Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Anti-whaling thread

Page 4 of 5 [ 75 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Tensu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Dec 2009
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,661
Location: Nixa, MO, USA

04 Oct 2010, 9:34 pm

I personally like the idea of converting to solar roadways and having electric cars that tap into the solar energy that the road generates. We could locate charging outlets every mile or so so that there would always be energy nearby. the only problems are the need for temporally efficient chargers and the question of how efficient and durable solar roadways are.

as for wales, did you hear all the stuff I said about life in the abyssal plain subsisting itself on dead whales and those species possibly being useful to mankind, and the likelihood of them going extinct since they live only on whale corpses, or the idea of using cetaceans as a stepping-stone for ethical concerns that will be raised when we finally make first contact with extraterrestrial life? because I may have distracted you with my hate for domestic noise demons. if that's the case, I apologize. :)

one thing is still bothering me though: If the guy believed it was possessed by a demon, why did he listen to it?



Ancalagon
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,302

04 Oct 2010, 9:47 pm

skafather84 wrote:
Saving animals, however, is just poppycock. Species appear and disappear all the time. Is anyone really that sentimental about the dodo? Did it at least taste good? I can't imagine it being any more impressive than most other fowl.

Not quite. New species take much longer, so a massive rate of extinction is definitely undesirable.

Extinction of all whale species would probably be a much bigger deal than, say, extinction of all lemur species. There are whole ecosystems that form at the bottom of the ocean floor to feed on whale carcasses.


_________________
"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." --G. K. Chesterton


LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 49
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

05 Oct 2010, 1:10 am

Not to mention the pelagic predators that depend on them: floating whale carcasses make sharks horny, and slow-moving whales are an important food group for the 'transient' species of orca.
Also, whales are just cool.

Describing species extinction as the mere elimination of the dodo is, frankly, a straw man.



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 49
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

05 Oct 2010, 1:12 am

ruveyn wrote:
LKL wrote:
Tensu wrote:
LKL: While it's true that energy is lost on each trophic level, it takes more energy to digest plant matter than to digest meat.


We get just as much energy from a calorie of plant material as a calorie of meat; we just have to eat more plants to get that calorie. However, it takes many times the *calories* of plant material to produce every *calorie* of meat, so even though the meat is denser nutrition you still end up short on the calorie end. Which is what counts, when you're starving.


Correct.

What matters is energy density.

Meat is optimal. Sugar is next.

ruveyn


My sarcasm filter is stalling on this. Are you being deliberately obtuse in order to make a joke, or in order to annoy me?



Bethie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Age: 37
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,817
Location: My World, Highview, Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Earth, The Milky Way, Local Group, Local Supercluster

05 Oct 2010, 8:49 pm

Tensu wrote:
skafather84 wrote:
If killing a dog with my bare hands would save a human life, I'd do it without hesitation.


yeah, but then... they are not even animals. they are demons. DEMONS I SAY!! ! SOMEONE MAKE THE NOISE STOP!! ! PLEASE I JUST WANT IT TO STOP!! !

*ahem*

Generally, I think veganism is actually speciesist in the same way holding a door for a lady is misogynist; If humans are animals, we should be allowed to eat other animals just like any other omnivore or carnivore.



Humans have ethics.
Non-human animals (largely) do not.

:wink:

Unless you want to also say that because other animals rape and kill one another for the chance to mate, we should do that, too?

Tensu wrote:
I don't want to live in a world were the only way you can stand up for your beliefs is by running through some bureaucratic obstacle course.


THIS.


_________________
For there is another kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions; indifference and inaction and slow decay.


Bethie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Age: 37
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,817
Location: My World, Highview, Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Earth, The Milky Way, Local Group, Local Supercluster

05 Oct 2010, 8:52 pm

skafather84 wrote:


Saving animals, however, is just poppycock. Species appear and disappear all the time.



~facepalm~


_________________
For there is another kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions; indifference and inaction and slow decay.


Tensu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Dec 2009
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,661
Location: Nixa, MO, USA

05 Oct 2010, 9:01 pm

Bethie wrote:
Humans have ethics.
Non-human animals (largely) do not.

