Why are humans better, and does that mean we can

[apathy maybe]

This is an attempt to discover why certain people feel that humans are some how inherently superior to other animals, to find out why they think that humans are the greatest animal. And actually to discover if people are going to be consistent or irrational.

It comes from reading that Marx apparently thought that humans are special because of the ability to produce their own means of subsistence through social organisation. (From Monty Cantsin's paper "Marx's Grand-Narrative, The Materialist Conception of History.") To me, this seems blatantly wrong, ants for example have complex social organisations and some varieties farm aphids and have slaves. Various other great apes also have complex social organisations and share food, as do other animals.

In a previous thread (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=63694&st=0 actually on the same topic), various people attempted to explain why humans were superior or better (ants are better at carrying (relatively) large weights unassisted, while worms are better at living underground) and so on. It was demonstrated that there is no objective standard for the claim that humans are superior.

So, why do people think that of all the animals humans are the best?

Does this apply to babies, to children, to humans who are in comas, to humans who are retarded (and I mean that in the medical sense ...) and other humans who are "significantly less then equal" to the average?

This final point is where I'd like this thread to focus, if that is at all possible. Are all humans "equal", and if not, are we free to mistreat those who aren't "equal"?

[Sentinel]

So, why do people think that of all the animals humans are the best?

It's not really about who's 'best'. That's subjective anyway. The list of our accomplishments and features which elevate us above animals could be made long.. But I'm not anthropocentric because I consider the human species the 'best', (which I incidentally do) that's because I'm a human being and know that what's good for my species is ultimately good for me.


Does this apply to babies, to children, to humans who are in comas, to humans who are retarded (and I mean that in the medical sense ...) and other humans who are "significantly less then equal" to the average?

Humans have since times immemorial realised that taking care of each other pays off in the long run. Taking care of children is still basic survival for anyone not living in a welfare society -- they'll (hopefully) then take care of you when you get old. Even our cousins the Neanderthal looked after the disabled. Actually, the researchers first though the Neanderthal had very different body structure compared to ours because they had found the remains of an individual with far gone arthritis. Taking care of each other strengthens the collective, and stems from a species survival imperative specific for our type of primates.

Our social skills are our most important asset. We need the flock, so we bond to each other, and even if a person can't take part in society anymore we still don't throw them in the gutter, because of that bond. Even in modern society where we don't take care of the elderly and disabled ourselves, we tend to try and see to it that our own end up somewhere where they are treated decently. It feels better for us to live in a good society, that's just the way we are, and it's a good thing.

Perhaps even one of those things that make us superior to many other species? After all, civilisation would have been impossible without those social skills.

But these are merely the reasons why I assume we have these instincts. The fact is that they're there when it comes to our own species, and not as much when it comes to animals. With the exception of pets, which actually can become part of human families and thus will be regarded in a very different fashion than their species origin would entail.

[chimx]

that's because I'm a human being and know that what's good for my species is ultimately good for me.

Yes, but isn't that a rather arbitrary stance? Anyhing that is good for mammals is ultmately good for you. Anything that is good for males is ultimately good for you. Anything that is good for workers is good for you. Anything that is good for right-handed people is good for you!

It simply doesn't expain why you identify yourself globally with your species-being, irregardless of other issues. I have yet to see someone present a scientifically rational explaination for this sort of preference.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Yes, but isn't that a rather arbitrary stance?

Of course not. Species self-interest is reciprocal unlike mammal self-interest (non-human mammals are never going to contribute to human society willingly) and all-inclusive unlike male self-interest, which irrationally cuts out half the human species.

[LSD]

So, why do people think that of all the animals humans are the best?

You're missing the point ...and not for the first time either.

I don't recall if you've ever started a thread on this specifically, but I'm sure that you've asked this question many times before and, for my part, I've tried to respond.

But what I've continually discovered is that you're not really willing to listen to rational argumentation on this subject. That to you the emotions are just too overpowering.

And that's fine, lots of people have "sensitive" issues that they're not ready to discuss maturely. But if you're going to keep bringing this up, don't be surprised if people keep giving you the same answers.

At least until you start being willing to hear what they're saying.

But what the hell, here we go again...

***

Humans are not "superior" to animals in some sort of universalist externalistic sense. But we are more important to animals relative to human society.

There is no "morality" or "value" outside of human society; we invented such thing. Wolves do not feel "regret" or "empathy" after they slaughter an animal, nor do they view the animal as "inferior" to them, they just eat it!

Animals simply do not exist within a moral or rational social framework and the idea of some sort of "commonality of species" is just pure postmodern liberal superstition, no matter whether you characterize humans as being "better than" or "equal to" other species.

Now, on the practical stuff, most of the "humans are better crowd" has it right. "Rights" for animals are pure nonsense. Human society has an obligation to benefit its members and nothing more. That means minimizing animal suffering as much as possible, since it's distressing to most people and wholly unnescessary, but not to the degree that it would significantly harm human beings.

If someday we perfect artificial meat growing, then we'll do that. It'd probably be less resource intensive anyways. But don't delude yourself into imagining that that would somehow lead to a "harmony" of "animals".

The day that people stop eating natural meat is the day that you will see the biggest mass slaughter of animals in history. If PETA ever had its way, it would lead to more animal deaths than has occured in every seal hunt, fur factory, and farm since the animal rights movement began.

The world is not disney fantasy-land and we are never going to live in "harmony" with "nature". Anti-humanist "vegetarianism" is simply reactionary superanturalism and is practically no better than primativism.

But so is metaphysical nonsense about human "superiority".

Indeed, I would even go so far as to say that going down the road of "superiority" actually helps the "animal rights" position, although I'm sure it's not what most "superiority" proponents intend.

'Cause not only does it require building upon an intrinsically unstable foundation, but it actually serves to damage the humanist scale by buying into the environmentalist myth of an holistic natural continuum.

If humans are "superior" to animals than it implies a chain of hierarchy. Ostensibly, there should be one animal immediately "below" us and another one below that and and another one beloew that all the way to the bottom where there would be the "most inferior" creature of all.

The problem with that, though, is that it leave the door open to a shifting of the line. To saying why don't we include the top two most "superior" animals instead of just the one?, and before you know it, "great apes" have social rights.

That's why so many animal rights types focus on chimpanzees. They're so close to us that if we accept "superiority" as a standard, a whole lot of people would include chimps in that group.

And before you know it, we're saying that wolves have "civil rights" -- although presumably not their "victims"... :rolleyes:


This final point is where I'd like this thread to focus, if that is at all possible. Are all humans "equal", and if not, are we free to mistreat those who aren't "equal"?

That really depends on what you mean by "mistreat".

After all, no one would propose granting voting rights to the comatose or allowing the homocidally psychotic to roam the streets freely. So from a strictly egalitarian civil rights perspective, we already do "mistreat" them.

