No, the in-between space is the taint. An in-between hole would either be an anal fistula or a vaginal fistula. A super massive black hole would be goatse, and a standard black hole has already wiped out more crap than you would care to consider. A wormhole is a vaginal-to-anal fistula, and hyperspace gate triggers are made by Hitachi.
Be sure to tune in tomorrow when we offer penetrating insights into what trans-dimensional travel implies for space-borne dildo use.
However, I think you will agree that while this remains a thought experiment, this is a strong argument that cats are immoral.
No, I wouldn't. Because your "experiment" is only speculation, drawing a conclusion from it is invalid.
Also — I do have real world experience here. The fact is, in most cases, the mother feeds the kittens until she is too weak to move, with her dugs drying up as they go. It's really quite pitiful, and in the end, it doesn't usually save them because whatever it is that has isolated the mother from food sources also isolates the kittens.
My company specializes in charity towards animals; although that is rewarding on many levels, sadly, it also means I know far more than I really want to about the bad things that happen to them.
It's not that everything is black and white, it is simply that questions which have only two answers aren't something I get confused about, the way you do.
When confronted with the question, "Are you human", I answer "yes", rather than some in-between answer. When confronted with the question "is your cat human", I answer "no." These are simple questions. There is no need to make up a third position, an agnostic position on homo sapiens and/or felines.
Similarly, there are only two positions with regard to belief in a god or gods. Either you have some, or you don't. Therefore, you are either theist or atheist. That whole agnostic thing is just confusion at best, and cowardice at worst.
Thanks for the thread. By all means, have the last word. Slashdot will archive it shortly.
All men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
It's bullshit. Some men are born dead. Some men are born into slavery. Some men are born unable to pursue happiness, and then it gets worse. Women too, all three conditions. It's bullshit. Doesn't matter how you elaborate upon it, doesn't matter how far you restrict it, doesn't matter if you bring some bullshit idea of a "creator" into it, doesn't matter if you try and abstract it into "unalienable rights" that some paper is going to try and formalize. The whole idea of everyone being "created equal" is still bullshit from end to end and top to bottom. Pure, unadulterated bullshit. No straw man required. We already have one made out of bullshit, anyway.
People aren't equal. On any level. At creation, birth, midlife, or end of life. I suggest you get used to the idea. Otherwise you'll spend all your time shoveling... yes, bullshit.:)
I read your whole post; I saw you waffle on the issue a few sentences later, too. I responded to the part I disagreed with, and as it was fundamental (in the foundational sense) to your reasoning, I pointed it out for you to fix or address as you would. Let me be a little clearer: We are not created equal in any way. It's bullshit; it's always been bullshit. It's nice sounding bullshit, and in that way very much reminds me of religion, but it's still bullshit.
So either reformulate, or let it go. OK with me either way.
Where do these morals come from? Do they come from working toward the greater good (utilitarian?) Or, are they self-serving? Or, do animals have an accountability to a higher power?
Morals come from the brain. They are biologically housed and implemented. Some are innate, some are learned. In both humans and cats. They're positions on actions based on something more abstract than immediate personal benefit. That's why animals at the one extreme will save their owners from fires, and at the other, will act guilty if they know they've transgressed what is known to them to be correct behavior. There's no indication that there is anything unique to humans with regard to morals, other than the level of sophistication, an issue I already addressed. Morals are why fish will support one another when wounded. And perhaps hope.
As for accountability, we humans tend to hold animals accountable fom time to time. Though I doubt that's what you meant.
If it is not ok for me to fish, is it ok for a black bear to capture and devour salmon? Does the [equal] salmon have rights that are being infringed? Or, does the food chain dictate the moral worth of the bear's meal -- in which case it would also be ok for me to fish.
An interesting question. My position is that the more sophisticated you are mentally, the less excuse you have to inflict pain, privation, destruction of family and so forth on those weaker than you. The bear has both a relatively simple understanding of the act itself, and lacks the ability to find or develop an adequate substitute. We humans, on the other hand, are just now entering into a time when we are beginning to truly understand our nutritional needs and will probably be in a position to deal with them properly without killing our fellow residents. Perhaps we can pass that benefit on to the salmon by feeding the bears artificial proteins that are even more savory than salmon.
But we need not stop there. That same bear would also have no problem eating your new born baby if the bear was hungry and the baby was conveniently available to it. Especially if you'd been feeding the kid salmon. This is the bear's nature. Using the process established by your argument, since it's OK for the bear, it is now OK for you. This is why your "food-chain" argument isn't one that is of particular interest to me. When people (or animals) with poor(er) means of discrimination fail to make a distinction between "neighbor" and "prey", that does not automatically confer the right to claim that you can exercise the same failure and be morally correct simply because you've seen the behavior elsewhere in nature, downline or otherwise.
