More on animal suffering

[Oreoracle]

no, it would be the truth, anyone who has hated another is guilty of murder, even if only in his heart. the point is to overcome our sinful natures, not to yield to them. no one ever said Christainity is easy. its extremely difficult.

Yep, and it was difficult to keep the thought police pleased in 1984, too. Thought control is always difficult (for the subjects, that is).

seems like that might be a sin, huh?

That’s not why I would think it’s wrong, no.

natural evolutionary programming.

Enough with this “programming” nonsense. You can’t prove that there is programming because you can’t prove there’s a programmer! Your theism pervades everything.

And no, neither natural selection nor genetics count as programmers. They don’t have intentions.

dogs, wolves, and several other animals may do that in the wild, what does that have to do with pride? and the dog doesnt predict when you get home, he can hear you a block away. opie sits on a table by the front door, but he doesnt do it until he hears my diesel pull up the drive. i cant believe this is your idea of evidence.

Firstly, I don’t drive home. Secondly, my mom tells me that my dog waits at the door half an hour beforehand. She always gets anxious at that time of the day. Coincidence? I doubt it. The same thing happens when my dad is home with my other two dogs.

if you think Christains are in the same boat

I don’t think that Christians are in the same boat. I’m not in the boat.

every kid on the planet thinks his dog loves him as i thought that mine loved me. its nothing special at all.

You have a very romantic view of love (and no, that’s not a compliment). It doesn’t have to be special to be real.

your best bet may be a turing test. but as to 100 percent proof, i dont think that exists

So by your own admission, you don’t have…what was it again? Oh yeah, “valid evidence.” So by your own admission, you don’t have valid evidence that other humans can think and feel, yet you assume they do. How irrational of you!

but for me i simply accept it because other people can explicitly explain their emotional states and i can verify what they say by comparing it to my known emotional states.

This does not satisfy your professed standard of evidence. Their explanations could be programmed!

do you think other people are displaying programmed responses? do you think that you are displaying programmed responses?

No, but I have no evidence that they aren’t when using your standard of evidence. Everything, explanations included, could be programmed. You’ve painted yourself in a corner here, and we both know it. Now, let me ask you: which of us is using two different standards of evidence?

but we can overcome any programming we are born with, we can self program

How do you know that I can do with my mind what you’ve done to yours? Appearances don’t count, remember? You can’t even prove that I have a mind, so I wouldn’t be talking about how flexible it is!

That paint is still wet, Pete. You’re still stuck in that corner, from the looks of it.

at least thats my opinion on the matter.

Yeah, because your assumption has a much more solid foundation than mine.

it boils down to the mere fact another human can tell me how he is feeling, and i dont have to make assumptions because he can explicitly explain and i can verify his claims by my similar experiences.

You still have to assume that the response is not programmed. In my opinion, my dog’s yelp of pain is a good enough explanation of her mental state. I can sympathize with the pain she’s expressed. Face it: your assumption isn’t any better than mine!

and its hard to believe your a male, but ill take your word for it.

Oh snap! But just out of curiosity, what have I done to suggest otherwise? Being on a philosophy forum already makes it seem probable that I’m a guy, so your explanation should be interesting.

thats not a spectacularly humane way to slaughter, but most other people in the world think the American obsession with pets is odd. the chinese dont see a problem with it, but then, i doubt that they keep alot of pet dogs.

It’s odd that this response sounds almost exactly like the type of relativism you condemn.

why not? its the study of being, i think it entirely appropriate in questions not answerable by science. those questions dont just dissappear because they arent empirically examinable.

Correct. They just remain unanswerable.

not asking questions about such things is nothing more than sticking your head in the sand.

How do we prove that a metaphysical premise is true? Keep in mind that you can’t even prove that I have a mind, so your track record isn’t looking too good from the outset.

 

[A_Dancer_Whirls]

I have answered your question but you have not answered mine nor refuted my statements. For your benefit I list the salient points I have made:

Conflict is inevitable in a world where there are many different animals pursuing different goals. Mammals would probably have become extinct if they had all been herbivores and multiplied throughout the world without population control by predators. We have seen what happens when man attempts to improve the biosphere. Which would you prefer - a swift death from a predator or a slow lingering death due to an accident, disease, starvation or thirst? Can you devise a physical system in which advanced life is possible without having to depend on other life in order to survive?

The world is not cruel but hospitable for living creatures. It is a distortion of the facts to say that “nature is red in tooth and claw” and that animals live in constant fear. A certain amount of competition is inevitable where there millions of different beings pursuing different goals but in nature there is far more co-operation than conflict. Normal life contains far more pleasure than pain. Life depends on life. Death is an inevitable consequence of life in a physical world. So are competition and conflict even at the microscopic level. Otherwise there cannot be development. The more advanced living organisms become, the more complex their diet becomes.

