The Arbour Arguments thread....

[PunkMaister]

Yes this thread is solely to debate Arbours arguments which he insist does not have but keep defending none the less.


Arbour as much as you insist that you have no position to defend whatsoever the fact is and remains that you have vehemently defended the position that there is no difference between humans and animals and as such there is no difference between Humans and Snails and Humans and Protozoa and thus we are all worthless and irrelevant.

Why are we worthless and irrelevant if we have exactly the same value as snails or protozoa? Simple A snail or protozoa does not do much other than eat, reproduce and die off either of natural death or as a prey item for another animal. Humans have poetry, music, art in general there is creativity, there is emotions and I do not mean the fleeting emotions an animal may feel at the moment. The moment that you place humans in the same spot as Snails it automatically means is all worthless and that we collectively are worthless and that there is no difference between a great artist and a drug addict as is all the same as a freaking snail that just eats, reproduces and eventually dies off...


Back in the infamous Human rights vs Animal rights thread both sonofccn and I answered your questions and you refuted them stubbornly defending the position you claim you do not believe in. You keep saying that you just want to play Devil's advocate but you are not playing devil's advocate to get answers but to try to impose that form of thinking that again you state time and time again you do not believe in.

And I'm pretty certain that you are once again playing the same exact game with the genocide vs Eugenics which is worst questions you are now raising. Once again you are probably playing devil's advocate to support that there is indeed no difference between the holocaust and what the US and other nations did. It is your MO so far.

Which is why I refuse to participate...

[Who is like God arbour]

For several posts [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] I have tried to make you understand that I have nowhere stated my own opinion let alone defended it.

I want to know. Just what is your position, beliefs etc. You say your playing devils advocate but you have never indicated that to one extent or another you don't believe in it.

Curios, I would have thought that the following post describes my problem:

• • • If you would have carefully read that thread, you would have noticed that I have only asked questions and have stated a few facts. You will nowhere find an opinion of me.
      
      I have explicit stated that I'm only playing devil's advocate.
      
      Do you know why?
      
      Because, although I have very intensely studied that problem, I have no opinion I could really defend. The more I have studied that problem the more I've found that I don't know enough to form an educated opinion. That's why I was so surprised that you could so easily state your opinion as if there is no problem.
      
      How has PunkMaister said it:

      • »You cannot possibly apply the same human rights to Animals or plants. Animals and even plants could get at best some minimal rights to be protected from abuse, unlawwful cutting of forests etc. that sort of thing but there is no way to rationally apply human rights to either. Anyone that even proposes such a thing is a Nutjob in my opinion.«

      He has to be more intelligent than all these professors and, what's not quite so difficult but, considering his displayed intelligence here, in my opinion still improbable, more intelligent than I am.
      
      I can only say that I don't know what is correct and what is not correct. For me that means that I prefer to err on the side of caution than to be responsible for unethical behaviour.
      
      For example: You have freely claimed that you know that you have free will and that your fate is decided by you. Animals don't have a free will and that's one main reason why you are superior to animals.
      
      The following is again the summarisation of the opinions of very intelligent persons. (I think it is easier for you to read that than my gobberisch English)
      
      
      

      • Free will in science
        
        Many, but not all, arguments for or against free will make an assumption about the truth or falsehood of determinism. The scientific method holds out the promise of being able to turn such assumptions into fact. However, such facts would still need to be combined with philosophical considerations in order to amount to an argument for or against free will. For instance, if compatibilism is true, the truth of determinism would have no effect on the question of the existence of free will. On the other hand, a proof of determinism in conjunction with an argument for incompatibilism would add up to an argument against free will.
        
        • 1. Physics
          
          Early scientific thought often portrayed the universe as deterministic, and some thinkers claimed that the simple process of gathering sufficient information would allow them to predict future events with perfect accuracy. Modern science, on the other hand, is a mixture of deterministic and stochastic theories. Quantum mechanics predicts events only in terms of probabilities, casting doubt on whether the universe is deterministic at all. Current physical theories cannot resolve the question of whether determinism is true of the world, being very far from a potential Final Theory, and open to many different interpretations.
          
          Assuming that an indeterministic interpretation of quantum mechanics is correct, one may still object that such indeterminism is for all practical purposes confined to microscopic phenomena. However, many macroscopic phenomena are based on quantum effects, for instance, some hardware random number generators work by amplifying quantum effects into practically usable signals.
          
          A more significant question is whether the indeterminism of quantum mechanics allows for the traditional idea of free will (based on a perception of freewill - see Experimental Psychology below for distinction), when the laws of quantum mechanics provide a complete probabilistic account of the motion of particles regardless of whether or not free will exists. Under the assumption of physicalism it has been argued that if an action is taken due to quantum randomness, this in itself would mean that traditional free will is absent, since such action cannot be controllable by a physical being claiming to possess such free will. Following this argument, traditional free will would only be possible under the assumption of compatibilism; in a deterministic universe, or in an indeterministic universe where the human body is for all intensive neurological purposes deterministic.
          
          Robert Kane has capitalized on the success of quantum mechanics and chaos theory in order to defend incompatibilist freedom in his The Significance of Free Will and other writings.
          
          
          
          2. Genetics
          
          Like physicists, biologists have frequently addressed questions related to free will. One of the most heated debates in biology is that of "nature versus nurture", concerning the relative importance of genetics and biology as compared to culture and environment in human behavior. The view of most researchers is that many human behaviors can be explained in terms of humans' brains, genes, and evolutionary histories. This point of view raises the fear that such attribution makes it impossible to hold others responsible for their actions. Steven Pinker's view is that fear of determinism in the context of "genetics" and "evolution" is a mistake, that it is "a confusion of explanation with exculpation". Responsibility doesn't require behavior to be uncaused, as long as behaviour responds to praise and blame. Moreover, it is not certain that environmental determination is any less threatening to free will than genetic determination.
          
          
          
          3. Neuroscience
          
          It has become possible to study the living brain, and researchers can now watch the brain's decision-making "machinery" at work. A seminal experiment in this field was conducted by Benjamin Libet in the 1980s, in which he asked each subject to choose a random moment to flick her wrist while he measured the associated activity in her brain (in particular, the build-up of electrical signal called the readiness potential). Although it was well known that the readiness potential preceded the physical action, Libet asked whether the readiness potential corresponded to the felt intention to move. To determine when the subject felt the intention to move, he asked her to watch the second hand of a clock and report its position when she felt that she had the conscious will to move.
          
          Libet found that the unconscious brain activity leading up to the conscious decision by the subject to flick his or her wrist began approximately half a second before the subject consciously felt that she had decided to move. Libet's findings suggest that decisions made by a subject are first being made on a subconscious level and only afterward being translated into a "conscious decision", and that the subject's belief that it occurred at the behest of her will was only due to her retrospective perspective on the event. The interpretation of these findings has been criticized by Daniel Dennett, who argues that people will have to shift their attention from their intention to the clock, and that this introduces temporal mismatches between the felt experience of will and the perceived position of the clock hand. Consistent with this argument, subsequent studies have shown that the exact numerical value varies depending on attention. Despite the differences in the exact numerical value, however, the main finding has held.
          
          In a variation of this task, Haggard and Eimer asked subjects to decide not only when to move their hands, but also to decide which hand to move. In this case, the felt intention correlated much more closely with the "lateralized readiness potential" (LRP), an EEG component which measures the difference between left and right hemisphere brain activity. Haggard and Eimer argue that the feeling of conscious will therefore must follow the decision of which hand to move, since the LRP reflects the decision to lift a particular hand.
          
          Related experiments showed that neurostimulation could affect which hands people move, even though the experience of free will was intact. Ammon and Gandevia found that it was possible to influence which hand people move by stimulating frontal regions that are involved in movement planning using transcranial magnetic stimulation in either the left or right hemisphere of the brain. Right-handed people would normally choose to move their right hand 60% of the time, but when the right hemisphere was stimulated they would instead choose their left hand 80% of the time (recall that the right hemisphere of the brain is responsible for the left side of the body, and the left hemisphere for the right). Despite the external influence on their decision-making, the subjects continued to report that they believed their choice of hand had been made freely. In a follow-up experiment, Alvaro Pascual-Leone and colleagues found similar results, but also noted that the transcranial magnetic stimulation must occur within 200 milliseconds, consistent with the time-course derived from the Libet experiments.
          
          Despite these findings, Libet himself does not interpret his experiment as evidence of the inefficacy of conscious free will—he points out that although the tendency to press a button may be building up for 500 milliseconds, the conscious will retains a right to veto that action in the last few milliseconds. According to this model, unconscious impulses to perform a volitional act are open to suppression by the conscious efforts of the subject (sometimes referred to as "free won't"). A comparison is made with a golfer, who may swing a club several times before striking the ball. The action simply gets a rubber stamp of approval at the last millisecond. Max Velmans argues however that "free won't" may turn out to need as much neural preparation as "free will".
          
