canuckistani

Members
  • Content Count

    2,769
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

canuckistani last won the day on July 21

canuckistani had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,296 Revered

1 Follower

About canuckistani

  • Rank
    Canucks Regular

Recent Profile Visitors

2,270 profile views
  1. Lol. The science you don’t understand is gibberish ?? The authors word say plants are capable of cognitive function. Proof is provided, no amount of vegan denial will change the facts. Sure. Except in this case we didn’t program it, thus we are not cognizant of what mental states it possesses or not. If a car dropped from space that shows avoidance behavior, we cannot say it’s programmed behavior. They make claim to cognitive abilities. Which satisfies the point. You cant if you do t understand the science as you said. The simple logic that in food scarcity scenario those who can digest the widest spectrum of food have highest survivsbility. Current extinction modelling predicts the same. I have said it many times. A species has the right to exist as it is in evolved behavior. It’s ethical for a species to be what they are universally capable of and/or universally behave as. Your limited information based ethics cannot make natural reality unethical without divine invocation, period. Kant understood this, you don’t.
  2. I can speak for my species when we have mass data, thank you very much. If you empathize equally with animals as human, that is clinically anomalous behavior and not empathy. You cannot empathize more with creatures you relate less with, as empathy is relatability. It’s another word you are looking for.
  3. Says the greatest troll of all. I am flattered.
  4. I am denying the notion that confirmation bias based on instinct for species closer to us in relatability is a moral benchmark. It isn’t, it’s bias.
  5. Respectfully still means below a human. We empathize more with humans, humans offer us more value as beings and all species are biassed in favour of their own. All this means humans should give humans more rights than other species....which we do.
  6. It’s based on thinking your culture is the best. Not that your culture sucks at abc and mine at xyz.
  7. Exact same signal response overrides your mental state bias which is again a vertibral bias. You simp,y have no concept of what controls an experiment has. Irrelvant. We care for a behavior. If a being behaves with empathy, jealousy and sadness, it’s behavior determines such action, aka output. Not what you think it’s brain is or isn’t or looks like. Unless the cells themselves feel in these cases. You cannot be judge of this, because you do not understand the science I am citing. But it’s expected standard religious science denial from you. I just wrecked vegan morals. Since violence is not always a present behavior, it’s not always ethical. Violence can be ethical. Evolved behavior is ethical because a species has the right to be as is, which overrides one individuals view of what it should or shouldn’t be based on personal bias and limited info. Inferior is a material judgement. We have decisive proof of the last three major extinction events being easiest on omnivores. Ergo, it’s superior diet. Appeal to nature is superior morality than appeal to senses of one individual of one species amongst billions. Nature overrides you because you are limited. What exists in nature has a right to exist as is.
  8. Animals have less rights than people. Difference is what you quoted, victims are people, what I quoted, you are just Messi g with people’s fun for what you think are animal victims.
  9. Yep I would. But people deserve greater rights than animals because people are more capable and thus valuable than animals 1vs1 and every species is positively biased towards its own members, hence it’s justified.
  10. Possible but not odds on best action. Yes I do agree that western society is far more me first than balancing me with society. Hence so many disposable relationships and highest prevalence of childhood trauma in the world. Criticizing a society’s behavior is not bigotry, cannot be, of its consistent within parameters. Western society is just as open to criticism for perversion of human species wide basic strategies for the first time in human history as much as Yemen is open to criticism for child marriage. Engineers are extremely familiar with quality of data argument and qualitatively the data is damning. Data having ability to change does not mean it will. Or that it should. What is is possible in low probability extreme scenarios and what is prevalent are irrelevant to each other. You are arguing an ideal. I am arguing a probability. Is is possible for a single parent to bring up children just like two parent households ? Yes. Is it probable that one million single parents will compensate adequately for the missing parent ? No. Ergo, inferior option. Sure. But what’s appilcable to entire data set, is irrelevant to he uniqueness of an individual data point. In simple terms, what’s outlier behavior is not general behavior and I am not advocating the outlier behavior be generally committed. Only that it worked in this specific instance. Because of the simp,e axiom of don’t mess with a species basic most conservative behavior just for your own individual selfish needs, when it’s implications or genetic controls are not fully understood yet. I’d rather teach people on how not to be deviants of basic behavior of species, which is happening so far in only one case of entire human history(modern west) than enables behavior that on evolutinary principles, is detrimental to the species.
  11. I am not advocating for outlawing a behavior based on my anecdotal experience, as you alleged. I am asking for something to be outlawed where people are victims. Not cultural concepts of whether animals are victims or if they are, if we should care or not. People and animals don’t have the same right and it’s silly to argue they should.
  12. There are plenty of studies which show that children are far more likely to be better off in multi parent home than single parent home. I think the whole children are still better off with uneasy peace than single home is implied in data. If children are less prone to depression and suicide in societies with larger prevalence of successful marriage, then the axiom must be true. Or else we must argue that some societies are much better than others in forming marital relations. That’s the only two explanations on the gap between divorce rate and child depression rates. PS: thanks for the cordiality , it’s nice to debate people who are not shrill or insecure.u
  13. Except when the tradition we are talking about is near universal amongst our species, then it’s genetically driven behavior that’s a governing dynamics for our species. Our species being able to override genetic behavior doesn’t mean it’s good for us. Besides, not all traditions are bad, just like not all progressivism is good or victimless.