reactions. My PC's based on an Intel Processor, the fact that I applied rational thought and analysis to it before choosing it doesn't change that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
it just seems strange to take the defining, exclusive characteristic ("advanced" cognitive capacity) and then apply what moral worth you think it should grant to an inclusive tag i.e. the human "species"
And it seems strange to me to care that much about animals. Stalemate!

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
yeah i'm not sure i'd go along with that. i've never seen an intelligence test that definitively measured "intelligence", let alone your moral worth.
Most people who read (or at least, comprehend) this wonderful community of ours would probably tell you that I'm one of the most vocal opponents of the concept of a catch-all test for intelligence, and the ability to quantify it.

This is, of course, completely consistent with what you are replying to. The person who introduced these factors which you are arguing against was... you. In the section of test I am quoting. Strawman, the people cry.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
i'm also fairly certain a chimp could beat a baby in whatever test it was you had in mind.
You must have a very low opinion of humans (as well as very high opinions of chimps; the main comparison of the two has been done, thus far, in terms of the ability to learn language, and most chimps have as much capacity as even the most stupid, yet still statistically significant, human child) if you think that a human child represents some kind of median intellect in this populace.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
i was highlighting how your argument for attributing moral worth to humans can be used to attribute it to animals too.
You appear to have missed that that wasn't an argument; it was a statement of position, and its use in argument was entirely down to context. A context you removed. Anyway, ignoring that:

No. Afraid not. "Logical arguments" aren't twinges while we do something, that's what I said it was.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
(hence the quotation marks)
You use quotation marks also whenever you do one of your oh so clever parodies of what I was saying. As the remark replied to was definitely of that nature, I think the onus falls upon you to make more distinctive idiomatic markers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
i find it incredibly hard/impossible to deconstruct and then differenciate between feelings/beliefs/ideas that are born from "abstract"/rational thought and those "infected" with evolutionary artefacts/ cultural memes.
Try reading about it, it may help to distinguish.

On a more relevent level, something being rooted in evolution doesn't mean it's wrong, it just means that it's not an axiomic argument for it being logically correct.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
not because i lack the faculties to analyze my thoughts, but because it's hopelessley subjective. obviously you don't share this humility in your intellectual ability, but then i rate your intelligence a lot lower than you do.
I am well aware of my limitations. Perhaps you should start targeting yourself with these lower expectations, and not just me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
no i just don't assume i'm trying to explain to a two year old foreign kid with a god complex.
Now, the two year old and the god complex bits I can understand as relevent insults, but "foreign"?

Unless of course you're not English, in which case we would be relative foreigners to eachother. Although that then raises the question of why not being English is advantageous in an argument conducted in English. Terribly confusing, what what.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
you refuse to infer anything at all
I don't refuse to infer anything, it's just that, as you have shown time and time again, inferences that are made about people you don't know don't really have any value, as they can't be relied upon. As I have said previously, I count it as a matter of courtesy to actually argue against what is down there on the page.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
and miscontrue your ability to out pedant and outlast someone you're debating with as some kind of worthwhile victory.
If you think that arguing with you makes me consider anything gained out of it a victory then you are clearly mistaken, unless you consider me a worshiper at the altar of wasting time for wasting time's sake.

Be that as it may, my Lewis Carroll quotation still stands, and to my mind at least I have been providing relevent logical steps down the path of understanding, when the situation dictates. Mayhaps you should consider that I am limited in the amount of argument I can perform when presented with such meagre pickings to reply to?

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
i'm not demanding you act like a belligerent twat. i don't even want you to talk to me dickface.
Which makes your continual replies to me rather confusing. Surely, even if you believed the two year old foreign god thing from earlier, basic pattern recognition would demonstrate that when someone replies to one of my posts I will answer?

Again, we're into what i consider courtesy and you consider nonsense. Perhaps you swing doors in the faces of old ladies as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
i would like to see legislation relaxed and funding increased in the areas of science/engineering that will hopefully produce the breakthroughs necessary to create humans that feel no pain but are simutaneously more charming than mrl_jakiri.
Ignoring the extent to which I partially agree with you (I'd like to see more funding and relaxed legislation for all the sciences, although not to any particular end; blue sky research is much more interesting) I feel that you've raised an interesting point here in terms of the social abilities of people being rooted in their ability to understand negative consequences. Obivously direct pain is only one of these, and any faux pas that a youngester with no shame might commit would go effectively unpunished if said youngester did not relate to the concept of punishment at all. However that assumes that "charm" is an acquired quality: certainly it's a function of things like self-confidence, but are those really things which would be suppressed in an unpunishable child? This deserves more study.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
that's really funny dickhead. so anyway, you haven't actually offered me any reasons to believe it is any less of a likely technological development
Less likely than what? Comparatives are meaningless in isolation.

