"It's so sad Michael Vicks isn't playing football anymore!"

[BroomJockey]

Comparing arthropods to dogs is worse than comparing humans to dogs. Dogs have emotions and can feel pain, arthropods don't and cannot.

I don't think you're trying to say it, but how you've phrased that sorta sounds like if there was a way to make it so a creature didn't feel pain, then that would make it acceptable. You may want to double check phrasing to make sure a double-meaning like that doesn't sneak in.

I think it actually makes a rather good analogy, just for the differences. A creature cannot feel pain as we understand it, and it's not cute. But it's still wrong. I believe we agree on that point. So, going from that point, I think we can agree that any subjective qualities of the animal don't really matter in a cruelty case, and someone pulling the wings off flies should be regarded as heinous as someone who dog fights.

Of course, I'm talking about torturing living entities, not things such as swatting a fly, or putting up a bug zapper, since that's a quick, relatively clean death, just to head off any talks of my having double standards, if anyone was inclined to go that way.

[anriana]

bug fighting? (link's probably NSFW). Anyone outraged about using insects to fight?

I do!

Innocent, to me, implies the ability to be guilty. Insects don't have a moral compass. To some degree, dogs and cats do. Chase Alexander (cat) knows it's wrong to pee on my bed. Ms. Mosquito doesn't know it's wrong to bite me.

[BroomJockey]

To some degree, dogs and cats do. Chase Alexander (cat) knows it's wrong to pee on my bed.

Operand conditioning. The cat only knows that when it pees on the bed, something bad happens to it. Thus, peeing on bed = bad. That's training, not morality.

[anriana]

I think it actually makes a rather good analogy, just for the differences. A creature cannot feel pain as we understand it, and it's not cute. But it's still wrong. I believe we agree on that point. So, going from that point, I think we can agree that any subjective qualities of the animal don't really matter in a cruelty case, and someone pulling the wings off flies should be regarded as heinous as someone who dog fights.

Of course, I'm talking about torturing living entities, not things such as swatting a fly, or putting up a bug zapper, since that's a quick, relatively clean death, just to head off any talks of my having double standards, if anyone was inclined to go that way.

Saying "I'm heading off double standards" doesn't actually do that. One of the things MV was suspected of was shooting underperforming dogs - a quick clean death.

[RecoveringKinkoid]

It's not wrong for a mosquito to bite a human any more than it's wrong for you to eat a turnip. They need blood to continue their life cycle.

[Flyndaran]

I don't think you're trying to say it, but how you've phrased that sorta sounds like if there was a way to make it so a creature didn't feel pain, then that would make it acceptable. You may want to double check phrasing to make sure a double-meaning like that doesn't sneak in.

I think it actually makes a rather good analogy, just for the differences. A creature cannot feel pain as we understand it, and it's not cute. But it's still wrong. I believe we agree on that point. So, going from that point, I think we can agree that any subjective qualities of the animal don't really matter in a cruelty case, and someone pulling the wings off flies should be regarded as heinous as someone who dog fights..

That is what I'm saying. "Ouch that hurts" is not a human only concept. Reptiles, mammals, and birds have the brain section dedicated to emotions and certainly have the even more primitive seciton for pain. Pretending they don't may help one sleep at, but that doesn't make it true. ABSOLUTELY NOT, should dogs be considered no more deserving of life than simple robotic lifeforms like flies. That concept seriously angers me. Insects do not have the ability to feel pain as we know it, ie. emotionally significant ouch in addition to simple avoidance of dangerous stimuli. Mammals feel the exact same emotions that we do, albeit with much simpler thoughts. But who really thinks a life's value has anything to do with intelligence. We are supposed to care only about feelings. I'm not more valuable than my slightly retarded friend and cast scorn on anyone that disagree.

I do!

Innocent, to me, implies the ability to be guilty. Insects don't have a moral compass. To some degree, dogs and cats do. Chase Alexander (cat) knows it's wrong to pee on my bed. Ms. Mosquito doesn't know it's wrong to bite me.

Absolutely. It's the emotional connection that makes morality. Our cat, Fireball likes to do things like scratching the carpet for a second or two, then run away. She obviously gets a thrill from doing something wrong. Of course no one can argue that she is in any way normal.

Operand conditioning. The cat only knows that when it pees on the bed, something bad happens to it. Thus, peeing on bed = bad. That's training, not morality.

That's most of raising a human. Do you think we are incapable of morality as well? Wouldn't it take some form of mind reading to tell whether anyone does anything for moral reasons?
We are simply very, very, very smart apes, nothing more, nothing less.

[BroomJockey]

Insects do not have the ability to feel pain as we know it, ie. emotionally significant ouch in addition to simple avoidance of dangerous stimuli.

<snip>

That's most of raising a human. Do you think we are incapable of morality as well? Wouldn't it take some form of mind reading to tell whether anyone does anything for moral reasons?

