kingofsurrey Posted August 10, 2019 Author Share Posted August 10, 2019 (edited) On 7/13/2019 at 11:07 AM, Monty said: Because some people aren’t you. People are different and *shocker* that doesn’t mean what they do and/or enjoy are “wrong”, especially when it’s not against any law. At one point in time slavery was legal and not against any law..... Do you think that it was acceptable because at the time it was legal... Laws and morality is changing and evolving. Most likely soon exploiting animals like the Calgary stampede does.... will no longer be legal. Hopefully soon. In the mean time... more and more people should stop supporting rodeo events such as this. Edited August 10, 2019 by kingofsurrey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monty Posted August 10, 2019 Share Posted August 10, 2019 1 hour ago, kingofsurrey said: At one point in time slavery was legal and not against any law..... Do you think that it was acceptable because at the time it was legal... Laws and morality is changing and evolving. Most likely soon exploiting animals like the Calgary stampede does.... will no longer be legal. Hopefully soon. In the mean time... more and more people should stop supporting rodeo events such as this. You can’t, and shouldn’t, equate slavery and the legality to that to the morality and legality to rodeos. Further, countries older than Canada and the States have practices for animal entertainment that are seen as much, much worse than rodeos, and those are not close at all to ending. I’m not saying the rodeo should or shouldn’t continue, I’m saying it will continue to. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-DLC- Posted August 10, 2019 Share Posted August 10, 2019 2 hours ago, Monty said: Further, countries older than Canada and the States have practices for animal entertainment that are seen as much, much worse than rodeos, and those are not close at all to ending. And that's reason to continue with something? Because much worse things are happening elsewhere? It's all the more reason to lead the charge in my view. Be the change you want to see happen stuff. Lead the way by setting standards. Countries older than Canada & the US have done a lot of things that are much worse. So do we ignore all of it? Or just the stuff that suits our agenda? Thank God we do intervene and don't accept that "they're not close to ending" practices that are shown to be cruel and inhumane. Maybe they should be (close to ending)? Will be, if we do call it out and don't accept it here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckistani Posted August 10, 2019 Share Posted August 10, 2019 47 minutes ago, debluvscanucks said: And that's reason to continue with something? Because much worse things are happening elsewhere? It's all the more reason to lead the charge in my view. Be the change you want to see happen stuff. Lead the way by setting standards. Countries older than Canada & the US have done a lot of things that are much worse. So do we ignore all of it? Or just the stuff that suits our agenda? Thank God we do intervene and don't accept that "they're not close to ending" practices that are shown to be cruel and inhumane. Maybe they should be (close to ending)? Will be, if we do call it out and don't accept it here. Except for one or two specific instances, like spearing bulls or wrestling them, people do not all think it’s cruel or inhumane. So why should you get to change everyone’s culture because of your opinion on cruelty or inhumanity? You don’t like it, don’t partake in it. But if others think it’s not cruel, let them continue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-DLC- Posted August 10, 2019 Share Posted August 10, 2019 5 minutes ago, canuckistani said: Except for one or two specific instances, like spearing bulls or wrestling them, people do not all think it’s cruel or inhumane. So why should you get to change everyone’s culture because of your opinion on cruelty or inhumanity? You don’t like it, don’t partake in it. But if others think it’s not cruel, let them continue. Because I live in a society that allows me to voice my opinion and opposition to something I'd like to see changed. My culture is caring, compassion, empathy. I believe Canada to be rooted in those very things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckistani Posted August 10, 2019 Share Posted August 10, 2019 (edited) 19 minutes ago, debluvscanucks said: Because I live in a society that allows me to voice my opinion and opposition to something I'd like to see changed. But WHY would you want something changed that others don’t agree with you on and which doesn’t impact you or them ?? That’s my question. Why do you think it’s right to get something banned for others, when there isn’t a decisive agreement on whether it has a victim or not in the first place. Isn’t that seeking to impose your opinions on others ?? Quote My culture is caring, compassion, empathy. I believe Canada to be rooted in those very things. Sure. But many don’t see its uncaring to tie a horse to a wagon and get it prancing around or jump hurdles on its back. If you do, great. Don’t partake. But why do you think it’s right for you to try and impose your views on such personal concepts like compassion, caring etc. On others ?? Live and let live. Not crusade for what you think right. Edited August 10, 2019 by canuckistani Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-DLC- Posted August 10, 2019 Share Posted August 10, 2019 It does impact me. It's my right to decide, feel it, say it. If I feel someone is exploiting another, whether it be women, children, animals, it is my right ... no, my duty ... to intervene when/if I can. Whether those exploiting them like it or not. Live and let live? That's what I'm aiming for. And I'm already over it but, ftr: Quote But why do you think it’s right for you to try and impose your views on such personal concepts Like marriage and families? Back to ignore. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Vancouver Connection Posted August 10, 2019 Share Posted August 10, 2019 At the end of the day abusing and putting animals in harms way for human entertainment is pathetic, and if you support that, then you are an idiot. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angry Goose Posted August 10, 2019 Share Posted August 10, 2019 13 hours ago, canuckistani said: in simple terms, we cannot say for certain if burning a goat makes the goat feel burning the same way we do or if it’s a stabbing pain. We guess on that count and it’s largely a practically irrelevant point to any but the issue of confirmatory consciousness. I wasnt going to waste my time with you further but I did find a few things that stood out in your response Sorry, but in practical terms it is very important. Based on neurophysiology, neuroscience (e.g. brain imaging) and observed behaviors we know many other animals are conscious in similar ways to us. That a) confirms consciousness and b) is practically relevant for not only further scientific research but also has ethical implications. The "guessing" part applies to human observation as well- I dont know exactly what it feels like for another to be in pain but we can reasonably guess, or make an informed decision based on observable behavior. That lack of certainty doesn't prevent in any fundamental way studying the phenomenal aspects of consciousness, but it DOES highlight the subjective nature of our mental lives. 13 hours ago, canuckistani said: And your argument was summarily dismissed due to lacking a basic form of scientific control. You cannot cite superior consciousness based on organs response, when consciousness itself is not tied to those organ responses. Ie, you cannot use ‘ it twitches it’s eyes and looks at me lovingly when pet’ to compare consciousness response with a being LACKING EYES as a physiology. The only rational scientific control, as mentioned in the article and which you are completely unable to grasp, is evaluation of consciousness on the basis of signal response analysis. Ie, if the responses it is capable of, is showing organized, conscious thought pattern, then that and that alone is the basis of consciousness appraisal. On this facet, plants show remarkable conscious response. So much so that cutting edge research is linking it with a remarkable synaptic mimicry facilitates by a complex network of roots and fungi on the roots. Clearly, you have zilch comprehension of the scientific discussion on consciousness and are simply stuck in the confirmatory bias of ‘ no eyes, no twitch, no, salivation,no locomotion equals no consciousness’. "Superior consciousness" is just a stupid value laden term made up by you, For starters organ response or observed behavior is only one way of looking at consciousness, not the ONLY way. Second, signal detection doesn't tell you everything you think it does. It for starters doesnt explain/substantiate any sort of subjective, mental life. "Organized behavior" can be labeled very generally as conscious but again, nothing that indicates a subjective, mental life. Empirically speaking that's distinct and a substantive difference. Third, you are reaching so badly. You want so badly to right you are stretching the truth (again) which is misleading and quite frankly, not intelligent argument. 13 hours ago, canuckistani said: Conciosness or lack of it, is based on displayed response To a degree. It doesnt tell the whole story. Trying to argue plants "feel" pain like humans and animals feel pain is simply false even if observable behaviors mimic each other in some ways. Intelligent cellular behavior is not the same as a subjective, conscious experience. Facts. You are not understanding the article you yourself cited. 13 hours ago, canuckistani said: You are just mad because I cited science, told you the science and you don’t get the science and get lost in the science stated. It’s ok. No, this is what is wrong with you. Like I just said, you stretch the truth of scientific findings which fundamentally goes against the conservative nature of science itself. Leaps in reasoning are not persuasive at all. And it muddles the very science you reference because the misinformation you spread smears the same science cited. 13 hours ago, canuckistani said: PPS: arguing that it’s immoral for a species to eat something that it biologically evolved to eat, without a divine writ against said diet, is a remarkable logical own-goal in itself. If there is no God, it cannot be morally wrong for any creature, including us, to exist in its most fundamental form of life, which is self sustainance. Ergo, it cannot be immoral for an evolving lifeform to eat something that it has evolved eating, on a moral basis alone. That’s pretty much saying your ideology is directly superior to objective material evidence. But that’s a whole another gamut of ethics. Remember what I said about outlandish ethical claims? For starters you've made a poor argument: While it may be true that humans have evolved eating meat, that fact doesn't require us to continue on this way, or make it ethically permissible to do so. How humans have evolved is a natural fact. What is good or immoral is value laden, which requires normative justification. If self sustenance is the point at issue, then your argument falls apart because guess what, plant based diets will sustain you and is safe for humans of all ages. And more importantly, you are wrongly assuming that because of evolution, we should desire to continue on in such a way. That's unjustified. It would be like saying GMO food should be undesired because it is 