In any case, that's not what I said, and it's not what you said; you said that they may well need additional technologies. I put it to you that the highly publicised failure of cloning on anything non-vegetative (that is, something which doesn't just keep continually growing, like a plant; something that has x many cells for function y and NO MORE) is sufficient to demonstrate our lack of ability to even copy, let alone manipulate, the genetic code with sufficient precision to allow you to create humans that were lacking a given organ.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
yeah. maybe i'll just wait for you to show why i'm wrong before i consider otherwise.
Oh, but I have. Many times. As I have pointed out in this very post, you do tend to either misread or ignore things.
MrL_JaKiri is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 31 Oct 2006, 15:45   #35
Dante Hicks
Clerk
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 13,940
Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: If Chimps are People too...

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
no but it'd probably hurry the process along a fair amount. the fact that it isn't available right now isn't much of an argument for preventing research into the area.
Neither myself nor MrL are advocating preventing research in stem cells (etc) and so I'm baffled why you keep trying to imply that we are. Go and argue with some evangelical Christians if you want to have that argument.
Quote:
so when someone tortures thousands of chimps in the name of better eye liner i'm not going to pretend it's ok.
I feel pretty safe saying that never happens anyway so you've got nothing to worry about. It'd almost certainly be illegal in the UK (not to mention staggeringly uneconomic to do anyway). Cosmetic testing on animals is already pretty rare (especially primates) in the UK (aside from some exceptional cases) thanks to the way the Home Office distribute licences for experimentation. And while I object to restrictions on animal testing on principle, as someone who rarely uses make-up, I don't care that much. But why the hell are we testing make-up anyway?

One of the issues about capitalism is that they'll never stop trying to make new flavours of shampoo. I'm not even talking about actual enhancements in "hair technology" to cure gingerism or some other disability, but just randomly putting new smells in to something to generate market interest. I'm not sure such behaviour would exist under alternative social arrangements, but beyond that I'm disinterested. Your emotional reactions aside (which as we've established, only occur when you witness the act anyway) what's the problem? Who is forcing you to watch animal cruelty? And why haven't you reported them to the police?
Dante Hicks is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 1 Nov 2006, 02:19   #36
Maladoni
Infrequent
 
Maladoni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 186
Maladoni has much to be proud ofMaladoni has much to be proud ofMaladoni has much to be proud ofMaladoni has much to be proud ofMaladoni has much to be proud ofMaladoni has much to be proud ofMaladoni has much to be proud ofMaladoni has much to be proud of
Re: If Chimps are People too...

I can see it clearly in my head. Row after row of us sitting at terminals with probes in our heads. All our thoughts are being fed into an AI simulator. There is a big screen made out of banana leaves, and behind it, falling about laughing are the head monkeys from the Barbaric Being Charity.

We aren’t even scratching the surface.
__________________
S.H.I.T
Self Harm In Tyneside
Maladoni is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 2 Nov 2006, 00:39   #37
MrL_JaKiri
The Twilight of the Gods
 
MrL_JaKiri's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 23,481
MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: If Chimps are People too...

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
that's an excellent point jakiri. i stand corrected!
Excellent. We have equinimity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
they may not want to employ the right of simply moving their fingers just anywhere, they may want to employ the right of moving their fingers in a particular fashion that will result in punching someone in the face, i.e. in that particular space at that particular time.
Shockingly, I covered this when I said that they were using the right to punch someone in the face. You know, in the bit you quoted. In the bit you quoted and replied to just there. The bit that you quoted and replied to with something that was contained within the bit you quoted.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
ok let's say a firm slap, something that will really sting but not cause any injury. maybe we could even film it a put it on youtube to humiliate them, nothing remotely life threatening about that...
You know when I never said that the injury had to be life threatening? You know the bit where I specifically said the opposite?

Judging from your reply, you clearly don't. Even though you quoted the section in which I said it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
what if it's a boxing match?
Then you'll have agreed to it. A person has control over their own rights, they're allowed to do (or have done) to themselves whatever they like.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
what if the punch will result in saving millions of lives?
Going off on a tangent for a second, you can't counterargue anything of this nature by choosing extreme examples. It's on an intellectual level with "Are you a fag?" "No." "What if I was going to kill you unless you had sex with a man?" "Well, in that case..." "LOL U FAG LOL"

Back on topic, then it's quite clear that the rights of the millions to be alive, assuming a direct causal link, overrides the right not to be punched in the face, as was fairly implicit. Possibly explicit, it's been a while since I wrote the post.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
when you say injury is firmly linked to "such things as being alive", what exactly do you mean?
The body is a (in some ways fairly fragile) machine. If it becomes too badly damaged, it doesn't work any more. Injury is damaging the body. Now, this occurs in many fashions: I'm damaging my body by using this keyboard to write the reply, so obviously there's some continuum to consider.

However, the thing to consider there is the scale. It's still in many ways the same kind of thing as receiving a life threatening bit of damage.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
does the injury have to be life threatening?
I specifically said that it did not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
i guess if you were the kind of idiot who would never admit when they're wrong, then sure i guess you could disagree with anything you like.
I frequently admit when I'm wrong. Perhaps the experience you have of me not admitting I'm wrong is grounded in the fact that I am not wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
not that it's going to help your moral code look any more credible...
I don't need to, it's a moral code. You finding it credible isn't really the aim.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
it was when you said "on an intellectual level" i assumed you meant there was some kind of grounding for why you support the right for other humans not to be murdered.
other than just "because i say so"
As there is no absolute morality, everything must be derived from a set of axioms. The two ones in question are "I would prefer to be alive than dead." and "It is good to be fair", at least when we're talking about applying the code to human interactions with eachother.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
ok, so when you say things like "there are quite a few reasons that, off the top of my head, are valid ones for opposing the causing of pain in humans.", what exactly do you mean by valid?
I mean valid. Sound. Correct. The point I was making was that any justification is valid for a moral code. Do I have to keep on saying this?