          
          
          4. Neurology and psychiatry
          
          There are several brain-related conditions in which an individual's actions are not felt to be entirely under his or her control. Although the existence of such conditions does not directly refute the existence of free will, the study of such conditions, like the neuroscientific studies above, is valuable in developing models of how the brain may construct our experience of free will.
          
          For example, people with Tourette syndrome and related tic disorders make involuntary movements and utterances, called tics, despite the fact that they would prefer not to do so when it is socially inappropriate. Tics are described as semi-voluntary or "unvoluntary", because they are not strictly involuntary: they may be experienced as a voluntary response to an unwanted, premonitory urge. Tics are experienced as irresistible and must eventually be expressed. People with Tourette syndrome are sometimes able to suppress their tics to some extent for limited periods, but doing so often results in an explosion of tics afterward. The control which can be exerted (from seconds to hours at a time) may merely postpone and exacerbate the ultimate expression of the tic.
          
          In alien hand syndrome, the afflicted individual's limb will produce meaningful behaviours without the intention of the subject. The clinical definition requires "feeling that one limb is foreign or has a will of its own, together with observable involuntary motor activity" (emphasis in original). This syndrome is often a result of damage to the corpus callosum, either when it is severed to treat intractable epilepsy or due to a stroke. The standard neurological explanation is that the felt will reported by the speaking left hemisphere does not correspond with the actions performed by the non-speaking right hemisphere, thus suggesting that the two hemispheres may have independent senses of will.
          
          Similarly, one of the most important ("first rank") diagnostic symptoms of schizophrenia is the delusion of being controlled by an external force. People with schizophrenia will sometimes report that, although they are acting in the world, they did not initiate, or will, the particular actions they performed. This is sometimes likened to being a robot controlled by someone else. Although the neural mechanisms of schizophrenia are not yet clear, one influential hypothesis is that there is a breakdown in brain systems that compare motor commands with the feedback received from the body (known as proprioception), leading to attendant hallucinations and delusions of control.
          
          Also, obsessive-compulsive disorder and other compulsive behaviour, such as compulsive overeating and addiction, may be linked to a lack of free will. And only hints, or degrees, of this may be linked to a lack of totally free will.
          
          
          
          5. Determinism and emergent behaviour
          
          In generative philosophy of cognitive sciences and evolutionary psychology, free will is assumed not to exist. However, an illusion of free will is created, within this theoretical context, due to the generation of infinite or computationally complex behaviour from the interaction of a finite set of rules and parameters. Thus, the unpredictability of the emerging behaviour from deterministic processes leads to a perception of free will, even though free will as an ontological entity is assumed not to exist. In this picture, even if the behavior could be computed ahead of time, no way of doing so will be simpler than just observing the outcome of the brain's own computations.
          
          As an illustration, some strategy board games have rigorous rules in which no information (such as cards' face values) is hidden from either player and no random events (such as dice rolling) occur in the game. Nevertheless, strategy games like chess and especially Go, with its simple deterministic rules, can have an extremely large number of unpredictable moves. By analogy, "emergentists" suggest that the experience of free will emerges from the interaction of finite rules and deterministic parameters that generate infinite and unpredictable behaviour. Yet, if all these events were accounted for, and there were a known way to evaluate these events, the seemingly unpredictable behavior would become predictable.
          
          Cellular automata and the generative sciences can model emergent processes of social behavior on this philosophy.
          
          
          
          6. Experimental psychology
          
          Experimental psychology's contributions to the free will debate have come primarily through social psychologist Daniel Wegner's work on conscious will. In his book, The Illusion of Conscious Will[88] Wegner summarizes empirical evidence supporting the view that human perception of conscious control is an illusion. Wegner observes that one event is inferred to have caused a second event when two requirements are met:
          
          1. The first event immediately precedes the second event, and
          2. The first event is consistent with having caused the second event.
          • For example, if a person hears an explosion and sees a tree fall down that person is likely to infer that the explosion caused the tree to fall over. However, if the explosion occurs after the tree falls down (i.e., the first requirement is not met), or rather than an explosion, the person hears the ring of a telephone (i.e., the second requirement is not met), then that person is not likely to infer that either noise caused the tree to fall down.
            
            Wegner has applied this principle to the inferences people make about their own conscious will. People typically experience a thought that is consistent with a behavior, and then they observe themselves performing this behavior. As a result, people infer that their thoughts must have caused the observed behavior. However, Wegner has been able to manipulate people's thoughts and behaviors so as to conform to or violate the two requirements for causal inference.[88][89] Through such work, Wegner has been able to show that people will often experience conscious will over behaviors that they have in fact not caused, and conversely, that people can be led to experience a lack of will over behaviors that they did cause. The implication for such work is that the perception of conscious will is not tethered to the execution of actual behaviors. Although many interpret this work as a blow against the argument for free will, Wegner has asserted that his work informs only of the mechanism for perceptions of control, not for control itself.

      As you see, it is not as simple to prove that you have a free will, to prove that animals have no free will or to reason that because animals have no free will, they are less valuable than humans.
      
      And I recommend to read that text carefully. Because, if you claim that the professors in the text above have all the same opinion, you create the impression that you have not really read that text because their opinions how to approach that problem are totally different. And that is exactly the interesting thing: That with different approaches they get the same outcome. That could be a sign that they can't be too wrong.
      
      And yes, I understand the problem you may have. It is difficult to accept that one is not the navel of the world - as we say in Germany. That's why such considerations have a huge opposition. But feminists did also have a huge opposition and today we all know that they were correct.

My point is, that I don't know what is correct. I don't have a telephone on my nightstand with the label GOD on it. And that means that I prefer to err on the side of caution than to be responsible for possible unethical behaviour.

There is nothing more I can say to it.

I'm only surprised how sure PunkMaister is although he is not able to answer only one single of my questions. His opinion means nothing more than that humans are special because they are humans.

I have used this as an occasion to ask, how one does differentiate between crimes like genocide, slavery or eugenics at all? By counting the victims? [9], [10].

So that I may understand you correctly. You are asking how to rate genocide in order to compare NAZI genocide compared to the eugenics movment in the US?

I have thought we have clarified what I mean:

• • • PunkMaister:

      • How do you morally evaluate a crime like genocide?
        By counting the victims?
        
        How do you morally evaluate a crime like slavery?
        By counting the victims?
        
        How do you morally evaluate a crime like eugenics (with compulsory sterilization, prohibition of marriage or reproduction or similar acts for certain individuals)?
        By counting the victims?

      I am afraid I am not understanding the questions you are asking PunkMaister. Are you asking why genocide is wrong or are you asking him how he can rank genocide as worse then slavery? Or is something else? Sorry for any misunderstandings.

      The question is not, if slavery or eugenics are more evil than genocide or if eugenics is more evil than slavery or genocide or if slavery is more evil than genocide or eugenics.
      
      Let me rephrase my questions:

      • If two parties are committing genocide, how do you judge, which party is the more evil party? By counting the victims?
        
        If two parties are committing slavery, how do you judge, which party is the more evil party? By counting the victims?
        
        If two parties are committing eugenics (with compulsory sterilization, prohibition of marriage or reproduction or similar acts for certain individuals), how do you judge, which party is the more evil party? By counting the victims?

      And as it seams, Cocytus has understood my question without problems. Why haven't you understood it?

Do I have to repeat me?

If such crimes are comparable at all, I would only want to compare the NAZI genocide with the US genocide and the NAZI eugenics with the US eugenics and the NAZI compulsory labor with the US slavery. But I would not want to compare them criss-cross.

Just answer the following questions:

1. What exactly do you think is my argument?

2. Where do you think have I written anything that would allow you to conclude to whatever you think is my argument?

3. Why would be your conclusion the only logical conclusion and another interpretation of what I have said would be an illogical conclusion?

4. Where have I defended this argument with nail and tooth?

1. The argument, regardless of if you truly believe or not, has been that there is no special difference between say a human and a dog. That a human is not instinctively more valuable regardless of any other conditions.

There is a difference betweeen difference and value. Only because something is different does not has to meant that it has a lower or higher value. Each human is an individual and as such different from the next human. That does not necessary mean that a human can have a lower or higher value than another human. A great artist would have the same value as a drug addict - at least as far as human rights are concerned.

2.The aformentioned argument, the only debate is if you actually believe it or enjoy defending stupid arguments

I have not defended any argument.

I have wanted that you defend your argument.

That is a big difference.

I admit that I'm not sure what is correct.

But Punkmaister and you have not doubts. Your opinion is the only correct opinion. The only logical conclusion. And everyone who even proposes that humans and animals could have the same rights would be a Nutjob - according to Punkmaister.

Okay, if you are so sure in your opinion, you should be ready to defend it and explain it. Enlighten me.

3. To even reach the point to consider if animals deserve rights points to a pretty nihilistic world view. You have to hold all of man's accomplishment and animals zero accomplishment in equal regard.

No.

A Nihilist is someone who believes in nothing, has no loyalties, and no purpose other than, perhaps, an impulse to destroy [1]. Is that your impression of me? Is the consequence of my questioning that I think that humans are to be treated like animals or is it more that animals are to be treated like humans?

