> Your arguement in regards to replacing words isn't what that man said. So, what's the difference?
> We eat meat. Does that mean that it's right to do it or what? Rapeists rape, then it must be right!
> We've been doing it for thousands of years and we're not going to stop anytime soon. Hopefully, when people realise what enourmous amounts of completley unnecessary suffering it causes.
> Those pointy sharp teeth in the front of your jaw were given to you by evolution so you can eat meat! Yes, what's your point? Whatever ever comes out of an evolutionary process is by definition morally right? Come on!
> We're the dominant species on this planet, and membership has it's privliges. Might is right! Yeah. So if I'm sometimes mightier than you (by holding a gun or something), it's completley acceptable for me to do whatever i feel to you because I'm "dominant" and get "priviliges"?
Then maybe you can explain the why moral differencies should be founded on the race/species/haircolor/intelligens/whatever of the individuals in question and not relevant properties such as the ability to suffer when talking suffering and so on?
'We have a moral obligation to protect whites not because they are "intelligent", or "sentient", or "conscious", but rather because they are white people. Therefore, we will always be bound to protect any organism that is genetically a member of the white race, even if said creature is less self-aware than the negro that served my dinner tonight.'
In what way is that different? Answer: it's not. I just changed 'species' to 'race'. It's just as arbitrary, just as racist/speciesist, just as wrong. The reason to give anyone a right to, say, not suffer, should only be the ability to suffer, nothing else.
And both negroes and the chicken you ate tonight are most likely concious and can suffer. And the latter probably lived a hellish life before death.
Would we? If we ended up with a truly conscious, thinking being, could we simply turn it off? Assuming that we can create such a thing, flipping the power off would be awfully close to killing a human.
Uh, hello? You do it every day, it's called "buying meat".
I can't understand what's supposed to be bad with killing anyway. It doesn't matter to the killed afterwards does it? What's bad is the side effects, fear, grievance, pain and such. These feelings (and other suffering) is why I don't buy meat (or eggs, or milk, or...).
Just build better communications. When people frequently travels to, talks to and depends on each other they don't accept wars.
An example: Sweden and Denmark has been at war more or less constantly for several hundred years. Now, when technology has brought them closer, a war would be completely unthinkable.
Not to talk about the likleyhood for civil wars...
And the Internet promises to spread this phenomenon far and fast.
So, I can "internally" distribute copyrighted software to "sub-contractors" all over the world without a license from the copyright holder?
So if I took, say, windows, shipped it to whomever agreed to a "Testing Agreement" and paid a "shipment fee" on half the price that would be completley legal?
So you want to kill everyone that's smarter than you?
Being (along with the rest of earthlife) laughably stupid I wouldn't mind to have someone think through difficult things and explain them to me. Just like I don't at all mind having a calculator divide 78646/427 for me. And I most certainly don't want to 'pull their plug' because the can calculate better than me.
Very much like the US gov't ban on exporting serious crypto - you think Saddam hasn't got an agent here who has already gotten copies of erything useful and shipped it home.
I thought the purpose of the law was to prevent strong crypto to make it as a standard feature in normal user apps. Of course the current Bad Guy(TM) has all crypto it needs.
Remember that *everyone*, even you, is amazingly stupid. So before doing that (or buy your next piece of meat, or most other things too), please sit down and think through your prejudices. And/or read a good book on ethics. Thanks.
BSD: Redistributions... must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
You are not allowed to change the license.
GPL: You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.
You are not allowed to use GPL'd code with other licenses.
Of course everyone in the world who wants to use strong crypto can. But big USAian things like Netscape and M$ can't integrate it in their programs. So people don't use crypto, it's too hard. (With the exception of "drug dealers", "terrorists" and/.ers of course.)
So, if I get tired of Linux and download Debian GNU/Hurd instead, why would that be so very different? Ok, if Linux gets buggy from releasedate pressure and such maybe. Or are you talking about using something entirely non-commercial like Debian or GNU?