We do so, however, because we have come to understand that such is nescessary for both their protection and that of society. And, of course, we only do so to the extent justifiable.

But somehow I doubt that that's what you're talking about.

No, you're probably talking about medical testing on the mentally handicapped or somesuch sensationalist nonsense.

Well, again, that comes down to the issue of rights, not "superiority" or any other subjective valutions. "Better than", "worse than", or "equal to" have absolutely nothing to do with whether or not a person is afforded societal rights.

For the probably tenth time, that is solely determined by whether or not they are a member of society.

Now it just so happens the the intersection between the groups of human societal members and genetic "human beings" is near absolute, but it's membership in the former that's relevent, not the latter.

After all, a foetus is genetically human, that doesn't grant it any civil rights.

If you would like more details on this subject, I would propose that you read through one of the earlier threads on this subject (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=59960). As said at the top, it's been discussed a lot.

[apathy maybe]

People who are in comas are not part of society. People who are incapable of communication are not part of society.

I know this has come up before, but I thought about this new spin that could be put on the issue. You are going to claim that we are in a "human society", no we aren't. We are living in a society of the living, of the 'able', not of all humans.

As such, because all humans aren't part of society, why should we include them in society?

My point is, that it is irrational to include all humans in "human society" and not also include other animals (which in many cases are more capable of doing things or communicating).


Originally posted by LSD+--> (LSD)No, you're probably talking about medical testing on the mentally handicapped or somesuch sensationalist nonsense.

Well, again, that comes down to the issue of rights, not "superiority" or any other subjective valutions. "Better than", "worse than", or "equal to" have absolutely nothing to do with whether or not a person is afforded societal rights.

For the probably tenth time, that is solely determined by whether or not they are a member of society.[/b]Right.


LSD
Now it just so happens the the intersection between the groups of human societal members and genetic "human beings" is near absolute, but it's membership in the former that's relevent, not the latter.

After all, a foetus is genetically human, that doesn't grant it any civil rights.Right. So why are you including the incurable comatose people in your society? Why are you including brain damaged (to a point 'worse' then imbecility) but otherwise capable people in your society?

And that is my point. You can talk about society all you want, and I can see that, yes dolphins aren't part of society. Neither is a foetus, and similarly a two day old baby cannot participate in society at all, and neither can a person in a coma.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 20, 2007 11:17 am
People who are in comas are not part of society. People who are incapable of communication are not part of society.
We have this strange idea, you know, that comatose humans may recover. We have the even weirder idea that we can find the cure for mental handicaps.

But I don't think anyone has ever nurtured the idea that we can cure a cat from its catness, and turn it into a normal human being.


My point is, that it is irrational to include all humans in "human society" and not also include other animals (which in many cases are more capable of doing things or communicating).

Congratulations, you did come to the logical conclusion of "animal rights": fascistlike contempt for disabled humans. Pity that you, instead of rejecting such trend, instead adhere to T4 ideology now.


And that is my point. You can talk about society all you want, and I can see that, yes dolphins aren't part of society. Neither is a foetus, and similarly a two day old baby cannot participate in society at all, and neither can a person in a coma.

A fetus is not part of human society. Babies are, and so are comatose people.

Luís Henrique

[Sentinel]

Flame posts trashed -- could everyone please remain civil.


Does this apply to babies, to children, to humans who are in comas, to humans who are retarded (and I mean that in the medical sense ...) and other humans who are "significantly less then equal" to the average?


AM, I too have responded to this paragraph, in my previous post. Did you miss it?

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 01:48 pm
Flame posts trashed -- could everyone please remain civil.
I try, but I grow tired of being told to "fuck off" by that schoolyard bully.

Luís Henrique

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Sentinel:


I'm a human being and know that what's good for my species is ultimately good for me.

So it's self-interest, then? Why not just do what's good for Sentinel? Same logic.

LSD:


"vegetarianism" is simply reactionary superanturalism

Eh? What the fuck is supernatural about not eating meat? Or reactionary, for that matter? I'm a vegetarian, I'm not doing anyone any damn harm, I just think we might as well eat non-sentient things since it's so easy to.

-Alex

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by LH+--> (LH)We have this strange idea, you know, that comatose humans may recover. We have the even weirder idea that we can find the cure for mental handicaps.

But I don't think anyone has ever nurtured the idea that we can cure a cat from its catness, and turn it into a normal human being.[/b]Indeed it is a strange idea to suggest that someone with incurable brain damage could, in fact, be cured. Besides which, we don't have the medical science to cure or provide someone with a new personality if they don't have one. So that point is irrelevant at the moment.


Originally posted by LH+--> (LH)Congratulations, you did come to the logical conclusion of "animal rights": fascistlike contempt for disabled humans. Pity that you, instead of rejecting such trend, instead adhere to T4 ideology now.[/b]I'm not sure if I understand this point. "Fascist like contempt for disabled humans"? I am suggesting not a contempt for humans, but instead the other logical position, respect for other animals (at least certain of them). I don't also, understand what you mean by T4 ideology. After looking up the term ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-4_Euthanasia_Program ), I reject your claim. If you had noticed, I was advocating anything of the sort, rather, again, the opposite position. I'm simply saying that it is irrational to oppose "rights" for other relatively intelligent animals (dolphins and chimpanzees for example), but support "rights" for humans who are not (and can not because of deabilitating disabilities) part of society. I'm using LSD's criteria for giving rights. And if nothing else, I doubt that Peter Singer (who happens to have this sort of position) should be called a fascist or a NAZI.


Originally posted by LH
A fetus is not part of human society. Babies are, and so are comatose people.No, no they aren't. None of them are. Being part of society implies communication with other members of society, implies giving something to society and so on.
Society:
"The totality of social relationships among humans."
"A group of humans broadly distinguished from other groups by mutual interests, participation in characteristic relationships, shared institutions, and a common culture."
"The institutions and culture of a distinct self-perpetuating group."
(From http://www.answers.com/topic/society )
Babies aren't part of any relationship, neither are comatose people. Neither can participate in shared institutions or culture. Yes babies might (once they stop being babies...) be part of a self-perpetuating group, but comatose people aren't.


Originally posted by Sent
Flame posts trashed -- could everyone please remain civil.Sure, when idiots stop posting idiotic posts or flamers stop posting flamebait, I'll stop flaming. I had "fuck off" twice, the rest of my post was demonstrating why the post was irrelevant.


[email protected]
AM, I too have responded to this paragraph, in my previous post. Did you miss it?I didn't miss it. You didn't however, give a rational reason for these people to be looked after. Indeed, you gave instinct as the reason. I'm not disputing your point (which is why basically I didn't respond). However, I'm simply saying that it isn't really a 'good' reason, we throw off instinct for other things, why not this one too?