'un natural'. Also, wrong. Also, Im not talking about animals, they are not subject to moral principles and obligations like adult, rational humans are before you go and make another mistake. So that's a poor argument, ethically speaking. Like I said, you dont get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckistani Posted August 10, 2019 Share Posted August 10, 2019 (edited) 31 minutes ago, SILLY GOOSE said: Sorry, but in practical terms it is very important. Based on neurophysiology, neuroscience (e.g. brain imaging) and observed behaviors we know many other animals are conscious in similar ways to us. Sure. All it means is they are similar to us. Not that those who are not similar to us are less conscious. Quote That a) confirms consciousness and b) is practically relevant for not only further scientific research but also has ethical implications. Thats not confirmation of consciousness, that’s just confirmation of similarity to us. Consciousness is a behavior. Not organ response. Otherwise, a perfectly concious AI will not be concious for lacking organ response. Quote The "guessing" part applies to human observation as well- I dont know exactly what it feels like for another to be in pain but we can reasonably guess, or make an informed decision based on observable behavior. That lack of certainty doesn't prevent in any fundamental way studying the phenomenal aspects of consciousness, but it DOES highlight the subjective nature of our mental lives. It does prevent us from making any specific observations. All we know is cows don’t like to be burnt. Neither do plants. They both respond with defence mechanisms they are capable of. One being more like us in heir response nature doesn’t make them more concious. Quote "Superior consciousness" is just a stupid value laden term made up by you, No it isn’t. Otherwise a fish is just as concious as a cat, a mollusk is just as concious as us. Consciousness is a spectrum not a discrete function. Quote For starters organ response or observed behavior is only one way of looking at consciousness, not the ONLY way. Then your objections to plant consciousness is nulllified because your decisions on why they are not concious is organ response based. Quote Second, signal detection doesn't tell you everything you think it does. It for starters doesnt explain/substantiate any sort of subjective, mental life. "Organized behavior" can be labeled very generally as conscious but again, nothing that indicates a subjective, mental life. Empirically speaking that's distinct and a substantive difference. How would you know this ? Are your trained or trained or educated in signal analysis ? Do you know what constitutes a conscious signal output vs programmed response output ? Seems to me you are dismissing a sophisticated field of science because it doesn’t suit your view and yet you know virtually nothing of it. Quote Third, you are reaching so badly. You want so badly to right you are stretching the truth (again) which is misleading and quite frankly, not intelligent argument. Nope. I am simply explaining the science behind the research to you. As far as I am concerned I don’t have to reach on anything. My premise was plants have consciousness and I have proven my premise with the highest burden of proof possible: citing the actual peer reviewed paper itself and not some magazine article. Quote To a degree. It doesnt tell the whole story. Trying to argue plants "feel" pain like humans and animals feel pain is simply false even if observable behaviors mimic each other in some ways. Intelligent cellular behavior is not the same as a subjective, conscious experience. Facts. You are not understanding the article you yourself cited. That’s just your opinion and not science. You are again trying to judge a method-signal processing - which you yourself are completely ignorant of. This is called being disingenuous. In science, the observable data overrides hypothesis. Observable data shows us that PTSD response in mustard plant follows the exact same PTSD parameter of a traumatized goat. That fact overrides any ‘supposed to or not’ speculations. Quote No, this is what is wrong with you. Like I just said, you stretch the truth of scientific findings which fundamentally goes against the conservative nature of science itself. Leaps in reasoning are not persuasive at all. And it muddles the very science you reference because the misinformation you spread smears the same science cited. This is rich, considering you are self admittedly not in a position to understand and thus evaluate the science. Since you are not familiar with the science you are simply not in a position to extrapolate from the data given. Which is why it seems like stretching the truth. Quote Remember what I said about outlandish ethical claims? For starters you've made a poor argument: While it may be true that humans have evolved eating meat, that fact doesn't require us to continue on this way, or make it ethically permissible to do so. Irrelevant. How we have evolved, by default is ethical as it’s illogical to say an evolutionary process sans divine judgement is unethical. There is no basis to the idea that an evolved idea is unethical, unless you wish to contend that you know better than evolutionary response....it presupposes that a species is fundamentally flawed or wrong, which is effectively an original sin argument: something that even atheist western philosophies are infected by due to the Christian base of the society. Quote How humans have evolved is a natural fact. What is good or immoral is value laden, which requires normative justification. If self sustenance is the point at issue, then your argument falls apart because guess what, plant based diets will sustain you and is safe for humans of all ages. The justification isn’t