In other words, the smarter we get, the fewer violent things we will be able to find excuses for. Fishing, no question, is extremely violent from the standpoint of the fish.
No, I argue that fishing is culturally accepted because it is ok -- morally. As I've argued throughout this tread, animals are not equal to humans, and so they are not afforded the same rights as humans.
That's convenient to your argument, but the artificial line of human/inhuman will not support your argument if examined even moderately closely. Here is why: A severely retarded human may not be able to equal the facilities of a moderately smart non-human (animal or for that matter, alien.) Is it therefore OK to sink a fishhook into the cheek of, and subsequently eat, the retarded human? Or do you argue that being human is not a state of capability, but a state of grace of some kind?
Within our universe, the Law of Conservation of Mass, the Law of Conservation
of Energy and Einstein's Law E=mc^2 are proven *Laws*. Yet there is an
enormous amount of matter and energy. Explain where it came from.
First, and almost offhand, they aren't laws, they're the currently reigning theories, which means they are our current best candidate of human metaphor for observed behavior. They may yet, or may not, be superceded, extended, and/or reduced. We'll see. Not that they are particularly relevant to your point, but your understanding of them is flawed.
Second, why would I have to explain where anything came from? I wasn't there if and when anything "came from" anywhere, nor was I around to observe that anything was always there, nor was I around to observe a continuing cycle of collapse and expansion, nor was I around to see dimensions interact... basically, I'm smart enough to know that it is outright folly to assume I know what happened umpty-ump billion years ago. I don't expect to ever know, and although I am certainly curious, my curiosity does not drive me to make ridiculous pronouncements that "this" or "that" is "how everything began" — I am comfortable not knowing. When other people make such pronouncements (for instance, when they assume "creation" by God, gods, or via "the monobloc") I just laugh at them, because they're being very silly, and furthermore, they're not even answering the question, they're just extending it to a new domain. Where did God come from? Where did the monobloc come from? Etc., ad infinitum.
You can't. No human being can fathom how it came to be. No human being can
fathom the nature of such a Being Who could create such a fast and perfect
system.
If a being existed outside what you're calling "creation", then there was something already, and you've not addressed how he (or it) came to be. Postulating one unanswerable, impossible to confirm situation in order to conjure up another is not only fruitless (in the gain-of-knowledge sense), it is outright stupid.
However, your claim that no human can know is without foundation in fact. You don't know where humanity will go in the future. Our scientific progress may include being able to observe long-past events. It's technically possible — in fact, you do it every time you look at the stars. I don't know if we'll figure it out, but I do know that guessing at it won't resolve the question, no matter how entertaining it is for scientists and no matter how comforting it is for theists. Why? Because given the current state of science, even if you got the right answer, you wouldn't know you had. To confirm such speculation will require observation.
Your logic has reached a cold dead-end. If you are at-all logical and truthful you must admit that something beyond your comprehension created this universe as a self-contained and self-consistent and unchangeable in its total amount of content system.
No, I don't have to admit that at all. I am fully ready to admit that the universe is here, but that's no reason to assume it was created, or unchangable. In fact, our observations of the universe may be the very best evidence that it has always been here in one form or another. We have no information that would make any rational person assume power could accrue to one being such that said being could create what we dimly perceive in the Hubble telescope's deep-field samples. This is one of the best evidentiary points in favor of discarding theism — the presumption of such power in the hands of one being makes no sense. And of course, I don't count the bible as "information" — it is a book written by a crew of scientifically illiterate early middle easterners, and as such, one of the very last places I would turn for answers to real scientific issues.
May be you want to give me objective facts that universe was always there.
Why would you think I would be inclined to do that? I left the floor open for either possibility. It was the response that flat-out asserted that "creation isn't a myth."
Going back to your bold claim that 'creation is a myth'
Hold on there. You have to read the whole sentence. Quoting sentence fragments as if they were complete statements isn't going to cut it. I specifically allowed for the possibility of creation. What I was indicating is that there is nothing that I am aware of that makes the conclusion of creation particularly likely, much less fact.
when we get outta our mother's womb, you ever wonder why you are an uniquely thinking individual instead of a clone, or a wad of H20 and carbon molecules flowing in space?
No. I am what I am. There is no apparent reason to begin asking why as far as I am concerned, it's just the way things are. I am quite comfortable not knowing the answers to certain types/classes of questions, especially if they are formulated as "why" in a universe that has given us every indication of being a combination of random interactions of natural processes.
I need some answers to explain the physics of things that we can't see or touch.
Well, that's perfectly OK for you, but I don't -- at least if you include "measure" as a form of touch. I'm also less than comfortable with drawing absolute conclusions from faulty or severely incomplete data sets. Which puts the big bang theory, for one, right out of consideration, right along with "some dude did it."
There are millions of people that will tell you there is something wrong with it. The question is, who is correct? I'm rather inclined to think they are, rather than you.