I'm on the way it seems. Wherever (almost) I go I use the same desktop (in the case of a good xserver) or at least the same apps (in the case of a bad xserver) from my home computer. And I run apt-get update/upgrade daily with cron.
Yeah, it helps those suffering people a lot if you torture fish! It's just a sad, bad, excuse. Please think about it! Or read a good book (preferably one by Peter Singer). Or both. Then become a vegetarian.
I hope more people follows your excellent example and get their ethical guidance from the behaviour of pigs!
No seriosly, pigs and dogs can not make the moral judgement that causing huge amounts of suffering for very weak reasons is bad. You can. Not that a dogs consuming of meat isn't as bad as yours, it is, but you can do something about it!
Suffering is suffering, no matter if the individual is a green alien, human or pig. If it can be avoided (and in the case of the pig, it most definetly can) it should be avoided.
There is idots everywhere. Just look at Slashdot... But don't confuse them with what it's really about. The huge amount of suffering stupid prejudices causes is real and the ethics and arguments behind the right to equal consideration of interests for sentient beings it is rock solid.
He he, well, you were being sarcastic but you are partially right. Fish do at least feel pain. Would you fish cute things like puppies or babies with hook and bait? But fish are ok? The difference? they can't scream. They don't bleed.
(I'm really a vegan, all the "They are not human so they don't count" is just raceist (spieciesist) BS.)
Slashdot Mirror
> Your arguement in regards to replacing words isn't what that man said.
So, what's the difference?
> We eat meat.
Does that mean that it's right to do it or what? Rapeists rape, then it must be right!
> We've been doing it for thousands of years and we're not going to stop anytime soon.
Hopefully, when people realise what enourmous amounts of completley unnecessary suffering it causes.
> Those pointy sharp teeth in the front of your jaw were given to you by evolution so you can eat meat!
Yes, what's your point? Whatever ever comes out of an evolutionary process is by definition morally right? Come on!
> We're the dominant species on this planet, and membership has it's privliges.
Might is right! Yeah. So if I'm sometimes mightier than you (by holding a gun or something), it's completley acceptable for me to do whatever i feel to you because I'm "dominant" and get "priviliges"?
The wrong lies not in the fact that the animal suffers (remember, animals hunt, kill and eat each other every day)
So does animals of the species humans. That doesn't make it right does it?
Suffering is suffering, it doesn't matter if the suffering individual is a relative/white/human/other animal/alien/...
And what is it you want to avoid with a society that repect it's weaker members? Suffering isn't it?
So if I am more intelligent that you I have the right to torture you to death in return for "a slap on the wrist"?
Why should not the suffering I give you count just because you (or any concious animal, AI or alien) are less intelligent?
Then maybe you can explain the why moral differencies should be founded on the race/species/haircolor/intelligens/whatever of the individuals in question and not relevant properties such as the ability to suffer when talking suffering and so on?
'We have a moral obligation to protect whites not because they are "intelligent", or "sentient", or "conscious", but rather because they are white people. Therefore, we will always be bound to protect any organism that is genetically a member of the white race, even if said creature is less self-aware than the negro that served my dinner tonight.'
In what way is that different? Answer: it's not. I just changed 'species' to 'race'. It's just as arbitrary, just as racist/speciesist, just as wrong. The reason to give anyone a right to, say, not suffer, should only be the ability to suffer, nothing else.
And both negroes and the chicken you ate tonight are most likely concious and can suffer. And the latter probably lived a hellish life before death.
What an absolutley wonderful idea! Unfortunatley it will probably be hard to find a complete set of genes (or any at all).
And "flamebait"? Maybe, byt if some christians want to flame don't punish the poster. This is actually a cool idea worth considering!
Meat industry animals eat somehwhere around ten times more food than they grow muscles. So to produce 1kg meat you use ~10kg soy, wheat, oil, etc.
Not that I think that is very important compared to the enormous suffering of the to-be-meat-persons, but still...
Would we? If we ended up with a truly conscious, thinking being, could we simply turn it off? Assuming that we can create such a thing, flipping the power off would be awfully close to killing a human.
...).
Uh, hello? You do it every day, it's called "buying meat".