Until you explain how to create a physical world containing millions of sentient creatures without any suffering and agony you are not justified in concluding that there is unnecessary suffering and agony. It is easy to suggest improvements to nature but the disasters caused by human interference illustrate that the successful design of a highly complex ecological system is incredibly difficult. Until a feasible blueprint is forthcoming we are entitled to remain sceptical about “steps in the right direction”!

Design does not imply that everything is designed. There is clearly an element of chance in evolution - as one would expect from a process in which there are random mutations which result in deformities and disease. But to infer that everything is ultimately the result of blind, purposeless activity is going to the other extreme from Creationism. There is a framework of order and design within which accidents and anomalies occur.

So do you believe your god designed that bacteria in that video?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Yep, and it was difficult to keep the thought police pleased in 1984, too. Thought control is always difficult (for the subjects, that is).

thought police? you mean like political correctness?

you can think what you want, but sin begins in the heart long before it is manifested.

That’s not why I would think it’s wrong, no.

sure it is, you forget the judeo/Christian foundation of the western moral systems.

Enough with this “programming” nonsense. You can’t prove that there is programming because you can’t prove there’s a programmer! Your theism pervades everything.

what does theism have to do with evolution?

And no, neither natural selection nor genetics count as programmers. They don’t have intentions.

why does evolution need intent? now your sounding like a theist.

Firstly, I don’t drive home. Secondly, my mom tells me that my dog waits at the door half an hour beforehand. She always gets anxious at that time of the day. Coincidence? I doubt it. The same thing happens when my dad is home with my other two dogs.

so?, the cue he associates with you coming home isnt the sound of your car. wait…maybe he is psychic!

does he do that exact same routine when you come home from school sick, or for an appointment? doubt it. and p.s. a mopm will tell you what she thinks will make you happiest.

I don’t think that Christians are in the same boat. I’m not in the boat.

lets see, you have no evidence for animal emotions, and believe, you think Christains have no evidence, and so you doubt. yeah thats the same boat

You have a very romantic view of love (and no, that’s not a compliment). It doesn’t have to be special to be real.

im not the one calling it “love” am i? i think its programming, you think its “love” your the one being romantic.

So by your own admission, you don’t have…what was it again? Oh yeah, “valid evidence.” So by your own admission, you don’t have valid evidence that other humans can think and feel, yet you assume they do. How irrational of you!

sure i have valid evidence of my emotions for comparison. they can tell me what their emotions are and i can compare them to a known sample of mine. its called theory of mind. i dont have to make assumptions concerning their emotions.

This does not satisfy your professed standard of evidence. Their explanations could be programmed!

as i just showed, it does satisfy my standard of evidence.

No, but I have no evidence that they aren’t when using your standard of evidence. Everything, explanations included, could be programmed. You’ve painted yourself in a corner here, and we both know it. Now, let me ask you: which of us is using two different standards of evidence?

we both dont know it because you dont seem to understand what my standard of evidence is. its simply that i can be told what their emotions are and then i can compare that to fmy known sample. i dont have to make cross species, anthropomorphic assumptions, ive never said that we need to be able to show others arent robots, thats your straw man.

How do you know that I can do with my mind what you’ve done to yours? Appearances don’t count, remember? You can’t even prove that I have a mind, so I wouldn’t be talking about how flexible it is!

That paint is still wet, Pete. You’re still stuck in that corner, from the looks of it.

what paint? your idea of my standard of evidence, is just your idea, not mine. its your strawman.

Yeah, because your assumption has a much more solid foundation than mine.

indeed it does, common experience, not something you share with animals. id call that a pretty solid foundation.

You still have to assume that the response is not programmed. In my opinion, my dog’s yelp of pain is a good enough explanation of her mental state. I can sympathize with the pain she’s expressed. Face it: your assumption isn’t any better than mine!

first, pain isnt an “emotion” its just a physical response to stimuli. anything with a sufficiently advanced neural system can feel “pain” big deal. but my “assumption” is better than yours, in that it is based on shared experience, something you cant share with an animal. how do you know a dog “loves”? have you ever been a dog? of course not, thats just anthropomorphic projection.

Oh snap! But just out of curiosity, what have I done to suggest otherwise? Being on a philosophy forum already makes it seem probable that I’m a guy, so your explanation should be interesting.

lets see, saying things like “oh snap”, defending homosexuals, worried about eating meat, etc…not masculine traits.

It’s odd that this response sounds almost exactly like the type of relativism you condemn.

relativism? what are you talking about? im just from a western culture that has brought me up to think that one doesnt eat dogs, if i was chinese i would think differently on the subject.

Correct. They just remain unanswerable.

what would ever make you think that?

How do we prove that a metaphysical premise is true? Keep in mind that you can’t even prove that I have a mind, so your track record isn’t looking too good from the outset.

by observation, how did you think?

 

[Oreoracle]

thought police? you mean like political correctness?