The smarter we are, the more control we obtain, the more responsibility we assume as we realize that we can dominate other life forms. It's a serious question, and it is not immediately obvious that it is moral to sink a hook into an animal's cheek, drown it in a medium where it can't obtain oxygen or lop off its head, and eat it.
You argue from the assumption that fishing is OK because it is culturally accepted. I won't buy that as the final word on "OK."
It's not a third position at all, any more than being asked if you believe in pink elephants allows a third position if you claim you don't know if pink elephants exist. Either you believe, or you don't.
Knowledge is not belief. No amoung of wordplay by gnostics or anyone else can make it so. Either you believe in a god or gods, or you don't. If that position is leveraged by knowledge, so be it, but it's still either belief, or lack of it, hence theism or atheism.
It is my *opinion* that most declared agnostics don't believe, but do not have the stones to come out and say so. But that's just my opinion. They may mostly be believers, hiding from atheists, though I think that's a little unlikely.
Top tip: follow your assertations by statements which support them.
Eh? What part of that are you unfamilar with? Any cat owner who has been around birthing cycles knows about mothers not eating the kittens. Do I really have to explain this to you?
The news is replete with stories about cats who get trapped with owners and what happens; cat rescue stories are good press and appear after almost every earthquake, along with teary-eyed descriptions of how they managed to live some improbable number of days. Do you not follow the news?
Top tip for you: If it's common knowledge, you don't need to explain it unless someone makes a point that indicates they don't possess that knowledge. Which you didn't do, I might add...
Assuming that Jesus was a real person (not well supported by the historical record) and that the bible, which is comprised of documents that date back no further than 300 years after he was supposed to have lived, reports his words accurately, we can still intuit that as with all religions, the structure of the religion is what exerts control, not individual statements by one or more of it's proponents. In order to exert control, one must manipulate. In this way, lies and misdirection abound -- stories of "my father in heaven", "healings", "floods", turning people into pillars of salt and so forth and so on. Watch any televangelist; amidst the pleas for money and the lies about healings, they'll give you little turds of wisdom about how you should behave, and sure enough, in amongst the flow of sewage there will be little gems of wisdom.
Yes, you bet -- Christianity is a system designed to control the little people and keep them down, to move their expectations from the current life to the imaginary one beyond, to make them behave when no one is watching by making them think that someone is not only watching, but will take it out of their hide later on in a way they will be unable to ignore. In the process of formalizing Christianity, many sub-domains and sub-methods of control have been established. They work really, really well. Go into a Catholic church and do some counting of expensive objects some time. Check out the Vatican. Note that churches don't pay property taxes -- we pay them instead, even if we disagree. Beautiful job of assuming control for their own benefit, right there.
Please describe the objective facts in your possession that clearly indicate that the universe was created, as opposed to was always there. The floor is yours. I'll respond to your post.
If a dog lives in the wild and learns that he will be rewarded with a delicious meal by killing another animal, does that make it moral for him to do so? Likewise, if your dog knows he will be rewarded with affection if he does a pet trick, is he obeying a fundamental law? Or, is he simply satisfying an instinctive desire for affection?
If a human lives in the wild and learns that he will be rewarded with a delicious meal by killing another animal, does that make it moral for him to do so?
Likewise, if your son knows he will be rewarded with affection if he does something you want him to do, is he obeying a fundamental law? Or, is he simply satisfying an instinctive desire for affection?
That was exactly my point. The instinct is to chase the dot. But if the dot is on another cat, they won't do that. This is a rule that overrides the instinct. Cats will also obey rules that you lay down. Learned behaviors, as well as rule of law. As well as criminals who simply will not obey no matter what you do. There are parallels at every level. My point stands.:)
Call me when a cat builds something new and not found in nature.
Consider yourself called. Cats (and birds) build nests. Beavers build dams. They're not doing it to copy nature. They're doing it to facilitate their own goals. Just like people do.
not morals, instinctive preogatve based on human imposed training. Now, come up with morals that are outside there natural instancts, then you have something.
Already did. When starving, they make very difficult (and sometimes fatal) choices about what they are willing to eat. And I can only laugh at your idea that humans train them not to eat them. "Fluffy! Stop eating Johnny Jr!" No such training occurs. However, we know from experience how cats behave when trapped with dead owners. My point stands.
neither of which is faith. It is habit.
Expectation is faith. The expectation may indeed be from habituation, but it in and of itself is not habit. Humans develop faith in a similar way, particularly in the matter of religion. People tell them stories over and over acting as if these stories were true, and eventually, the listener becomes habituated to the expectation that they are true and begins to act on that expectation. Other areas are similar. "I've been married to John for 20 years and he's never cheated, I can't believe he's cheating now." Clearly, habituation instantiates faith.
each of which is ingrained in the cats personality and habits. When a cat can choose to change, let me know.