4.You started the post on the subject and was the primary supporter, regardless if you believe in it by playing devil's advocate you are defending and supporting it.

I have only responded to what Punkmaister has said. And I was certainly not supporter of anything.

[Who is like God arbour]

PunkMaister, there is no sense to continue that debate with you.

You have not answered one single question I have asked. Not one single question.

Your post shows, that you still don't understand me. Althoug I have already several times explained that what you have said is not my opinion, you are repeating it again and again and again.

If asked for clarification, explanation or evidence, you don't answer.

What use would it have to continue that debate if you ignore everything I say?

[Narsil]

Why do you think I stopped debating him? He's too stupid for anything that goes in to actually stick. I don't actually think he can read or write, but instead just plays around with a keyboard in an effort to amuse his tiny little mind.

[sonofccn]

My point is, that I don't know what is correct. I don't have a telephone on my nightstand with the label GOD on it. And that means that I prefer to err on the side of caution than to be responsible for possible unethical behaviour.

There is nothing more I can say to it.

So your position is you don't know so we should "err on the side of caution" which means assuming humans are not special by default?

I'm only surprised how sure PunkMaister is although he is not able to answer only one single of my questions. His opinion means nothing more than that humans are special because they are humans.

Actually he has listed several reason why humans are special ranging from technological, to artistic endeavors, as defined by serving no practical use to the organism, to showing empathy to both your own species and other beings to displaying the ability to reason. You on the other hand seem to want to argue the definitions of minutia to blur everything.

Do I have to repeat me?

If such crimes are comparable at all, I would only want to compare the NAZI genocide with the US genocide and the NAZI eugenics with the US eugenics and the NAZI compulsory labor with the US slavery. But I would not want to compare them criss-cross.

I"m sorry that was improperly phrased. My first question was to determine what you were asking. My second question was to determine why you were asking it. I wanted to know if it was to compare say the NAZI's with the US. So what specific do you wish to compare?

There is a difference betweeen difference and value. Only because something is different does not has to meant that it has a lower or higher value. Each human is an individual and as such different from the next human. That does not necessary mean that a human can have a lower or higher value than another human. A great artist would have the same value as a drug addict - at least as far as human rights are concerned.

Okay. Sorry. You believe there is no significant value between a dog and man. Would that be a better condensing of the argument?

have not defended any argument.

I have wanted that you defend your argument.

That is a big difference.

By definition playing Devil's advocate you must defend the argument. You attempt to point out the flaws in our arguments to counter the human= dog value argument. You asking us questions, trying to make us think I believe you described it, is you defending the argument.

But Punkmaister and you have not doubts. Your opinion is the only correct opinion

With the present evidence it is the logical option. Should new evidence be admitted I could change my mind but it doesn't exist.

A Nihilist is someone who believes in nothing, has no loyalties, and no purpose other than, perhaps, an impulse to destroy

I believe you view the world as one large gray landscape. You believe there are few clear cuts black and white areas in the world. You don't see mankind with some grand purpose be it via divine right or our intellect. You appear undecided on a basic issue that a century ago if you suggested that people would actually even consider granting rights to animals would have gotten you locked up in a nut's house.

I very much doubt you have an impulse to destroy, far from it. I think you have an overwhelming impulse to help, to be fair, kind and overall wonderful and I would likewise hazard a guess that in your private life you strive and no doubt do reach those lofty goals.

Is the consequence of my questioning that I think that humans are to be treated like animals or is it more that animals are to be treated like humans?

I believe your wish to to treat animals better and I very much doubt you wish harm to anyone or anybody in the world. The result if this belief became widespread however...is unworkable at best. Human society is built upon harvesting plants and animals for food. We would collaspe overnight. In addition a belief that man is just another animal would no doubt free many of more...primal members of our species to sink to the lowest common denomator. Call me a cynic but people will always sink to the lowest standards you hold them too and animals set very low standards.

[Who is like God arbour]

My point is, that I don't know what is correct. I don't have a telephone on my nightstand with the label GOD on it. And that means that I prefer to err on the side of caution than to be responsible for possible unethical behaviour.

There is nothing more I can say to it.

So your position is you don't know so we should "err on the side of caution" which means assuming humans are not special by default?

Yes, to a certain extent.

I'm only surprised how sure PunkMaister is although he is not able to answer only one single of my questions. His opinion means nothing more than that humans are special because they are humans.

Actually he has listed several reason why humans are special ranging from technological, to artistic endeavors, as defined by serving no practical use to the organism, to showing empathy to both your own species and other beings to displaying the ability to reason. You on the other hand seem to want to argue the definitions of minutia to blur everything.

No he has not. He has not answered one single of the asked questions:

• • • That are the still unanswered questions:

      • Define what a human is and how a human is different from animals and plants.
      • Define what human rights are and why a human is supposed to have such but no animal or plant.
      • Define what sentient means and prove that humans are sentient and animals are not.
      • Define what rationalistic means and prove that humans can rationalize and animals can not.
      • Define what self awareness means and prove that humans are self aware and animals are not.
      • Define what poetry is and prove that animals don't do it.
      • Define what art is and explain why only humans but no animals can do art and why the ability to do art is supposed to be relevant for the question, if someone is entitled to its own rights.
      • Define what is intelligence delimited from education and prove that humans are intelligent and not only educated.
      • Prove that animals don't ask their place in the universe.
      • Show that all these abilities are somehow important for the question, if animals should have their own rights and that these are not arbitrary chosen criteria.
      • Explain why is intelligence important for the question who is entitled to have own rights? It's not as if there is only intelligent and not intelligent. Some individuals may be less intelligent than other individuals. But does that mean that they have no rights? What is the threshold? How intelligent has someone to be to have its own rights.
        
        A chimpanzee has the mental abilities of a 3 - 5 years old child [1, 2, 3].
        
        If a chimpanzee does not has its own rights because he lacks certain mental abilities, does that mean, that a child also does not have its own rights because it also lacks certain mental abilities?
      • What is the objective criteria to say, what species is the dominant species of a planet?
      • Define what nihilism is and show me where I have said that I think things that are showing that I'm a nihilist (Your explanation can not be subsumed under the definition of nihilism nor does it answer the second and important part of my question).
      • Show me where I have said that there is no difference between humans and shrimps.
      • Define what abstract thinking is and prove that humans are able to do that but animals are not.

      You will notice that I have only asked a question after you have made a claim. Now answer these questions or retract your claims. The list will get only longer the longer you wait to answer the questions while making new claims.

He has only used such intangible words like consciousness, self-consciousness or free will. But he has neither said what's the meaning of these words nor why they are special.

See, I believe in evolution and that humans are animals.

As all species, they have developed individual characteristics. They are different from all other species as each species is different to the next.
It is not disputable that humans have developed lots of mental abilities. But mostly these are only unique in their quantity, not in their quality. Other animals (especially other primates and whales) are also intelligent - only not as intelligent as humans. We on the other side are not as strong as chimps and can not swim as good as whales and we don't have sonar.

And then there are terms like consciousness, self-consciousness or free will. These terms are not really and definitely defined nor it is proven that humans have such things and other animals (e.g. primats or whales) have not.

The question that is still not answered is why these intangible abilities are more special than the unique and very tangible abilities of other animals?

I understand that because we humans have them and they distinguish us from other animals, that they are important to us. But that is subjective.

A whale, if it could speak to us, would maybe say, that intelligence is not important. Many animals are intelligent. We humans are only the most intelligent animals. But he has something that no other animals have: a sonar. Or a bat would say that it is special because it is the only flying mammal.

Imagine all animals could talk. Now explain to them why your uniqueness is something special and their uniqueness is not.

I know that I would not be able to do it. Not because I have compassion but because I know that I don't have the arguments.

Do I have to repeat me?

If such crimes are comparable at all, I would only want to compare the NAZI genocide with the US genocide and the NAZI eugenics with the US eugenics and the NAZI compulsory labor with the US slavery. But I would not want to compare them criss-cross.

I"m sorry that was improperly phrased. My first question was to determine what you were asking. My second question was to determine why you were asking it. I wanted to know if it was to compare say the NAZI's with the US. So what specific do you wish to compare?

Originally I wanted to know if such crimes are comparable on a moral level at all and what would be the criteria?

If e.g. genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group, is the one who does destroy more ethnic, racial, religious, or national groups (e.g. 10 groups a 100.000 members) or the one who destroys only one ethnic, racial, religious, or national group but kills more people (e.g. 1 group a 1.000.001 members) the more evil person?

Is the one who kills millions quickly and painless more evil than the one who kills hundred thousands slow and painful?

Which nation is the more evil nation: The nation where such a genocide is executed in secret or the nation where all are knowing what is happening (and are mostly supporting it)?

There is a difference betweeen difference and value. Only because something is different does not has to meant that it has a lower or higher value. Each human is an individual and as such different from the next human. That does not necessary mean that a human can have a lower or higher value than another human. A great artist would have the same value as a drug addict - at least as far as human rights are concerned.

Okay. Sorry. You believe there is no significant value between a dog and man. Would that be a better condensing of the argument?