I can't understand what's supposed to be bad with killing anyway. It doesn't matter to the killed afterwards does it? What's bad is the side effects, fear, grievance, pain and such. These feelings (and other suffering) is why I don't buy meat (or eggs, or milk, or
Just build better communications. When people frequently travels to, talks to and depends on each other they don't accept wars.
An example: Sweden and Denmark has been at war more or less constantly for several hundred years. Now, when technology has brought them closer, a war would be completely unthinkable.
Not to talk about the likleyhood for civil wars...
And the Internet promises to spread this phenomenon far and fast.
The EU is slowly joining their armies, aiming to take Soviets place as a military superpower. In a few years they could be willing and ready for WW.
(Note that I am *not* recommending anyone to arm up.)
So, I can "internally" distribute copyrighted software to "sub-contractors" all over the world without a license from the copyright holder?
So if I took, say, windows, shipped it to whomever agreed to a "Testing Agreement" and paid a "shipment fee" on half the price that would be completley legal?
So you want to kill everyone that's smarter than you?
Being (along with the rest of earthlife) laughably stupid I wouldn't mind to have someone think through difficult things and explain them to me. Just like I don't at all mind having a calculator divide 78646/427 for me. And I most certainly don't want to 'pull their plug' because the can calculate better than me.
(some) People (and companies) who uses (and likes) their software pays for it.
OTOH I heard he is a vegan. But if true I'd bet it's just for personal health reasons anyway.
Very much like the US gov't ban on exporting serious crypto - you think Saddam hasn't got an agent here who has already gotten copies of erything useful and shipped it home.
I thought the purpose of the law was to prevent strong crypto to make it as a standard feature in normal user apps. Of course the current Bad Guy(TM) has all crypto it needs.
> ...learning how to hunt and butcher...
Remember that *everyone*, even you, is amazingly stupid. So before doing that (or buy your next piece of meat, or most other things too), please sit down and think through your prejudices. And/or read a good book on ethics. Thanks.
BSD: ... must retain the above copyright
Redistributions
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
You are not allowed to change the license.
GPL:
You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
parties under the terms of this License.
You are not allowed to use GPL'd code with other licenses.
There is a nice thing called anacron that is not assuming the system to be on 24h.
Of course everyone in the world who wants to use strong crypto can. But big USAian things like Netscape and M$ can't integrate it in their programs. So people don't use crypto, it's too hard. (With the exception of "drug dealers", "terrorists" and /.ers of course.)
So, if I get tired of Linux and download Debian GNU/Hurd instead, why would that be so very different? Ok, if Linux gets buggy from releasedate pressure and such maybe. Or are you talking about using something entirely non-commercial like Debian or GNU?
I'm on the way it seems. Wherever (almost) I go I use the same desktop (in the case of a good xserver) or at least the same apps (in the case of a bad xserver) from my home computer. And I run apt-get update/upgrade daily with cron.
Yeah, it helps those suffering people a lot if you torture fish! It's just a sad, bad, excuse. Please think about it! Or read a good book (preferably one by Peter Singer). Or both. Then become a vegetarian.
I hope more people follows your excellent example and get their ethical guidance from the behaviour of pigs!
No seriosly, pigs and dogs can not make the moral judgement that causing huge amounts of suffering for very weak reasons is bad. You can. Not that a dogs consuming of meat isn't as bad as yours, it is, but you can do something about it!
Suffering is suffering, no matter if the individual is a green alien, human or pig. If it can be avoided (and in the case of the pig, it most definetly can) it should be avoided.
There is idots everywhere. Just look at Slashdot... But don't confuse them with what it's really about. The huge amount of suffering stupid prejudices causes is real and the ethics and arguments behind the right to equal consideration of interests for sentient beings it is rock solid.
He he, well, you were being sarcastic but you are partially right. Fish do at least feel pain. Would you fish cute things like puppies or babies with hook and bait? But fish are ok? The difference? they can't scream. They don't bleed.
(I'm really a vegan, all the "They are not human so they don't count" is just raceist (spieciesist) BS.)