Time for the Calgary Stampede to Evolve... ?

[canuckistani]

Just now, inane said:

lol your troll is impressive.

Says the greatest troll of all. I am flattered.

[Alflives]

19 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.

As a species, yes we put ourselves first.  However, for our species to survive don’t we need to accept we are only a part of the greater whole, and that without the other species (both plant and animal) we are less, and likely not to survive?  I’m not saying to hug trees, or kiss Monkeys, but we do need to accept we need trees and monkeys, because (like us) they are important parts of the greater whole.  

Edited August 11, 2019 by Alflives

[bishopshodan]

4 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.

Wait I missed this.

What is a pure blood Canadian?

 

I'm an immigrant, let's get to the bottom of this!

[canuckistani]

1 minute ago, debluvscanucks said:

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.

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.

[Angry Goose]

Just now, canuckistani said:

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. 

Sorry but you using science gibberish (not the authors words/YOURS) doesnt wash over the fact that there is a fundamental difference regarding consciousness that you are trying to conflate.

 

2 minutes ago, canuckistani said:

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.

Wrong again.  If we programmed an autonomous car with a variety of sensors so well that it could learn and form future avoidance behavior on it's own, it still wouldn't capture what we mean by experiencing pain.  

 

3 minutes ago, canuckistani said:

Unless the cells themselves feel in these cases. 

Which they dont, and the article that references McClintock certainly makes ZERO claim to this.

 

5 minutes ago, canuckistani said:

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. 

I can certainly call you out on your lack of understanding if you continue to repeat yourself in making mistakes, posting misleading information.

 

6 minutes ago, canuckistani said:

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. 

Again, conflating descriptive processes with normative judgments.  

 

9 minutes ago, canuckistani said:

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. 

First, that's a historical claim and second, one you havnt substantiated.  Third, even if I play into this nonsense, what makes you think if there were to be an another extinction event that omnivores would fair better?  So much missing information.  LMAO.  What a load of BS

 

12 minutes ago, canuckistani said:

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. 

This is incoherent.  What are you even trying to say

 

[Alflives]

1 minute ago, canuckistani said:

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.

Sympathy for animals, and empathy for humans is just semantics.  We feel for are living things.  Maybe those who “feel” as deeply for the plight of animals as humans have the gene that is needed for our species to survive long term? 

[bishopshodan]

2 minutes ago, canuckistani said:

If you empathize equally with animals as human

Can you please answer.

 

Do you think a human is an animal? 

 

[Alflives]

2 minutes ago, canuckistani said:

Deb is on record saying we immigrants are hypocrites for criticizing the country or culture we chose to settle in and give to.

 

We are all immigrants, even the natives.  But that has nothing to do with the way we “feel” about life beyond human.  Maybe the native peoples had the right philosophy in that they understood their survival depended on their respect for life that is not human? 

[canuckistani]

Just now, SILLY GOOSE said:

Sorry but you using science gibberish (not the authors words/YOURS) doesnt wash over the fact that there is a fundamental difference regarding consciousness that you are trying to conflate.

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. 

Just now, SILLY GOOSE said:

 

Wrong again.  If we programmed an autonomous car with a variety of sensors so well that it could learn and form future avoidance behavior on it's own, it still wouldn't capture what we mean by experiencing pain.  

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.

Just now, SILLY GOOSE said:

 

Which they dont, and the article that references McClintock certainly makes ZERO claim to this.

They make claim to cognitive abilities. Which satisfies the point. 

Just now, SILLY GOOSE said:

 

I can certainly call you out on your lack of understanding if you continue to repeat yourself in making mistakes, posting misleading information.

You cant if you do t understand the science as you said. 

Just now, SILLY GOOSE said:

Again, conflating descriptive processes with normative judgments.  

 

First, that's a historical claim and second, one you havnt substantiated.  Third, even if I play into this nonsense, what makes you think if there were to be an another extinction event that omnivores would fair better?  So much missing information.  LMAO.  What a load of BS

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.