Ok. We have a loving siamese named Gwai. He was loving to *everyone*. One day one of my kids, Mike, brought a girlfriend, Anna, to the house. Anna called Gwai names and pushed him off the couch. The next time she came over, Gwai jumped up from behind the couch and clawed her a good one. She never came back, and he's never done it since (or prior.) Clearly, he was able to choose when and where he was willing to be good natured. There are a million stories just like this. Cats usually act one way, but under circumstances they find sufficient, they change those behaviors. Just like people, I might add. The point stands.
sure, if by better off, you mean dependant on a being to take care of are every single need, and all we have to do is say "I'm hungry now" "Let me out" and let them clean us if it brings them pleasure(i.e. petting)
Utter nonsense. If you let a cat out and ignore them, they'll at first act on prior expectations, then eventually they'll decide that's not working out, and go hunting, possibly even feral. They're quite astute in this particular area. They're dependent as long as it serves their purposes. Then they will assert their independence. Just like people. And there are exceptions; those that will starve rather than leave the porch. Again, just like people, for some of them affection overrides all.
Humans have the ability to rise above themselves, cats do not.
Oh, really? What about cats that go into a fire to rescue kittens, or to lead firemen to their human? Speaking of animals generally, what about animals that navigate half the continent to get back home? What about that fish that every feeding, pushes his paralyzed fellow fish to the surface so he can feed? What about dolphin that fight off sharks for stranded floating humans? What about dogs that defend babies? Your ignorance
I'm impressed with her prowess as a hunter. And she knows it.
She's killing to impress/gift you. Not for sport. Gifting is a well known behaviour that is quite distinct from sport killing -- it can be identified by the simple means of the cat dumping the victim at your feet or on your doorstep. Cats in the wild are quite parsimonious about killing prey; they kill to eat or in defense, and that's pretty much it, unless they are ill or wounded or otherwise driven off their usual behavior patternss. Cats in domestic situations have an esablished heirarchy to deal with (you) and that's what you are seeing.
None of which says they don't enjoy hunting. They do. All the more interesting that they will refrain from it.
I'm sorry, but you are displaying a complete lack of knowledge of any research in Theory of Mind from the last century.
Not at all. What I am displaying is a complete lack of respect for said research.
As for the rest, I know we're different from animals, but my assertion is that we are different in degree, not in kind. Having higher power minds is a gift that gives a lot; but it also has spawned religion, nuclear weapons, and prime time television, demonstrating that it's not all that, all the time.
To disprove my assertion, we'll have to be able to understand what animals are thinking, since they decline to tell us and we are left to intuit what we will from their actions, anthropomophizing or not, as our various predispositions lead us hither and yon.
What you have to remember is that all of this is "soft science" as almost everything in inferred, and very little is cold, hard fact. From soft science, I can only draw soft conclusions. If you want to go further, I decline to go with you.
the problem lies in the area of deciding what will be done about it.
Right. I suggest we afford everyone equal opportunity for self-improvement, by law.
As soon as you decide that the little girl with Down's syndrome is "less equal" than the little boy genius, you're on a slippery slope. Should we "waste" precious resources on someone less equal?
Nothing slippery about it. If Einstein needs a kidney, and a Down's child needs the same kidney, and there are no other options, the Down's child should not get it. This is obvious, reasonable, and what's more, it serves the greatest number. The alternatives are absurd: Einstein is lost and the Down's kid carries on; or, they are both lost.
But much more importantly, who decides? If you give the power to decide who is "more equal" to someone, you are giving them the power of life and death over others--a power that has been far too often abused.
Someone has to decide, certainly. I'm sorry that makes you uncomfortable. But you're already living with this. For instance, as a citizen did you decide how much you were going to pay in taxes? As a soldier, did you decide that it was you who was going to lead the charge on the machine gun nest? Etc. Tough choices are part and parcel of being human. Sometimes, you just have to make the best one available.
I think the point of the statement "we are all created equal" really means that when a human being is born, anywhere in the world, it is equal to every other baby that is being born at that instant, all babies born in the past, and all yet to be born in the future.
So, considering that this is absolutely untrue in the objective fact sense, my point stands.
All it says is that they are equal at their creation.
...and that is fundamentally incorrect on multiple levels. From the fact that my sperm is different from your sperm on up through birth in a bedroom isn't the same as birth in a premie ward and being raised by a nannie in a mansion isn't the same as being rased by a crack whore in a ghetto, the idea is as full of holes as a badminton net.
Should I sell myself into slavery and, at a later time decide that slavery sucks, should the federal government back the slaveowner in retaining me as a slave?
Sure. Sometimes the gov't is the slaveowner, too. That's called enlisting in the army. They can use you any way they like, up to and including offering up your death to obtain any goal they feel is worthwhile. You can't quit, right now you can't quit even when your time is up (see "stop loss" policies.) You will do whatever they tell you based on the contract type you made.