No. Have you ever read 1984? In the book, every household had a “telescreen,” which was like a video camera that could both give and receive signals. Every house consisted of only one room, and the telescreen supervised all activity (it would be positioned in a corner where it could record all actions of the occupant). Those who watched through the telescreens were the thought police, who had the role of spotting “thoughtcrime.” Any groaning, frowning, or even the slightest twitch could suggest mental rebellion (dislike for the conditions of the society). By reading facial expressions, the thought police could arrest you for merely thinking of rebellion, which was often inevitable due to the poor conditions of the society. To adapt, citizens would have to employ “doublethink,” the acceptance of contradictory ideas that resulted in a sort of half-consciousness. As a result, you basically had a society devoid of feeling, containing shells of people who only knew the right times to boo and cheer.

You can’t cheat your thoughts. Any attempt to do so will backfire.

you can think what you want, but sin begins in the heart long before it is manifested.

We have very little control of our hearts. That’s why we appreciate things that come “from the heart”; those things are honest, and haven’t been tampered with. I prefer honesty over holiness.

sure it is, you forget the judeo/Christian foundation of the western moral systems.

Utilitarianism doesn’t have a Christian foundation, and it’s a western moral system. You can’t just make blanket statements like that.

what does theism have to do with evolution?

Nothing.

why does evolution need intent?

Nothing, which is why calling it a programmer is absurd, or at least misleading. The programmer of that Roomba intended for it to work a certain way, and designed it accordingly. That’s programming. But if you have no intent, there is no programming, at least not in the sense “programming” is often used.

does he do that exact same routine when you come home from school sick, or for an appointment?

No, which just helps to prove my point. My dogs know what time of day I usually come home, and induce that I’ll arrive at the same time the next day. That requires memory, which is indicative of intelligence (which is correlated with emotion).

doubt it. and p.s. a mopm will tell you what she thinks will make you happiest.

There it is: the constant bleat of the conspiracy theorist and the dying words of a cornered debator. “Someone must be lying!”

lets see, you have no evidence for animal emotions, and believe, you think Christains have no evidence, and so you doubt. yeah thats the same boat

The behaviors of my dogs justify my standard of evidence. All you’re doing is disqualifying the behaviors of non-human animals as “programmed” and assuming that those of humans aren’t programmed. Give it up.

sure i have valid evidence of my emotions for comparison.

The responses could be programmed! You’re assuming that your fellow humans have minds, but there isn’t “valid evidence” for that notion. Why should I assume that the depressing poetry of my peers comes from thoughtful minds but not the barks of dogs? That poetry could be a programmed response. Even if it were straightforward prose, it could be programmed. Your skepticism is discriminative.

they can tell me what their emotions are and i can compare them to a known sample of mine. its called theory of mind. i dont have to make assumptions concerning their emotions.

You assume that they have minds, and that their responses are indeed emotional and not simply programmed.

I just thought of something: Can we abort fetuses because they’re unable to explain what degree of emotion they now possess, or what mental activity they’re capable of?

we both dont know it because you dont seem to understand what my standard of evidence is.

I understand it all too well. You’re just cherrypicking what’s most convenient for you, not that I’m surprised.

its simply that i can be told what their emotions are and then i can compare that to fmy known sample. i dont have to make cross species, anthropomorphic assumptions, ive never said that we need to be able to show others arent robots, thats your straw man.

If you can’t prove they aren’t robots, then you have no way of knowing they’re actually expressing emotions. It could just seem emotional, like the shrill cries of tortured animals or their pitiful faces inside cages.

first, pain isnt an “emotion” its just a physical response to stimuli.

The definition of “pain” is quite flexible. Were you in pain when you broke up with your first girlfriend? (assuming that it was a girlfriend )

And yes, I’m permitted to use that one cheap shot after your gender comment.

lets see, saying things like “oh snap”

We don’t have any gender-specific phrases in my generation, in case you haven’t noticed.

defending homosexuals, worried about eating meat, etc…not masculine traits.

Ah yes: the predictable resistance toward anything sensitive. How very redneck of you.

by observation, how did you think?

How do we know that what we’re observing is real? Metaphysics allows for this sort of questioning. That’s its weakness: In metaphysics, there are no concrete rules. There are no grounds for objection to any theory, because there is no ground! Everything is permitted.

 

[tonyrey]

So do you believe your god designed that bacteria in that video?

No!

 

[warpspeedpetey]

No. Have you ever read 1984? In the book, every household had a “telescreen,” which was like a video camera that could both give and receive signals. Every house consisted of only one room, and the telescreen supervised all activity (it would be positioned in a corner where it could record all actions of the occupant). Those who watched through the telescreens were the thought police, who had the role of spotting “thoughtcrime.” Any groaning, frowning, or even the slightest twitch could suggest mental rebellion (dislike for the conditions of the society). By reading facial expressions, the thought police could arrest you for merely thinking of rebellion, which was often inevitable due to the poor conditions of the society. To adapt, citizens would have to employ “doublethink,” the acceptance of contradictory ideas that resulted in a sort of half-consciousness. As a result, you basically had a society devoid of feeling, containing shells of people who only knew the right times to boo and cheer.

