Animal rights and freedom

[GStone]

You've never heard of still life drawing, have you? Model drawing? Taking charcol and drawing fruit, bottles? A house in a field?

Prove that any animal outside humans have ever drawn such a thing, oh wait you can't...

You suggested abstract thinking was required to make art, I proved it didn't. Whether they are physically capable of drawing the object in exacting detail is irrelevent to the issue of abstract necessity.

http://books.google.com/books?id=AgAtYX ... 5#PPA46,M1

The Face in the Mirror By Julian Keenan, Gordon G. Gallup, Dean Falk

Gorillas have been shown to recognize their own face and clean themselves up after looking in a mirror.

Now, you want evidence of animals or gorillas or chimps drawing detailed sketches? I've seen tons of HUMANS that can just barely draw stick figures.

Your constant switching things around is starting to bore me.

[PunkMaister]

There is one missing element in your theory Arbour, the fact that humans can learn, that we can change that we can use our brains creatively to adapt to situations. You mentioned primitive tribes in the jungle well there's plenty of those in the Amazon all of them at one point or another finally made contact with civilization and all of those people are fully capable of learning other ways to live if they choose too. Now show me a a beaver or an ant that can change it's ways quickly to adapt to a changing situation.

[sonofccn]

If you would have bothered to read that thread, you would have noticed that your answer is insufficient.

The opening thread has aliens landing on presumbly present day earth and unable to understand our "barking". You ask how they could possbly know we are sentient and say dogs are not. I answered that. Now further back in time humans would still show a high ability to transfer information between themselves, form organized command structures, extropolate knowledge and predict off of it etc. The fact that we build and train others to build structures as opposed to knowing them from instinct and can adapt and change depending on circumstance. Our desgins evolve with time because we think.

There are fossils of the homo sapiens dating back far over 100'000 years. The humans from then were not able to smelt steel, build flying machines or crack atoms. They haven't understood their surrounding and have believed that if it rains, god is crying or similiar nonesnse. The oldest known form of art dates back only 75.000 years. It is to assume that the humans before haven't had a use for art. And even then, art has had not the purpose from today but was a cultic occurrence, done either to appease alleged gods or to have something to worship substitutional for their alleged gods. Would they have been entitled to their own rights?

The fact that they believed rain is thier god crying indicates they are trying to explain thier enviroment and are forming logical answers based upon what they know. A fox doesn't think why it rains but a human does.

Would e.g. a homo neanderthalensis, if the alien would have arrived on earth at a time, when this species still exists, be entitled to its own rights?

That is an irrevelent question. That depends entrily on who or what these aliens believe. If they are cruel strip miners bent on harvesting the planet's resources any race that couldn't pose a threat would be wiped out. The better question is would they reconize neanderthals as a sentient species or simpely a slightly less hairy ape running around. Since the "apes" would be struggling to master fire, form cohesive units, comunicate with each other etc the aliens would deduce they are sentient. That they are better then the other animals roaming the world.

But that was not always so. See above.

It was a joke but humans became the domiant species because we could think. We were weaker, slower and almost defenless, in a fight between fangs and claws versus teeth and nails humans don't stand much of a fight, yet using our intellect we out thought our prey and compensated for our weaknesses. So yes we have always had the "gun" ie an edge over the competition.

Here you are mixing up several terms: sentient, self-awareness and intelligence. That's why I have asked Punkmaster to define these terms. They are often used although their meaning is not known. But in such a debate, one has to know the exact meaning of such words if they are used.

Intelligence:The ability to reason.
Self aware-You realize you exist. You realize there is a "you" and by extension there is a "not you" in everyone else.

sentient:The first two combined.
My thoughts on the defination at any rate.

That's the wrong approach to the problem. You have to be sure that an individual you will kill is not, as you would say, sentient, intelligent, self-aware. It's your task to prove it because you will be responsible for killing a sentient, intelligent, self-aware being.

I am sure because they have shown zero signs, with the exception of say chimps, of being anywhere near that area. So my task is proven, they fail by any fair criteria.

To say that your victim couldn't convince you that it is sentient, intelligent, self-aware or, even if it is not, protected by it own rights, would be a terrible defence.
That means that you have to be sure, which characteristics are relevant for the question, who has such rights. You have to be sure, that you have not arbitrary chosen criteria because you know that you would fulfil them because you have them. You have to choose criteria that would be universal accepted.