I do not believe that.
I simply do not know if there is a objective reason to give a human a higher value than a dog.

As a lawer I say that a human is more important than a dog.

But as a private citizen I'm not as sure. Sometimes I really think that a dog has more value than some humans, especially when I'm confronted with the unfathomable depths of human characters. Humans are capable to terrible things, things no animal would do.

I have not defended any argument.

I have wanted that you defend your argument.

That is a big difference.

By definition playing Devil's advocate you must defend the argument. You attempt to point out the flaws in our arguments to counter the human= dog value argument. You asking us questions, trying to make us think I believe you described it, is you defending the argument.

NO, a devil's advocate is someone who takes a position, sometimes one he or she disagrees with, for the sake of argument. This process can be used to test the quality of the original argument and identify weaknesses in its structure. And that's exactly what I have said I'm trying to do.

But Punkmaister and you have not doubts. Your opinion is the only correct opinion

With the present evidence it is the logical option. Should new evidence be admitted I could change my mind but it doesn't exist.

Which present evidence? There is no evidence. That's the problem. You are using such intangible words like consciousness, self-consciousness or free will. But there is no evidence that such things exist. It's like soul, angels and god. Most of the world are believing in it. But there is not one single evidence for their existence.

A Nihilist is someone who believes in nothing, has no loyalties, and no purpose other than, perhaps, an impulse to destroy

I believe you view the world as one large gray landscape. You believe there are few clear cuts black and white areas in the world. You don't see mankind with some grand purpose be it via divine right or our intellect.

correct

You appear undecided on a basic issue that a century ago if you suggested that people would actually even consider granting rights to animals would have gotten you locked up in a nut's house.

That I'm undecided is correct. That I would have been locked up in a nut's house a century ago (1909) is not correct - although that is also a question of where I would have been. But hey, five centuries ago, I would have been burned for not believing in god.

I very much doubt you have an impulse to destroy, far from it. I think you have an overwhelming impulse to help, to be fair, kind and overall wonderful and I would likewise hazard a guess that in your private life you strive and no doubt do reach those lofty goals.

With other words: It is impossible that you think that I'm a Nihilist - unless you don't know what a Nihilist is in the first place.

Is the consequence of my questioning that I think that humans are to be treated like animals or is it more that animals are to be treated like humans?

I believe your wish to to treat animals better and I very much doubt you wish harm to anyone or anybody in the world. The result if this belief became widespread however...is unworkable at best. Human society is built upon harvesting plants and animals for food. We would collaspe overnight. In addition a belief that man is just another animal would no doubt free many of more...primal members of our species to sink to the lowest common denomator. Call me a cynic but people will always sink to the lowest standards you hold them too and animals set very low standards.

I understand you objection. But it is not conclusive.
It means that we continue to treat animals bad because the reason why we would have to stop it would consequence in even worse humans than they are now.
But my intent is not to degrade humans but to upgrade animals and to appeal to humans to be better and treat animals better.

[Mr. Oragahn]

Yes this thread is solely to debate Arbours arguments which he insist does not have but keep defending none the less.


Arbour as much as you insist that you have no position to defend whatsoever the fact is and remains that you have vehemently defended the position that there is no difference between humans and animals and as such there is no difference between Humans and Snails and Humans and Protozoa and thus we are all worthless and irrelevant.

Welcome to genuine atheism. A sad place to be. But is there any proof that aside from our capability for abstract thinking, we're better (better as what? to whom?) than even a piece of rock? An atom?

There is a simple example I like to use: if tomorrow, our sun goes nova, will the universe ever cry?

Now, agnosticism. The plain reality is that we know nothing. We don't know "why", we don't know "where to" or "where from", and we solely have our instincts of bliss and survival that guide us, which is pretty much a shared trait.
We just happen to use our capacity for abstract thinking to fulfill these needs, and that's all.

We may be different on the microscopic scale of the universe, and use technique to shape our groups, but that's just as worthless as a grain of sand.
We know that. We all know that, but most of us don't want to acknowledge this, so they look for a solution, in the form of the divine.
A fast food answer to perhaps a question other creatures on this planet never formulated, which doesn't prevent them from having beliefs of their own, although they are about instinctive superstition (as defined by straying from human reason) and not theological, for all we can tell: animals are afraid of such things which wouldn't harm them. Depending on the milieu they grow in, they may get used to these terrors, therefore not being exposed to the expression of phobia.

[PunkMaister]

See, I believe in evolution and that humans are animals.

As all species, they have developed individual characteristics. They are different from all other species as each species is different to the next.
It is not disputable that humans have developed lots of mental abilities. But mostly these are only unique in their quantity, not in their quality. Other animals (especially other primates and whales) are also intelligent - only not as intelligent as humans. We on the other side are not as strong as chimps and can not swim as good as whales and we don't have sonar.

So Arbour you yourself pointed out in your own words indisputable that humans not only have many mental abilities but that again in your own words are more intelligent than Whales and Primates.


And keep in mind that what we lack in strength, speed, etc we more than make up with our resourcefulness which comes thanks to our intellect. That in itself places or like it or not a notch above all else. Now having said that. Does that mean we should mercilessly abuse animals, hunt or drive some of them to extinction just because we can? No it does not. You see I believe that we humans are the custodians of this planet and as such is our responsibility

And perhaps now you can explain what is your definition of abuse as I've given mine...

I understand you objection. But it is not conclusive.
It means that we continue to treat animals bad because the reason why we would have to stop it would consequence in even worse humans than they are now.
But my intent is not to degrade humans but to upgrade animals and to appeal to humans to be better and treat animals better.

Well if degrading humans to the levels of snail and protozoa which would inevitably lead to the scenario that sonofccn is not reason enough I don't see what is, do you want to unleash that kind of scenario upon the world?

And again please define what you see as abuse and treating animals badly.

1. Do you think that people that raise animals for food Chickens, Cattle etc are committing abuse? Even though those industries have gone out of their way to make both the living conditions of the animals and how they are slaughtered for food as painless and as humane as possible?

2. Keep in mind that there is a lot of people that while they volunteer to rescue stray dogs and cats or even marine mammals in their spare time.Many of them would eat a juicy steak, hamburger etc. Does that make them what? Hypocrites in your opinion?

3. If I'm reading you correctly you are most likely a vegetarian and for the looks of it a radical one at that that wants everybody to become a vegetarian whether they like it or not, is this correct?

[sonofccn]

No he has not. He has not answered one single of the asked questions:

Define what a human is and how a human is different from animals and plants.

A human is a hairless ape like creature which stands errect which has mastered it's enviroment and developed a long list of inventions and labor saving devices including the very internet we are using now. Everything else is not human. Is that answered good enough?

Define what human rights are and why a human is supposed to have such but no animal

Humans have the right not to be harvested for food, used as clothing etc. Those I think are fairly universal. Humans also have other rights which vary depending on the nation involved. Human have them because we invented them, animals have no rights because they are mindless little critters.

Define what sentient means and prove that humans are sentient and animals are not.

I would guess the ability to reason would be a good starting point. I can prove humans can think by this very discussion we have engaging in. We both wieghed the options and decide to try and convince the other. As to animals I can not prove they are not because it is almost impossible to prove a negative. I can say that there beyond reasonable doubt that animals are not sentient because they display no actual signs of being it but I can not state for a fact that they are not.

Define what rationalistic means and prove that humans can rationalize and animals can not

To understand and comprend all the facts presented and deduce solutions from there. A dog can be taught not to touch something if it is electrified. A human will simply remove the wiring and then eat the treat or whatever the "bait" was. A human can reason and master his enviroment.

Define what poetry is and prove that animals don't do it.


Define what art is and explain why only humans but no animals can do art and why the ability to do art is supposed to be relevant for the question, if someone is entitled to its own rights.

Ah Poetry is art so these two are redundant togather. Art is is basicly any task that serves no useful purpuse but is an expression of hte creator's thoughts/emontions. Man does not need art to survive physically but needs it to survive culturally if you grasp my meaning. Animals do not do that. Thier songs are used to attract mates, repel rivals etc. They sing not for beauty but for a specific reason.

Define what is intelligence delimited from education and prove that humans are intelligent and not only educated.

Intelligence is being able to learn and adapt to outside stimuli. Humans are intelligent because we learn, we understand. We have a drive to understand teh cosmos around us going to great lenghts to explain it even with limited knowledge. Education is a tool to aid the next generation in it's tasks. As has been said throw a man in the wild and he can learn the ropes and survive. Put a dog in a room with the best scholars for the rest of it's life and it will never be more then any other dog.

Prove that animals don't ask their place in the universe.

Once again I can not prove what doesn't exist. Since they are not sentient they have no langues for me to study, no thoughts for me to anaylise, nothing for me to work with. How can I prove that they don'[t ask thier place in the universe?

Explain why is intelligence important for the question who is entitled to have own rights? It's not as if there is only intelligent and not intelligent. Some individuals may be less intelligent than other individuals. But does that mean that they have no rights? What is the threshold? How intelligent has someone to be to have its own rights.

