Animal sex and gay sex are the same in sweeden?

[JonnyBGood]

Personally I was always confused about insects. Should I tolerate the fly buzzing around my head right now?

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Personally I was always confused about insects. Should I tolerate the fly buzzing around my head right now?

You're Irish; I expect you would be used to them by now.

[Cmdr_Cyrax]

Originally Posted by Cynical Oracle

Non sentiant animals can feels pain, and so can plants.

Prove plants feel pain.

The fictional part was, what if everything around us has a 'force', much in the same way, we cannot describe abstract thought, more than bioneural connections in the brain (for humans that is).

Plz stop talking as if you get your entire knowledge of physics from star wars.

Can you still inflict whatever you want on them, just because they can't deny someone/something the right to own them or they can't give a consent?

It think they are incapable of defining a possession, so are incapable of even knowing what consent means. However we do, and choosing to impose our will regardless of the situation merely because we see no signs of non-consent is wrong in all but the most extreme conditions.

Originally Posted by Nodrog

What do you mean by 'outside force'?

A movement or change not initiated by the object in question, or by a derivative of the object.

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Personally I was always confused about insects. Should I tolerate the fly buzzing around my head right now?

If you want...

[Baron Morte]

Perhaps the government should Gather a militia to invade other countries and steal their women.

Oh, wai..

[Structural Integrity]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

What do you mean by 'outside force'?

Dead_Meat poking it with his manmeat?

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Cmdr_Cyrax

A movement or change not initiated by the object in question, or by a derivative of the object.

Like how we proved animals have free will am i rite?

If you want...

What about if I want to kill a million flies because that's how I get my jollies? Or just shove a few up my ass?

[Dead_Meat]

if you're annoyed by a few flies buzzing round your head, what will it be like when they're flying around the cavernous hole that is your asspipe?

THINK OF THE ECHOES MAN !!!

[queball]

Jonny, I haven't tried that. What's it like?

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by queball

Jonny, I haven't tried that. What's it like?

You get this warm buzzy feeling all over.

[Cmdr_Cyrax]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Like how we proved animals have free will am i rite?

What about if I want to kill a million flies because that's how I get my jollies? Or just shove a few up my ass?

Animals may or may not have free will, the arguement that they may simply be what I have defined as inanimate objects with a huge 'pattern', which they do not independantly deviate from, is much like defining pi as a rational number with a huge number of digits. Can you say for certain the numbers won't begin to fall into an orderly repetition around the ten trillionth or so?

And do what you want with flies. The only trouble you may have is causing a disruption in the food chain if you kill enough.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Cynical Oracle

So, aslong as it/they can't make a stance against it it's ok regardless of what you would/could "imagine" is in it/their best interest?

Non-conscious entities don't have interests.

They only time they do is when we project interests upon them for linguistic convenience or for dodgy animal-rights style morality.

Saying "I'm acting in this dog's best interest" is as meaningful as "I'm acting in this lumb of carbon's best interest".

As for Cyrax : I'm not interested in what experiences pain. Pain is just a sensory thing as far as I'm concerned. Again, see the previous thread on the subject for my views (I think W outlined that better than I did though). A computer can "sense", and with the right combination of heat sensors/pressure sensors we could emulate "pain" in a crude sort of sense. This however, does not mean it is suffering in any real sense.

What the problem is that when we hear a dog yelp our subconscious/instincts make us almost imagine ourselves in pain. Empathy seems a pretty strong evolved trait.

In the film "Payback", Mel Gibson's character is tortured (I think his toes are broken, but I can't recall). During that scene I actually *flinched* everytime he is hit. Even though I "knew" he wasn't suffering, my automatic reaction was to empathise. This appears to be how animal lovers (the other sort) feel when they see animals in pain.

[Nodrog]

So what's the difference between the sensory experience of pain, and pain in the metaphysical sense then?

[queball]

In Sweden do they teach schoolchildren that animal sex is a lifestyle choice and that the important thing is that you are physically and emotionally safe and use contraception?

[Cynical Oracle]

Originally Posted by Cmdr_Cyrax

Prove plants feel pain.

Plz stop talking as if you get your entire knowledge of physics from star wars.

