Time for the Calgary Stampede to Evolve... ?

[canuckistani]

16 minutes ago, SILLY GOOSE said:

Again, it depends on what you mean by consciousness.  Plants do not have phenomenal conscious experience.  Big difference

They do because their responses say they do. End of story. PTSD is a phenomenal conscious experience and they show symptoms of it just like animals do, including entire bandwidth. 

16 minutes ago, SILLY GOOSE said:

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. 

They do, hence they respond to pain just like cows do by seeking avoidance. 

16 minutes ago, SILLY GOOSE said:

 

You are mis representing intelligent cellular behavior for something else.  Big mistake

False. You are showing your vegan religious colours again. I’ve cited this multiple times and you’ve shown ignorance of this specific part of the debate multiple times. Disingenuous religious behavior yet again. 

16 minutes ago, SILLY GOOSE said:

Just wanted to point this out again.  You dont even understand the very science you are citing

Again, how would you know ?? You are dodging this simple question: how do you judge if I understand signal processing or not, when you are illiterate on the topic yourself ?? 

16 minutes ago, SILLY GOOSE said:

 

All human conduct that relating to the rightness or wrongness of an action pertains to ethics.  

And all human evolved behavior that pertains to basics of life, is by default ethical. A creature has right to continue it’s evolved basic existence. 

16 minutes ago, SILLY GOOSE said:

Um no, eating meat is not required for our continual survival.  A plant based diet is safe for all ages.  

Irrelevant. We digest meat better than we do plants. Plant based diet is also not required. 

16 minutes ago, SILLY GOOSE said:

 

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!

We have decisive evolutionary and biological proof of creatures losing abilities they do not use anymore. We may thrive, we may evolve with plant based diet, but if we stop eating meat, it’s matter of time before we cannot digest meat. Which would be decisively inferior outcome for our species as we are omnivores, which is superior survivsbility to either carnivore or herbivore diet. We again have decisive proof of this from fossil records. 

16 minutes ago, SILLY GOOSE said:

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.  

 

 

What is a creatures basic evolved response towards basic ingredients of life: food, sex, raising the young: they are by default ethical for that creature. For a creature has the right to exist as is, as evolved. What is evolved behavor cannot be immoral, when it’s species wide behavior. To say so, is to use Christianic original sin argument. 

[-DLC-]

On 7/31/2019 at 4:47 PM, canuckistani said:

Transgendering children should be a crime. 

 

On 7/29/2019 at 4:53 PM, canuckistani said:

Time for human right charter to be re-amended to close the loophole of gender identity being a human right at the  expense of sex identity. 

 

23 hours ago, canuckistani said:

 

Difference is, i am not advocating for outlawing any such behavior. 

My parents used to teach me to beware of those who try to dazzle with their self proclaimed brilliance because it's usually just an attempt to baffle with BS.

Your history disputes your claim.

So please.  Just because it's in another topic, doesn't mean you can apply double standards here.  

[canuckistani]

1 minute ago, debluvscanucks said:

 

 

 

 

1 minute ago, debluvscanucks said:

 

 

 

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. 

[bishopshodan]

1 minute ago, canuckistani said:

People and animals don’t have the same right and it’s silly to argue they should. 

People are animals they should have 'humane' rights and it's silly to argue they shouldn't.

 

If we one day develop a replicator like Star Trek for all our food would you support that?

This would take care of the plant rights you sorta champion. 

 

[-DLC-]

I don't care what it's "based on"...you did it.  We all have our reasons.  But yours aren't more valid than everyone else's.

 

Animals actually do have rights here....there are charges for animal cruelty based on them.  So - wrong.

[Angry Goose]

6 minutes ago, canuckistani said:

They do because their responses say they do. End of story. PTSD is a phenomenal conscious experience and they show symptoms of it just like animals do, including entire bandwidth. 

False.  Humans and animals like cows can suffer from PTSD because they have affective mental states.  Plants do not have affective mental states no matter how much you try to mis lead people/dress it up.  Avoidance behavior/reacting to external stimuli is not the same thing.

 

Post your reference to PTSD in plants, go ahead now.  Guaranteed that if you read closely there will be no terminology referencing phenomenal conscious experience.  

 

10 minutes ago, canuckistani said:

They do, hence they respond to pain just like cows do by seeking avoidance. 

Intelligent cellular behavior is not the same as feeling or experiencing something.  Try again.

 

10 minutes ago, canuckistani said:

Again, how would you know ?? You are dodging this simple question: how do you judge if I understand signal processing or not, when you are illiterate on the topic yourself ?? 

Its been shown time and time again you dont understand how to discern the material you reference.  See above

 

12 minutes ago, canuckistani said:

And all human evolved behavior that pertains to basics of life, is by default ethical. A creature has right to continue it’s evolved basic existence. 

Has a right eh?  Well that's a normative judgement.  Please justify said claim that "evolved behavior" is by default ethical.  Is violence always ethical?

 

14 minutes ago, canuckistani said:

We have decisive evolutionary and biological proof of creatures losing abilities they do not use anymore. We may thrive, we may evolve with plant based diet, but if we stop eating meat, it’s matter of time before we cannot digest meat. Which would be decisively inferior outcome for our species as we are omnivores, which is superior survivsbility to either carnivore or herbivore diet. We again have decisive proof of this from fossil records. 

Lmao that's stretch.  Inferior is a value laden judgement made up by YOU.  Ill repeat, you are making things up now.  