Lh
I try, but I grow tired of being told to "fuck off" by that schoolyard bully.Sorry? "schoolyeard bully"? I would be interested in your reasoning behind that statement. You posted flamebait, I responded explaining why your comment was unwarranted. I just happen to have included a couple of "fuck off"'s. Can cope with a little swearing?



Anyway, the bits that I didn't directly address from LSD's post, have already been addressed in previous threads. I've given my opinion in these threads before as well I'm sure.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 20, 2007 02:40 pm
And if nothing else, I doubt that Peter Singer (who happens to have this sort of position) should be called a fascist or a NAZI.
I am not sure if the term is technically accurate, but Peter Singer is a man in the far, far right.

Luís Henrique

[Sentinel]

So it's self-interest, then? Why not just do what's good for Sentinel? Same logic.

Because

a) I wouldn't feel good if what I did only benefited me, I'm a flock animal
b) much more benefits can be achieved collectively than alone

Of course I'm acting in my material self interest, not chasing some idealist dream. Similarly, any theory or attempt to change society without roots in material reality is futile and doomed to fail (communism is in my self interest because I'm a worker, and it's possible because we're many etc). I'd answer more indepth but have to go to, yeah, work.

[Vanguard1917]

'Animal rights' pressupposes a degraded view of human beings. The more elevated your view of animals, the more degraded your view of people. I explained why humans are superior and special in this thread (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=63694).


Congratulations, you did come to the logical conclusion of "animal rights": fascistlike contempt for disabled humans. Pity that you, instead of rejecting such trend, instead adhere to T4 ideology now.

Talking of fascists, Nazis - who were indifferent to human life - were enthusiastically pro-'animal rights'. The Nazi regime was the only regime in modern times to enact the kind of measures which the 'animal rights' movement demands - particularly its anti-vivisection policies.

The Nazi degradation of human beings went hand in hand with the elevation of animals. This is very important to understand. One is the logical outcome of the other. Human liberation and 'animal liberation' are contradictory concepts, not complementary.

Lab animals saluting Nazi leader Hermann Goering for banning vivisection:
http://www.armyths.org/goer2.jpg




Vivisection Forbidden in Prussia!

The New Germany leads all civilized nations in the area of animal protection!

The famous national socialist Graf E. Reventkow published in the Reichswart, the official publication of the "union of patriotic Europeans", the lead article "Protection and Rights {Recht} for the Animal". National Socialism, he writes, has for the first time in Germany begun to show Germans the importance of the individual's duty toward the animal . Most Germans have been raised with the attitude that animals are created by God for the use and benefit of man. The church gets this idea from the Jewish tradition. We have met with not a few clerics who defend this position with utmost steadfastness and vigor, yes one could say almost brutally. Usually they defend their position with the unstated intent of deepening and widening the chasm between man who has soul and soulless (how do they know that?) animals...

The friend of animals knows to what inexpressible extent the mutual understanding between man and animal and feelings of togetherness can be developed, and there are many friends of animals in Germany, and also many who cannot accept animal torture out of simple humanitarian reasons. In general however, we still find ourselves in a desert of unfeeling and brutality as well as sadism. There is much to be done and we would first like to address vivisection, for which the words "cultural shame" do not even come close; in fact it must be viewed as a criminal activity.

Graf Reventkow presents a number of examples of beastial vivisection crimes and affirms at the end, with mention of Adolph Hitler's sharp anti-vivisectionist positions, our demand that once and for all an end has to be brought to this animal exploitation.

We German friends of animals and anti-vivisectionists have placed our hopes upon the Chancellor of the Reich and his comrades in arms who are, as we know, friends of animals. Our trust has not been betrayed!

The New Germany brings proof that it is not only the hearth but bringer of a new, higher, more refined, culture:

Vivisection, a cultural shame in the whole civilized world, against which the Best in all states have fought in vain for decades, will be banned in the New Germany!

A Reich Animal Protection Law which includes a ban on vivisection is imminent and just now comes the news, elating all friends of animals, that the greatest German state, Prussia, has outlawed vivisection with no exceptions!

The National Socialist German Workers' Party { NSDAP } press release states:

"The Prussian minister-president Goering has released a statement stating that starting 16 August 1933 vivisection of animals of all kinds is forbidden in Prussia. He has requested that the concerned ministries draft a law after which vivisection will be punished with a high penalty *). Until the law goes into effect, persons who, despite this prohibition, order, participate or perform vivisections on animals of any kind will be deported to concentration camps."

Among all civilized nations, Germany is thus the first to put an end to the cultural shame of vivisection! The New Germany not only frees man from the curse of materialism, sadism, and cultural Bolshevism, but gives the cruelly persecuted, tortured, and until now, wholly defenceless animals their rights { Recht }. Animal friends and anti-vivisectionists of all states will joyfully welcome this action of the National Socialist government of the New Germany!

What Reichschancellor Adolph Hitler and Minister-president Goering have done and will do for the protection of animals should set the course for the leaders of all civilized nations! It is a deed which will bring the New Germany innumerable new elated friends in all nations. Millions of friends of animals and anti-vivisectionists of all civilized nations thank these two leaders from their hearts for this exemplary civil deed!

Buddha, the Great loving spirit of the East, says: "He who is kind-hearted to animals, heaven will protect!" May this blessing fulfils the leaders of the New Germany, who have done great things for animals, until the end. May the blessing hand of fate protect these bringers of a New Spirit, until their godgiven earthly mission is fulfilled!
R.O.Schmidt

*) As we in the meantime have learned, a similar ban has been proclaimed in Bavaria. The formal laws are imminent - thanks to the energetic initiative of our Peoples' chancellor Adolph Hitler, for whom all friends of animals of the world will maintain forever their gratitude, their love, and their loyalty.

From: Die Weisse Fahne {The White Flag} 14 (1933) : 710-711.
link (http://www.armyths.org/)

[chimx]

Of course not. Species self-interest is reciprocal unlike mammal self-interest (non-human mammals are never going to contribute to human society willingly) and all-inclusive unlike male self-interest, which irrationally cuts out half the human species.

Why in the world is it necessary to be "all-inclusive"? It simply reeks of the liberalism of Eleanor Roosevelt. I have no interest in defining my relationships along my species-being, because it isn't in my self-interest. Fuck the species. My foreman is apart of my species, and I have far more love for my parents cat than that piece of shit.

Why do you choose to identify your interests with your species instead of yourself, regardless of he actions members of your species take and your own emotional sympathies?

Libertarian1917: correlation does not imply causation. Nazi's also breathed air, does that make you a nazi? idiot.

[Vanguard1917]

Libertarian1917: correlation does not imply causation. Nazi's also breathed air, does that make you a nazi? idiot.