We are. If animals were sentient they would have attempted comunications via math if by nothing else which should be as universial as you can get. 1 will always equal 1 and all that. So once again you have no proof they are sentient but we should assume they until we can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt which can't be done. Since there is no comunicaiton between our two "species" since after all a cow isn't sentient we can never disprove that they are sentinet but simply refuse to talk to us and like being turned into hamburger.

You ask an impossible goal. Now we have pointed what makes human unique, we have pointed out that as far as anyone knows a cow isn't self-aware, it has no true concept of itself. We all have done everything possible to answer your questions and all you have done is say how do we know or define this term. If you have proof that an specific animal is self aware please show me it.

These humans are anatomical as far as possible identical with the humans from today. But you can't communicate with them and you will not see any signs of a modern civilisation. Compared to other mammals that are living in families, packs, prides, droves, flocks, folds or herds, there is no relevant difference in their behaviour. And while insects are constructing gigantic buildings, birds are constructing their nests and beavers dams, the homo sapiens from then lives still in caves.

The differnce between the two groups is the "cavemen" can and will exchange information they were not hardwired to share. They will bury thier dead indicating that thier is a probability they have some belief in an afterlife which indicates being self-aware otherwise you wouldn't fear death only dieing. They will also be toying with fire, the first step in mastery of thier enviroment, and this knowledge can be spread from biped to biped via a form of comunication not genetic instinct. Geese do none of these things. So no, aliens figure out primitive man is the sentient lifeform and not a pack of otters making a nest.

The logical answer has to be that it is not correct to extinguish a whole species for one individual that will die anyway - if not now, then in 100 years.
That would be the correct answer even if it would be my own child and I would act differently.

Forgive me but I find that cold blooded. A human life is sacred, I would kill an entire species of animals for one human child so that he would live for those hundred years but I do thank you for being honest.

It would have been better if you would have not only read some of what I have written but all I have written.

I read the opening post and responded too it and a few of the questions I found most interesting. I do not believe reading every single post of yours, I did skim it however, is required.

Not each animal or plant is raised for food but also for other purposes.

You asked what right a man has that a plant doesn't. The first would be the right not to be eaten. As I said it was a starting point and you go on from there not that that is the only right man enjoys. Slavery would be another right but really these are self-evident. There is no point to ask what are the rights of man as opposed to plant because we already know the rights.

And especially the Ha-Shoah would be also an answer for your question from above, why cows haven't led a massive revolt across the countryside. The Jews were gone in the gas chambers without the application of vis absoluta. There were even Jews who have helped with the killing. According to your logic, that would show, that the Jews from then didn't have self-awareness because they haven't led a massive revolt across the countryside.

The whole bit with you know Jews activly helping to murder other people, to preserve thier own skin no doubt, implies reasoning ability and intelligence. Also There was resiestence against the Germans during this both in direct conflict and in more pointless defiance. The people of Jewish faith had to be kept under active guard to keep them from escaping, cows merely need a fence to keep them from wandering away when if they truly wished to escape could do so quiet easily.

I don't say, that I disagree with the statement, that humans are self-aware.
The question remains, what self-awareness is at all, why you assume that animals are not self-aware and why you assume that this ability is relevant at all.

You asked what makes human unique repeatedly, being self-aware is generaly accepted to being the first step yet you keep asking the same question over and over as if we never responded. We assume animals are not self-aware because they have never shown to be. It is important because if one is not self-aware one is a drone, a hollow shell whose life is by defination not unique or valuble.

That answer does not define what intelligence is.

Until now, nobody has claimed, that education is a relevant criteria for the question who is entitled to its own rights. But if it is a relevant criteria, does this mean that humans who don't get education have no own rights?

You brought up if man was intillgent or merely educated. I pointed out the bloody obvious that you can not educate lower animals on the same scale of a human. If we dropped a colony of humans on a feral world without any education at all given enough time thier descendents would be building flyimg machines and cracking atoms. A dog, given an army of the best scholars in the universe could never learn to read or write. That is the differnce. We are intelligent we learn things, we probe and try and understand everything there is around us. A dog cares not. He may care for you his owner but he doesn't question why he is the pet and you are the owner or where you go when you leave or anything else.