If you make a contract to voluntarily go into slavery, you should have made sure that the exchange you got was sufficient -- for instance, money to support several children for life, or cancer treatment for your spouse. If you regret your choice later, see your contract. If it's a lifetime contract, STFU. If not, maybe you're smarter than the average bear.
What does equal rights have to do with whether we were created equal or not??
It has everything to do with it. If you demonstrate the characteristics of common sense, ingenious solutions to tough problems, compassion and charity, and are generally of great service to the tribe, wheras I demonstrate an innate tendancy to eat young children, abuse the weak, and generally fail to observe the ground rules of the tribe (property, propriety, whatever they might be) then your rights should be superior to mine in any sensible arrangement of social underpinnings.
It shouldn't be about equal rights. It should be about equal opportunity.
There is also a problem with me telling you what your rights are. For instance, it is very doubtful that I should ever have the right to tell you that you cannot sell yourself into slavery. No one has ever made even a slightly compelling argument for that position outside of highly dubious philosophical bunkum. Extremely strong and quite objective counter-arguments exist. But that's a different discussion.
There's a good argument for you telling me where my rights end, and here the Libertarians have it nailed down: My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins, barring extennuating circumstances residing entirely outside of the act itself.
You are willing to give credit to an idea if it claims a base in philosophy.
I am only willing to give credit to an idea if it can demonstrate a base in objective fact. Hope and optimism don't count.
Your definition cannot, by its very nature, be used to define the impossibility of mine. They're not operating in the same sphere.
Therefore, when I say that objectively speaking, or in other words, in reality, humans are not created equal, I am being quite clear about what I am saying. You can object, or not, on that basis. Because that's all I am saying.
Philosophy, while not by any means void of goodness, is also the breeding ground for reams and reams of errant nonsense which the naive (and thoughtless, I would argue) then try to apply to objective reality. The post I replied to was trying to make that leap. I simply pointed out that it would not work, because the idea can't make the transition from philosophy to reality. At least, not yet. Aside from our being very much beginners at engineering human DNA, we have all that early 20th century eugenics guilt to get over, both Germany's and the USA's versions. I don't expect that to be managed quickly.
Slashdot Mirror
No, the in-between space is the taint. An in-between hole would either be an anal fistula or a vaginal fistula. A super massive black hole would be goatse, and a standard black hole has already wiped out more crap than you would care to consider. A wormhole is a vaginal-to-anal fistula, and hyperspace gate triggers are made by Hitachi.
Be sure to tune in tomorrow when we offer penetrating insights into what trans-dimensional travel implies for space-borne dildo use.
No, I wouldn't. Because your "experiment" is only speculation, drawing a conclusion from it is invalid.
Also — I do have real world experience here. The fact is, in most cases, the mother feeds the kittens until she is too weak to move, with her dugs drying up as they go. It's really quite pitiful, and in the end, it doesn't usually save them because whatever it is that has isolated the mother from food sources also isolates the kittens.
My company specializes in charity towards animals; although that is rewarding on many levels, sadly, it also means I know far more than I really want to about the bad things that happen to them.
When confronted with the question, "Are you human", I answer "yes", rather than some in-between answer. When confronted with the question "is your cat human", I answer "no." These are simple questions. There is no need to make up a third position, an agnostic position on homo sapiens and/or felines.
Similarly, there are only two positions with regard to belief in a god or gods. Either you have some, or you don't. Therefore, you are either theist or atheist. That whole agnostic thing is just confusion at best, and cowardice at worst.
Thanks for the thread. By all means, have the last word. Slashdot will archive it shortly.
It's bullshit. Some men are born dead. Some men are born into slavery. Some men are born unable to pursue happiness, and then it gets worse. Women too, all three conditions. It's bullshit. Doesn't matter how you elaborate upon it, doesn't matter how far you restrict it, doesn't matter if you bring some bullshit idea of a "creator" into it, doesn't matter if you try and abstract it into "unalienable rights" that some paper is going to try and formalize. The whole idea of everyone being "created equal" is still bullshit from end to end and top to bottom. Pure, unadulterated bullshit. No straw man required. We already have one made out of bullshit, anyway.
People aren't equal. On any level. At creation, birth, midlife, or end of life. I suggest you get used to the idea. Otherwise you'll spend all your time shoveling... yes, bullshit. :)
So either reformulate, or let it go. OK with me either way.
Ok. So using your own approach, the fact that your fellow human, Jeff Dahlmer, ate young boys parts means that you have no sense of morality.
See the problem with your line of reasoning?
You'll need to work a little harder on your argument if you want to be taken seriously. Making up fragile, poorly reasoned analogies won't cut it.