:wink:

Unless you want to also say that because other animals rape and kill one another for the chance to mate, we should do that, too?


There is a difference.

Humans are omnivores. our bodies are built to eat all kinds of food.

while our bodies may have... features for reproduction, they aren't designed specifically for rape. it's apples to oranges.



Bethie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Age: 37
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,817
Location: My World, Highview, Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Earth, The Milky Way, Local Group, Local Supercluster

05 Oct 2010, 9:09 pm

Tensu wrote:
Bethie wrote:
Humans have ethics.
Non-human animals (largely) do not.

:wink:

Unless you want to also say that because other animals rape and kill one another for the chance to mate, we should do that, too?


There is a difference.

Humans are omnivores. our bodies are built to eat all kinds of food.

while our bodies may have... features for reproduction, they aren't designed specifically for rape. it's apples to oranges.


We're actually natural herbivores who are merely capable of omnivorism, just like our closest genetic relatives.

There's no evidence we were "designed" at all, let alone "for" one act or another.

Even were that the case, it would have no bearing on the fact that appealing to what other animals do as justification for our own actions is a curious ethical system.


_________________
For there is another kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions; indifference and inaction and slow decay.


Tensu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Dec 2009
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,661
Location: Nixa, MO, USA

05 Oct 2010, 9:21 pm

Bethie wrote:
Even were that the case, it would have no bearing on the fact that appealing to what other animals do as justification for our own actions is a curious ethical system.


again, I don't really see that as being what I'm doing, though I know it looks that way.

besides, a lot of herbivores eat meat to round out their diets. deer eat birds and... I'm doing it again, aren't I?

let me put it this way:

if humans are better than animals, why have a problem with eating them?*

if humans are not better than animals, why hold us to a higher standard than them?

*I do make exceptions for particularly intelligent animals, like whales, and overharvested animals, like tuna, and animals I like because I think they're cool or have an amusing name, like Tarpon. Though I don't expect other to adhere to the last one.



Bethie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Age: 37
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,817
Location: My World, Highview, Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Earth, The Milky Way, Local Group, Local Supercluster

05 Oct 2010, 9:36 pm

Tensu wrote:
if humans are not better than animals, why hold us to a higher standard than them?


It's interesting that you present a (false) dichotomy that is contingent on the presence or absence of some obscure hierarchal system ("better than") as being a truism in terms of ethics.

In any case, it's hardly a "higher standard" to acknowledge that humans have ethical impulses that most animals lack.

Again, appealing to the behaviors of non-human animals as justification for our own is equally applicable to forced sex and men killing rival males.

It's similar to appealing to the existence of socipathy and other mental illnesses as acceptable reasons to find a defendent not guilty,
and saying "if they're not accountable for their crimes (by way of lacking the capacity to reason ethically), why should anyone else be?"

"Apples and oranges", in your words.

Tensu wrote:
*I do make exceptions for particularly intelligent animals, like whales, and overharvested animals, like tuna, and animals I like because I think they're cool or have an amusing name, like Tarpon. Though I don't expect other to adhere to the last one.


This explains a lot.....


_________________
For there is another kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions; indifference and inaction and slow decay.


skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

05 Oct 2010, 10:46 pm

Bethie wrote:
skafather84 wrote:


Saving animals, however, is just poppycock. Species appear and disappear all the time.



~facepalm~


So we're somehow less natural than everything else? How is a species' ability to survive us any different than an animal's ability to survive any other predatory animal?


_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823

?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson


Jookia
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 7 Jan 2007
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 410

05 Oct 2010, 11:15 pm

Some whales are capable of decision making, have ethics and are self-aware. They have cultures and other things too.



Ancalagon
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,302

05 Oct 2010, 11:24 pm

Bethie wrote:
Tensu wrote:
if humans are not better than animals, why hold us to a higher standard than them?


It's interesting that you present a (false) dichotomy that is contingent on the presence or absence of some obscure hierarchal system ("better than") as being a truism in terms of ethics.

"better than" is not an obscure hierarchical system. It's a simple comparative.

The whole point of ethics is to deal with behavior that is "better than" other behavior. So if nothing else is a truism in ethics, it's that it involves "better than".