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
when i said morally sound, it doesn't have to be in reference to an objective moral framework (which we both agree, does not exist), i'm simply saying that if you think that a "valid" reason for opposing the pain of humans is because they're the same species as us, then what difference is there between that and racism etc.
On one level, zero. No matter how I feel about racism, it's a perfectly valid source for a moral code, it'll just be a moral code that I will not hold because I disagree with one of its axioms.

On a second, there is a significant difference, in my opinion, between the difference between two races and the difference between two species. No matter how nebulous the definitions may be, I cannot theoretically breed with a cat but I can theoretically breed with a black woman.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
i'm asking because i assume you consider racism to be morally detestable unlike the "speciesim" you're currently espousing.
Still not really sure what you're trying to do with this line of argument. It seems to be the same as the "comparing me to the nazis" one which I roundly mocked.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
it feels like we're going in circles.
Well, if you keep on going off in random directions that don't appear to be going anywhere or based in what I'm arguing, then yes, we will break down into a cycle of you posting/me explaining why your post missed the point or is irrelevent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
what was your reasoning for not prescribing animals rights again?
Humans are more important than other animals.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
yeah but it might have changed your choice in the first place.
You appear to be breaking some kind of arrow of time here. The rational thought that comes after some instinct can then go back and change the instinct it was based upon.

It can filter it, it can create something different, it can't change it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
let's say your gut feeling was to go with an AMD because you loved the indie image. only after some research did you find out their factories use child labour and so went for the performance beating intel instead. \o/
You missed what I was going for there. The analogy used the Intel Processor as the equivilence to the "gut reaction" with the computer being the output of the gut reaction with the additional gubbins. No matter the additional gubbins, it will continue to be an Intel computer.

If you do something different to your gut reaction based upon rational investigation, then you are not simply acting upon vetted gut reactions, which is what the section you quoted was replying to you saying.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
resorting to moral relativism every time you make a moral statement that turns out to be wrong is getting a bit tiring.
You thinking that moral statements can be wrong is getting more than a bit tiring.

Furthermore, how is you saying "I think it's strange that you do x" proving anything?

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
i don't know what you're reffering to and i can't seem to motivate myself to find out, can you please explain. explicitly. thanks
"I" refers to me, "you" refers to you, "this wonderful community of ours" refers to General Discussions and the "Strawman" is a logical fallacy where one suggests that one's opponent holds a superficially similar yet easier to defeat position than the one they actually hold in order to to make it, fairly obviously, easier to appear to defeat.

The rest of the post makes perfect sense on its own, I've no idea how you think it's referring to something else that's neccessary for comprehension.

Other than a dictionary and a guide to grammar, but that's a given, really.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
i said a baby, not a child. this is a pretty important point.
Again, the concept of a baby is fairly nebulous. Although it usually refers to a child below, say, 18 months (or whatever the usual time frame for unassisted perambulation is), it can be used for children much older.

The studies I was referring two were comparing chimps to children between the ages of two and four. Whilst you could argue that the category of "baby" falls outside those boundaries, it's still a far cry away from, say, a twelve year old's ability of cognition.

However, what I personally (you may feel different, who knows) feel is ALSO a pretty important point is that I was referring to an average human. A baby is not an average human. I pointed this out in the section you were replying to, and you have chosen to ignore it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
sorry i'm confused... are you saying that your arguments for opposing pain in humans (or whatever the term was) are utterly subjective i.e. "because the sky is blue", or that they are infact logical arguments?
Those options aren't mutually exclusive. A moral system can be logical because it's based upon a small group of axioms from which the rest of the system may be derived, using logic. However, this remains subjective because the axioms remain, well, axioms; you can disagree with them, and that's a personal choice. I consider to hold a "logical" moral code because the axioms on which I have based it are fairly self-evident (if you will) and don't require any great leaps. Simple concepts, on which are built bigger concepts. This is distinct from a more "gut reaction" based system because there will be fewer axioms (as each gut reaction does not necessarily have to be predicated by the rest of the system, the number of things which have to be held to be self-evidently true increases dramatically) and a greater logical connection between statements.

In the same way, mathematics is both logical and (in a sense) subjective - it is absolute provided you hold the axioms, on which it is constructed, to be correct.
MrL_JaKiri is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 2 Nov 2006, 05:58   #38
Dante Hicks
Clerk
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 13,940
Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: If Chimps are People too...

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
i'm just not going to try and justify it to myself so i can pretend i'm a good person when i'm not.
In this sort of context you don't need to justify animal testing to yourself because you're not actually carrying out animal research. If you buy products which have been tested on animals then you should justify the act of your purchase, but that doesn't necessarily require justifying the testing itself.