It was causation. The Nazi's heightened view of animals was caused by their degraded view of human beings.

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by LH+--> (LH)I am not sure if the term is technically accurate, but Peter Singer is a man in the far, far right.[/b]We are talking about the same Peter Singer aren't we? Australian Philosophy who has stood for the Greens for the Australian Senate, atheist and preference utilitarian?

According to Wikipedia, "Singer's parents were Viennese Jews who escaped the German annexation of Austria and fled to Australia in 1938". That Peter Singer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter+Singer)?

And again from Wikipedia,
Singer holds that affluent nations have a duty to increase their refugee intake greatly. He suggests that such nations begin a yearly doubling of refugee quotas until immigration has reached a level where it is clear that further immigration will, on the whole, do more harm than good.
And again,
In A Darwinian Left, Singer outlines a plan for the political left to adapt to the lessons of Darwinism and evolutionary biology. He says that evolutionary psychology suggests that humans naturally tend to be self-interested, and that leftists can't ignore scientific fact simply because it's unpleasant or inconvenient for achieving their political goals. He further argues that the evidence that selfish tendencies are natural must not be taken as evidence that selfishness is right. He concludes that game theory (the mathematical study of strategy) and experiments in psychology offer hope that self-interested people will make short-term sacrifices for the good of others, if society provides the right conditions. Essentially Singer claims that although humans possess selfish, competitive tendencies naturally, they have a substantial capacity for cooperation that has also been selected for by evolution. It is the job of the Left, he says, to create those conditions which foster cooperation amongst members of society.
Hardly seems like the kind of fellow who is "in the far, far right" as you put it.

He simply has taken the utilitarian position (which I believe BurnTheOliveTree also follows) and applied it logically and consistently. I have yet to see anyone here start with a position and then logically and consistently show how "nonpersons" (which I gather from the Wikipedia article is a term used by Peter Singer, or at least used by others regarding his views) should be treated the same as other animals that cannot "anticipate one's future".


Wikipedia article on Peter Singer
So a monkey and a human infant would be equally available for the experiment, from a moral point of view, other things being equal. If performing the experiment on the infant isn't justifiable, then Singer believes that the experiment shouldn't happen at all — instead, the researchers should pursue their goals using computer simulations or other methods.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 20, 2007 02:40 pm
If you had noticed, I was advocating anything of the sort, rather, again, the opposite position. I'm simply saying that it is irrational to oppose "rights" for other relatively intelligent animals (dolphins and chimpanzees for example), but support "rights" for humans who are not (and can not because of deabilitating disabilities) part of society. I'm using LSD's criteria for giving rights.
The point is, braindamaged people are abnormal human adults. We hope it is possible to find a cure for them. Maybe it isn't, but we err on the side of caution. A cat is a normal non-human adult. It can't be cured of its catlike condition, nor this would be, in any sence, desirable.


I'm not sure if I understand this point. "Fascist like contempt for disabled humans"? I am suggesting not a contempt for humans, but instead the other logical position, respect for other animals.

Respect is one thing, "rights" - which is what we are discussing here - a completely different thing. It is utterly impossible to practically support "animal rights". What do we do if my cat goes and kills your dog (yes, it is a big cat, and your dog is a sissy - stop being prejudiced)? Do we arrest her? Do we have to read her rights in arresting her? Is there a trial? If condemned, will she be sentenced to jail? You see, all of this is utterly ridiculous, it cannot be put into practice. But the systematical killing of human disabled, just to be sure that they are not privileged over animals, is quite possible.

So, to put humans and animals on the same level, since animals cannot be raised to human level, is only possible by lowering humans to animal level. That's why it is a fascistoid idea.


(at least certain of them)

Oh, we see. So my cat would be put in jail for killing your dog, but not for killing a roach? Can you give us a single non-anthropocentric reason for considering a roach less deserving of rights than a dog?


No, no they aren't. None of them are. Being part of society implies communication with other members of society, implies giving something to society and so on.

You are just wrong.


Babies aren't part of any relationship, neither are comatose people.

Of course babies are part of plenty of relationships. Have you ever seen a baby?

Listen, you or me could become comatose tomorrow. We hope that our rights are respected if such happens, because we would like to have a chance to recover. Neither you or I are under the risk of becoming a roach like Gregor Samsa.


Sure, when idiots stop posting idiotic posts or flamers stop posting flamebait, I'll stop flaming. I had "fuck off" twice, the rest of my post was demonstrating why the post was irrelevant.

You have the nasty habit of telling people to "fuck off" when they disagree with you. Now that we have no longer a warning system, the only thing we can do when abused by you is to abuse back. I can't speak for others, but in may case, be sure, it will be responded in kind. Quem diz o que quer, ouve o que não quer.


You posted flamebait,

This whole thread is flamebait.


I responded explaining why your comment was unwarranted. I just happen to have included a couple of "fuck off"'s. Can cope with a little swearing?

Not only I can take it, but I can dish it back to you, and outflame you singlehandedly.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 05:17 pm

Of course not. Species self-interest is reciprocal unlike mammal self-interest (non-human mammals are never going to contribute to human society willingly) and all-inclusive unlike male self-interest, which irrationally cuts out half the human species.

Why in the world is it necessary to be "all-inclusive"? It simply reeks of the liberalism of Eleanor Roosevelt. I have no interest in defining my relationships along my species-being, because it isn't in my self-interest. Fuck the species. My foreman is apart of my species, and I have far more love for my parents cat than that piece of shit.

Why do you choose to identify your interests with your species instead of yourself, regardless of he actions members of your species take and your own emotional sympathies?

Because without humanity, individual humans are incredibly fragile.

You may hate your foreman, but surely you must recognise that he is as much a victim of class society as you are - unless you're going to suggest that some people are simply born bastards. It is in our interest as a species to eradicate class divisions.


Fuck the species.

Fuck misanthropes. :angry:

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 20, 2007 06:18 pm
We are talking about the same Peter Singer aren't we? Australian Philosophy who has stood for the Greens for the Australian Senate, atheist and preference utilitarian?
We are talking about this Peter Singer (http://www.savanne.ch/right-left-materials/tolmein-on-singer.html).

A man who is against killing animals, but in favour of killing disabled children. Children with Down, for instance.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 05:17 pm
I have far more love for my parents cat than that piece of shit.
And I surely love my cat infinitely more than I love you, but you have rights, and my cat has not. Rights have nothing to do with love. Thankfully.

Luís Henrique

[LSD]

As such, because all humans aren't part of society, why should we include them in society?

There's nothing "new" in this "spin", am, it's the same appeal to marginal cases bullshit that you folks have been trotting out since day one.

I suspect that's because it's the only thing approaching an argument that your side has. Like all the rest of your claims, however, it too fails to convince.