You can’t cheat your thoughts. Any attempt to do so will backfire.

a couple decades ago, yes. im pointing out that political correctness is the “thought police”

We have very little control of our hearts. That’s why we appreciate things that come “from the heart”; those things are honest, and haven’t been tampered with.

what does this even mean? “from the heart” just means its meant sincerely, what does that have to do with control over emotions?

I prefer honesty over holiness.

you dont know what holiness is, otherwise you would know that holiness is inclusive of honesty.

Utilitarianism doesn’t have a Christian foundation, and it’s a western moral system. You can’t just make blanket statements like that.

sure it does, its just a reaction to it.

Nothing.

Nothing, which is why calling it a programmer is absurd, or at least misleading. The programmer of that Roomba intended for it to work a certain way, and designed it accordingly. That’s programming. But if you have no intent, there is no programming, at least not in the sense “programming” is often used.

i never called it a “programmer” i said it was “programming” in relation to animals. the roomba is simply a convenient model, in this case the “programmer” of animals would be evolution, and evolution lacks intent. but there is no appreciable difference in information stored and conveyed in DNA and that in a roombas memory. its all just programming. robot, or meatbot, take yourt pick

No, which just helps to prove my point. My dogs know what time of day I usually come home, and induce that I’ll arrive at the same time the next day.

so they are trained to expect you to arrive at a certain time. big deal, i bet they know when its feeding time too. thats all just programming.

That requires memory, which is indicative of intelligence (which is correlated with emotion).

how is memory indicative of intelligence? a computer has gigabytes upon gigabytes, but no intelligence that isnt programmed into it. and intelligence is correlated to emotion in people, not animals.

There it is: the constant bleat of the conspiracy theorist and the dying words of a cornered debator. “Someone must be lying!”

everyone has a mother, its hardly a theory. moms tell you what they think makes you happy. most peoples mothers explain how special there children are, yet everyone was a child, not much special in that. its called building a childs self esteem.

The behaviors of my dogs justify my standard of evidence.

how so? they could well be evolutionarily programmed responses, youve never been a dog and have no way to judge if they are not. you just dont want them to be.

All you’re doing is disqualifying the behaviors of non-human animals as “programmed” and assuming that those of humans aren’t programmed. Give it up.

im not assuming that humans arent programmed and actually experience emotion., i know from my own experience as a human. you have no corresponding experience as an animal, so your anthropomorphic assumption is unjustified, it just suits how you wish things to be, not how they really are.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

The responses could be programmed! You’re assuming that your fellow humans have minds, but there isn’t “valid evidence” for that notion.

sure there is, im human, and i have a mind. plenty of valid evidence.

Why should I assume that the depressing poetry of my peers comes from thoughtful minds but not the barks of dogs? That poetry could be a programmed response. Even if it were straightforward prose, it could be programmed. Your skepticism is discriminative.

the poet can describe to you what he feels or what the poetry means, you can then compare it to your own experiences. something you cant do with a dog bark.

You assume that they have minds, and that their responses are indeed emotional and not simply programmed.

since the turing test hasnt been passed yet with an unlimited time frame and a sophisticated interrogator i doubt we have to worry about robots yet.

I just thought of something: Can we abort fetuses because they’re unable to explain what degree of emotion they now possess, or what mental activity they’re capable of?

no, i was a fetus and a baby at one time, therefore i know given regular development they will have emotions also.

I understand it all too well. You’re just cherrypicking what’s most convenient for you, not that I’m surprised.

since im giving you specific reasons and circumstances, i suspect this is nothing more than bald assertion.

If you can’t prove they aren’t robots, then you have no way of knowing they’re actually expressing emotions. It could just seem emotional, like the shrill cries of tortured animals or their pitiful faces inside cages.

sure i do, i can just compare it to my own experiences. you put the word “pitiful” to it, probably from commercials of peta or the humane society begging for money, but ive seen pens full of hogs waiting the slaughter and they dont seem “pitiful” any more than a pile of roombas at the recyclers would be.

The definition of “pain” is quite flexible. Were you in pain when you broke up with your first girlfriend? (assuming that it was a girlfriend )

no, it wasnt physical “pain” it was maybe emotional “pain” but thats not the same thing as a dog yelping when its tail is stepped on. thats physical pain

And yes, I’m permitted to use that one cheap shot after your gender comment.

no you arent, you got that comment after your first cheap shot on whether or not i have a cat. you started it. angry that you arent winning the argument.

We don’t have any gender-specific phrases in my generation, in case you haven’t noticed.

im gen x so i wouldnt know, but thats no surprise. there are all sorts of books on how your generation has been manipulated by political correctness, the homosexual lobby, and the progressives (liberals). your generation is being indoctrinated in ways that mine was not. luckily i didnt run into that until college. thats actually a large factor in my worldview. i saw as an adult what they wanted us to believe and why.

Ah yes: the predictable resistance toward anything sensitive. How very redneck of you.

i quite happily admit i am a redneck. overt sensitivity is for men on tv, in the real world its a weakness. people dont care if your sensitive, they care if you are capable.