(Of course, you may wish to justify your inaction in this field, but that's a different question entirely)
Dante Hicks is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 2 Nov 2006, 20:57   #39
MrL_JaKiri
The Twilight of the Gods
 
MrL_JaKiri's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 23,481
MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: If Chimps are People too...

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
"fairly self-evident", how so?
If you mean the "Being alive is better than not being alive", then that's because I can do more things when I'm alive than when I'm dead. I kind of have that option. Having said that, that's the opinion of the person involved, I'm just assuming that most people think that. You can choose to be allowed to be punched in the face, or have your legs chopped off, or killed, if you so please.

If it's the second, then the "fairest" system is to treat others, and have others treat you, equally. It guarantees that I, if we're talking on a purely selfish level, am not disproportionately disadvanted.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
and what if the rational thought you subjected your gut reactions (or as some might term them "self-evident axioms")
Self evident axioms is a truism, and they're not based on gut reactions as you're implying. What I believe to be true is often fairly opposed to any gut reaction I have - a good example being the right of the owner to choose whether a privately owned establishment is a smoking one or not. As I'll expand upon later, this is quite at odds with what is best for me in a purely selfish sense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
led to an increasingly logical cohesion?
A house cat, no matter how large an example of one, will still be smaller than an elephant. A system based upon gut reactions with more logical cohesion than another will be better, yes, than one that isn't, but still worse overall.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
ok i don't think you did. you suggested that the only right that was being employed that could not be employed elsewhere was the actual act of punching someone in the face. and that other rights such as the movement of fingers and so on could be employed elsewhere. i'm saying that counting the movement of fingers as one single identifiable right is reifying the "movement of fingers". i.e. the movement of fingers during the act of punching someone is different to the movement of fingers (even if the physiological action is identical/similar) when punching the air or a human dummy, or indeed a different person.
Even if it were true that you could not replicate the tactical feedback of punching someone in the face (which I think it is extremely unlikely) then you've still got the exact same argument, but with the right (not the act, by the way) changed. Instead of the right to punch "someone" in the face, you get the right to punch "me" in the face, which is even less important in the grand scheme of things.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
true say dawg i know that only too well!
so if i'm driving my car around and it's damaging people's lungs. what's going down in the moral paradigm there dawg?
Cars, and other internal combustion engine based devices, are fairly important to society, so would obviously be allowed. Would encouragement be made to find "cleaner" sources of the energy to move the car? Certainly.

Here's where the expansion of the "at odds with what is best for me" argument comes in: I'm asthmatic. Walking to lectures in the morning, I go by a fairly busy road, and especially on colder days "not pleasant" is something of an understatement. The same goes for cigarette smoke. This is an example of an upshot of the moral system which one based upon a gut-reaction filter system could not bring forth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
are these the only two axioms your moral code is based on? (or the one you're putting forward, whatever)
As far as it relates to interactions with humans, yeah; well, as I said earlier in this post, maybe even just one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
i meant what was the strawmans, not what do i and you mean you spectacularly sarcastic wanker
You said: "yeah i'm not sure i'd go along with that. i've never seen an intelligence test that definitively measured "intelligence", let alone your moral worth."

I said: I'm one of the most vocal opponents of the concept of a catch-all test for intelligence, and the ability to quantify it.

Do you see how those statements interact in a manner which makes your one somewhat Strawmanny?

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
no it's not an important point, because it's avoiding what i was originally asking you
No, it kind of sort of is entirely the crux of the matter we are discussing. But if you don't want to see that, what hope do I have to persuade you?

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
i'm asking, if you consider cognitive ability to be a/the factor that determines moral worth then what is the cut off point?
Something far below the average level of human capacity for abstract thought, no matter how it is measured. Like I said, it doesn't matter. It's fairly standard practice to ignore things which are obviously smaller than other things; 1,000,000 is still bigger than 10, no matter if the cut off point is 1000, 10000 or 100000.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
you seem to have replied with "WELL MOST HUMANS ARE CLEVER LOL SO I WILL GIVE THEM ALL T3H BLANKET OF MORAL WORTH LOLZ UNLUCKY CHIMPY POOS"
I'd say that any human without brain damage or birth defects would be able to beat any chimp, I just chose the "average" member of the human race because it would make the distinction more obvious.

Furthermore, I find your capslock section rather annoying, as you're the one who's demanding to know the equivilent of why I don't think a 1970's Ford Prefect would make a good car to drive in a Formula One race.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
what about a 2 week year old baby?
Well, that's fairly debateable; quite a few of the studies of language in chimps abandoned earlier attempts because the chimp was just incapable of picking things up. Washoe's mother (assuming I'm thinking of the right chimp) is a good example.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
a being less cognitively developed than a chimp. do you consider the baby to be of less/equel or more moral worth than the chimp?
No, just as I don't think that people who are sleeping (which would rather nix them being able to perform any conscious tests) of less or equal value. Most (not all, but again that's down to genetic diseases and the like which are outliers in the box and whisker diagram we'd make and so don't really count) babies will have the capacity to beat a chimp in a relatively short wait; any given chimp will not have the capacity to beat a human no matter how long you wait.
MrL_JaKiri is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 6 Nov 2006, 16:04   #40
Dante Hicks
Clerk
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 13,940
Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: If Chimps are People too...