Furthermore it is more than doubtful that a normal human that would unprepared land on an island could survive. That's why there are today so called survival trainings - most people don't know, how to survive in the wild. But even if it could survive, you wouldn't find any traces of civilisation any more. It would be difficult, if possible at all, to find differences to the behaviour of animals.

I did not say it would be difficult but not impossible. The human descendents would try and understand why things are the way they are be it inventing pagan gods or predicting weather cycles they would strive to understand thier universe and make them it's master. No other animal does. I might consider a Jungle Man to be a crude, savage barely above the animals in his kingdom but could be reasoned with to a limited degree. I could threaten him and he would grasp the concept or I could teach him to read and write which save for chimps is a feat impossible for any animal.

Does this mean, that the criteria for rights is to be human?

So much so that a human has rights regardless of any other criteria because he is human. Sentient Aliens should be regarded similar rights however.

Or does this mean, that Jimmy does not have rights until he has developed what you are calling sentience?

I was just pointing out that under the strictist of definations we don't treat Jimmy as sentient the way we would treat an adult. I was less trying to make a defination answer in a gray area then simply revealing just what a swamp we were walking into.

Or does this mean, that Jimmy has rights because he has the potential to develop what you are calling sentience? But means this also that, if Jimmy is terminally ill and there is not doubt that he will die in a few weeks and that he will never develop what you are calling sentience that he would have no rights because there is no potential to develop what you are calling sentience? And does this mean that a human who is born with a mental disability and who will never develop what you are calling sentience, has also no rights because there is no potential to develop what you are calling sentience?

We were talking normal baselines showing the differnce between a normal chimp and a normal human child. Once we accept there is a differnce we are thus forced to admit humans and chimps are seperated by a divide. We treat humans for what they are, human as we would wish to be treated. We treat them as above the animal kingdom regardless of life expectency or mental ability because they belong to our race and deserve special treatment. The ape is an ape, he is not part of us and is not seintient and thus deserves no special consideration beyond what we might give to a dog or a goldfish.

You can call this a double standard, illogical or plain cruel but Jimmy is Jimmy and an Ape is an Ape. I would apply this standard to any sentient lifeform I come across, a simple matter of proving we are better then the animals if nothing else.

Humans are not able to eat all species because many are poisoned. Have fun trying to eat a Amanita phalloides.
And bacteria, mold or insects can "eat" more species than humans can. You will find them all-around.

You ask a general question you get a general answer. Yes humans can not eat every single lifeform on this planet but by and the large if we wished to and it lives on this world we can eat it. You may have also noticed hte other part where we are not normally on another animals diet. Beyond microbes I'm not sure anything activly tries and eats a human before death sets in and the various rotting agents swarm in. My question would be what animal would you like to trade places with on the food chain. I doubt there will be many that are not in an epic struggle just to be not eaten by something else.

See, that comes from not reading a thread in which you want to participate. I have never said that there is no difference between a human and a shrimp. Quite the contrary: There are differences between all species. That's what makes a species unique. The question I have asked it why the uniqueness of a human is considered special compared to the uniqueness of other species.

* Bangs head* I read enough of your posting, it isn't like they change from post to post in this thread. Now I am aware that you have never directly stated a human and shrimp is equal but that is a logical progression from your line of reasoning. You are arguing that animals and plants deserve rights. You dismiss that humans are natural superior to other forms of life because we are sentient. Therefore what is your criteria, how do you justify a human is more valube then a shrimp? As I said before either you use abandoned criteria and say all life is sacred or you use critera which means 99.9% of life on this planet is classified as animals and have no rights.

[GStone]

You see in this world right now there's 2 mayor schools of thought one that says we are unique as a species on the face of the Earth...

In this world, there is more than two. Those like me feel that some things exist for no other reason than to exist for its own sake. Not from a sense of 'nothing matters' and no sense of higher purpose.

Now show me a a beaver or an ant that can change it's ways quickly to adapt to a changing situation.

I see no mention of asking about chimps. Chimps teach tool use to their young. Stiffened sticks and plants used to stick in holes for bugs to climb on and then, pulled out and licked off. Fallen branches or ones they break off are used as weapons. Rocks are used to break open hard shells of nuts and other foods from the trees.