Morals come from the brain. They are biologically housed and implemented. Some are innate, some are learned. In both humans and cats. They're positions on actions based on something more abstract than immediate personal benefit. That's why animals at the one extreme will save their owners from fires, and at the other, will act guilty if they know they've transgressed what is known to them to be correct behavior. There's no indication that there is anything unique to humans with regard to morals, other than the level of sophistication, an issue I already addressed. Morals are why fish will support one another when wounded. And perhaps hope.
As for accountability, we humans tend to hold animals accountable fom time to time. Though I doubt that's what you meant.
An interesting question. My position is that the more sophisticated you are mentally, the less excuse you have to inflict pain, privation, destruction of family and so forth on those weaker than you. The bear has both a relatively simple understanding of the act itself, and lacks the ability to find or develop an adequate substitute. We humans, on the other hand, are just now entering into a time when we are beginning to truly understand our nutritional needs and will probably be in a position to deal with them properly without killing our fellow residents. Perhaps we can pass that benefit on to the salmon by feeding the bears artificial proteins that are even more savory than salmon.
But we need not stop there. That same bear would also have no problem eating your new born baby if the bear was hungry and the baby was conveniently available to it. Especially if you'd been feeding the kid salmon. This is the bear's nature. Using the process established by your argument, since it's OK for the bear, it is now OK for you. This is why your "food-chain" argument isn't one that is of particular interest to me. When people (or animals) with poor(er) means of discrimination fail to make a distinction between "neighbor" and "prey", that does not automatically confer the right to claim that you can exercise the same failure and be morally correct simply because you've seen the behavior elsewhere in nature, downline or otherwise.
In other words, the smarter we get, the fewer violent things we will be able to find excuses for. Fishing, no question, is extremely violent from the standpoint of the fish.
That's convenient to your argument, but the artificial line of human/inhuman will not support your argument if examined even moderately closely. Here is why: A severely retarded human may not be able to equal the facilities of a moderately smart non-human (animal or for that matter, alien.) Is it therefore OK to sink a fishhook into the cheek of, and subsequently eat, the retarded human? Or do you argue that being human is not a state of capability, but a state of grace of some kind?
First, and almost offhand, they aren't laws, they're the currently reigning theories, which means they are our current best candidate of human metaphor for observed behavior. They may yet, or may not, be superceded, extended, and/or reduced. We'll see. Not that they are particularly relevant to your point, but your understanding of them is flawed.
Second, why would I have to explain where anything came from? I wasn't there if and when anything "came from" anywhere, nor was I around to observe that anything was always there, nor was I around to observe a continuing cycle of collapse and expansion, nor was I around to see dimensions interact... basically, I'm smart enough to know that it is outright folly to assume I know what happened umpty-ump billion years ago. I don't expect to ever know, and although I am certainly curious, my curiosity does not drive me to make ridiculous pronouncements that "this" or "that" is "how everything began" — I am comfortable not knowing. When other people make such pronouncements (for instance, when they assume "creation" by God, gods, or via "the monobloc") I just laugh at them, because they're being very silly, and furthermore, they're not even answering the question, they're just extending it to a new domain. Where did God come from? Where did the monobloc come from? Etc., ad infinitum.
If a being existed outside what you're calling "creation", then there was something already, and you've not addressed how he (or it) came to be. Postulating one unanswerable, impossible to confirm situation in order to conjure up another is not only fruitless (in the gain-of-knowledge sense), it is outright stupid.
However, your claim that no human can know is without foundation in fact. You don't know where humanity will go in the future. Our scientific progress may include being able to observe long-past events. It's technically possible — in fact, you do it every time you look at the stars. I don't know if we'll figure it out, but I do know that guessing at it won't resolve the question, no matter how entertaining it is for scientists and no matter how comforting it is for theists. Why? Because given the current state of science, even if you got the right answer, you wouldn't know you had. To confirm such speculation will require observation.
No, I don't have to admit that at all. I am fully ready to admit that the universe is here, but that's no reason to assume it was created, or unchangable. In fact, our observations of the universe may be the very best evidence that it has always been here in one form or another. We have no information that would make any rational person assume power could accrue to one being such that said being could create what we dimly perceive in the Hubble telescope's deep-field samples. This is one of the best evidentiary points in favor of discarding theism — the presumption of such power in the hands of one being makes no sense. And of course, I don't count the bible as "information" — it is a book written by a crew of scientifically illiterate early middle easterners, and as such, one of the very last places I would turn for answers to real scientific issues.
Why would you think I would be inclined to do that? I left the floor open for either possibility. It was the response that flat-out asserted that "creation isn't a myth."
Hold on there. You have to read the whole sentence. Quoting sentence fragments as if they were complete statements isn't going to cut it. I specifically allowed for the possibility of creation. What I was indicating is that there is nothing that I am aware of that makes the conclusion of creation particularly likely, much less fact.