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
and those with brain damage/birth defects* who cannot outwit chimpy...are they then excluded from your love?
People who are severely brain damaged (to the point where they can't think) are already denied "rights" in the fullest sense of the word anyway. Their bodies are not randomly mistreated mostly because their families/loved ones might not appreciate that but also for religious / superstitious reasons (not to mention a desire for general decency).

If there was an entire subset (sub-species, whatever) of "humans" who were cognitively impaired to the point where they were basically at a chimp level of intelligence than I would suggest they would not actually be human beings, at least as we usually use the term.
Quote:
are you seriously suggesting a 2 week year old child has the same cognitive abilities as a fully grown chimp?
A chimp and a child probably never have the "same" cognitive abilities but if you mean might they score the same sort of level on some sort of test then I'm not sure about this. But it doesn't really matter because we're factoring in some level of "potentiality" here - see the familiar arguments (already raised) about people who are asleep and so forth. This is obviously not clear cut (we could argue as to whether a foetus is really a "potential" human being) but the basic gist is fairly simple.
Quote:
i'm not sure language is the only identifier of cognitive development.
No, but it's superior to anything you've suggested.
Dante Hicks is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 6 Nov 2006, 17:04   #41
Dante Hicks
Clerk
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 13,940
Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: If Chimps are People too...

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
i.e. ignoring the problem of emotive family relations / pious nonsense, what would be the "right" (in the moral sense) thing to do?
Then there is no reason as why we wouldn't cut up the brain dead or do whatever. Since we already terminate them (by cutting their life support machine off in certain cases) I don't see what the difference would be. But again, these issues don't occur often enough to be meaningful. When we get to the level of clone armies then we'll talk, but we're nowhere near there yet.
Quote:
why does there have to be large numbers for you to label them as a sub species?
There doesn't need to be a large number, I more meant an entire lineage of humans who suffered the same impairment. An individual human being is (or could be) an oddity whose children (or parents, or whatever) wouldn't necessarily have the same impairment. You could still only be talking about a dozen or so individuals I guess.
Quote:
anyway for the sake of argument let's say they're slightly less "cognitively developed" than chimps, would you prefer to test on them rather than chimps? (you can call them whatever you like if it makes you feel better)
My value system is basically binary here. I couldn't care less what happens to anything below humans. I don't rate chimps above rats because they're better at tests. So I wouldn't care what would happen to these hypothetical 'sub humans' either, although I obviously would tend to err on the side of caution.

Medical testing is important, but let's not kid ourselves here - even if we allowed (say) anyone given a life sentence in US & UK prisons to be tested on in an unlimited fashion then that wouldn't automatically mean we'd get a cure for cancer.
Quote:
you're right it's not at all clear cut. are you ok with abortion or not?
I am, up to a point. There's a point where the term "potential" becomes meaningful. A fetus is not a "potential" human being for most of gestation without continuous (albeit unconscious) intervention by it's mother. After a certain point, we can begin to talk of the fetus as an individual and then I'm not OK with abortion. We've discussed this elsewhere though.
Quote:
it might be worth of note here that i'm not the one setting up a moral dichotomy. you two are...
Well, you're suggesting we shouldn't test on chimps because they have a certain level of cognitive capacity. I presume you're OK with testing things on cell cultures (or rocks or plants) so there's a division there. I'm drawing it at the level of below human beings. You're drawing it somehwere, even if you're not being explicit.
Dante Hicks is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 6 Nov 2006, 17:40   #42
MrL_JaKiri
The Twilight of the Gods
 
MrL_JaKiri's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 23,481
MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: If Chimps are People too...

I feel that most of the actual points of argument are clearly covered in my earlier posts, and dante's posts, so I will be, to a larger degree than normal, critique the way in which you argue.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
i'm not sure being able to do more things when alive than dead equates to a self evident truism that it is desirable to be alive.
If you are alive you can choose to be dead. If you are dead you cannot choose to be alive, or indeed anything at all. If you have, as a base situation, everyone alive, then i nterms of their individiaul status people will be able to actually get what they want much more.