[GStone]

Also, both beavers and ants are prime examples of animals that have to adapt to a new environment because of the spread of people into their territory. They have to go somewhere else and search for food and supplies

[sonofccn]

A favourite gedankenexperiment from me is the following: Humans life on a isolated island. They reproduce but because they are few they have no choice but to inbreed. This results in individuals who are very small, who have fur (Hypertrichosis), large canine tooth and a tail as an atavism. They all are - compared to our standards - mentally retarded. But they still have a human genome.
Now you are coming on that island. You don't know their history, don't know that their ancestors were indisputable humans (and you have no way to find it out). All you know is what you see.
Are these creatures humans? Are they entitled to human rights? Or can you kill them as you would kill something that is indisputable not a human?

Interesting thought experiment. Would I consider them human? No. They have mutated/evolved/devolved into a new organism. I would consider them on par with discovering an actual race of Elves or dwarves living on an island. They should be quite capable of of intelligent thought even with an average IQ of 70 leading to a forming a command structure of some sort, exchanging knowledge and information, no doubt believing in some diety and burying their dead. I am not sure of my own abilities to realize all of these things but assuming I do I will have no choice but to lable them as sentient. Assuming they are not hostile I would either try to return them to civilsation to civilize them or reconize them as a tribe on that paticular island. To answer the question yes they would be deserving of basic human rights. In my opinion of course.

Also, both beavers and ants are prime examples of animals that have to adapt to a new environment because of the spread of people into their territory. They have to go somewhere else and search for food and supplies

That would be more responding to a stimuli based upon ingrained instinct. You need food so you must find food or self-preservation instinct keeping a beaver from being squashed from a falling tree. An ant or a beaver can not adapt to a new circumstance outside thier context except via slow evolution. The same with ant's colonies or bee's giving directions towards flowers. They respond within thier established parameters but can not operate beyond that. Bees could not convey the thought of jet engines or recite a story through thier dances because it is outside thier built in instincts.

I see no mention of asking about chimps. Chimps teach tool use to their young. Stiffened sticks and plants used to stick in holes for bugs to climb on and then, pulled out and licked off. Fallen branches or ones they break off are used as weapons. Rocks are used to break open hard shells of nuts and other foods from the trees.

Chimps are close to the edge if they are not passed the edge. I can understand debate on them it's the questioning our entire place in the universe of this thread that bugs me.

[PunkMaister]

Here a bit more food for thought about the differences even between us and closest relatives dig this:

Chimps Indifferent to Others' Welfare

Morning Edition, October 27, 2005 · While humans may go out of their way to help someone or generally just "do a good deed," research being published in the journal Nature suggests chimpanzees don't always have that compulsion. In one experiment chimps were indifferent to helping one another, even when helping didn't require extra effort.

Link here

I have seen experiments showcasing such indifference in either the Discovery Channel or National Geographic Channel I do not recall exactly which of them, in which the experiment was to have 2 male chimps on cages side by side. At first there is a wood plank with 2 food trays at each end with ropes attached to it to get at the food both had 2 work together and they did as long as both got something out of it, that is the food trays. But then only one food tray was left and when the chimp that had the food on his side got it, he never thought about sharing he ate it all and the other chimp got nothing in return for his effort. Next time around neither could get the food because sharing food other than for sex with females of their kind is beyond their hard wiring.

[GStone]

That would be more responding to a stimuli based upon ingrained instinct.

Except ants and beavers are not robots. They aren't viri that are just aimlessly going around, doing what they do. He wanted an exmaple of an ant or beaver adapting to a new environment because of changes. They do do that. They have a brain.

An ant or a beaver can not adapt to a new circumstance outside thier context except via slow evolution. The same with ant's colonies or bee's giving directions towards flowers. They respond within thier established parameters but can not operate beyond that. Bees could not convey the thought of jet engines or recite a story through thier dances because it is outside thier built in instincts.

This precludes the idea that ants, beavers or bees are incapable of learning. That everything is based on what's in their DNA. Except, beavers, bees, ants, chimps, people, birds, snakes are all capable of memory. The ability to make changes based on circumstances in one's environment is from knowing the difference between dangers and beneficial spots/activities. The capacity is based on the retention of memory.

The quicker a thing develops, the more DNA based (nonlearning)knowldege it has. The longer the developmental stages, the higher the life form is the trend on this planet. But, the beaver and the ant do learn to stay away from dangerous areas. And even goldfish retain memories and that 'no memory for goldfish' is really a myth. Dogs can be trained to sit, cats can be trained to crap on a toilet.