There is a difference between capacity and being able to utilize that capacity. The mentally challanged are capable, they are just prevented from using that capacity by a debilitating medical condition.

And remember, most of the mentally challanged are still able to convieve of moral concepts. Most are able to distinguish right and wrong and make, at the very least, rudimentary ethical determinations. They are able to enter into rational dialogues and participate, at some level, in human society. No animal is!

And even for those rare few who are entirely unable to rationaly think, almost universally, they are so disabled that they are barely even afforded rights; they are rather afforded protections.

That is, their humanity and relationship with the community makes them de facto members of society even if they are themselves unable to participate due to intervening circumstances.

Besides, we know that no know squirrel or shark has the potential to engage in society. 99.99% of humans, however, do. Therefore protecting all humans, regardless of their condition at the time of analysis, and regardless of whether one thinks it will last or not, assures that no member of society is left unprotected.

Is there a bit of bleed there? Yes. Some genetically human people are born so disabled that they will never be able to do anything. But protecting them ensures that we don't miss anyone.

It's erring on the side of caution, in other words; and since we don't lose anything by doing so, it seems to me to be the smartest approach.


So why are you including the incurable comatose people in your society? Why are you including brain damaged (to a point 'worse' then imbecility) but otherwise capable people in your society?

i.e., why aren't we experimenting on "retards"?

Well, if we could know with absolute 100% certainty which individuals could recover and which couldn't and we had a medical and political system without flaw or corruption then I wouldn't actually have a problem with such a notion, at least not under very specific very controlled circumstances.

But because the line between unrecoverable and recoverable is so blurred and because doctors and scientists routinely make mistakes, it's nescessary to have a clear understandable and intuitive line -- even if that line somewhat expands the protective franchise.

That is, it's better to protect a tiny minority of "vegetables" which has no legitimate claim to enfranchisement than to not protect a group of people who do.

It's not so much a "slippery slope" argument as it is a pragmatic recognition of imperfection. It's not that I fear that human testing would "open the door" to some massive holocaust of abuse; it's just that if we start testing on "vegetables", eventually we'll make a mistake along the way and harm a member of society.

The limitations of our medical knowledge pretty much assure it.

And as society exists solely to bennefit those who compose it, it must make every effort possible to ensure that no member of said society is harmed.

Obviously sometimes injury is unavoidable, but this clearly is not one of those cases.

There just isn't that much information that we'd get from human testing that we can't get from other sources. If testing on "vegetables" were all that were standing between us and a cure for AIDS then I would support limited human testing ...but that's just not the case.

Disabled humans simply aren't that useful for medical purposes. What we really need are controlled healthy human trials and we have those now. We just wait until animal trials have been completed first.

Animal trials which, again, provide us with just as useful if not more useful data than we'd get from testing on sick and generally malformed "vegetables".

Additionaly, humans (even diabled humans) are part of a community of rational actors and as such they are emotionally bonded to members of society. So for the same reason that animal torture should be outlaws (the empathic harm it does to humans), testing on "vegetable" humans should be avoided.

Yeah, I'm in favour of banning animal torture. Again, it's all about the rational interests of society. I have no interest in harming animals or anything else for that matter.

Unlike you, I'm not letting my emotions guide me on this issue.


And that is my point. You can talk about society all you want, and I can see that, yes dolphins aren't part of society.

Well, since you've conceded that point, you've pretty admitted that there is no foundation for "animal rights".

Anyone participating in this society or with the potential to participate in this society must be granted rights. Whether that person is human, dolphin, or anything else is irrelevent, all that matters is their participation.

Now, right now, the only beings that are capable of engaging human society is humans. And so the only type of creature with rights is humanity. If that were to change, however, rights would have to be extended.

You can call it "specieism", but it's only so because our species happens to be unique: it's the only one capable of participation in complex society. If another species were capable as well, we would have to institute a policy of "bi-speciesism" and so forth for three, etc...

The point, again, is to ensure that every rational actor is protected. "Speciesism" is just a convenient means of achieving that at the moment.

Again, we can't know for certain which disabled people are permanently so and which are not and so not granting rights to all disabled people leaves the very real possibility of failing to protect real and/or potential rational members of society.

Additionaly, the blurrier we make the line, the easier we make it for society to infringe on the rights of actual members. By setting a blanket policy to protect all humans, regardless of immediate status, we ensure that no one has their rights infringed upon.

Again, we know that no know squirrel or shark has the potential to engage in society. 99.99% of humans, however, do. Therefore protecting all humans, regardless of their condition at the time of analysis, and regardless of whether one thinks it will last or not, assures that no member of society is left unprotected.

Is there a bit of bleed there? Yes. Some genetically human people are born so disabled that they will never be able to do anything. But protecting them ensures that we don't miss anyone.

It's erring on the side of caution, in other words; and since we don't lose anything by doing so, it seems to me to be the smartest approach.


Eh? What the fuck is supernatural about not eating meat?

In and of itself, nothing. But what's supernaturalistic (and reactionary) is believing that that dietary choice has political or "moral" consequences.


I'm a vegetarian, I'm not doing anyone any damn harm

Tell me, how is it that I'm aware of this "harmless" choice of yours? Did you, perhaps, proclaim it on a website as superior to every other diet? Maybe even calling anything else "barbaric" and/or "pointless"?

No one gives a fuck if you want to not eat meat, seriously, that's your business and no one else's. But when you start trying to enforce your personal habbits on other people, when you spread bullshit lies about the "evil" and "danger" of chosing to eat meat, then it becomes our concern.

Because the next step is try and force us to abandon meat, and before you say that's farfetched, I would remind you that the ALF is doing that today and groups like PETA are certainly treading the line.

If you genuinely believe that, as you say, meat is just as immoral as "human sacrifice" and "cannibalism", then I don't see why you wouldn't support government repression to stop it.

And if that's the case, then I have every right to refute your position.

[Vanguard1917]

Originally posted by Luís Henrique+May 20, 2007 06:59 pm--> (Luís Henrique @ May 20, 2007 06:59 pm)
[email protected] 20, 2007 05:17 pm
I have far more love for my parents cat than that piece of shit.
And I surely love my cat infinitely more than I love you, but you have rights, and my cat has not. Rights have nothing to do with love. Thankfully.

Luís Henrique [/b]
Hear hear.

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by LH+--> (LH)The point is, braindamaged people are abnormal human adults. We hope it is possible to find a cure for them. Maybe it isn't, but we err on the side of caution. A cat is a normal non-human adult. It can't be cured of its catlike condition, nor this would be, in any sence, desirable.[/b]
I think that it is about likely that we (being a general) could increase the intelligence of cats as it is likely that we could somehow cure someone who has had their brain damaged beyond repair ... In either case, it is likely to result in a new individual anyway, so...
And why would it not be desirable anyway? Would you want to have a conversation with your cat?