I mean, if you assume everyone should be dead the only people who would be happy (in an abstract sense, as they'd be dead) are the people who wanted to be dead anyway, and they can die quite easily if they start out alive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
why then would you not extend this "right to life" to animals? simply because they cannot explain in english that they do not wish to die?
Spanish people generally can't explain in english why they don't wish to die, this is a bit of a red herring. In any case, I haven't seen any indication that animals would prefer to be alive than dead, other than in a macroscopic example of the outcome of the "Selfish gene" concept. If you apply them to animals, why don't you apply the same concepts to genes, I might ask. And do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
and if for whatever reason it was guranteed to you that you could not be disproportionately disadvantaged (divine intervention or whatever), would you still hold this as a moral axiom? and if so, why?
That doesn't change the system at all. If everyone had divine intervention on their side, then the system would be fair. If only one person had divine intervention on their side, then it's just the same as any other benefit. What exactly do you count as divine intervention? That you live a life of luxury and sloth? Any benefit I can think of pretty much already exists in one form or another, either by rich parents, or some element of luck (or whatever) so how you think this changes the reasoning, I'm not quite sure.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
yet it is a "selfish" reason you give for the veil of ignorance proposition in the first place. i.e. the gurantee of not being "disproportionately disadvanted". Is it not simply due to rational thought that you are curtailing one gut reaction for another?
I gave the "selfish reasoning", as it were, because throughout the thread you only seem to understand selfish motives. Which is why I expressed it the way that I did; the language I used clearly meant that I was referring to the selfish reasoning to the exclusion of others, not that it was all that existed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
putting on my cartesian subjectivity hat and empiricist wizard socks for a moment i put to you that the desire to continue living, the desire for "freedom" etc are indeed gut reactions (although this term would probably need to be reworded/redefined).
You talk to me about empiricism? You think that I don't consider empirical methodology? Are you blind? Are you mad? Are you unable to read?

And no, the predicate that I put forward is not just the "desire to continue living" as you seem to think it is, as I have expressed previously, both in this post and elsewhere.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
yes it will still have been originally based on gut feelings but the pejorative association with rash action i don't think is a fair one. the potential for "rational analysis" is huge and would certainly undermine a great many actions that could be taken otherwise unchecked.
I refer the honourable gentlemen to my previous utterances on the subject.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
i don't understand this bit, "Instead of the right to punch "someone" in the face, you get the right to punch "me" in the face" ?
If you're basing your argument against it upon the uniqueness of punching a person in the face then you're talking about punching that specific person in the face, because you specifically stated that it was different, both mentally and tactilely, from punching another person in the face. The "me" part came about because it was much easier to, as I have been doing a fair amount throughout, use myself as an example, partially because it's much shorter to write.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
the gut reactions aren't so much being likened here to a filter system, they are more the foundations/axioms for a moral paradigm that is "filtered" with rational analysis.
strawman the people cry!
Not a strawman, it was just you misreading it (which to some extent is fair enough, it's a case of large animal hospital).

And imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
no matter how it's measured? can you even quantify what it is you suggest we're measuring?
(Measurements don't have to be quantitative actions)

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
"abstract thought" is a pretty ambiguous term.
Once again, I have made the mistaken assumption that you had done any investigation into what you were talking about.

Over the past decades scientistics have been doing many experiments (on rats, on birds, on dolphins, on dogs, on cats, on chimps and apes and many others) to test for abstract cognitive ability. I didn't feel the need to specify exactly what I was talking about because there are quite so many already, and I had thought you would have encountered, in your myriad of forays into background reading about the topic, at least some of them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
and those with brain damage/birth defects* who cannot outwit chimpy...
are they then excluded from your love?
Depends on the case, and indeed the severity. Heavily autistic people, for example, are in cases extremely capable of abstract thought. The term "idiot savant" springs to mind.

[quote=horn]i'm not sure language is the only identifier of cognitive development.[/quote

It is not, however it is generally regarded as one of the simplest, and therefore best, tests for abstract cognitive thought. The ability to make the connection between, say, the word "rock" and a rock is apparantly something of

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
are you seriously suggesting a 2 week year old child has the same cognitive abilities as a fully grown chimp?
That depends what you mean. Studies have shown that chimps have a fairly good grasp of some things (such as social structures, which may well have been a kick-start to mental growth in general, but that's a debate for another time) but occasionally have extremely poor grasps of others. Depending on the kind of test, I suspect that two week old children and adult chimps may well both fall off the lower end of the scale.

This isn't really important, however.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
you said no when i offered you three options.
Two (less/equal or more), and yes, you chose the right one. I should really have specified.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
*god knows what you've included in this category
Abnormalities which have an effect on cognition which aren't genetically based.
MrL_JaKiri is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 7 Nov 2006, 00:09   #43
Yahwe
I am.
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,580
Yahwe has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Yahwe has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Yahwe has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Yahwe has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Yahwe has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Yahwe has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Yahwe has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Yahwe has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Yahwe has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Yahwe has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Yahwe has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: If Chimps are People too...

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri
If you are alive you can choose to be dead. If you are dead you cannot choose to be alive, or indeed anything at all.
yet there are more people who have become alive than there are who have become dead.

can we assume your proposition?
__________________
hi
Yahwe is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 7 Nov 2006, 01:24   #44
MrL_JaKiri
The Twilight of the Gods
 
MrL_JaKiri's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 23,481
MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: If Chimps are People too...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yahwe
yet there are more people who have become alive than there are who have become dead.

can we assume your proposition?
Living people aren't formerly dead people, methinks.
MrL_JaKiri is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 7 Nov 2006, 17:06   #45
MrL_JaKiri
The Twilight of the Gods
 
MrL_JaKiri's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 23,481
MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: If Chimps are People too...

