I would imagine it's because some people feel that they shouldn't have to look up everything that someone else says. If someone states something as a fact, then perhaps these people feel that they should be the ones to back it up.
Stop trolling, I'm in doubt you're doing the "false dilemma" or the "straw man" logical fallacies...
I wasn't trolling, and I wasn't stating anything. I don't know how that was a false dilemma.
I was asking if less intelligent animals mattered. That's why it was in the form of a question. I wanted to know if the one I replied to believed that less intelligent animals are objectively less important.
I also expect not to be eaten, if I encounter an intelligent alien...
Perhaps they will find us so unintelligent and inefficient that they will kill us without hesitation.
I'd like to know what criteria they use to spare a life
Their own beliefs.
In any case, I was just saying that I see no magical reason that "intelligent" animals are more important than unintelligent animals outside of person beliefs.
And do you really think harpooning and electrocuting the largest mammals on earth whose brain power and emotional states are generally compared to say YOU , don't you think thats a little...off?
I don't see why their brain power is all that important. Less intelligent animals don't matter, then?
Only pirates oppose SOPA. They know it'll completely stop them from downloading copyrighted material (magically)! Anyone who says that it will be abused is just a conspiracy theorist.
Well, I'll try my best not to use "human reasoning," then.
I was mainly talking about knee-jerk reactions, by the way.
That said, if it is true that humans need at least some emotions to make decisions (which seems like it would be pretty difficult to prove in all cases), then that is just another reason that I view humans as inefficient.
This is subjective. They can come up with any reason they wish. You said that there is no reason that any normal person could have a use for this. They find their own reasons, so I found your statement to be technically incorrect.
You might not like their reason, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
Slashdot Mirror
If it ain't broken, don't fix it.
And nothing ever improves...
I would imagine it's because some people feel that they shouldn't have to look up everything that someone else says. If someone states something as a fact, then perhaps these people feel that they should be the ones to back it up.
I believe the real problem is oversensitive idiots and the desire to cater to them.
What's the point of that decision? A kid seeing a virtual gun is going to bring about the apocalypse?
Not as much, anyway.
In your (or other people's) opinion, anyway.
well, the reasoning is that they (the animals) can understand the plight they're in in they got more brain power.
I don't see how that matters objectively. Looks like it's just their opinion that we shouldn't kill intelligent animals.
Stop trolling, I'm in doubt you're doing the "false dilemma" or the "straw man" logical fallacies...
I wasn't trolling, and I wasn't stating anything. I don't know how that was a false dilemma.
I was asking if less intelligent animals mattered. That's why it was in the form of a question. I wanted to know if the one I replied to believed that less intelligent animals are objectively less important.
I also expect not to be eaten, if I encounter an intelligent alien...
Perhaps they will find us so unintelligent and inefficient that they will kill us without hesitation.
I'd like to know what criteria they use to spare a life
Their own beliefs.
In any case, I was just saying that I see no magical reason that "intelligent" animals are more important than unintelligent animals outside of person beliefs.
And do you really think harpooning and electrocuting the largest mammals on earth whose brain power and emotional states are generally compared to say YOU , don't you think thats a little...off?
I don't see why their brain power is all that important. Less intelligent animals don't matter, then?
so why is there just so much opposition to the whaling?
I don't know. Difference of opinions?
If you refuse to do business with everyone you disagree with
I think for most of the people, it's not just a simple everyday disagreement.
When you move out of your parents basement, get a life and a job.. then you can talk to me about ethics.
What's with the assumptions?
Only pirates oppose SOPA. They know it'll completely stop them from downloading copyrighted material (magically)! Anyone who says that it will be abused is just a conspiracy theorist.
But... lying to them is so entertaining!
Well, I'll try my best not to use "human reasoning," then.
I was mainly talking about knee-jerk reactions, by the way.
That said, if it is true that humans need at least some emotions to make decisions (which seems like it would be pretty difficult to prove in all cases), then that is just another reason that I view humans as inefficient.
You should learn how human reasoning works
Well, I'll try my best not to use "human reasoning," then.
1 + 1 = 3 because that makes me feel good.
Unfortunately, that seems to go against human nature.
Still, some people seem to be able to do it.
The rest of the post is bullshit.
Why?
Quickly! Ban the friends of every cheater! They might also be cheaters. Such a thing would bring about the apocalypse.
Isn't allowing your emotions to control you great? You should do it all the time (especially when thinking about the children)!
They fight against an orderly society in every way possible, especially anything law-enforcement related.
Huh? I thought they fought for our rights (or, at least, that is what they claim).
If they're going to have security, fine. Just make sure it doesn't violate anyone's rights.
lest someone become offended
That's why they're against them?
Sometimes.
Will you please apologize
What would the point of that be?
most of their use is for illegal things.
How do you know this?
valid reason
This is subjective. They can come up with any reason they wish. You said that there is no reason that any normal person could have a use for this. They find their own reasons, so I found your statement to be technically incorrect.
You might not like their reason, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
Who goes first is irrelevant. The virus doesn't care, and it is highly probable that far more than one person will die.
I may or may not die, but I think it would be an interesting thing to see for myself.
Well, if someone wants it, they'll probably get it. Censoring information effectively seems quite difficult (especially something like this).
We're a bit too overpopulated for my tastes.