How do we know that what we’re observing is real?

cogito ergo sum. thats all you can know for sure is real. other than that you have to trust your senses.

Metaphysics allows for this sort of questioning. That’s its weakness: In metaphysics, there are no concrete rules.

what do you mean, no rules? its not mathematics, but then ive been reading the philosphy of mathematics and thats not as clear cut as you might think. the “rules” are the same as they are for all rational thought. sceience itself

There are no grounds for objection to any theory, because there is no ground! Everything is permitted.

what are you talking about? this is yet another bald assertion.

 

[tonyrey]

So do you believe your god designed that bacteria in that video?

No! Nor do I believe that God designed brain tumours or arranged that earthquakes should destroy cities. I have already pointed out that there is an element of chance in evolution - but unlike you I do not believe everything is ultimately due to chance…

 

[Oreoracle]

To save time and space, I’m going to respond to approximately half of your post right here:

You seem to be advancing the “common experience” argument confidently, so I think we should focus on that. Here is what I make of your argument (correct me if I’m wrong):

1. I am a human who experiences emotions and thoughts
2. The experience of emotions and thoughts takes place in the mind
   C1. Therefore, I have a mind
   C2. Therefore, all humans have minds

The fallacy committed here is obvious: the argument assumes that just because one member of a class possesses a trait all members must possess that trait. In this case, the assumption is that, because one human is known to have a mind, all humans must have minds. But mental ability is not a requisite for being in the class of “human” (one can be a human without a mind). Thus, your mental ability is not indisputable evidence of the mental abilities of others, even if they give you a convincing explanation that you can relate to. This is why your argument fails.

sure i do, i can just compare it to my own experiences. you put the word “pitiful” to it, probably from commercials of peta or the humane society begging for money, but ive seen pens full of hogs waiting the slaughter and they dont seem “pitiful” any more than a pile of roombas at the recyclers would be.

And I’ve heard of Christian martyrs who grinned at the thought of dying for their belief in God. Some animals are a little slow on the uptake, no matter what species of animal we’re talking about. Sometimes the realization of what mortality truly entails comes a bit too late.

no, it wasnt physical “pain” it was maybe emotional “pain” but thats not the same thing as a dog yelping when its tail is stepped on. thats physical pain

And if I kicked you in the groin, that would be physical pain that would probably cause emotional pain. It’s hard to have a good day after getting kneed in the nads.

im gen x so i wouldnt know, but thats no surprise. there are all sorts of books on how your generation has been manipulated by political correctness, the homosexual lobby, and the progressives (liberals). your generation is being indoctrinated in ways that mine was not. luckily i didnt run into that until college. thats actually a large factor in my worldview. i saw as an adult what they wanted us to believe and why.

Do I come off as being brainwashed to you? Am I a sheep, or a disagreeable thinker?

i quite happily admit i am a redneck. overt sensitivity is for men on tv, in the real world its a weakness. people dont care if your sensitive, they care if you are capable.

That doesn’t sound very Christian. What happened to persevering against modern culture?

If you want my opinion (and you don’t), I’d say the best of folks care whether you’re capable of being sensitive.

cogito ergo sum. thats all you can know for sure is real. other than that you have to trust your senses.

And if I don’t trust my senses, metaphysics lets me off scott-free. It doesn’t require that I trust my senses. Solipsism, though arguably irrational, is not an “incorrect” position.

what do you mean, no rules?

What assumptions, brute facts, axioms, principles, etc., is metaphysics founded on? Nothing! Cogito ergo sum is the only thing agreed on by all metaphysicians.

 

[Oreoracle]

a couple decades ago, yes. im pointing out that political correctness is the “thought police”

I don’t think the current principles of political correctness are comparable to the thought police. It isn’t politically incorrect to think of anything; political correctness concerns itself only with actions.

what does this even mean? “from the heart” just means its meant sincerely, what does that have to do with control over emotions?

If I sincerely hate someone, what business do you have telling me that I ought to deceive myself into thinking I don’t hate them? Feelings are the most honest things you have, and your doctrine isn’t satisfied with leaving them unadulterated.

you dont know what holiness is, otherwise you would know that holiness is inclusive of honesty.

Do you consider the suppression of thoughts or emotions to be a dishonest act? I can understand trying to avert tendencies, but you’re just telling people that they’ll be damned for being honest with how they feel. Recognition is the first step of changing anything, emotions included. If someone tries to cease hating another, but fails, then that person hasn’t done anything wrong, in my opinion.

so they are trained to expect you to arrive at a certain time. big deal, i bet they know when its feeding time too. thats all just programming.

In a sense they’ve been trained, but they’ve been trained by recognizing the circumstances. If a human did that, you’d call it “learning.”

how is memory indicative of intelligence? a computer has gigabytes upon gigabytes, but no intelligence that isnt programmed into it.