I was going to respond in an "orf-the-warl" and "wacké" manner, but then I couldn't think of anything interesting to post so I just gave short minor rebuttals to some things.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
BUT THEY LOOK JUST LIKE YOU AND ME YOU PSYCHOPATH
HAVEN'T YOU SEE BATTLESTAR GALACTICA OR BLADE RUNNER? YAAAAGH

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
i.e. why is your value system binary?
At a very basic level, surely all value systems are binary in some sense? If you treat Group A with the response X, and noone else, then surely the group A' must be X', by simple logic. Binary, even if the groups are of the size of an individual.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
not really. i wouldn't draw that particular line anywhere. it would depend on the mental state of each "entity" being tested on as well as what's being tested and the possible outcomes (in terms of productive research aswell as suffering for the "entity") and probably a whole host of other things that aren't on the top of my head right now.
I don't draw that line anywhere, I draw it here? If you distinguish between individuals based, either exclusively or not, on cognitive ability (in any sense) then you are... distinguishing between individuals based upon cognitive ability.

As I said before, I haven't been convinced that the actions of most species of animal aren't any great step up from the actions of individual genes, in terms of ensuring their own survival.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
i'll reply to you tommorow jakiri, or whenever i'm next pumping iron IN YOUR FACE!
I pump iron in my own face quite enough, thank you.
MrL_JaKiri is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 8 Nov 2006, 11:09   #46
CrashTester
I am an idiot
 
CrashTester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,145
CrashTester has a brilliant futureCrashTester has a brilliant futureCrashTester has a brilliant futureCrashTester has a brilliant futureCrashTester has a brilliant futureCrashTester has a brilliant futureCrashTester has a brilliant futureCrashTester has a brilliant futureCrashTester has a brilliant futureCrashTester has a brilliant futureCrashTester has a brilliant future
Re: If Chimps are People too...

this thread got boring after my initial post
CrashTester is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 8 Nov 2006, 13:57   #47
Dante Hicks
Clerk
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 13,940
Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: If Chimps are People too...

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
to hurry up the time it would take to get near it, it would probably be a good idea to discuss whether what we're aiming for is morally sound or not though.
Even if this is true (and I'm not sure about that) I still see no reason to (continuously) bring up the issue in a discussion of animal rights the potential value of (non-existent) clone armies.
Quote:
the real point though is to push you towards defining exactly what you consider a "human", and exactly why you think it is that they are of exclusive moral worth.
Well, that's been covered. Several times. Re-read this thread if you think it's just at random. It obviously has nothing to do with looks (although that would introduce other issues I guess) but is to do with cognitive capacity.

In particular beyond a certain point in intellectual development it becomes meaningful to talk about "suffering". Below that I don't think it does. Computers (an example I've used several times) are certainly capable of processing information, "remembering" things and so on, in the same way most animals are. If you set up a computer so if you pressed the space bar a voice screamed in agony it would be ludicrous to assume that the computer is "suffering" even if it is responding in a way which could be confused with the way humans respond to things (your gut feeling).

Animals can experience "pain" but they cannot reflect on this pain - to use the terminology I used earlier they cannot "think about thoughts" which to me seems the core of the issue. Again, this is all tied up with cognitive development of language, capacity for abstract thoughts and things like this. I would reject a simplistic idea that you could devise some sort of simplistic test which would indicate things (because unless it's something like a Turing Test, it'd be easy to "cheat".)

Now, this does not mean my mind is closed on the issue - if someone can show me that chimps can "think" in the way I think important then I'll change my view. But contrary to your previous comments, in Britian we do not generally chop up chimps to test lipstick or whatever. And thus many of your concerns are at the very least exaggerated. There is more than enough human suffering to worry about in the world than silliness about chimps.
Quote:
i.e. my moral worth badges would come in a variety of colours, not a single gold badge for a single (seemingly undefined) category.
I'm not sure how you can say "undefined" when it's been defined (albeit perhaps not to your satisfaction) several times. That seems fairly intellectually dishonest.

As for your badges point, Jakiri has made this point, but : there is still a line for each individual issue. So you might think an AIDS vaccine is allowable to test on a dog but not a chimp, or whatever. It's still the same sort of principle. What's your criteria here for moral worth for an entity? Why do you care (if you do care) about chimps more than pigs or rats? If pigs were shown to be "smarter" than chimps, would they be more important? Or is this about who shares most of our DNA? Who looks most like us? Language, cognition, capacity for abstract thought are all things that have been put forward here.

What are you putting forward as your distinction(s)? You've mentioned this is based on gut feelings (I'm more sympathetic to this line of argument than others*) - but is that it? You care about chimps because basically they kind of look like us? Or do you even know? Or do you not care?

* = I think "gut feelings" are probably the ultimate basis for many of our moral positions, but the problem is alone it creates false positives.
Dante Hicks is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 9 Nov 2006, 20:12   #48
MrL_JaKiri
The Twilight of the Gods
 
MrL_JaKiri's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 23,481
MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: If Chimps are People too...