No. I am what I am. There is no apparent reason to begin asking why as far as I am concerned, it's just the way things are. I am quite comfortable not knowing the answers to certain types/classes of questions, especially if they are formulated as "why" in a universe that has given us every indication of being a combination of random interactions of natural processes.
Well, that's perfectly OK for you, but I don't -- at least if you include "measure" as a form of touch. I'm also less than comfortable with drawing absolute conclusions from faulty or severely incomplete data sets. Which puts the big bang theory, for one, right out of consideration, right along with "some dude did it."
There are millions of people that will tell you there is something wrong with it. The question is, who is correct? I'm rather inclined to think they are, rather than you.
The smarter we are, the more control we obtain, the more responsibility we assume as we realize that we can dominate other life forms. It's a serious question, and it is not immediately obvious that it is moral to sink a hook into an animal's cheek, drown it in a medium where it can't obtain oxygen or lop off its head, and eat it.
You argue from the assumption that fishing is OK because it is culturally accepted. I won't buy that as the final word on "OK."
Knowledge is not belief. No amoung of wordplay by gnostics or anyone else can make it so. Either you believe in a god or gods, or you don't. If that position is leveraged by knowledge, so be it, but it's still either belief, or lack of it, hence theism or atheism.
It is my *opinion* that most declared agnostics don't believe, but do not have the stones to come out and say so. But that's just my opinion. They may mostly be believers, hiding from atheists, though I think that's a little unlikely.
They have to be one or the other, though.
Atheist means without belief in a god or gods. That's it. No more, no less. It's not a matter of cleverness, that's what it *means*.
Eh? What part of that are you unfamilar with? Any cat owner who has been around birthing cycles knows about mothers not eating the kittens. Do I really have to explain this to you?
The news is replete with stories about cats who get trapped with owners and what happens; cat rescue stories are good press and appear after almost every earthquake, along with teary-eyed descriptions of how they managed to live some improbable number of days. Do you not follow the news?
Top tip for you: If it's common knowledge, you don't need to explain it unless someone makes a point that indicates they don't possess that knowledge. Which you didn't do, I might add...
Yes, you bet -- Christianity is a system designed to control the little people and keep them down, to move their expectations from the current life to the imaginary one beyond, to make them behave when no one is watching by making them think that someone is not only watching, but will take it out of their hide later on in a way they will be unable to ignore. In the process of formalizing Christianity, many sub-domains and sub-methods of control have been established. They work really, really well. Go into a Catholic church and do some counting of expensive objects some time. Check out the Vatican. Note that churches don't pay property taxes -- we pay them instead, even if we disagree. Beautiful job of assuming control for their own benefit, right there.
Please describe the objective facts in your possession that clearly indicate that the universe was created, as opposed to was always there. The floor is yours. I'll respond to your post.
If a human lives in the wild and learns that he will be rewarded with a delicious meal by killing another animal, does that make it moral for him to do so?
Likewise, if your son knows he will be rewarded with affection if he does something you want him to do, is he obeying a fundamental law? Or, is he simply satisfying an instinctive desire for affection?
That was exactly my point. The instinct is to chase the dot. But if the dot is on another cat, they won't do that. This is a rule that overrides the instinct. Cats will also obey rules that you lay down. Learned behaviors, as well as rule of law. As well as criminals who simply will not obey no matter what you do. There are parallels at every level. My point stands. :)
Consider yourself called. Cats (and birds) build nests. Beavers build dams. They're not doing it to copy nature. They're doing it to facilitate their own goals. Just like people do.
Already did. When starving, they make very difficult (and sometimes fatal) choices about what they are willing to eat. And I can only laugh at your idea that humans train them not to eat them. "Fluffy! Stop eating Johnny Jr!" No such training occurs. However, we know from experience how cats behave when trapped with dead owners. My point stands.
Expectation is faith. The expectation may indeed be from habituation, but it in and of itself is not habit. Humans develop faith in a similar way, particularly in the matter of religion. People tell them stories over and over acting as if these stories were true, and eventually, the listener becomes habituated to the expectation that they are true and begins to act on that expectation. Other areas are similar. "I've been married to John for 20 years and he's never cheated, I can't believe he's cheating now." Clearly, habituation instantiates faith.
Ok. We have a loving siamese named Gwai. He was loving to *everyone*. One day one of my kids, Mike, brought a girlfriend, Anna, to the house. Anna called Gwai names and pushed him off the couch. The next time she came over, Gwai jumped up from behind the couch and clawed her a good one. She never came back, and he's never done it since (or prior.) Clearly, he was able to choose when and where he was willing to be good natured. There are a million stories just like this. Cats usually act one way, but under circumstances they find sufficient, they change those behaviors. Just like people, I might add. The point stands.
Utter nonsense. If you let a cat out and ignore them, they'll at first act on prior expectations, then eventually they'll decide that's not working out, and go hunting, possibly even feral. They're quite astute in this particular area. They're dependent as long as it serves their purposes. Then they will assert their independence. Just like people. And there are exceptions; those that will starve rather than leave the porch. Again, just like people, for some of them affection overrides all.