I said that memory is indicative of intelligence, not that intelligence necessarily follows from memory or vice-versa. It’s a matter of probability. I’m saying it’s probable that dogs can think and feel.

and intelligence is correlated to emotion in people, not animals.

This is an unsupported assertion.

everyone has a mother, its hardly a theory. moms tell you what they think makes you happy.

“Everyone has a preacher, it’s hardly a theory. Preachers tell you what they think will make you happy.”

How does that feel?

its called building a childs self esteem.

I’m hardly a child.

 

[A_Dancer_Whirls]

No! Nor do I believe that God designed brain tumours or arranged that earthquakes should destroy cities. I have already pointed out that there is an element of chance in evolution - but unlike you I do not believe everything is ultimately due to chance…

Nor do i? In actual fact chance really has very little to do with it. So if you believe evolution is guided, why did god not guide the evolution of these horrible bacteria?

 

[severntofall]

What bothers you - the *death *or the *pain *of the animals?

The suffering of animals that serves a purpose that could have been equally served without the pain (if creationism is true).

 

[severntofall]

bare assertion, how do you know that there is no information that justifies it? further, how do you know it isnt the best possible situation? you seem to be assuming there is a better way, yet this is the exact kind of conclusion that cant be validly drawn. in the end it all boils down to opinion. .

And yet I suspect that you believe that the existence of the universe can only be explained by the existence of a god? Your particular argument that animal suffering may be necessary works equally to demonstrate that the universe may very well not have a creator.

However, I don’t buy your argument. For an all-powerful god to be all-powerful it has to be possible for him to create a reality in which the infliction of pain is not a requirement; otherwise your god is at best very powerful but far short of all-powerful. Of course, it’s possible that your god is all-powerful and that the necessary suffering of animals satiates a need of his.

why do you think that it is wrong for us to eat animals? this is another opinion. its not wrong, its just something you find distasteful.

I’m saying that it’s wrong for anyone to require the infliction of suffering when it was totally unnecessary. Now, as I mentioned earlier, I can buy the possibility that a god simply set the wheels in motion and evolution produced what we see today.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

To save time and space, I’m going to respond to approximately half of your post right here:

You seem to be advancing the “common experience” argument confidently, so I think we should focus on that. Here is what I make of your argument (correct me if I’m wrong):

1. I am a human who experiences emotions and thoughts
2. The experience of emotions and thoughts takes place in the mind
   C1. Therefore, I have a mind
   C2. Therefore, all humans have minds

The fallacy committed here is obvious: the argument assumes that just because one member of a class possesses a trait all members must possess that trait. In this case, the assumption is that, because one human is known to have a mind, all humans must have minds. But mental ability is not a requisite for being in the class of “human” (one can be a human without a mind). Thus, your mental ability is not indisputable evidence of the mental abilities of others, even if they give you a convincing explanation that you can relate to. This is why your argument fails.

i never said that. you spend way too much time on arguments im not making.

im not saying that i can prove other people have minds. only that as i have a mind, when someone relates an emotion to me, i can then compare what they say to my emotions and decide whether or not they are relating actual emotions, its called a turing test. that is however not something that you can do with a dog.

if you want to dispose of a theory of mind for other human beings who you can communicate with, then i would suggest that you have reached the edge of the solipistic ideas that you decry.

that said, i havent the foggiest why you keep trying to make a fallacious tu quoqe argument. even if you were right and we dont have a basis to accept that other people have emotions, that doesnt change the fact that there is no valid evidence for animal emotions. so even were i wrong, you would still be wrong. ive told you about this before.

And I’ve heard of Christian martyrs who grinned at the thought of dying for their belief in God. Some animals are a little slow on the uptake, no matter what species of animal we’re talking about. Sometimes the realization of what mortality truly entails comes a bit too late.

the realization of what mortality actually enttails is why the Matyrs were prepared for it, nay, sought it out eagerly. they knew the Truth from personal experience.

And if I kicked you in the groin, that would be physical pain that would probably cause emotional pain. It’s hard to have a good day after getting kneed in the nads.

why would that engender emotional pain?

Do I come off as being brainwashed to you? Am I a sheep, or a disagreeable thinker?

yes, you seem brainwashed, communism, veganism, strange moralities are all hallmarks of a liberal agenda. communism was an epic fail, veganism is unnatural, people are designed to be omnivores, not herbivores. and strange moralities are just an attempt to avoid the sexual norms of Judeo/Christain. its little more than morality by gonad

That doesn’t sound very Christian. What happened to persevering against modern culture?

i dont get the connection here?

If you want my opinion (and you don’t), I’d say the best of folks care whether you’re capable of being sensitive.

yeah, wait till you get a job, and see how much your boss cares about your sensitivity.

And if I don’t trust my senses, metaphysics lets me off scott-free. It doesn’t require that I trust my senses. Solipsism, though arguably irrational, is not an “incorrect” position.

nothing requires you to trust your senses, if you want to be a solipsist go ahead, i just dont think its a productive position. so i simply choose to trust my senses given no conflicting data or argumentation.