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
well DNA isn't self-aware for a start. may i ask you why you do extend the right to life to spanyards who cannot explain to you that they wish to live?
Covered already. Moving on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
i mean if prior to a moral code being agreed upon by a group of ethereal beings about to enter human bodies in society, instead of you deciding to vote for a moral code that would prevent you being disproportinately disadvantaged i.e. by choosing a moral code that is "fair" on everyone because you don't know what situation you're going to be in, would you opt for an unfair code if you knew it would bennefit you (i.e. if god promised you would be the son of rich parents would you still opt for high tax rates etc?)
Covered already. Moving on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
ok then what is the unselfish reason for holding this axiom? (if my response above was confusing which i suspect it is, it requires the same reply as this one)
Because I think it's good to be fair to people? It's fairly obvious.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
i still don't understand how this answers my point
I can't think of a way to explain it any simpler, I'm afraid.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
i don't think so.
You'd be wrong there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
not when it's satire
The satire makes it funny!

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
it generally helps if you can define what you're measuring though
That depends on the test. You could be measuring the uptake of language, or the ability to discern social structure (although that's a simpler one, as there's no real abstract concepts), spatial awareness, pattern recognition, whatever.

As I have said, I'm not naïve enough to assume there's some abstract concept of intelligence which tests merely measure, in the same way that there is "space" or "time". Perhaps. (But that's, again, another discussion.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
yeah i guess you did. you might have guessed i hadn't done many dissertations on the subject when i expressed my regret on having missed this programme. quite why i'd want to watch a 1 hour layman's introduction courtesy of whatever celebrity was presenting it if i had already done "previous research", involving detailed experiments on abstract thought with whatever animals is beyond me...
I watched "Root of All Evil", a program made by Richard Dawkins, even though I held the position (and knew all, and more, of the arguments used beforehand), because I thought I might to enjoy watching it. Irrespective, I investigate things I'm interested in.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
let's say someone who couldn't make the connection between the word "rock" and a rock
Then it depends if they have the potential to. If not, then it depends on other factors, such as the number in this subgroup (if it's particularly trivial, it may not be worth spending the time categorising them differently, in a purely pragmatic sense).

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
i was joking
And I was being completely serious, obviously.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
you're confused. yes i would distinguish between individuals based upon cognitive ability. the difference is, i wouldn't then draw a line and say that those on one side are of moral worth and those on the other are of none.
No moral worth? No. Relatively no moral worth? Yes. I'd save a chimp before I saved a bat (or whatever).
MrL_JaKiri is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 13 Nov 2006, 01:56   #49
Dante Hicks
Clerk
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 13,940
Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Dante Hicks has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: If Chimps are People too...

Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
sure. i'm not denying anthropomorphism exists, it's just that when you prescribe such a notion to animals that we evolved from, it doesn't hold quite as well as the computer example.
We didn't evolve from chimpanzees. Not that that invalidates what you're saying, however. But we had a shared recent ancestor, yes.
Quote:
i'm not sure how "reflecting" on having boiling water thrown on you makes it any more sufferable. atleast not during the actual act itself.
Suffering strikes me as being the term for a process, not an isolated reaction. The actual "cognitive experience" in the second of trauma is less important than the response over time. Not that everything is to do with pain, if there were humans who could not suffer physical pain (because their nerve endings didn't work or something) then it'd still be wrong to pour acid on their skin against their will, because the issue is one of liberty.
Quote:
iirc you seemed to be dismissing problems with assigning moral worth to particular "humans" because of the small number of cases or something. but whatever
Well, no - I am denying a coherent category of non-thinking humans exists. There are plenty of individual cases of humans who are brain damaged (for one reason or another) but it's surely fair enough to say these have to be dealt with on a case by case basis. If we're talking about "the cognitively impaired" you could be talking about people brain damaged as a result of trauma, or coma patients, or simply people who enjoy Top Gear. There's not one answer to how all of these groups/individuals should be treated because they're all substantially different.

Yes, we could try to sit and think of hundreds of scenarios (and presumably medical ethics text books do in some cases) and think of in what circumstances an individuals impairment could lead to what (ethical/legal) rammifications but (and this is where numbers do become important) what would be the point?
Quote:
simply because i believe we evolved from these animals and that such similar reactions to our reations are probably caused by such similar experiences as our experiences.
I'd say there were superficially similar, but I suppose that's the root of the debate. I don't like the automatic assumption we can transfer behaviour from humans to animals without loss (or corruption) of meaning. It's like when writers who should know better talk about chimps "murdering" (or "loving" for that matter) each other. These are human terms with particular ramifications to the organisms (and societies) that spawned them. To assume the same in other species without evidence seems very wrong headed indeed.
Dante Hicks is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 13 Nov 2006, 05:21   #50
milo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,094
milo is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himmilo is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himmilo is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himmilo is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himmilo is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himmilo is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himmilo is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himmilo is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himmilo is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himmilo is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himmilo is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like him
Re: If Chimps are People too...

I forgot about this thread, christ i can't even see what the argument is anymore you all keep quoting and requoting, basically horn wants to apply ethics equally across 'life' would that be the general thrust?
__________________
boobs
milo is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 00:52.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2002 - 2018