It think they are incapable of defining a possession, so are incapable of even knowing what consent means. However we do, and choosing to impose our will regardless of the situation merely because we see no signs of non-consent is wrong in all but the most extreme conditions.

I thought I declared it under fictional, wich would mean that I understand it's not starwars here. I guess you just didn't understand that or thought it would be a witty comback to use against me.

When a dog attacks a human we shoot it. When a human attack a dog we still shoot the dog. I would think that following this logic, we should shoot the human? What you are refering to is survival of the fittest. We have evolved most, hence we can put abstract names to the feelings we have.

Prove plants don't feel "pain". Pain is just an illusion in oposition to pleasure. No pain, no pleasure. We name our feeling in oposition to pleasure as pain, and so in terms you can debate what pain is for a plant. Obviously it's not pain as we feel it, but it clearly has states wich is a response to it's suroundings, and states where it's not well, and even bad wich are the opposite of good.

Comprende?

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Cmdr_Cyrax

Animals may or may not have free will, the arguement that they may simply be what I have defined as inanimate objects with a huge 'pattern', which they do not independantly deviate from, is much like defining pi as a rational number with a huge number of digits. Can you say for certain the numbers won't begin to fall into an orderly repetition around the ten trillionth or so?

And do what you want with flies. The only trouble you may have is causing a disruption in the food chain if you kill enough.

So basically you're assuming animals have free will without any sort of vague proof beyond I couldn't be ****ed thinking that hard? And isn't there some sort of other proof concerning irrational numbers? And why can I do what I want with flies and not with dogs and cats?

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by queball

In Sweden do they teach schoolchildren that animal sex is a lifestyle choice and that the important thing is that you are physically and emotionally safe and use contraception?

I don't think it's possible to be physically safe with a maneating tiger dude :(

[JonnyBGood]

Every single thing I come up with gets attributed to someone else.

[Cynical Oracle]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Non-conscious entities don't have interests.

The only time they do is when we project interests upon them for linguistic convenience or for dodgy animal-rights style morality.

Saying "I'm acting in this dog's best interest" is as meaningful as "I'm acting in this lumb of carbon's best interest".

A dog is concious, has evolved abstract thinking, and has instincts as to what it should do and what it should not do. It takes care of it's children, defend it's group.

Aiding a hurt dog will be in the dogs best interest, if not looking at it in an entirely objective manner, wich both you and me are uncapable of. If you could you would be indifferent and would not debate either of the sides.

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by Cmdr_Cyrax

Can you say for certain the numbers won't begin to fall into an orderly repetition around the ten trillionth or so?

Yes.

[Cynical Oracle]

Offcourse you cannot.

[Dead_Meat]

Originally Posted by Cynical Oracle

When a dog attacks a human we shoot it. When a human attack a dog we still shoot the dog.

I have this highly amusing visual thing in my head showing Scooby Doo, dressed in a suit, being shot while trying to fend off a rabid man biting his ankles.

And in other news........."WTF?"

[Nodrog]

To be fair, theres no reason why the digits of pi might not form a pattern after the Nth decimal place, which I think was his point.

[Cynical Oracle]

Must... stop... posting... in.... this.... thread....

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

So what's the difference between the sensory experience of pain, and pain in the metaphysical sense then?

I prefer the term suffering for the latter, simply for convenience.

The different is introspection and reflection. I'm not entirely convinced humans have free-will (see another thread) so that's not the difference. The issue is whether there is the ability for some kind of reflection on pain/any other sensory perception. It's like saying a dog is happy.

Now, I know a lot of people probably would say a dog is capable of happiness, but while it can probably experience positive stimuli (I don't know, being itched or something) I wouldn't say it's capable of happiness in any meaningful sense.

[Cmdr_Cyrax]

Originally Posted by Proteus

Yes.

Bad example then.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I prefer the term suffering for the latter, simply for convenience.

The different is introspection and reflection. I'm not entirely convinced humans have free-will (see another thread) so that's not the difference. The issue is whether there is the ability for some kind of reflection on pain/any other sensory perception. It's like saying a dog is happy.