What assumptions, brute facts, axioms, principles, etc., is metaphysics founded on? Nothing! Cogito ergo sum is the only thing agreed on by all metaphysicians.

how can you say nothing, and then give an example like cogito ergo sum?

that said, read the wiki, you have no idea what all metaphysics entails, its foundations, or the mere fact that the physical sciences descend from the branch known as natural philosophy.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics

what other basis for investigation of the nature of reality would you suggest?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I don’t think the current principles of political correctness are comparable to the thought police. It isn’t politically incorrect to think of anything; political correctness concerns itself only with actions.

if it is politically incorrect, to say or act on your beliefs, id call that a breach of freedom, no different than the thought police.

If I sincerely hate someone, what business do you have telling me that I ought to deceive myself into thinking I don’t hate them? Feelings are the most honest things you have, and your doctrine isn’t satisfied with leaving them unadulterated.

Do you consider the suppression of thoughts or emotions to be a dishonest act? I can understand trying to avert tendencies, but you’re just telling people that they’ll be damned for being honest with how they feel. Recognition is the first step of changing anything, emotions included. If someone tries to cease hating another, but fails, then that person hasn’t done anything wrong, in my opinion.

feelings arent “honest”, they just are. “feelings” arent rational, they are just hormones and wishes, little else, we arent talking about “dishonest” supression ( not that suppressing emotions is “dishonest”) we are talking about asserting control over them. as to hate, we arent talking about decieving ourselves, we are talking about learning not to hate. overcoming the flesh. overcoming your baser instincts. its a difficult, lifelong process. why do you think so many people talk about being Christain but so few really try to practice it? its very, very hard. failure is inevitable, you just have to pick yourself up and try again. its spiritual jujitsu so to speak.

In a sense they’ve been trained, but they’ve been trained by recognizing the circumstances. If a human did that, you’d call it “learning.”

learning by positive reinforcement would seem to be training to me. a person can learn whether he recieves a reward or not, animals only seem to learn if they recieve an award or avoid a punishment.

I said that memory is indicative of intelligence, not that intelligence necessarily follows from memory or vice-versa. It’s a matter of probability. I’m saying it’s probable that dogs can think and feel.

why is that any more probable than them being evolutionaryily programmed meatbots? thats just as easily the case. merely making the assumption doesnt mean anything.

This is an unsupported assertion.

considering there is no valid evidence for animal emotions, i dont see how that assertion is unfounded, you cant validly correlate 2 variables without them being existent. i mean you can say the words but it doesnt mean much.

“Everyone has a preacher, it’s hardly a theory. Preachers tell you what they think will make you happy.”

um… not everyone has a preacher, nor are preachers in the business of making one happy, they are in the business of religion.

How does that feel?

it feels like you just made up some nonsense phrase instead of accepting a basic truth of human relations.

I’m hardly a child.

im sure you dont think so. no one does at that age. i didnt, but give it 20 years and then tell me the that.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

And yet I suspect that you believe that the existence of the universe can only be explained by the existence of a god?

indeed. though thats a slight misstatement, its close enough for now.

Your particular argument that animal suffering may be necessary works equally to demonstrate that the universe may very well not have a creator.

 

[tonyrey]

Nor do i? In actual fact chance really has very little to do with it.

According to the atheist Chance has everything to do with it because Chance is disguised under the cloak of Necessity, i.e. that which must happen for no purpose. And the laws of nature just happen to be what they are **without rhyme or reason… **Chance is the absence of Design.

So if you believe evolution is guided, why did god not guide the evolution of these horrible bacteria?

For the simple reason that God does not control every event directly. It is absurd to suppose all bacteria are harmful or that no harmful bacteria will emerge in the immensely complex process of evolution…

 

[A_Dancer_Whirls]

According to the atheist Chance has everything to do with it because Chance is disguised under the cloak of Necessity, i.e. that which must happen for no purpose. And the laws of nature just happen to be what they are **without rhyme or reason… **Chance is the absence of Design.
For the simple reason that God does not control every event directly. It is absurd to suppose all bacteria are harmful or that no harmful bacteria will emerge in the immensely complex process of evolution…

chance (chns)
n.
1.
a. The unknown and unpredictable element in happenings that seems to have no assignable cause.
b. A force assumed to cause events that cannot be foreseen or controlled; luck: Chance will determine the outcome.
2. The likelihood of something happening; possibility or probability. Often used in the plural: Chances are good that you will win. Is there any chance of rain?
3. An accidental or unpredictable event.
4. A favorable set of circumstances; an opportunity: a chance to escape.
5. A risk or hazard; a gamble: took a chance that the ice would hold me.
6. Games A raffle or lottery ticket.
7. Baseball An opportunity to make a putout or an assist that counts as an error if unsuccessful.
adj.
Caused by or ascribable to chance; unexpected, random, or casual: a chance encounter; a chance result.
v. chanced, chanc·ing, chanc·es
v.intr.
To come about by chance; occur: It chanced that the train was late that day.
v.tr.
To take the risk or hazard of: not willing to chance it.