self sustainance, the justification is two fold: an evolved species wide response cannot be unethical as any evolved response in nature,by default, is ethical for said creature. For two, it’s survival justification. We have decisive proof that omnivory is decisively superior evolution response than either obligate carnivore or herbivore diet. We also have decisive proof that species lose ability over somethign when they give up on that something. Ergo, long term veganism is decisively inferior evolutionary step for our species and evolutinary regression. Ergo unsupportable. Quote And more importantly, you are wrongly assuming that because of evolution, we should desire to continue on in such a way. That's unjustified. It would be like saying GMO food should be undesired because it is 'un natural'. Also, wrong. Evolution does not require justification. What is, is. Existence by default is the dominant position over what can or may exist. Technically GMO is not unnatural, it’s sped up cross breeding in evolutionary timeframes. GMO foods also exist to serve a purpose, not advocated as replacement of the natural species. Which is exactly what GMO regulations exist to address. But veganism pretends to supplant what naturally exists. Ergo, bad analogy. Quote Also, Im not talking about animals, they are not subject to moral principles and obligations like adult, rational humans are before you go and make another mistake. So that's a poor argument, ethically speaking. Like I said, you dont get it. I do get it. What I get is, you think your ideas are better than the response we have evolved. Which is laughable and nothing more than original sin argument. A species’ universal response towards the basic behavior of life, as defined by food, mating and child raising habits are by default ethical for that species. It’s ethical for an omnivore to eat omnivore diet, it’s ethical for a species that kicks out its newborn to struggle on their own to do so, it’s ethical for ducks to procreate by raping each other. The fundamental basis of ethics is not imposing arbitrary values over those that are proven, tried and tested evolutionary response. it is ethically permissible for any species to behave in the way they have evolved to behave. Arguing otherwise is end game argument of original sin or ‘fallen’ or ‘always flawed’ nature, all of which require a divine agency to override evolved response. If you are into divinity, that’s consistent rationale. If you are not, then it’s logically inconsistent and egoistic to think you know better than evolutionary response, when science is still uncovering reasons for said evolved behavior. Edited August 10, 2019 by canuckistani 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckistani Posted August 10, 2019 Share Posted August 10, 2019 49 minutes ago, debluvscanucks said: It does impact me. Lit does only if you partake. 49 minutes ago, debluvscanucks said: It's my right to decide, feel it, say it. If I feel someone is exploiting another, whether it be women, children, animals, it is my right ... no, my duty ... to intervene when/if I can. Whether those exploiting them like it or not. So your feelings should get to control others behavior ? Slippery slope indeed. You don’t get to outlaw things for others just because you don’t like them. That’s imposition not tolerance. 49 minutes ago, debluvscanucks said: Live and let live? That's what I'm aiming for. Then stop trying to tell others what they can or cannot do. 49 minutes ago, debluvscanucks said: And I'm already over it but, ftr: Like marriage and families? Back to ignore. Difference is, i am not advocating for outlawing any such behavior. I am pointing out what is wrong and if people listen, good. If they don’t, no big deal. It’s not my kids who are at risk or my marriage. You on the other hand, want to impose what you believe on others as a matter of law. Not live and let live at all. More like crusading against others choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingofsurrey Posted August 10, 2019 Author Share Posted August 10, 2019 4 minutes ago, canuckistani said: Lit does only if you partake. So your feelings should get to control others behavior ? Slippery slope indeed. You don’t get to outlaw things for others just because you don’t like them. That’s imposition not tolerance. Then stop trying to tell others what they can or cannot do. Difference is, i am not advocating for outlawing any such behavior. I am pointing out what is wrong and if people listen, good. If they don’t, no big deal. It’s not my kids who are at risk or my marriage. You on the other hand, want to impose what you believe on others as a matter of law. Not live and let live at all. More like crusading against others choice. Wow is my only response ..... You are on fire today with your trolling. No one can actually think like your postings ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckistani Posted August 10, 2019 Share Posted August 10, 2019 51 minutes ago, kingofsurrey said: Wow is my only response ..... You are on fire today with your trolling. No one can actually think like your postings ... Billions do. It’s called the non crusader mentality of ‘ If you don’t like it, don’t do it. But don’t stop others from doing it just coz you don’t like it’. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingofsurrey Posted August 10, 2019 Author Share Posted August 10, 2019 (edited) 43 minutes ago, canuckistani said: Billions do. It’s called the non crusader mentality of ‘ If you don’t like it, don’t do it. But don’t stop others from doing it just coz you don’t like it’. More like zero morals and ethics crusade that u follow Edited August 10, 2019 by kingofsurrey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckistani Posted August 10, 2019 Share Posted August 10, 2019 8 minutes ago, kingofsurrey said: More like zero morals and ethics crusade that u follow Morals are for you to live by, not to impose on others. Especially when it comes to non human interactions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingofsurrey Posted August 10, 2019 Author Share Posted August 10, 2019 (edited) 15 minutes ago, canuckistani said: Morals are for you to live by, not to impose on others. Especially when it comes to non human interactions. Tell that to the guy i witnessed abusing his dog a year ago .... lets just say i tried to impose a few of my morals onto him .... Sounds like u would have just walked by and pretended u did not see it happen ... Edited August 10, 2019 by kingofsurrey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckistani Posted August 10, 2019 Share Posted August 10, 2019 10 minutes ago, kingofsurrey said: Tell that to the guy i witnessed abusing his dog a year ago .... lets just say i tried to impose a few of my morals onto him .... Sounds like u would have just walked by and pretended u did not see it happen ... Depends on what the abuse was. My culture is far more into tolerance while yours is into moral crusading. That’s why your culture struggles so much opposing viewpoints. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingofsurrey Posted August 11, 2019 Author Share Posted August 11, 2019 3 hours ago, canuckistani said: Depends on what the abuse was. My culture is far more into tolerance while yours is into moral crusading. That’s why your culture struggles so much opposing viewpoints. That is just too funny .... Canadians are famous all over the globe for tolerance .. luckily i have had the good fortune to travel asia / europe / and africa. So i saw how canadians were perceived abroad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angry Goose Posted August 11, 2019 Share Posted August 11, 2019 22 hours ago, canuckistani said: Sure. All it means is they are similar to us. Not that those who are not similar to us are less conscious. Again, it depends on what you mean by consciousness. Plants do not have phenomenal conscious experience. Big difference 22 hours ago, canuckistani said: All we know is cows don’t like to be burnt. Neither do plants. They both respond with defence mechanisms they are capable of. One being more like us in heir response nature doesn’t make them more concious. Wrong. Not only do cows have a sensation of pain, that is, they can feel it, they also have an additional mental state of not liking such a sensation. You can not say that about plants. They have no subjective mental states. They are not individuals like any human or mammal. They feel nothing. You are mis representing intelligent cellular behavior for something else. Big mistake 22 hours ago, canuckistani said: I am simply explaining the science behind the research to you. As far as I am concerned I don’t have to reach on anything. My premise was plants have consciousness and I have proven my premise with the highest burden of proof possible: citing the actual peer reviewed paper itself and not some magazine article. Just wanted to point this out again. You dont even understand the very science you are citing 22 hours ago, canuckistani said: it’s illogical to say an evolutionary process sans divine judgement is unethical. All human conduct that relating to the rightness or wrongness of an action pertains to ethics. 22 hours ago, canuckistani said: The justification isn’t self sustainance, the justification is two fold: an evolved species wide response cannot be unethical as any evolved response in nature,by default, is ethical for said creature. For two, it’s survival justification. We have decisive proof that omnivory is decisively superior evolution response than either obligate carnivore or herbivore diet. We also have decisive proof that species lose ability over somethign when they give up on that something. Ergo, long term veganism is decisively inferior evolutionary step for our species and evolutinary regression. Ergo unsupportable. Um no, eating meat is not required for our continual survival. A plant based diet is safe for all ages. Second, that's a load of horse $&!# regarding "losing ability". Pure speculation. For all you know humans could thrive on a plant based diet as a society, and perhaps with enough time perhaps even evolve for all you know. That's a logical possibility. But Im not going to say that with any conviction because guess what, that would be pure speculation! 22 hours ago, canuckistani said: Evolution does not require justification. What is, is. Existence by default is the dominant position over what can or may exist. Technically GMO is not unnatural, it’s sped up cross breeding in evolutionary timeframes. GMO foods also exist to serve a purpose, not advocated as replacement of the natural species. Which is exactly what GMO regulations exist to address. But veganism pretends to supplant what naturally exists. Ergo, bad analogy. This is incoherent. You need to elaborate or clearly define what you are saying. Evolution is just a descriptive mechanism. Humans have evolved by eating meat, but what we do now is still subject to ethics. Knowledge can change behaviors. But you seem to think mere evolution somehow places humans outside the sphere of morality. That doesnt make sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckistani Posted August 11, 2019 Share Posted August 11, 2019 16 hours ago, kingofsurrey said: That is just too funny .... Canadians are famous all over the globe for tolerance .. luckily i have had the good fortune to travel asia / europe / and africa. So i saw how canadians were perceived abroad Undeserved reputation, since we are not very tolerant. You only tolerate what you don’t like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now