Now, I know a lot of people probably would say a dog is capable of happiness, but while it can probably experience positive stimuli (I don't know, being itched or something) I wouldn't say it's capable of happiness in any meaningful sense.

Surely this is a question of empirical animal psychology, and not one that can meaningfully be answered a priori. Is there any research supporting your claim?

[Cynical Oracle]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I prefer the term suffering for the latter, simply for convenience.

The different is introspection and reflection. I'm not entirely convinced humans have free-will (see another thread) so that's not the difference. The issue is whether there is the ability for some kind of reflection on pain/any other sensory perception. It's like saying a dog is happy.

Now, I know a lot of people probably would say a dog is capable of happiness, but while it can probably experience positive stimuli (I don't know, being itched or something) I wouldn't say it's capable of happiness in any meaningful sense.

Do you have any actuall backupp on this?

Take a simple example:

Five people in a house and one dog.

One of the five feeds the dog.

Who will the dog 'like' most?

Edit: What I mean is that one person will feed it over time. The rest won't at all.

[Dead_Meat]

Whoever isn't ****ing it in the ass, probably?

[Cynical Oracle]

Probably, or maybee not. Probably depends on the dog

[Dead_Meat]

So you're saying the dog might like being done up the schuffter, in which case it has the capability to think, which doubly means it is sentient, which means it can decide for itself, which means the Swedes can pretty well **** anything they like, which means this thread has been answered.

GO CYNICAL !!

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Cynical Oracle

Five people in a house and one dog.

I'm not really sure why this is meaningful. You could easily construct a RTS AI which was programmed to attack the player which attacked it the most. You could then, in a sense, say the AI "hated" that player more than the others.

But like, love, hate, etc - these are human (or at least, conscious) terms and to apply them to animals leads to muddle headedness.

[Cmdr_Cyrax]

Originally Posted by Cynical Oracle

I thought I declared it under fictional, wich would mean that I understand it's not starwars here. I guess you just didn't understand that or thought it would be a witty comback to use against me.

Prove plants don't feel "pain". Pain is just an illusion in oposition to pleasure. No pain, no pleasure. We name our feeling in oposition to pleasure as pain, and so in terms you can debate what pain is for a plant. Obviously it's not pain as we feel it, but it clearly has states wich is a response to it's suroundings, and states where it's not well, and even bad wich are the opposite of good.

Comprende?

No, you can't call pain an illusion.
It is a very real response although it has no physical presence. The opposition of pain and pleasure is the illusion; it is only termed as such through our own experience of it.

And simply because a plant responds to its surroundings does not mean pain involved.
Do humans not have reflexes? - We move involentry without pain.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Surely this is a question of empirical animal psychology, and not one that can meaningfully be answered a priori. Is there any research supporting your claim?

Oh sure, it's not something which is a purely philosophical question. If tommorow we find a monkey which display consciousness then sure, recognise that god damn monkey's rights.

I've read various things, nothing which indicates any non-human animal has consciousness. I'm not sure what research could prove that ALL animals lack consciousness, can you think of anything?

[Nodrog]

What possible test could something pass to display consciousness; you do know that technically you couldnt demonstrate that any human-animal other than yourself is conscious rite?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

What possible test could something pass to display consciousness; you do know that technically you couldnt demonstrate that any human-animal other than yourself is conscious rite?

Well, when I say consciousness I'm obviously talking about displays of it. Yes, it's true there could be super intelligent monkeys who just act like retards for a laugh.

And perhaps I should say "consciousness" in speech marks like that, since I probably mean intelligence, but that's another misused term and will merely spring onto a pointless argument about IQ tests.

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by Cynical Oracle

Offcourse you cannot.

Yes I can.

[Deciduous]

As much as I love butting into threads without reading any of it, I'll refrain.


Oh go on then.
I believe that somewhere out there, there is probably another sentient life form. The universe is a big place after all. If we (by outstanding coincidence) found them on mars, could we take them home and fk their brains out just because they are non-human? Surely that would imply they could do the same to us.

This argument is a bit like saying the Sun goes round the earth, human beings are not the central focus of the universe and do not have any inherent rights except regarding affairs within our society that we have concocted to make life more bearable.