Intelligence is important because it makes us unique. I know this is a scary thing but until we find alien life in this cold bleak univeres man is truly alone. We have no equals, no comrades nothing. Just ourlselves. As to lesser intelligence the threshold is sentiency. If you are sentient you are not an animal and should not be eaten if you are not then pass the salt.

He has only used such intangible words like consciousness, self-consciousness or free will. But he has neither said what's the meaning of these words nor why they are special.

Those words are in the dictinary and have definations making them tangible if you must look them up but those not abstract concepts.

See, I believe in evolution and that humans are animals.

Hmm. I believe in evolution. I also believe in God. In both cases my belief on this subject is justified. God made us in his image to lord over. Evolution made me the top of the food chain and in the animal kingdom there is no mercy just eat or be eaten. I do not understand how you can justify being nice to animals if you think we are no differnt. Do you think a shark cares about the fish it eats? Do you think a hawk ever considers striking up a conversation with field mice? Therefore since you wish to help animals you have just demostrated a differnce between man and animal. We have compassion, something PunkMaister noted chimps do not appear to possesse despite have the intellect to work togather.

As all species, they have developed individual characteristics. They are different from all other species as each species is different to the next.
It is not disputable that humans have developed lots of mental abilities. But mostly these are only unique in their quantity, not in their quality. Other animals (especially other primates and whales) are also intelligent - only not as intelligent as humans. We on the other side are not as strong as chimps and can not swim as good as whales and we don't have sonar.

Actually we swin better then whales, are stronger then chimps and have sonar. We call those subs and machinery in general, through power armor is still being tinkered with. Our mental abiliites, as you so coldly put it, are superior in quaility and quanity. It made us the dominate species when physically we are light wieghts. No observed species beside our own has art, the bearing of the soul if you will, no other observed species writes or do any of the millions of tiny things we take for granted.

And then there are terms like consciousness, self-consciousness or free will. These terms are not really and definitely defined nor it is proven that humans have such things and other animals (e.g. primats or whales) have not.

I saw you evidence on that subject and it was pretty low caliber. Most of it was metaphysical musings which the researchers themselves admitted that they were not sure what the results meant.

The question that is still not answered is why these intangible abilities are more special than the unique and very tangible abilities of other animals?

because the criteria is based are you an actual person or a mindless creature. Being able to run fast is a crummy marker for person hood. Being able to reason, regardless of your physical condition however isn't. Show me a creature with a true mind and we can talk. Apes are borderline, possibly over it. There I can see geniune debate. Demanding that any random creature or plant however have rights is as Punkmaister I'm sure would say is nuts.

I understand that because we humans have them and they distinguish us from other animals, that they are important to us. But that is subjective.

If you do not have them you can not be alive as we are debating it. That is not subjective. If you can not reason or think you are an animal. A mindless beast. Animals fail to measure up. Show me an animal that can think like a man that can reason and I will grant that animal all the respect I would any human.

A whale, if it could speak to us, would maybe say, that intelligence is not important.

Or it could ask us for fish or bum money off of us or anything else we can imagine. Since no whales have spoke IIRC we can not possibly know what, if anything, tumbles around inside thier giant heads. They might think intelligence is very important or anything else.

Many animals are intelligent.

Correction many aniamls are clever. You have to set the bar very low to consider most of them intelligent. A man with a double digit IQ who can not legally take care of himself could outwit them all, including most likely the chimp.

We humans are only the most intelligent animals. But he has something that no other animals have: a sonar.

Ah dolpins have sonar, man has sonar, and bats have an equivilent so this hypotical whale is a moron. I bet he tastes good however.

Or a bat would say that it is special because it is the only flying mammal.

Prove to me a bat thinks this and I will gladly walk up to the voting booth beside one.

Imagine all animals could talk. Now explain to them why your uniqueness is something special and their uniqueness is not

Acutally if they could talk my "uniquness" wouldn't be unique. They would by defination be sentient creatures which I would have to conclude when I stumble upon the bat's rasict pro bat agenda meeting in my backyard. You see my "uniqness" isn't based on a simple physical trick. It based upon being somethign more then the sum of my parts, more than teeth,claws and sinew.

I know that I would not be able to do it. Not because I have compassion but because I know that I don't have the arguments.

I have a simple rule. If you ever find yourself in a debate with something and it actually responds intelligently it's sentient. So every animal which can start a debate on if it is sentient are not is in. I'll wait.

If e.g. genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group, is the one who does destroy more ethnic, racial, religious, or national groups (e.g. 10 groups a 100.000 members) or the one who destroys only one ethnic, racial, religious, or national group but kills more people (e.g. 1 group a 1.000.001 members) the more evil person?

Is the one who kills millions quickly and painless more evil than the one who kills hundred thousands slow and painful?

I'd say the millions is more evil through I'm not sure by what you mean by slow and painful? Do you mean torture as in say inflicint wounds to prolong death as long as possible?

Which nation is the more evil nation: The nation where such a genocide is executed in secret or the nation where all are knowing what is happening (and are mostly supporting it)?

Assuming otherwise equal events or no?

I do not believe that.
I simply do not know if there is a objective reason to give a human a higher value than a dog.

Same differnce at the end of the day.

But as a private citizen I'm not as sure. Sometimes I really think that a dog has more value than some humans, especially when I'm confronted with the unfathomable depths of human characters. Humans are capable to terrible things, things no animal would do.

We do things no animal could do not that they wouldn't do. Animals do not have mercy, compassion or any other qaulity we look for in ourselves. If your pet cat magically grew in size it would have little qualms in eating you.

NO, a devil's advocate is someone who takes a position, sometimes one he or she disagrees with, for the sake of argument. This process can be used to test the quality of the original argument and identify weaknesses in its structure. And that's exactly what I have said I'm trying to do.

If you don't defend the position then the other sides can win with a stupid argument rending the exercise futile. If you don't defend this position I could simply say humans are better because they are. By reasking your questions and trying to get a better response you have in fact been defending the argument. I don't see the problem with this, your leaning towards this position anyway, you said so yourself, and you have in fact been defending it so why are you so afraid to be labled with it?

Which present evidence? There is no evidence. That's the problem. You are using such intangible words like consciousness, self-consciousness or free will. But there is no evidence that such things exist.

Animals have never been observed with any of the things that seperate us from say a tree lizard. I have defined these words, more then once I might add, for your benifite. I'll be blunt. We use words like that to seperate creatures with no "souls" if you will with humans. We are special because of a spark within us that is unseen in anything else on this miserable little world. If you still want further definations please consult a dictionary.

It's like soul, angels and god. Most of the world are believing in it. But there is not one single evidence for their existence

Well besides the various holy texts, Jesus coming back from dead etc you mean. It's a free country and you are free to believe in anything you wish but do not pretend that you are somehow morally superior because you believe there is no afterlife.

That I would have been locked up in a nut's house a century ago (1909) is not correct

If you went back there and advocated that man is not inherently superior to say a dog they would have either laughed until thier sides split or thrown you into the local nut house. A better era in my opinion. Man stil lhad enough real problems he didn't go inventing fake crusades to spend his time. Either that or we were really just smarter back than, and I mean in real intelligence not the intellectual learned everything but knows nothing kind

although that is also a question of where I would have been. But hey, five centuries ago, I would have been burned for not believing in god.

The dark ages? I can't for certain Athiets just didn't exist back then. I figure they would try and convert you first before resorting to actual death. There is only one of you and unless you actually did something I don't think the local bishops or whatnot would actually feel threatened.

With other words: It is impossible that you think that I'm a Nihilist - unless you don't know what a Nihilist is in the first place.

I disagree that you have an impulse to destroy but you are a person of gray. You see many things if not everything as being equal. That is a Nihilist. All things to you are equally valid.

I understand you objection. But it is not conclusive.
It means that we continue to treat animals bad because the reason why we would have to stop it would consequence in even worse humans than they are now.

Collasp of life as we know it? What do you plan to eat if plants and animals have rights the first of which is not to be eaten. Dengerating humans? Have you seen how far we have fallen since say the fifties? We take as common place stuff that would have shocked the most cynical and harden of thier era. We constantly push the barrier and you think saying there is no differnce between man and animal isn't going to exploited? Do you not think their would be cults demanding thier right to be naked in the streets, or worse things in teh streets, because dogs,cats and everything does it? Humans will always lower themselves to the lowest bar avaible.

But my intent is not to degrade humans but to upgrade animals and to appeal to humans to be better and treat animals better.

Intent is irrevilent. The outcome is what matters. So over and above that we have no evidence or reason to include any stray animal into the elite club of being a person it would cause death, chaos and destruction.

[PunkMaister]

Welcome to genuine atheism. A sad place to be. But is there any proof that aside from our capability for abstract thinking, we're better (better as what? to whom?) than even a piece of rock? An atom?

There is a simple example I like to use: if tomorrow, our sun goes nova, will the universe ever cry?