I see no mention of the absence of design, so i guess we can put this down to semantics. We both understand chance to mean a different thing. If we take chance to mean as above, then chance has pretty much nothing to do with it. If we take chance to mean the absence of design, then i agree, as i believe there is no designer.

So you believe god guided our evolution? You accept we have a common ancestor with apes?

 

[Oreoracle]

im not saying that i can prove other people have minds. only that as i have a mind, when someone relates an emotion to me

There you go again! You’re assuming that what is being expressed is an emotion, and not simply programming. And then you’ll say, “Well I’m a human who has emotions, so it’s reasonable to assume that other humans who seem to express sentiments similar to mine have emotions.” But that’s an assumption! In fact, it’s exactly the same as the argument I outlined for you.

i can then compare what they say to my emotions and decide whether or not they are relating actual emotions, its called a turing test.

I thought the Turing test was done with computers to test for artificial intelligence? I don’t really care though, because that’s beside the point.

Again, this is the same as the argument I outlined for you. You are a member of the class of “human.” All things human are contained within that class. However, “human” is not characterized by mental activity*, but by DNA, so mental activity need not be a common characteristic of all things human. Thus, “I have emotions, so other humans (especially those who seem to express them) must have emotions” is an assumption.

*By “mental activity,” I mean thinking and feeling.

if you want to dispose of a theory of mind for other human beings who you can communicate with, then i would suggest that you have reached the edge of the solipistic ideas that you decry.

I’m just taking your own argument to its most extreme implication. If you doubt the emotional capacities of animals nearly as developed as humans (from a relative perspective, of course), you might as well doubt those of humans.

that said, i havent the foggiest why you keep trying to make a fallacious tu quoqe argument. even if you were right and we dont have a basis to accept that other people have emotions, that doesnt change the fact that there is no valid evidence for animal emotions. so even were i wrong, you would still be wrong. ive told you about this before.

I notice a pattern: you only use the “tu quoqe” argument when you’re backed into a corner. Otherwise, you’d just continue bickering with me indefinitely.

You’re right that I can’t say you’re incorrect because you’re being hypocritical. I can reveal your hypocrisy to the audience, however.

the realization of what mortality actually enttails is why the Matyrs were prepared for it, nay, sought it out eagerly. they knew the Truth from personal experience.

What mortality truly entails is death; that is, the inevitable cessation of all experience. It’s not something to be sought. All talk of an afterlife is merely a distraction to keep us from panic or despair. For some, this afterlife speculation helps; for others, it causes them to end their lives when it isn’t necessary.

why would that engender emotional pain?

Now you’re just playing dumb.

and strange moralities are just an attempt to avoid the sexual norms of Judeo/Christain. its little more than morality by gonad

Christian ethics hasn’t really brought about a “sexual norm.” As you say, most people don’t follow it. The few who do are suppressing urges that are there, and are praised as though they don’t have such urges. Do you think Jesus ever had sexual urges? Did he entertain them in his mind? If you think it’s possible for any man to go without sexual fantasies, then I will begin to question if you are a man.

i dont get the connection here?

Why would you withdraw from sensitivity simply because doing so doesn’t make you popular?

yeah, wait till you get a job, and see how much your boss cares about your sensitivity.

I’m sure he wouldn’t. So? I could just as easily say, “Wait until that crazy axe-wielding murderer walks through your door and see how much he cares about your life.” Does this mean your life has no value? No. A power-hungry person of any sort, be it a boss or murderer, is not exactly the ideal role model.

nothing requires you to trust your senses, if you want to be a solipsist go ahead, i just dont think its a productive position. so i simply choose to trust my senses given no conflicting data or argumentation.

I see. So the metaphysical defense against solipsism is “It’s not productive!” :crying: That’s not an argument. It just goes to show that few metaphysical systems, if any, can be proven wrong.

that said, read the wiki, you have no idea what all metaphysics entails, its foundations, or the mere fact that the physical sciences descend from the branch known as natural philosophy.

These foundations are nothing more than assumptions. If the metaphysician assumes nothing, and starts with a blank slate, “cogito ergo sum” is as far as he’ll get. If I don’t make the same assumptions as you, you can’t argue against my system or call it “wrong.”

what other basis for investigation of the nature of reality would you suggest?

I don’t have to propose a new system whenever I thrash yours. So I’ll just say, “no comment” and watch you squirm.

 

[tonyrey]

                              **tonyrey**

A casual glance at two dictionaries:

Chance: The happening of events without apparent cause, or the apparent absence of cause or design;
by chance
Chance: Without plan; accidentally: They met by chance on a plane.

So you believe god guided our evolution?

It is a far more adequate explanation than the notion that rational, purposeful persons have emerged by chance from irrational, purposeless particles…

You accept we have a common ancestor with apes?

That is the logical outcome of belief in evolution by Design…