Oh, really? What about cats that go into a fire to rescue kittens, or to lead firemen to their human? Speaking of animals generally, what about animals that navigate half the continent to get back home? What about that fish that every feeding, pushes his paralyzed fellow fish to the surface so he can feed? What about dolphin that fight off sharks for stranded floating humans? What about dogs that defend babies? Your ignorance
She's killing to impress/gift you. Not for sport. Gifting is a well known behaviour that is quite distinct from sport killing -- it can be identified by the simple means of the cat dumping the victim at your feet or on your doorstep. Cats in the wild are quite parsimonious about killing prey; they kill to eat or in defense, and that's pretty much it, unless they are ill or wounded or otherwise driven off their usual behavior patternss. Cats in domestic situations have an esablished heirarchy to deal with (you) and that's what you are seeing.
None of which says they don't enjoy hunting. They do. All the more interesting that they will refrain from it.
Not at all. What I am displaying is a complete lack of respect for said research.
As for the rest, I know we're different from animals, but my assertion is that we are different in degree, not in kind. Having higher power minds is a gift that gives a lot; but it also has spawned religion, nuclear weapons, and prime time television, demonstrating that it's not all that, all the time.
To disprove my assertion, we'll have to be able to understand what animals are thinking, since they decline to tell us and we are left to intuit what we will from their actions, anthropomophizing or not, as our various predispositions lead us hither and yon.
What you have to remember is that all of this is "soft science" as almost everything in inferred, and very little is cold, hard fact. From soft science, I can only draw soft conclusions. If you want to go further, I decline to go with you.
Right. I suggest we afford everyone equal opportunity for self-improvement, by law.
Nothing slippery about it. If Einstein needs a kidney, and a Down's child needs the same kidney, and there are no other options, the Down's child should not get it. This is obvious, reasonable, and what's more, it serves the greatest number. The alternatives are absurd: Einstein is lost and the Down's kid carries on; or, they are both lost.
Someone has to decide, certainly. I'm sorry that makes you uncomfortable. But you're already living with this. For instance, as a citizen did you decide how much you were going to pay in taxes? As a soldier, did you decide that it was you who was going to lead the charge on the machine gun nest? Etc. Tough choices are part and parcel of being human. Sometimes, you just have to make the best one available.
So, considering that this is absolutely untrue in the objective fact sense, my point stands.
Sure. Sometimes the gov't is the slaveowner, too. That's called enlisting in the army. They can use you any way they like, up to and including offering up your death to obtain any goal they feel is worthwhile. You can't quit, right now you can't quit even when your time is up (see "stop loss" policies.) You will do whatever they tell you based on the contract type you made.
If you make a contract to voluntarily go into slavery, you should have made sure that the exchange you got was sufficient -- for instance, money to support several children for life, or cancer treatment for your spouse. If you regret your choice later, see your contract. If it's a lifetime contract, STFU. If not, maybe you're smarter than the average bear.
It has everything to do with it. If you demonstrate the characteristics of common sense, ingenious solutions to tough problems, compassion and charity, and are generally of great service to the tribe, wheras I demonstrate an innate tendancy to eat young children, abuse the weak, and generally fail to observe the ground rules of the tribe (property, propriety, whatever they might be) then your rights should be superior to mine in any sensible arrangement of social underpinnings.
It shouldn't be about equal rights. It should be about equal opportunity.
There is also a problem with me telling you what your rights are. For instance, it is very doubtful that I should ever have the right to tell you that you cannot sell yourself into slavery. No one has ever made even a slightly compelling argument for that position outside of highly dubious philosophical bunkum. Extremely strong and quite objective counter-arguments exist. But that's a different discussion.
There's a good argument for you telling me where my rights end, and here the Libertarians have it nailed down: My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins, barring extennuating circumstances residing entirely outside of the act itself.
I am only willing to give credit to an idea if it can demonstrate a base in objective fact. Hope and optimism don't count.
Your definition cannot, by its very nature, be used to define the impossibility of mine. They're not operating in the same sphere.
Therefore, when I say that objectively speaking, or in other words, in reality, humans are not created equal, I am being quite clear about what I am saying. You can object, or not, on that basis. Because that's all I am saying.
Philosophy, while not by any means void of goodness, is also the breeding ground for reams and reams of errant nonsense which the naive (and thoughtless, I would argue) then try to apply to objective reality. The post I replied to was trying to make that leap. I simply pointed out that it would not work, because the idea can't make the transition from philosophy to reality. At least, not yet. Aside from our being very much beginners at engineering human DNA, we have all that early 20th century eugenics guilt to get over, both Germany's and the USA's versions. I don't expect that to be managed quickly.