Quote:
In any case, it's hardly a "higher standard" to acknowledge that humans have ethical impulses that most animals lack.

I think you're missing the point.

People like you have advanced the idea that non-human animals should never be killed. Apparently, this is because humans are animals, so that humans should extend their ethical behavior towards other humans to all animals, treating them in exactly the same way.

This leads to weird conclusions almost instantly -- lions kill and eat zebras, and if we were to treat animals like humans, then we should prosecute the poor lion for murder. One of the counter-arguments to this position is that humans are capable of ethical behavior, which makes them fundamentally different from other animals. In other words, since non-human animals can't be given the ethical responsibilities of humans, they should not get the exact same ethical protections as humans.

Quote:
Tensu wrote:
*I do make exceptions for particularly intelligent animals, like whales, and overharvested animals, like tuna, and animals I like because I think they're cool or have an amusing name, like Tarpon. Though I don't expect other to adhere to the last one.


This explains a lot.....

If this was meant to be a part of your argument, you lost me.


_________________
"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." --G. K. Chesterton


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

06 Oct 2010, 2:35 am

Ancalagon wrote:
"better than" is not an obscure hierarchical system. It's a simple comparative.



"Better than" with regard to what discernible and measurable property or properties?

ruveyn



Asmodeus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Feb 2009
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,520

06 Oct 2010, 3:40 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Ancalagon wrote:
"better than" is not an obscure hierarchical system. It's a simple comparative.



"Better than" with regard to what discernible and measurable property or properties?

ruveyn

This is all arbitrary. Dog burger or dog walk? Horse ride or horse steak?



Bethie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Age: 37
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,817
Location: My World, Highview, Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Earth, The Milky Way, Local Group, Local Supercluster

06 Oct 2010, 10:02 pm

Ancalagon wrote:
Bethie wrote:
Tensu wrote:
if humans are not better than animals, why hold us to a higher standard than them?


It's interesting that you present a (false) dichotomy that is contingent on the presence or absence of some obscure hierarchal system ("better than") as being a truism in terms of ethics.

"better than" is not an obscure hierarchical system. It's a simple comparative.

The whole point of ethics is to deal with behavior that is "better than" other behavior. So if nothing else is a truism in ethics, it's that it involves "better than".


But in ethics, "better than" has denotative meaning according to one's ethical imperatives, whether that be least harm principles, adherence to the teachings of a religion, etc. What does it mean objectively to say that one animal is "better than" another?

Ancalagon wrote:
Quote:
In any case, it's hardly a "higher standard" to acknowledge that humans have ethical impulses that most animals lack.

I think you're missing the point.

People like you have advanced the idea that non-human animals should never be killed. Apparently, this is because humans are animals, so that humans should extend their ethical behavior towards other humans to all animals, treating them in exactly the same way.

This leads to weird conclusions almost instantly -- lions kill and eat zebras, and if we were to treat animals like humans, then we should prosecute the poor lion for murder. One of the counter-arguments to this position is that humans are capable of ethical behavior, which makes them fundamentally different from other animals. In other words, since non-human animals can't be given the ethical responsibilities of humans, they should not get the exact same ethical protections as humans.


I don't know what you mean by "people like me", especially since I have never claimed non-human animals should never be killed.

However, from what I've read of animal rights philosophy, the status as "fellow animal" is quite irrelevant in this context. It is not some arbitrary taxonomic signifier that is an ethical guarantor of rights in this school of thought, but rather the capacity to suffer being identical to our own, and therefore the interest in being protected from suffering is likewise identical.

It doesn't follow that ethical responsibilities are required for ethical protection. Unless you likewise contend that the rights of infants, the mentally ret*d, and comatose individuals are likewise not due ethical protection.


Ancalagon wrote:
Quote:
Tensu wrote:
*I do make exceptions for particularly intelligent animals, like whales, and overharvested animals, like tuna, and animals I like because I think they're cool or have an amusing name, like Tarpon. Though I don't expect other to adhere to the last one.


This explains a lot.....

If this was meant to be a part of your argument, you lost me.


It doesn't really need a refutative argument. It stands alone.


_________________
For there is another kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions; indifference and inaction and slow decay.