[GStone]

I have seen experiments showcasing such indifference in either the Discovery Channel or National Geographic Channel I do not recall exactly which of them, in which the experiment was to have 2 male chimps on cages side by side.

There is a reason why it is called humanity. Compassion for those not of your own species is typical amongst a broader range of humans than it is for any other animal species. However, that does not preclude that all animals show standard indifference. They typically focus more on their family group, if they retain one for years at a time. However, do you wanna guess just how many people I interact with that almost daily are indifferent to other people's problems and/or focus on just themselves over others? It's a lot. It tends to increase with worsening social situations, like an economy taking a downfall.

Next time around neither could get the food because sharing food other than for sex with females of their kind is beyond their hard wiring.

Capuchin monkeys have one the closest brain-body ratios that's close like humans have and they can be trained to act almost entirely like us. The only real problem is their capacity to remain civil.

[PunkMaister]

Except ants and beavers are not robots.

Just FYI but robots are a horrible example to present as nowadays they do not even have basic instinct. Robots today are as smart as a retarded lobotomized cockroach and that's saying a lot...

This precludes the idea that ants, beavers or bees are incapable of learning. That everything is based on what's in their DNA. Except, beavers, bees, ants, chimps, people, birds, snakes are all capable of memory. The ability to make changes based on circumstances in one's environment is from knowing the difference between dangers and beneficial spots/activities. The capacity is based on the retention of memory.

Can any of this animals othet than people do at the very least basic math, can any of them write or learn to write and do math?

The quicker a thing develops, the more DNA based (nonlearning)knowldege it has. The longer the developmental stages, the higher the life form is the trend on this planet. But, the beaver and the ant do learn to stay away from dangerous areas. And even goldfish retain memories and that 'no memory for goldfish' is really a myth. Dogs can be trained to sit, cats can be trained to crap on a toilet.

Dogs also drink water from the toilet bowl and sometimes even eat their own vomit. I should know I've had 2 dogs as pets of which one of them is still currently with us around. Learning to do tricks on the cue from their masters and learning to write, do math and applying those lessons creatively and independently is something essentially human. You do not see a dog that has been trained to play dead to do so of it;s own accord but only if it's coaxed to do it by it's master and most likely food for a reward.

[sonofccn]

Except ants and beavers are not robots. They aren't viri that are just aimlessly going around, doing what they do. He wanted an exmaple of an ant or beaver adapting to a new environment because of changes. They do do that. They have a brain.

I would argue they are simply very advanced robotics, one that utilizes organic tissue as opposed to metal and plastic. A good design over all, self repair, duplication etc. :) However regarding the point it was that while they can react to changes it is of limited scale. Foxes don't in times of famine deploy better hunting methods or coperate more among thier own kind. They never think about trying to coral and grow a constant food supply of field mice or anything like that. They simply move to areas with better food supply. I guess a way to sum it up is animals react to whatever, food shortages, new free ways etc. Humans try and understand and predict altering methods to either exploit the new variable or overcome it.

This precludes the idea that ants, beavers or bees are incapable of learning. That everything is based on what's in their DNA. Except, beavers, bees, ants, chimps, people, birds, snakes are all capable of memory. The ability to make changes based on circumstances in one's environment is from knowing the difference between dangers and beneficial spots/activities. The capacity is based on the retention of memory.

Animals have memory...well most of them. I doubt an Ant posses much in the way of memory storage. They can be taught tricks but they do not comprehend. My argument not that animals don't have memory but that thier adapations are simply them falling on thier highly effective instincts. A deer doesn't understand what the bright loud noise screeching towards it is, it isnt calling upon previous knowledge of slain brethern of this abomination, it simply doesn't know what it is and instinct tells it to run.

[GStone]

Just FYI but robots are a horrible example to present as nowadays they do not even have basic instinct. Robots today are as smart as a retarded lobotomized cockroach and that's saying a lot...

Except, you get when I say robot, the common usage is that of the early 80s limited capacity thing that does nothing, but follow a basic program.

Can any of this animals othet than people do at the very least basic math, can any of them write or learn to write and do math?

They've shown on a few talks shows over the last few decades animals that can do a few basic math computations, like horses and dogs. Real basic, but still math. I don't watch talks shows these days, except for some news ones and they aren't showing that.

Dogs also drink water from the toilet bowl and sometimes even eat their own vomit. I should know I've had 2 dogs as pets of which one of them is still currently with us around.