Now, agnosticism. The plain reality is that we know nothing. We don't know "why", we don't know "where to" or "where from", and we solely have our instincts of bliss and survival that guide us, which is pretty much a shared trait.
We just happen to use our capacity for abstract thinking to fulfill these needs, and that's all.

We may be different on the microscopic scale of the universe, and use technique to shape our groups, but that's just as worthless as a grain of sand.
We know that. We all know that, but most of us don't want to acknowledge this, so they look for a solution, in the form of the divine.
A fast food answer to perhaps a question other creatures on this planet never formulated, which doesn't prevent them from having beliefs of their own, although they are about instinctive superstition (as defined by straying from human reason) and not theological, for all we can tell: animals are afraid of such things which wouldn't harm them. Depending on the milieu they grow in, they may get used to these terrors, therefore not being exposed to the expression of phobia.

Which is why I will never, ever become an Atheist. And which is why I rely on faith to provide the answers that Science cannot give or bring. To me Logic and reasoning is like one shoe and faith the other shoe. Now some people might be content with walking with just one shoe but I'd rather walk with 2. Faith can sustain you and take you where logic and reasoning alone cannot.

Once you go down that line of thinking that life and existence itself is absurd and that is all irrelevant and not only think but act on it this what you end up becoming:
Yes because the Joker in Dark Knight is the very personification of absolute Nihilism he in fact is Nihilism made flesh sort to speak. There's quite a few people who think like he does and feel like it but thankfully and mercifully do not act upon it except maybe in writing books and journals about it, so far. Guess not even that can take the sense of self preservation which the Joker in the movie did not even have anymore...

Arbour you are most likely not a Nihilist but the line of thinking you are defending and argumenting for is very much a Nihilistic point of view like it or not.

[Mr. Oragahn]

Welcome to genuine atheism. A sad place to be. But is there any proof that aside from our capability for abstract thinking, we're better (better as what? to whom?) than even a piece of rock? An atom?

There is a simple example I like to use: if tomorrow, our sun goes nova, will the universe ever cry?

Now, agnosticism. The plain reality is that we know nothing. We don't know "why", we don't know "where to" or "where from", and we solely have our instincts of bliss and survival that guide us, which is pretty much a shared trait.
We just happen to use our capacity for abstract thinking to fulfill these needs, and that's all.

We may be different on the microscopic scale of the universe, and use technique to shape our groups, but that's just as worthless as a grain of sand.
We know that. We all know that, but most of us don't want to acknowledge this, so they look for a solution, in the form of the divine.
A fast food answer to perhaps a question other creatures on this planet never formulated, which doesn't prevent them from having beliefs of their own, although they are about instinctive superstition (as defined by straying from human reason) and not theological, for all we can tell: animals are afraid of such things which wouldn't harm them. Depending on the milieu they grow in, they may get used to these terrors, therefore not being exposed to the expression of phobia.

Which is why I will never, ever become an Atheist. And which is why I rely on faith to provide the answers that Science cannot give or bring. To me Logic and reasoning is like one shoe and faith the other shoe. Now some people might be content with walking with just one shoe but I'd rather walk with 2. Faith can sustain you and take you where logic and reasoning alone cannot.

Once you go down that line of thinking that life and existence itself is absurd and that is all irrelevant and not only think but act on it this what you end up becoming:
Yes because the Joker in Dark Knight is the very personification of absolute Nihilism he in fact is Nihilism made flesh sort to speak. There's quite a few people who think like he does and feel like it but thankfully and mercifully do not act upon it except maybe in writing books and journals about it, so far. Guess not even that can take the sense of self preservation which the Joker in the movie did not even have anymore...

You make leaps of logic. Having a sense of reality doesn't mean we don't enjoy what we can enjoy as humans. That said, these criteria vary from person to person, and bliss can take many forms, even cruel ones.
Thankfully, most of us are raised in positive contexts, so we don't turn into sick individuals, although what we experience later on in our lives greatly affects and shapes our tastes and objectives.

On that point, it's simple. I enjoy a great many things, but the real truth will come when I die, because then, and only then, will be the moment I may learn a bit more about what we are... or just disappear.

I just try to live by the day and respect certain values, perhaps this is ridiculous because there's no true law that says to respect someone else, not to steal or not to kill. Nevertheless, what is seen as good values seems to be shared by a great fragment of humanity, but not its totality. It's, after all, only a consensus.
But there can only be a few alphas as there can only be a few wolves for so many sheep.

Finally, we are only above animals depending on the scale we chose.
I find it odd that for a 42 years old man of faith, you're so fixed up on one single scale while it's only part of the logos.

[PunkMaister]

You make leaps of logic. Having a sense of reality doesn't mean we don't enjoy what we can enjoy as humans. That said, these criteria vary from person to person, and bliss can take many forms, even cruel ones.

There is a big difference in simply not knowing than to think that everything is irrelevant and absurd on those grounds. Some people like myself chose faith to fill in those blanks. Others do not but still ironically follow the moral guidelnes set by Judeo-Christian traditions and so on, for example some Atheists even sing Christmas carols during Christmas to me personally that a hardcore atheist would sing "Joy to the world" is both amusing and baffling. But I guess that's one of the things they hang on too so the world doesn't taste just like bone and ash.

Thankfully, most of us are raised in positive contexts, so we don't turn into sick individuals, although what we experience later on in our lives greatly affects and shapes our tastes and objectives.

Yes but as you said how people are raised has a lot to do with it combined off course with genetic traits such as propensity to violence etc, etc...

On that point, it's simple. I enjoy a great many things, but the real truth will come when I die, because then, and only then, will be the moment I may learn a bit more about what we are... or just disappear.

Which is what we all await regardless of what we may believe or not...

I just try to live by the day and respect certain values, perhaps this is ridiculous because there's no true law that says to respect someone else, not to steal or not to kill. Nevertheless, what is seen as good values seems to be shared by a great fragment of humanity, but not its totality. It's, after all, only a consensus.
But there can only be a few alphas as there can only be a few wolves for so many sheep.

Obviously those values do work as they have helped create the greatest civilization humans have ever had.

Finally, we are only above animals depending on the scale we chose.
I find it odd that for a 42 years old man of faith, you're so fixed up on one single scale while it's only part of the logos.

So far that's the one that works the most...

[Who is like God arbour]

Define what a human is and how a human is different from animals and plants.

A human is a hairless ape like creature which stands errect which has mastered it's enviroment and developed a long list of inventions and labor saving devices including the very internet we are using now. Everything else is not human. Is that answered good enough?

This creature is not hairless nor has it developed a long list of inventions and labor saving devices including the very internet we are using now.



This creature does not stand errect nor has it mastered it's enviroment or has developed a long list of inventions and labor saving devices including the very internet we are using now.



This creature has not mastered it's enviroment or has developed a long list of inventions and labor saving devices including the very internet we are using now. It has not even a human genom.

Define what human rights are and why a human is supposed to have such but no animal

Humans have the right not to be harvested for food, used as clothing etc. Those I think are fairly universal. Humans also have other rights which vary depending on the nation involved. Human have them because we invented them, animals have no rights because they are mindless little critters.

With other words, your so called human rights are nothing more than a convention between humans. They have no universal validity and they are not to be observed by humans who have not agreed to such a convention. To demand that the latter observe the convention of other humans would be invasive.

Define what sentient means and prove that humans are sentient and animals are not.

I would guess the ability to reason would be a good starting point. I can prove humans can think by this very discussion we have engaging in. We both wieghed the options and decide to try and convince the other. As to animals I can not prove they are not because it is almost impossible to prove a negative. I can say that there beyond reasonable doubt that animals are not sentient because they display no actual signs of being it but I can not state for a fact that they are not.

You guess. That means you don't know it.
That's pity because you could have used a dictionary, lexicon or encyclopaedia.
Wikipedia has an interessting article about it:

• • • Sentience
      Sentience is the ability to feel or perceive subjectively. The term is used in philosophy (particularly in the philosophy of animal ethics and in eastern philosophy) as well as in science fiction and (occasionally) in the study of artificial intelligence. In each of these fields the term is used slightly differently. Advocates of animal rights argue that many animals are sentient in that they can feel pleasure and pain, and that this entails being entitled to some moral or legal rights. In eastern philosophy, sentience is a metaphysical quality of all things that requires our respect and care. In science fiction, sentience is "personhood": the essential quality that separates humankind from machines or lower animals. Sentience is used in the study of consciousness to describe the ability to have sensations or experiences, known to Western academic philosophers as "qualia".
      
      Non-human animal rights and sentience
      In the philosophy of animal rights, sentience implies the ability to experience pleasure and pain. Animal-rights advocates typically argue that any sentient being is entitled at a minimum to the right not to be subjected to unnecessary suffering, though they may differ on what other rights (e.g., the right to life) may be entailed by simple sentience.
      