On a different note, if I stamp on a spider in my garden some people would be relieved, whereas if I stamped on a puppy's head I'd probably get thrown in prison and be banned from living with domesticated animals.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Deciduous

could we take them home and fk their brains out just because they are non-human? Surely that would imply they could do the same to us.

If they were sentient in the way I think you mean then I'd say no, we wouldn't have "the right" to do that, and neither would they have the right to do the same to us.

[dabult]

It was decriminalized in 1944 in connection with the decriminalization of homosexual sex.


So there you have it, gay people are classified as animals, atleast we got one thing right here.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by dabult

gay people are classified as animals, atleast we got one thing right here.

There must be some sort of mistake here. Is this a double booking?

I was told I was the only one giving an extreme, idiotic, and frankly unsupported argument in this thread.

[Deciduous]

Fighting for your turf Dante?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Deciduous

Fighting for your turf Dante?

(When I originally saw you had posted in this thread, I was half-hoping you had said something about pig-****ing being unnatural )

[dabult]

ok my bad sorry for stepping on toes, go ahead be the idiot.

[Cynical Oracle]

Originally Posted by Dead_Meat

So you're saying the dog might like being done up the schuffter, in which case it has the capability to think, which doubly means it is sentient, which means it can decide for itself, which means the Swedes can pretty well **** anything they like, which means this thread has been answered.

GO CYNICAL !!

Would you be able to tell if a dog liked beeing taken upp the poo schuffler?
Would you be able to tell if a dog wanted beef instead of dry food?

Proteus: Yes you can. I was simply answering Cyrax. I can however find your answer to be rather silly, but then again, that's my right.

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by Cynical Oracle

Proteus: Yes you can. I was simply answering Cyrax. I can however find your answer to be rather silly, but then again, that's my right.

This is why quotes are

[Cmdr_Cyrax]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

So basically you're assuming animals have free will without any sort of vague proof beyond I couldn't be ****ed thinking that hard? And isn't there some sort of other proof concerning irrational numbers? And why can I do what I want with flies and not with dogs and cats?

I'm not assuming. In fact the very post you quote was begun 'Animals may or may not have free will'. Thats hardly decisive, I was merely saying in absence of proof either way I am likely to lean towards the opinion that they do based upon what I have observed.

However if animals are nothing more than inanimate objects with a complex pattern, how you argue that we are not similar, albeit even MORE complex?

Descartes said "i think therefore i am", and on the whole this is generally accepted in humans. Dog's and cat's brains are more similar to ours than flies', and I believe the quality that gives our brains the ability of free will, even if the quality is onlt a set number of brain cells, is more likely to be somewhere between us.

And why is my arguement based on the 'I couldn't be ****ed thinking that hard?' attitude any more than anyone elses here? I formed an opinion and defended it.

And why flies but not dogs or cats: I would say complexity of 'awareness' most of all. This includes capacity for pain (A fly's absent nervous system is the deciding factor here), and of course intelegence. Other factors would be evolutive complexity, lifespan, population size and quality of relationship with other species (humans)

[Deciduous]

Bonus points for misspelling 'intelligence'

Originally Posted by Cmdr_Cyrax

Other factors would be evolutive complexity, lifespan, population size and quality of relationship with other species (humans)

If dogs had really poor lifespans would that make them fair game for standing on, or if I didnt get on with dogs?

[Cmdr_Cyrax]

Originally Posted by Deciduous

Bonus points for misspelling 'intelligence'


If dogs had really poor lifespans would that make them fair game for standing on, or if I didnt get on with dogs?

It's called a typo you silly tree.

PS http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=factor

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Cmdr_Cyrax

However if animals are nothing more than inanimate objects with a complex pattern, how you argue that we are not similar, albeit even MORE complex?

The general argument is that we ARE similar to dogs, cats, etc. The issue is that our brains, due to the level of complexity, have emergent properties like consciousness, self-perception, etc.

If we ever build a computer capable of intelligence/sentience/consciousness (or whatever) it will be similar to our modern desktops, but that doesn't mean our current machines are deserving of 10% of rights or whatever.

[Intruder]

Science says Humans are animals