Originally posted by LH+--> (LH)So, to put humans and animals on the same level, since animals cannot be raised to human level, is only possible by lowering humans to animal level. That's why it is a fascistoid idea.[/b]I am not advocating putting all humans on the same level as all other animals. And I don't know of anyone on this forum who does advocate that position (I'm sure even chimx swats at mosquitoes ... (:P @ chimx)). I'm simply using what LSD calls the "appeal to marginal cases" to say that (for example) chimpanzees should have "rights" because they have the same intelligence, ability to feel pain, predict the future, communicate and so on as some humans. (Oh, and humans are animals too...)


Originally posted by LH
Oh, we see. So my cat would be put in jail for killing your dog, but not for killing a roach? Can you give us a single non-anthropocentric reason for considering a roach less deserving of rights than a dog?How about dogs are more sentient then roaches? They have a more complex nervous system.


Originally posted by LSD
And remember, most of the mentally challanged are still able to convieve of moral concepts. Most are able to distinguish right and wrong and make, at the very least, rudimentary ethical determinations. They are able to enter into rational dialogues and participate, at some level, in human society. No animal is!You talk about me peddling bullshit ... (Humans are animals too.) Can you give studies that show that no [non-human] animal is able to "distinguish right and wrong" or "make ... rudimentary ethical determinations"? As to entering into rational dialogue, I guess you missed those myriad of studies where researchers have taught chimpanzees to "speak" ("" quoted for a couple of reasons). A quick search turns up a number of articles, including this http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/Vines/...WithChimps.html (http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/Vines/4451/TalkWithChimps.html) which gives a number of studies (though does conclude that more research is needed).



[email protected]
Unlike you, I'm not letting my emotions guide me on this issue.I'm not letting my emotions guide me on this issue either actually... I don't know where you go that idea from...


LSD

And that is my point. You can talk about society all you want, and I can see that, yes dolphins aren't part of society.
Well, since you've conceded that point, you've pretty admitted that there is no foundation for "animal rights".

Anyone participating in this society or with the potential to participate in this society must be granted rights. Whether that person is human, dolphin, or anything else is irrelevent, all that matters is their participation.Well, it could just be that we have a different criteria for where "rights" come from ... Rights obviously come from people (I think we both (and all materialists) agree that there is no such thing as "natural rights"), but who or what are deserving of these rights is where we differ.


Anyway, I understand your position, and even respect it (though I'm not so sure about your respect for my position...).
Anyway, I some how managed to write a page in response. I'm not sure if I've addressed all the points I intended to, or if all my points are clear. I should make clear, that though I bring up Peter Singer, I do so only because his position is interesting and relevant, not because it is the same as my (it did influence my thoughts when I was first exploring this, but my position is different).

Also, because I have a major paper (10 000 words or something...) due soonish (about a week) and I have done very little of it (about a tenth...) I won't be dedicating this sort of time to this debate, as I really should be writing my paper. Besides, I think I have already said all I wanted to say (perhaps something more about Pete Singer?).

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 20, 2007 09:07 pm
How about dogs are more sentient then roaches? They have a more complex nervous system.
Or, in other words, a nervous system more similar to the human nervous system.

Next try.

Luís Henrique

[apathy maybe]

Actually I was thinking, a nervous system closer to an aliens... You know, more complicated. But nice try anyway.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Tell me, how is it that I'm aware of this "harmless" choice of yours? Did you, perhaps, proclaim it on a website as superior to every other diet? Maybe even calling anything else "barbaric" and/or "pointless"?

No one gives a fuck if you want to not eat meat, seriously, that's your business and no one else's. But when you start trying to enforce your personal habbits on other people, when you spread bullshit lies about the "evil" and "danger" of chosing to eat meat, then it becomes our concern.

Because the next step is try and force us to abandon meat, and before you say that's farfetched, I would remind you that the ALF is doing that today and groups like PETA are certainly treading the line.

If you genuinely believe that, as you say, meat is just as immoral as "human sacrifice" and "cannibalism", then I don't see why you wouldn't support government repression to stop it.

And if that's the case, then I have every right to refute your position.

Where have I said any of that crap? I don't think it's evil, I just think it's an unnecessary cause of suffering. I'm not shedding a tear for Johnny Lamb.

And I'm sorry, but it is far-fetched. The vast majority of vegetarians, in my experience, are privately so, and don't impose on anyone else. Heck, some of my family are hardline eco-warriors that destroyed a field of GM crops and were arrested for it, and they never so much as tutted at me tucking into my steak, or commented on it at all.

PETA are a pretty damn extreme example.

Where did I say it was equal to cannibalism? :wacko:

-Alex

[chimx]

And I surely love my cat infinitely more than I love you, but you have rights, and my cat has not. Rights have nothing to do with love. Thankfully.

Luís Henrique

Luis, I have not mentioned animal rights once.


Because without humanity, individual humans are incredibly fragile.

You may hate your foreman, but surely you must recognise that he is as much a victim of class society as you are - unless you're going to suggest that some people are simply born bastards. It is in our interest as a species to eradicate class divisions.

What wretched idealism! It isn't in our "species' interests". It is in my interest. Self-interest is always the common denominator, regardless of what you fool yourself into believing.




Fuck the species.
Fuck misanthropes.

QQ

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

What wretched idealism! It isn't in our "species' interests". It is in my interest. Self-interest is always the common denominator, regardless of what you fool yourself into believing.

Hobbes would have loved you! How can you even act in your own class interests if all the time it's me, me, me, me? Honestly you sound like a spoilt middle class brat.


QQ

I got another abbreviation for ya: STFU

[socialistfuture]

humans invented (or god did if u believe in him..)

Fascism,
war,

and have created/ commit
atrocity
infantcide
genocide
extinction of endless species/cultures (see genocide)

corruption
selfishness
sadism
greed
blind hatred (prejudice)
small arms
bombs
napalm
terrorism
torture
rape
inequality................

WHY ARE WE BETTER?

if we are better are some more better than them? I think species hierarchies promote human hierarchies.

all are one ~

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

WHY ARE WE BETTER?

Because we also invented communism, language, science and technology.


all are one ~

Are you fucking insane? How the fuck is a protozoa the same as a human being?

[socialistfuture]

could be argued some other species invented it before us. other forms of language existed before humans.

both are lifeforms. their are simularities.

i dont think u made much of a case for humans being better than everything else, certainly they are not the fastest, fittest, strongest, kindest species. they commit suicide.

any thoughts on negative human traits?

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 03:54 am
could be argued some other species invented it before us. other forms of language existed before humans.
Yes but the language you're mangling at the moment is definitely a human invention, as is the keyboard you're using to abuse our beautiful invention.


both are lifeforms. their are simularities.