      In the 17th century Thomas Tryon, a self-proclaimed Pythagorean, raised the issue of non-human suffering. Soon thereafter, many philosophers used the anatomical discoveries of the Enlightenment as a reason to include animals in what philosophers call "sympatheia," the principle of who or what deserves sympathy. Benjamin Franklin's autobiography identifies Tryon's writings as an influence in his decision to try vegetarianism; later in the book, he reverts to eating meat while still following Tryon's basic philosophy. Joseph Ritson coupled Tryon's work with Rousseau's for "Essay on Abstinence from Animal Food" as many Rousseauists became vegetarian. Voltaire compared the Hindu treatment of animals to how Europe's emperors & Popes treated even their fellow men, praising the former and heaping shame upon the latter; in the 17th century, Descartes, Pierre Gassendi, and Francis Bacon also advocated vegetarianism.
      
      The 18th century philosopher Jeremy Bentham compiled Enlightenment beliefs in An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, and he included his own reasoning in a comparison between slavery and sadism toward animals:
      
      • The French have already discovered that the blackness of the skin is no reason why a human being should be abandoned without redress to the caprice of a tormentor [see Louis XIV's Code Noir]... What else is it that should trace the insuperable line? Is it the faculty of reason, or, perhaps, the faculty of discourse? But a full-grown horse or dog is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as a more conversable animal, than an infant of a day, or a week, or even a month, old. But suppose the case were otherwise, what would it avail? The question is not, "Can they reason?" nor, "Can they talk?" but, "Can they suffer?"
      
      
      In the 20th century, Princeton University professor Peter Singer argued that Bentham's conclusion is often dismissed by an appeal to a distinction that condemns human suffering but allows non-human suffering, typically "appeals" that are logical fallacies. Because many of the suggested distinguishing features of humanity - extreme intelligence; highly complex language; etc.—are not present in marginal cases such as young or mentally disabled humans, it appears that the only distinction is a prejudice based on species alone, which non-human animal rights supporters call speciesism - that is, differentiating humans from other animals purely on the grounds that they are human.
      
      Gary Francione also bases his abolitionist theory of animal rights, which differs significantly from Singer's, on sentience. He asserts that "all sentient beings, humans or nonhuman, have one right: the basic right not to be treated as the property of others."
      
      Andrew Linzey, founder of the Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics in England, is known as a foremost international advocate for recognizing animals as sentient beings in Biblically-based faith traditions. The Interfaith Association of Animal Chaplains encourages animal ministry groups to adopt a policy of recognizing and valuing sentient beings.
      
      In 1997 the concept of animal sentience was written into the basic law of the European Union. The legally-binding Protocol annexed to the Treaty of Amsterdam recognises that animals are ‘sentient beings’, and requires the EU and its Member States to ‘pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals.’
      
      The laws of several states include certain invertebrates such as cephalopods (octopuses, squids) and decapod crustaceans (lobsters, crabs) in the scope of animal protection laws, implying that these animals are also judged to be capable of experiencing pain and suffering.
      
      Artificial intelligence
      Although the term "sentience" is avoided by major artificial intelligence textbooks and researchers, it is sometimes used in popular accounts of AI to describe "human level or higher intelligence" (or strong AI). This is closely related to the use of the term in science fiction. Some sources reserve the term "sapience" for human level intelligence and make a distinction between "sentience" and "sapience".
      
      Science fiction
      In science fiction, an alien, android, robot, hologram or computer who is described as sentient is usually treated as a fully human character, with similar rights, qualities and capabilities as any other character. Foremost among these properties is human level intelligence (see above), but sentient characters also typically display desire, will, consciousness, ethics, personality, insight, and many other human qualities. Sentience is being used in this context to describe an essential human property that brings all these other qualities with it. The words "sapience", "self-awareness" and "consciousness" are used in similar ways in science fiction.
      
      Some science fiction plot lines explore ethical concerns analogous to the concerns of advocates of animal rights. In an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation, "The Measure of a Man," Data, a sentient android, takes legal action to prove that he has the same rights as a human being. In the Star Trek: Voyager episode "Author, Author" the Doctor, a holographic program by nature, fights for his rights as a sentient lifeform. The film Artificial Intelligence: A.I. considers a machine in the form of a small boy which has been given the ability to feel human emotions, including the capacity to suffer. In these examples, sentience plays the same role as it does in the philosophy of animal rights.
      
      The word sentient is also used to describe the Agent programs in The Matrix, however in this case it only means that these programs are self-aware, self-governing and of human-level intelligence - no individuality or personality is inferred.
      
      In many science fiction works sentience is often used as a synomym for sapience meaning "human-level or higher intelligence". But others make a distinction; for example, in David Brin's Uplift stories, the Tandu are undoubtedly sapient (both technologically skilled and cunning) but only marginally sentient, since they regard other races and sometimes other Tandu mainly as potential prey.
      
      Eastern religion
      Eastern religions including Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, and Jainism recognize nonhumans as sentient beings. In Jainism and Hinduism, this is closely related to the concept of ahimsa, nonviolence toward other beings. In Jainism, all matter is endowed with sentience; there are five degrees of sentience, from one to five. Water, for example, is a sentient being of first order, as it is considered to possess only one sense, that of touch. Man is considered to be sentient being of the fifth order. According to Buddhism, sentient beings made of pure consciousness are possible. In Mahayana Buddhism, which includes Zen and Tibetan Buddhism, the concept is related to the Bodhisattva, an enlightened being devoted to the liberation of others. The first vow of a Bodhisattva states: "Sentient beings are numberless; I vow to free them."
      
      Sentience is, from a Buddhist perspective, the state of having senses (sat + ta in Pali or sat + tva in Sanskrit). In Buddhism, the senses are six in number, the sixth being the mind or consciousness, just as consciousness is in the whole body. Sentience, then, is the ability to sense / experience pain and pleasure, make conscious choices, such as abstaining from action, speech, speculation, etc. Thus, while an animal qualifies as a sentient being, a computer doesn't, for at least two reasons: (a) Even if it makes intelligent decisions (which no computer will ever be capable of without sentience), it has to be programmed by an outside agent (human or even a super-computer), whereas a sentient being is self-directed, and (b) a computer must always perform using instructions in order to communicate, whereas a sentient being, can still express in silence - through kinesics (body language), oculesics (eye language) and proxemics (distance).
      
      Philosophy and sentience
      In the philosophy of consciousness, "sentience" can refer to the human ability to have subjective perceptual experiences, or "qualia". This is distinct from other aspects of the mind and consciousness, such as creativity, intelligence, sapience, self-awareness and intentionality (the ability to have thoughts that mean something or are "about" something). Sentience is a more general concept than consciousness, which is often used to imply a form of sentience that includes a sense of time, place and self.
      
      Some philosophers, notably Colin McGinn, believe that sentience will never be understood, a position known as New Mysterianism. They do not deny that most other aspects of consciousness are subject to scientific investigation but they argue that subjective experiences will never be explained; i.e., sentience is the only aspect of consciousness that can't be explained. Other philosophers (such as Daniel Dennett) disagree, arguing that all aspects of consciousness will eventually yield to scientific investigation.
      
      Sentience quotient
      The Sentience quotient concept was introduced by Robert A. Freitas Jr. in the late 1970s. It defines sentience as the relationship between the information processing rate of each individual processing unit (neuron), the weight/size of a single unit and the total number of processing units (expressed as mass). It was proposed as a measure for the sentience of all beings living and computer from a single neuron up to a hypothetical being at the theoretical computational limit of the entire universe. On a logarithmic scale it runs from -70 up to +50.

As you can see, it is only an intangible term.

What signs would be necessary in your opinion to display sentience? Have animals to debate the sense of life in plain English?

Define what rationalistic means and prove that humans can rationalize and animals can not

To understand and comprend all the facts presented and deduce solutions from there. A dog can be taught not to touch something if it is electrified. A human will simply remove the wiring and then eat the treat or whatever the "bait" was. A human can reason and master his enviroment.

Two of the three creatures from above would not be able to do that. But because they are, according to your definition, not humans, it is irrelevant. We want to know what a human can do.

With that example, I have come to the conclusion, that each child - until it has learned something about electrotechnology is not a human because it would not understand the construction and will not know to simply remove the wiring. It's not able to reason and master its enviroment.

The first time electrotechnology was taught to me in my school, I was ten years old. Okay, I have known a little bit of it even before. But my knowledge was mostly limited to "Do not touch because it will hurt you". I haven't really known anything important about it nor was I able to reason and master it.

Define what poetry is and prove that animals don't do it.


Define what art is and explain why only humans but no animals can do art and why the ability to do art is supposed to be relevant for the question, if someone is entitled to its own rights.

Ah Poetry is art so these two are redundant togather. Art is is basicly any task that serves no useful purpuse but is an expression of hte creator's thoughts/emontions. Man does not need art to survive physically but needs it to survive culturally if you grasp my meaning. Animals do not do that. Thier songs are used to attract mates, repel rivals etc. They sing not for beauty but for a specific reason.

Have you seen young animals playing with each other? Some researchers have dared to suggest that animals may play because they find it pleasurable to do so. Doing something for pleasure, rather than for survival, is part of how you define the act of creating art.

I e.g. have two cats. While the one wants to be let alone, the other comes and wants get petted. That's also not necessary for survival but - I assume - pleasurable for the cat.