Dogs have less taste buds than we do. Compare 1,700 to 9,000.

Learning to do tricks on the cue from their masters and learning to write, do math and applying those lessons creatively and independently is something essentially human.

This is a capability of brain having.

You do not see a dog that has been trained to play dead to do so of it;s own accord but only if it's coaxed to do it by it's master and most likely food for a reward.

And when dogs get to the phone and are able to get help or go next door to find someone when their masters are in trouble doesn't count?

I guess a way to sum it up is animals react to whatever, food shortages, new free ways etc. Humans try and understand and predict altering methods to either exploit the new variable or overcome it.

And humans today wouldn't be able to do that, if they aren't taught. And when it came to early man, the capacity to learn and think had to be in there somewhere because our ancestors came from animals. Somewhere along the line, it showed up.

My argument not that animals don't have memory but that thier adapations are simply them falling on thier highly effective instincts.

People would rely on their instincts just as much as any other animal. The difference is that we are taught a much wider range of things than most animals.

[PunkMaister]

*Sigh* Aren't you getting tired of this merry go round? I know I am!

As I said there are 2 major schools of thought call it what you want there are those that actually believe we are here for a purpose, a higher purpose and those that say we are here for existence's sake! Which off course goes against nature itself because everything in nature oddly enough does have a purpose, bees pollinate, insects do also their part and form part of the food chain of other animals such as birds and it goes on and on... Any way you you slice it existentialism for the sake of existence with no real purpose or motive attached to it is a very much a Nihilist view. Now you (Gstone) and Arbour are basically defending the Nihilist camp while sonofccn and I defend the higher purpose camp and it has been going on for over 4 pages now. It is obvious that none of us are going to budge in our views I mean you are not going to convince either of us that we have the same value as Amoebas and shrimp in short no intrinsic value whatsoever anymore that we are going to convince you that we do.

So let's just agree to disagree and Arbour seriously you cannot expect people to answer those CopOut loaded questions of yours because no answer is ever going to be satisfactory except one that favors your camp which is not going to happen. So again let's just agree to disagree and move on...

[sonofccn]

And when it came to early man, the capacity to learn and think had to be in there somewhere because our ancestors came from animals. Somewhere along the line, it showed up.

True and looking at higher level apes who are more or less our nearest living relatives in my opinion shows border line sentient creatures who are capable of using tools and otherwise manipulationg thier enviroment as a human would. I just don't see a similar spark in say a dog or a beaver.

People would rely on their instincts just as much as any other animal. The difference is that we are taught a much wider range of things than most animals.

I guess we have to disagree here. To me the differnce is we could learn these things on our own, we don't need teachers since we obviously learned everything on our own with no instincts or "masters" training us. As I said before no matter how hard you try you can't teach your dog to read or write.

[GStone]

True and looking at higher level apes who are more or less our nearest living relatives in my opinion shows border line sentient creatures who are capable of using tools and otherwise manipulationg thier enviroment as a human would. I just don't see a similar spark in say a dog or a beaver.

If you surgically removed an ape's thumb, it wouldn't make its brain go kaput.

As I said there are 2 major schools of thought call it what you want there are those that actually believe we are here for a purpose, a higher purpose and those that say we are here for existence's sake!

Exisiting for existing's sake and having no purpose at all are 2 entirely different things and you know that.

Which off course goes against nature itself because everything in nature oddly enough does have a purpose, bees pollinate, insects do also their part and form part of the food chain of other animals such as birds and it goes on and on...

That is not a higher purpose. That's just existing. Being part of a food chain is not a higher purpose.

Any way you you slice it existentialism for the sake of existence with no real purpose or motive attached to it is a very much a Nihilist view.

This narrowmindedness you're spouting is something you need to stop. Things are either one thing or the other with you. A higher purpose or totally meaningless. And despite my explaining it, you still can't even write correctly what I've said.

Now you (Gstone) and Arbour are basically defending the Nihilist camp while sonofccn and I defend the higher purpose camp and it has been going on for over 4 pages now.

Since you are incapable of comprehending what I wrote before, I will say it bluntly. I am no damn nihilist.

It is obvious that none of us are going to budge in our views I mean you are not going to convince either of us that we have the same value as Amoebas and shrimp in short no intrinsic value whatsoever anymore that we are going to convince you that we do.

I never even said anything about shrimp or amoebas.

I'm sick of this crap.