You know what a protozoa is, right?

We're more similar to bananas for fuck's sake, are you advocating Banana Rights now as well?

We have one major difference/advantage: we're smarter and we have tools.


i dont think u made much of a case for humans being better than everything else, certainly they are not the fastest,

Certainly not, but we invented cars, bikes, trains, aeroplanes, ships, boats, helicopters, jet skis, mopeds and a whole list of other things with which we can beat any animal for speed.


fittest,

No, but our tools and machines never tire.


strongest,

We don't need to be the strongest we use our brains. (Well I say "us" I'm not too sure about yourself.)


kindest species.

Quantify kindness.


they commit suicide.

Yes and?


any thoughts on negative human traits?

For every negative there are two positives or more positives. For example do you know how many beneficial inventions have come out of war research? The microwave is just one example.

[Tommy-K]

This is like when Richard Dawkins asked the left-Christian writer (i forget her name), "If you were on a desert island with the last elephant on the planet, a baby, and a rifle, and the elephant started to charge the baby, would you shoot it?" to which she replied "Yes, I'd save the baby." to which Dawkins replied, "Why? Why would you kill the elephant, thus wiping out the species forevever, just to save a human being when they are hardly endangered? Why are human lives more valuable when we are animals just like every other species on the planet?"

There's something to think about.

[RevMARKSman]

Originally posted by Tommy-[email protected] 26, 2007 06:23 am
This is like when Richard Dawkins asked the left-Christian writer (i forget her name), "If you were on a desert island with the last elephant on the planet, a baby, and a rifle, and the elephant started to charge the baby, would you shoot it?" to which she replied "Yes, I'd save the baby." to which Dawkins replied, "Why? Why would you kill the elephant, thus wiping out the species forevever, just to save a human being when they are hardly endangered? Why are human lives more valuable when we are animals just like every other species on the planet?"

There's something to think about.
This was covered elsewhere. But I'd shoot the elephant as the baby will grow up to be an adult and would make a good friend. Elephants rarely do that, especially if they are angry enough to charge a baby in the first place. And elephants can give you a lot of good meat.

And about the endangered species thing, "the last elephant on the planet" would die anyway without reproducing because there would be no mate for it anyway. So maybe change the example to two elephants. I'd still shoot them.

[Tommy-K]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 11:41 am
And about the endangered species thing, "the last elephant on the planet" would die anyway without reproducing because there would be no mate for it anyway.
I must admit, I did think that when I read it.

It was covered elsewhere, in my "Is Richard Dawkins becoming a believer?!?!" topic in the Religion forum.

[jaycee]

I think it was Engels who said that man is at the present time in many ways actually lower than the animals, because all animals live their 'species life' to its fullest extent and are all perfect examples of whiatever particular swpecies they belong to. Humanity has not yet reached a point where this is true of us.

However Marx and Engels also said that man is also inherently superior to all animals because it alone has the ability to really plan ahead and to shape its environment for its needs.

[apathy maybe]

Yes, but the thing about a lot of the crap spouted by so called "materialists" is that it is in many ways a lot of mysticism with out any proof or so on to back it up.

When ever I read where Marx (or anyone else) has crapped on about something that is obviously outside their field of expertise (in this case biology) I tend to think less of them.

I wonder if either provided proof that only humans could plan ahead, or if they had heard of ants who obviously have the ability to shape the environment to their needs.

As well, as has been covered in another thread (linked in the first post I believe), to claim that humans are "superior" is a metaphysical claim, with no material basis (or something).

[jaycee]

though other animals have the ability to do some of these things humans remain the only truly creative and imaginative species, as Marx said: "the worst achitect is superior to the best of bees" because the architect has the ability to imagine its work before its done.

I have seen programmes on T.V where chimpanzees show the ability to think ahead, but humans are still unique in their ability to truly understand their environment and shape it accordingly.

[NorthStarRepublicML]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 20, 2007 09:07 pm
How about dogs are more sentient then roaches? They have a more complex nervous system.

now i know i'm sorta new to this message board ... but this thread .... is one of the more pointless discussions i've bore witness to as of late ... suffice to say i agree with LSD and anyone else who said Animal Rights are bogus ....

just about all of the positions had been stated in the first five or six postings .....

then it comes to this

[QUOTE]


pretty sure roaches have two brains ..... yeah they can live for a week without a head because one is in their ass ... weird



..... thats all i got

-R

[socialistfuture]

We're more similar to bananas for fuck's sake, are you advocating Banana Rights now as well?

yes - i advocate the right of many plant species, one arguement is that many strains are being lost throught corporates patenting and then making monocultures for export to rich nations. i value BIODIVERSITY

do you defend war research now too? like gas chambers, napalm testing, nuclear testing..?

what makes you think humans have two positives for every negative. I think if yo look at the current state of the world there are many negatives and i dont think im a very nihilistic person.

id like to see evidence from people who think it should be humans first as opposed to earth first! and bu that i mean, the earth and those which live on it.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 11:33 am

We're more similar to bananas for fuck's sake, are you advocating Banana Rights now as well?

yes - i advocate the right of many plant species, one arguement is that many strains are being lost throught corporates patenting and then making monocultures for export to rich nations. i value BIODIVERSITY
:mellow: Oh right, you're batshit insane. Why didn't you explain sooner? To think, I've been wasting all this time thinking I was arguing with a rational human being.


do you defend war research now too? like gas chambers, napalm testing, nuclear testing..?

As long as that shit isn't tested on humans, yes.


what makes you think humans have two positives for every negative. I think if yo look at the current state of the world there are many negatives and i dont think im a very nihilistic person.

You're right, I have no reason to assume it's just two positives for every negative, there could well be three to seven positives.


id like to see evidence from people who think it should be humans first as opposed to earth first! and bu that i mean, the earth and those which live on it.

What kind of evidence, you can't just ask for evidence and then not specify what it's of. Wait, are you trying to sound scientific :lol: ? Man you crack me up.

[RevMARKSman]

yes - i advocate the right of many plant species, one arguement is that many strains are being lost throught corporates patenting and then making monocultures for export to rich nations. i value BIODIVERSITY
If you ever come up to my door for the Banana Voting Rights Campaign, expect a long silence followed by me telling you to get the fuck off the porch before you get nibbled by hungry vultures (or robins...they fly threateningly in circles as well :P ).


what makes you think humans have two positives for every negative. I think if yo look at the current state of the world there are many negatives and i dont think im a very nihilistic person.
Why are we talking in negatives and positives anyway?

But for every smoke-belching factory producing little pieces of plastic shit, there is another one packaging food, one prodessing lumber, one making bricks, and a few making electronics like the computer you're using now.


id like to see evidence from people who think it should be humans first as opposed to earth first! and bu that i mean, the earth and those which live on it.