Is it important that the cat does not takes a brush and draws something?

Define what is intelligence delimited from education and prove that humans are intelligent and not only educated.

Intelligence is being able to learn and adapt to outside stimuli. Humans are intelligent because we learn, we understand. We have a drive to understand teh cosmos around us going to great lenghts to explain it even with limited knowledge. Education is a tool to aid the next generation in it's tasks. As has been said throw a man in the wild and he can learn the ropes and survive. Put a dog in a room with the best scholars for the rest of it's life and it will never be more then any other dog.

Intelligence is an umbrella term used to describe a property of the mind that encompasses many related abilities, such as the capacities to reason, to plan, to solve problems, to think abstractly, to comprehend ideas, to use language, and to learn. There are several ways to define intelligence. Insofar it is also a very intangible term.

But it is indisputable that animals have also intelligence. Chimps are even more intelligent than human babies. And some species have even education. The young learn from the elders things that are not already encoded in their genome.

As already said, it is not a question of quality but quantity.

Prove that animals don't ask their place in the universe.

Once again I can not prove what doesn't exist. Since they are not sentient they have no langues for me to study, no thoughts for me to anaylise, nothing for me to work with. How can I prove that they don'[t ask thier place in the universe?

It is indisputable that animals are communicating with each other. We don't understand them and they may not debate Nietzsche. But to say they have no language is simply wrong.
On the other side. If I see another human, I also don't see that it asks its place in the universe. Most humans with which I interact don't ask such a question - at least while I'm there. And I'm pretty sure that some humans I know will never ask such a question. Insofar I see no difference to animals.

Explain why is intelligence important for the question who is entitled to have own rights? It's not as if there is only intelligent and not intelligent. Some individuals may be less intelligent than other individuals. But does that mean that they have no rights? What is the threshold? How intelligent has someone to be to have its own rights.

Intelligence is important because it makes us unique. I know this is a scary thing but until we find alien life in this cold bleak univeres man is truly alone. We have no equals, no comrades nothing. Just ourlselves. As to lesser intelligence the threshold is sentiency. If you are sentient you are not an animal and should not be eaten if you are not then pass the salt.

Each species has unique characteristics. That's what makes it a species. A bat has wings, a whale has sonar, a tiger has stripes, humans have intelligence.

He has only used such intangible words like consciousness, self-consciousness or free will. But he has neither said what's the meaning of these words nor why they are special.

Those words are in the dictinary and have definations making them tangible if you must look them up but those not abstract concepts.

It would be great if you would look in a dictionary if you want to define them.
If you would have done it, you would have noticed, that they are intangible.

See, I believe in evolution and that humans are animals.

Hmm. I believe in evolution. I also believe in God. In both cases my belief on this subject is justified. God made us in his image to lord over. Evolution made me the top of the food chain and in the animal kingdom there is no mercy just eat or be eaten. I do not understand how you can justify being nice to animals if you think we are no differnt. Do you think a shark cares about the fish it eats? Do you think a hawk ever considers striking up a conversation with field mice? Therefore since you wish to help animals you have just demostrated a differnce between man and animal. We have compassion, something PunkMaister noted chimps do not appear to possesse despite have the intellect to work togather.

I have never said that we are not different. I have always admitted that we have mental abilities other animals have not. As you have said, compassion - also for other animals - is one ability humans have. I'm the opinion that if we value these abilities, we should act accordingly. Especially if you think that you stand above all other animals you should act accordingly and not like each other animal if it only could.

But your believe in God and that God has made you is a fundamental problem in that debate. You believe in things that are not provable. On the other side, as long as it is not proven that animals are not able to suffer, you won't care for them. With other words, it's irrelevant what I'm saying as long as it contradicts your believe.

As all species, they have developed individual characteristics. They are different from all other species as each species is different to the next.
It is not disputable that humans have developed lots of mental abilities. But mostly these are only unique in their quantity, not in their quality. Other animals (especially other primates and whales) are also intelligent - only not as intelligent as humans. We on the other side are not as strong as chimps and can not swim as good as whales and we don't have sonar.

Actually we swin better then whales, are stronger then chimps and have sonar. We call those subs and machinery in general, through power armor is still being tinkered with. Our mental abiliites, as you so coldly put it, are superior in quaility and quanity. It made us the dominate species when physically we are light wieghts. No observed species beside our own has art, the bearing of the soul if you will, no other observed species writes or do any of the millions of tiny things we take for granted.

That is not human but human made. You do not swim better. You do not have sonar. You are not stronger than a chimp.
And when all yout technology fails (e.g. you have no power) you have not even that.

And then there are terms like consciousness, self-consciousness or free will. These terms are not really and definitely defined nor it is proven that humans have such things and other animals (e.g. primats or whales) have not.

I saw you evidence on that subject and it was pretty low caliber. Most of it was metaphysical musings which the researchers themselves admitted that they were not sure what the results meant.

Physic is not metaphysical musings. All reactions in your brain are following physical, chemical and bio-chemical laws. Your brain has a certain pysical structure. In a certain moment, the result of data processing is always determined. Another result is not possible. If you think you have a choice, it is only a misbelief. What you choose is dictated by the structure of your brain and the result of physical, chemical and bio-chemical processes.

There is an interessting article about determism at wikipedia. I recommend to read it.



I will answer the rest later.
It's too much to be still fun.

[PunkMaister]

sonofccn is right 100% all that you do Arbour is concentrate on minutia and obviously just to blur the issue. And all of the examples you used just now count as such.

1. The men you pictured just happens to have the condition known as Hirsutism that condition does not make him less intelligent or less capable than the rest of us nor does it make him a different species. Now unless you can prove Hirsutism somehow makes people less intelligent, the argument really doesn't hold any water, you,, you stated that undisputedly Humans are more intelligent than Whales or Apes. And we in turn have proven that we use that intellect to more than makeup for our lack of strength and so on as we invent and build tools, machines and so on.

2. The baby pictured is another feeble attempt you see unless you can show me if the potential that baby has as he grows up is the same as any other animal and oh wait you can't! You cannot because while we might not come into this world armed with all the knowledge and skills adults have we have the potential to learn all those skills and more. Not only that but that kid has artistic potential as in the potential to write poetry, draw beautiful pictures etc which is something that as sonofccn pointed out is not necessary for survival is just done for it's own sake. Unless you can show an animal that can reach the exact same potential, talent and so on this argument too doesn't hold any water and again I remind you you admitted that Humans unquestionably are more intelligent than Whales or Apes etc.


3. Provide proof that that retarded human being cannot even be classified as human if you even can that is...

BTW: We know you edited your post Arbour to make it more favorable to your side or so you thought now stop cheating and answer the damn questions...

[Who is like God arbour]

sonofccn is right 100% all that you do Arbour is concentrate on minutia and obviously just to blur the issue. And all of the examples you used just now count as such.

1. The men you pictured just happens to have the condition known as Hirsutism that condition does not make him less intelligent or less capable than the rest of us nor does it make him a different species. Now unless you can prove Hirsutism somehow makes people less intelligent, the argument really doesn't hold any water, you,, you stated that undisputedly Humans are more intelligent than Whales or Apes. And we in turn have proven that we use that intellect to more than makeup for our lack of strength and so on as we invent and build tools, machines and so on.

2. The baby pictured is another feeble attempt you see unless you can show me if the potential that baby has as he grows up is the same as any other animal and oh wait you can't! You cannot because while we might not come into this world armed with all the knowledge and skills adults have we have the potential to learn all those skills and more. Not only that but that kid has artistic potential as in the potential to write poetry, draw beautiful pictures etc which is something that as sonofccn pointed out is not necessary for survival is just done for it's own sake. Unless you can show an animal that can reach the exact same potential, talent and so on this argument too doesn't hold any water and again I remind you you admitted that Humans unquestionably are more intelligent than Whales or Apes etc.


3. Provide proof that that retarded human being cannot even be classified as human if you even can that is...

BTW: We know you edited your post Arbour to make it more favorable to your side or so you thought now stop cheating and answer the damn questions...

1. I have only corrected a wrong link. The text was not changed.
2. I won't argue with you any more. You are too stupid and dishonest.
   
   1. If you would have read that post, you would know that the text was not changed and wouldn't claim that I have edited it to make it more favourable to my side.
      
      • By pretending to have read that post you have lied.
      • And if you don't read what I have written, there is no sense in continuing that debate with you anyway
   2. Your whole post shows that you are too stupid to even understand what I have tried to explain.
      
      • I have asked to define what a human is. Sonofccn has defined it as a »hairless ape like creature which stands errect which has mastered it's enviroment and developed a long list of inventions and labor saving devices including the very internet we are using now.« With his words: »Everything else is not human.«
        The pictures I have shown are showing individuals who do not meet the definition of sonofccn. Accordingly to his definiton, they are not humans.
      • If you are too stupid to understand what a definition is or why it is important to have exact definitons, there is no sense in continuing that debate. You can continue to decide arbitrary and according to your gut feeling. But don't expect that anyone can understand you.