There's a difference between physical and emotional pain. Insects may not feel emotional pain, but by your own admission, how can we know without mind-reading that higher-order life forms feel emotional pain? The ability to associate painful stimuli with an avoidance mechanism is enough to tell me that insects can feel pain. The association of "emotion" to somehow make it worse for others is dismissive. That's like saying "stepping on a nail is inconsequential, it's only a physical pain. You gotta be SAD about it for it to be real pain."

As for the second, while yes, that's part of raising a human, but the rest is making sure they understand the reasoning for why something is bad. The ability to vocalize the rationality is what makes a person moral, rather than an automaton. You may recognize the link I'm about to provide:
http://students.usm.maine.edu/bmcpha...f_morality.htm

I've given it a few times. Now, if you look, you'll notice that even animals can do levels 1 & 2. Even levels 3 & 4 are just extensions of levels 1 & 2, and animals can seem to achieve those. Levels 5 & 6 are where people differentiate themselves. That's where a person can actually describe the consequences of their action as more than simply the bad that happens to themselves, or what they can gain for themselves. That's where morality lives, in the ability to describe the positive and negative effects your actions have on others.

Saying "I'm heading off double standards" doesn't actually do that.

Actually, it does. You know how? You ignore people making comments that they think are clever, when really they're purposefully misunderstanding.

As for your comment, shooting them isn't cruelty, the reason for doing it is.

[anriana]

? You ignore people making comments that they think are clever, when really they're purposefully misunderstanding.

As for your comment, shooting them isn't cruelty, the reason for doing it is.

Apparently "disagreeing" has been redefined as "you're just not understanding my point." Sounds like Philosophy.

[Flyndaran]

There's a difference between physical and emotional pain. Insects may not feel emotional pain, but by your own admission, how can we know without mind-reading that higher-order life forms feel emotional pain? The ability to associate painful stimuli with an avoidance mechanism is enough to tell me that insects can feel pain. The association of "emotion" to somehow make it worse for others is dismissive. That's like saying "stepping on a nail is inconsequential, it's only a physical pain. You gotta be SAD about it for it to be real pain."

As for the second, while yes, that's part of raising a human, but the rest is making sure they understand the reasoning for why something is bad. The ability to vocalize the rationality is what makes a person moral, rather than an automaton. You may recognize the link I'm about to provide:
http://students.usm.maine.edu/bmcpha...f_morality.htm
...

The pats of the brain that indicate emotion exists in higher order vetebrates. That means they can feel emotions. It is not dismissive to say that emotional pain is the "real" kind, unless you really beleive you can feel emotional pain when taking nitrous oxide. That doesn't affect physical pain, only the emotional side of it.
I am not anthropocentric enough to dismiss any higher vertebrate's pain. I repeat that we are simply very very very intelligent apes.

[Nyoibo]

I repeat that we are simply very very very intelligent apes.

Not that intelligent.

[Flyndaran]

Not that intelligent.

When compared to other animals, even the really dumb humans are quite intelligent. We forget how complex even our simply thought processes really are. For example, pets watch us open doors every day, yet only a few can mimic us. Do you really believe that stupid people would have that problem?

[BroomJockey]

For example, pets watch us open doors every day, yet only a few can mimic us.

And that's nothing to do with the fact that their physiology is completely wrong for opening most doors?

you really beleive you can feel emotional pain when taking nitrous oxide. That doesn't affect physical pain, only the emotional side of it.

I think you got those mixed up there, fella. I've been on nitrous. I was feeling NO physical pain. Any of the times. And you know why you can't feel emotional pain? Because you're asphyxiating on a controlled basis. Your brain is fighting for oxygen, and shutting down non-essential portions.

[Flyndaran]

And that's nothing to do with the fact that their physiology is completely wrong for opening most doors?.

I'm talking about lever type doorknobs like I have. Sorry for forgetting to mention that qualifier. But my granparent's had a dog that could open a door with a more common round handle.

I think you got those mixed up there, fella. I've been on nitrous. I was feeling NO physical pain. Any of the times. And you know why you can't feel emotional pain? Because you're asphyxiating on a controlled basis. Your brain is fighting for oxygen, and shutting down non-essential portions.

I have it right. Nitrous oxide does not work on the physcial side of pain. It just makes you not care about it via messing with the higher brain functions.

[RecoveringKinkoid]

When compared to other animals, even the really dumb humans are quite intelligent.

I dunno, man, you've evidently never met my ex roommate.

[BroomJockey]

I'm talking about lever type doorknobs like I have. Sorry for forgetting to mention that qualifier. But my granparent's had a dog that could open a door with a more common round handle.



I have it right. Nitrous oxide does not work on the physcial side of pain. It just makes you not care about it via messing with the higher brain functions.

Don't forget that you need to be able to exert a force perpendicular to the door in order to open it, after you've turned the knob. That again makes it difficult. Most cats, for instance, would simply hang from the knob after managing to turn it, not having contact with the floor.

And I say again, I wasn't in any physical pain when I was under nitrous. Once was getting my wisdom teeth removed, once was getting my lip stitched, once was getting my premolars removed, and once was for... something I don't remember anymore. But I do remember my lip not hurting at all, despite the lack of a local and the large hole where my teeth went through it.