 

15 minutes ago, canuckistani said:

What is a creatures basic evolved response towards basic ingredients of life: food, sex, raising the young: they are by default ethical for that creature. For a creature has the right to exist as is, as evolved. What is evolved behavor cannot be immoral, when it’s species wide behavior. To say so, is to use Christianic original sin argument. 

Wrong again.  Evolution is a process.  A descriptive process.  You saying what can and cant be immoral is a normative judgement.  Like I said a couple posts back, you are conflating the two.   That's an appeal to nature/ naturalistic fallacy.  

 

Appeal to Nature, similar to the naturalistic fallacy, when used as a fallacy, is the belief or suggestion that “natural” is always better than “unnatural”. It assumes that “nature” is good, and “unnatural” is not. Unfortunately, in many discussions about science and medicine, individuals take this as their default belief.

 

 

[canuckistani]

6 minutes ago, bishopshodan said:

People are animals they should have 'humane' rights and it's silly to argue they shouldn't.

 

If we one day develop a replicator like Star Trek for all our food would you support that?

This would take care of the plant rights you sorta champion. 

 

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.

[canuckistani]

6 minutes ago, debluvscanucks said:

I don't care what it's "based on"...you did it.  We all have our reasons.  But yours aren't more valid than everyone else's.

 

Animals actually do have rights here....there are charges for animal cruelty based on them.  So - wrong.

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. 

[189lb enforcers?]

Lol

Humans Being. 

 

We aren’t all that far removed from our breathing air days as being a new thing.

Give it time... 

[canuckistani]

4 minutes ago, SILLY GOOSE said:

False.  Humans and animals like cows can suffer from PTSD because they have affective mental states.  Plants do not have affective mental states no matter how much you try to mis lead people/dress it up.  Avoidance behavior/reacting to external stimuli is not the same thing.

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. 

4 minutes ago, SILLY GOOSE said:

 

Post your reference to PTSD in plants, go ahead now.  Guaranteed that if you read closely there will be no terminology referencing phenomenal conscious experience.  

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.

4 minutes ago, SILLY GOOSE said:

 

Intelligent cellular behavior is not the same as feeling or experiencing something.  Try again.

Unless the cells themselves feel in these cases. 

4 minutes ago, SILLY GOOSE said:

Its been shown time and time again you dont understand how to discern the material you reference.  See above

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. 

4 minutes ago, SILLY GOOSE said:

Has a right eh?  Well that's a normative judgement.  Please justify said claim that "evolved behavior" is by default ethical.  Is violence always ethical?

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. 

4 minutes ago, SILLY GOOSE said:

 

Lmao that's stretch.  Inferior is a value laden judgement made up by YOU.  Ill repeat, you are making things up now.  

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. 

4 minutes ago, SILLY GOOSE said:

 

Wrong again.  Evolution is a process.  A descriptive process.  You saying what can and cant be immoral is a normative judgement.  Like I said a couple posts back, you are conflating the two.   That's an appeal to nature/ naturalistic fallacy.  

 

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. 

 

[Alflives]

4 minutes ago, canuckistani said:

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. 

Used to be when a man’s horse had more rights (value as property) than his wife.

Slaves didn’t have rights.

Times change.  Animals should be treated respectfully, as should all living things.  

[-DLC-]

21 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. 

Just stop with this crap.  Racism and huge divides are based on "my culture's better than yours".  Honestly, enough.  Argue your point without this nonsense.

[canuckistani]

Just now, debluvscanucks said:

Just stop with this crap.  Racism and huge divides are based on "my culture's better than yours".  Honestly, enough.  

It’s based on thinking your culture is the best. Not that your culture sucks at abc and mine at xyz. 

[-DLC-]

5 minutes ago, canuckistani said:

It’s based on thinking your culture is the best. Not that your culture sucks at abc and mine at xyz. 

You don't know what I think so don't speak on my behalf.  And quit throwing that garbage out there and blaming others for it.  

 

[bishopshodan]

Just now, canuckistani said:

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.

Do you not see humans as animals? why is being more capable = more valuable? capable at what? You could argue that we are less capable and evolved than the Octopus. Except that we can harvest and eat them.

 

On your scale of importance, would you put the plants at the bottom?

 

They seem least capable despite the Mustard plant hearing the Caterpiller.

 

Since humans are the most capable animals and lots of those humans perceive suffering and fear from other vertebrates. Could it be that you are denying our evolving intelligence?

 

 

 

 

[canuckistani]

4 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Used to be when a man’s horse had more rights (value as property) than his wife.

Slaves didn’t have rights.

Times change.  Animals should be treated respectfully, as should all living things.  

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.

[canuckistani]

1 minute ago, bishopshodan said:

Do you not see humans as animals? why is being more capable = more valuable? capable at what? You could argue that we are less capable and evolved than the Octopus. Except that we can harvest and eat them.

 

On your scale of importance, would you put the plants at the bottom?

 

They seem least capable despite the Mustard plant hearing the Caterpiller.

 

Since humans are the most capable animals and lots of those humans perceive suffering and fear from other vertebrates. Could it be that you are denying our evolving intelligence?

 

 

 

 

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.

 

[inane]

2 minutes ago, canuckistani said:

It’s not garbage unless you think your culture rocks at everything....but hey I get it. You think we immigrants should stfu and have less rights to whine about Canada than pure bloods like you.

never mind actually, not worth it. just block.

Edited August 11, 2019 by inane

[bishopshodan]

1 minute ago, canuckistani said:

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.

 

do you think humans are animals?

[-DLC-]

4 minutes ago, canuckistani said:

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.

Again "you" not "we" - you don't speak for anyone but yourself.

 

I empathize equally to suffering.  So that's your first mistake - assuming.  There's a saying about that.