When you speak the language of moralism, don't expect evidence. If you think it "should" be earth first, that's just stating in moral language that you're not going ot act in your own rational self-interest. Have fun "reducing consumption".

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 11:33 am
i value BIODIVERSITY
You value biodiversity because you are human. Non-human animals are completely uncapable of valuing biodiversity.

Luís Henrique

[socialistfuture]

they value a habitat, food, water and so on. i know animals that love their habitats. maybe not love in what you believe is a purely human emotion.

i never said bananas are like humans, or should be voted for. I do think bananas should exist tho.

many humans don't value biodiversity, life, humans, or animals.


As long as that shit isn't tested on humans, yes.
why test for nuclear weapons and gas chambers, landlines, daisycutters etc unless they are later to be used on humans? weaponry is designed and tested for the destruction of life. why do you think warfare is a anthropogenic victory or something

what do you favour it being tested on, and for what reasons. have you ever considered the effects of depleted uranium on iraqi civilians, us veterans? or the effects of radiation on ukranians, or the effects of hirohima and ngasaki on japanese civilians, or the effects of napalm on vietnamese and us soilders, or the effects of spraying crops on colombian people and their ecosystems?

all you do is insult me and say my arguement is stupid without properly saying why.

[chimx]

Originally posted by NoXion+May 23, 2007 10:45 am--> (NoXion @ May 23, 2007 10:45 am)
What wretched idealism! It isn't in our "species' interests". It is in my interest. Self-interest is always the common denominator, regardless of what you fool yourself into believing.

Hobbes would have loved you! How can you even act in your own class interests if all the time it's me, me, me, me? Honestly you sound like a spoilt middle class brat.


QQ

I got another abbreviation for ya: STFU [/b]

Originally posted by [email protected]

What wretched idealism! It isn't in our "species' interests". It is in my interest. Self-interest is always the common denominator, regardless of what you fool yourself into believing.

Hobbes would have loved you! How can you even act in your own class interests if all the time it's me, me, me, me? Honestly you sound like a spoilt middle class brat.

You can make baseless assumptions and name call all you want, but you have yet to prove that there is any sort of biological or material basis for an allegience to ones species, and that self-interest doesn't guide the grand majority of all human action. Your anthropocentricism still sounds like utopic idealism, and as fictitious to materialists as Romanticism.


Noxion

QQ

I got another abbreviation for ya: STFU

I see your abbreviation and see you one animated .gif:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/eileen.ratcliffe/Images/lollerskates-small.gif

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 19, 2007 08:49 pm
This is an attempt to discover why certain people feel that humans are some how inherently superior to other animals, to find out why they think that humans are the greatest animal. And actually to discover if people are going to be consistent or irrational.

It comes from reading that Marx apparently thought that humans are special because of the ability to produce their own means of subsistence through social organisation. (From Monty Cantsin's paper "Marx's Grand-Narrative, The Materialist Conception of History.") To me, this seems blatantly wrong, ants for example have complex social organisations and some varieties farm aphids and have slaves. Various other great apes also have complex social organisations and share food, as do other animals.

In a previous thread (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=63694&st=0 actually on the same topic), various people attempted to explain why humans were superior or better (ants are better at carrying (relatively) large weights unassisted, while worms are better at living underground) and so on. It was demonstrated that there is no objective standard for the claim that humans are superior.

So, why do people think that of all the animals humans are the best?

Does this apply to babies, to children, to humans who are in comas, to humans who are retarded (and I mean that in the medical sense ...) and other humans who are "significantly less then equal" to the average?

This final point is where I'd like this thread to focus, if that is at all possible. Are all humans "equal", and if not, are we free to mistreat those who aren't "equal"?
I choose to eat meat for several reasons-

-Health reasons. Its been proven that meat contains certain minerals and vitamins (eg Vitamin D i believe) which arent availble in fruit, vegetables or dairy products. Hence why many vegetarians suffer from lathargy and in need of supplements. The Dalai lama was for this reason instructed to eat meat.

-Cultural reasons. Many cultures around the world live primarily on meat. I like to travel, so rather than cause insult or offence because my palate isnt used to meat, I may as well get used to it at home.

-Evolution. - Meat has been mans primary source of nutrition since man evolved, so it seems sensible that the human anatomy is best evolved and suited for a diet primarilly consisting of meat.

If I'm wrong, or talking shit, please enlighten me.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Tommy-[email protected] 26, 2007 11:23 am
This is like when Richard Dawkins asked the left-Christian writer (i forget her name), "If you were on a desert island with the last elephant on the planet, a baby, and a rifle, and the elephant started to charge the baby, would you shoot it?" to which she replied "Yes, I'd save the baby." to which Dawkins replied, "Why? Why would you kill the elephant, thus wiping out the species forevever, just to save a human being when they are hardly endangered? Why are human lives more valuable when we are animals just like every other species on the planet?"

There's something to think about.
If it was the last elephant there'd be no hope for the survival of it's species anyway if there wouldnt be another elephant for it to mate with. All you'd be doing by shooting the elephant is hurrying the inevitable.

[socialistfuture]

vitamin D can be obtained from fortified soymilk or ricemilk.

[socialistfuture]

Nutrition

Very few foods are naturally rich in vitamin D, and most vitamin D intake is in the form of fortified products including milk, soy milk and cereal grains.[1]
wikipedia
Shiitake mushrooms, one of a few natural sources of vegan vitamin D (in the form of ergosterol vitamin D2).

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 05:06 am
they value a habitat, food, water and so on.
And a greedy capitalist who owns a polluting ammonition plant values exactly that. His water, his food, and his habitat. What's the difference? It is sheer selfishness.

Non-humans do not value biodiversity, they don't even understand what biodiversity is.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 05:06 am
i never said bananas are like humans, or should be voted for. I do think bananas should exist tho.
So do I, they are tasty.


many humans don't value biodiversity, life, humans, or animals.

And no non-humans value any of that. Understand the difference, an animal may "value" (if the word can be applied) his own life, or other animals or plants that constitute food for them, but they don't value biodiversity or life. You are taking the part for the whole.

Luís Henrique

[Enragé]

human beings are the only beings who can impart value on anything, at least from the perspective of human beings.. which for a human being is the only perspective relevant, or even possible, since we are human beings.

If chimpanzees have rights (i.e rights in the minds of human beings), they have rights because human beings give it to them, grant them that.
If you're saying that chimpanzees have rights for any other reason, then you are constructing a non-materialist, spiritualistic argument, which is an unprovable argument by its very nature.

Bottom line, what has rights, and what has not, from the subjective view of a human being, is completely reliant on human beings in general granting those rights.
It all comes down to a question of subjects and objects, we human beings are subjects, and put value on the objects around us.