Just now, SILLY GOOSE said:

 

This is incoherent.  What are you even trying to say

 

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.

[canuckistani]

3 minutes ago, bishopshodan said:

Can you please answer.

 

Do you think a human is an animal? 

 

Yes. 

[Alflives]

This is a fascinating discussion.  We are never too old to learn.  

[189lb enforcers?]

 

Rivalries and contempt for each other spill over into every passing thread it seems. 

Emotion. 

[bishopshodan]

3 minutes ago, canuckistani said:

Yes. 

Thank you.

 

I look forward to the day of the replicator so that us biased softies can stop feeling pressured to eat our less capable friends in the animal kingdom, despite our incisors.

[Alflives]

4 minutes ago, bishopshodan said:

Thank you.

 

I look forward to the day of the replicator so that us biased softies can stop feeling pressured to eat our less capable friends in the animal kingdom, despite our incisors.

Those “incisors” are for shredding tree bark, not meat.  

[Angry Goose]

Just now, canuckistani said:

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. 

I absolutely agree with the authors that plants show forms of cognitive function.   But's that's cellular intelligence.  Quite different from phenomenal experience.  It's YOU that cant grasp the material.

 

3 minutes ago, canuckistani said:

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.

Youre still missing the point.  Such a car would feel nothing even if showing avoidance behavior.  

 

5 minutes ago, canuckistani said:

They make claim to cognitive abilities. Which satisfies the point. 

See what I mean people?  YOU are putting words in other people's mouths, and admit to it.  

 

6 minutes ago, canuckistani 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.

lol. In a food scarcity scenario I wonder what's going to be more available for humans to eat: plants are resource intensive animals?   Also, funny to think what we ought to do is determined by these imaginary scenarios of yours.  

 

8 minutes ago, canuckistani said:

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.

So like I said, because violence is an evolved behavior it is simply ethical to do so?  Nonsensical.  

 

Sorry, but Kant's main idea was to respect the rational ability of people, and based on this what could be rationally willed as a universal law.  You know what, people lie all the time, some might say it is an evolved behavior based on psychology etc.  But according to Kant, telling a lie is ALWAYS wrong no matter the situation.   This example shows Kant would disagree with your characterization of what he said.  Again, more misleading and not understanding the material referenced.

[bishopshodan]

2 hours ago, Alflives said:

Those “incisors” are for shredding tree bark, not meat.  

 

Just as brutal if you have been following this discussion. 

Who hears the cries of the carrots!? 

Essentially since some studies show that every life form could show some sort of intelligence even if it is on a cellular level, then we must treat all life with equal disregard. We should consume what we instinctually want even though it may look and sound like it has the same type of immense fear that I would have if I was lined up watching my co-inmates being slaughtered in front of me.

 

Anyway, I think our intelligence is the reason for our dominance. The same intelligence that helps us ask ourselves 'what if we're wrong?'

I see some traditions, religion, even some aspects of cultures/ family as often being a detriment to our evolution, a threat to that intelligence. Sometimes an albatross. We should learn from the past but not try to re-live it, that is an impossibility. 

 

 

[Alflives]

Oh God @bishopshodan you got me good with your “crying carrots” comment.  Had change the adult pull-ups after reading that.

You owe me 2.50!  

[bishopshodan]

7 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Oh God @bishopshodan you got me good with your “crying carrots” comment.  Had change the adult pull-ups after reading that.

You owe me 2.50!  

Thanks, but I do steal it from lyrics from a song.

It is a funny preacher-esq take on the idea that plants have a consciousness. 

 

click:

https://genius.com/Tool-disgustipated-lyrics

[The Vancouver Connection]

9 hours ago, canuckistani said:

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.

Sometimes I read things you say and feel really sorry for you. 

Edited August 12, 2019 by The Vancouver Connection