Printable View
On one hand, Queequeg's sister got married at age ten.Quote:
Originally Posted by African_Love
On the other hand ewwwwww! That's completing disgusting and immoral. Children should be allowed to play and act as children without any creepy adults befouling them. I think 'Lolita' ought to be required reading for all proponents of your plan.
2. All third world debts should be abolished. It is wrong for Western governments to demand payment for debts accumulated by corrupt governments that were not democratically elected.
And who is to absorb this debt? Its always easy to imagine some great evil faceless capitalist corporations that doesn't need any more money... but investments in the economic development of other countries must be paid for by someone and this someone includes not merely the corporate CEOs and high-stakes investors but many small investors, retirement plans, etc... If debt to all third world nations were eliminated who eats the financial loss? The taxpayers of the Western nations who had nothing to do with the investments or the corruption of the third world governments? And what will be the likely result? An immediate halt to all investment in developing nations. Who is going to take such a risk?
3. Pedophilia is a sexual orientation, there is nothing inherently perverse about it nor is child-adult sex inherently harmful.:ack2::yikes: I'm not saying that child-adult sex should not be discouraged but it should only be discouraged on the basis that the child might come to regret the experience (especially having been raised in a culture that would condition him/her to view the act as harmful and inappropriate in retrospect despite being consensual and harmless at the time) and suffer as a result, I think that children/young teens are more emotionally vulnerable than are adults. Simulated child pornography should be legal, pedophiles should have a right to express their sexuality so long as they don't act on their desires.
So incest, rape, necrophilia and every other sexual deviation should also be imagined as merely a variation upon the individual's sexual orientation? The notion that there is nothing inherently harmful about adult/child sexual relations is an absolute absurd statement that shows no knowledge at all about the emotional/psychological scars that such "relationships" leave.
4. Marriage (including civil unions) as a legal institution should be abolished. Your personal relationships are none of the government's business. There is a religious component to Western/modern marriage and there should be a separation between church and state. Until that day comes, homosexual couples and polyamorous couples should have the same legal benefits that heterosexual and monogamous couples do.
Not likely to happen. You are asking for the protection of the government in guaranteeing your rights as a spouse in matters of health insurance, tax benefits, social service benefits, death benefits, inheritance, etc... but you want the government to have no say as to what relationships they will or will not recognize. Yes, homosexual marriage should be recognized... but polygamy? I have great health benefits through my employer. Perhaps I should be able to declare that I am married to ten or 15 women guaranteeing them all access to my health benefits (perhaps at a small cost to them)? Or perhaps I should be allowed to marry my dog and claim she has the same rights to free health care?
5. Non-human animals (and we should assume that every animal with a nervous system might be sentient, no matter how different or unlike our own it may be) deserve the same equal consideration that humans do, sentience is the only morally relevant criterion and there are no 'higher' or 'lower' degrees of consciousness. Factory farming, vivisection, driving non-domesticated animals from their homes through deforestation/habitat destruction etc. aren't any more acceptable than they would be if the victims were humans. The interests (all sentient beings have an interest in pursuing happiness and avoiding distress) of all sentient beings are equally important and should be given equal respect.
You really do live in a fantasy land, don't you? So whenever we need to build further housing we need to get permission from the rabbits, frogs, tadpoles, and gnats who live there? Whenever we wish to tear down a home or building that has become unsafe or unusable we need to think about the rights of the rats, mice, and ****-roaches that call that building "home"?:crazy:
6. Until science comes up with a solution for global warming and genetically engineering humans who are incapable of experiencing non-trivial distress or behaving anti-socially becomes possible, it would be compassionate to avoid reproducing.
Starting with yourself, no doubt... which may be a good thing.
8. Physical phenomenon is all that exists. There is no God and no such thing as a 'soul'. Since the brain is just a physical object, it behaves according to the same laws of physics that every other physical object in the (macro) universe does. People don't choose to behave the way they they do, they mindlessly react to environmental stimuli and experience the illusion of having chosen to do so after they've already 'decided' to do so (this is supported by modern neuroscience). Nobody deserves to be punished or rewarded for their behavior. Even quantum randomness would still not be 'free will' in the sense that most people use the word. Despite believing this intellectually it's difficult for me to accept it emotionally which is why I don't feel empathy for most human beings.
Thats got to be one of the dumbest things I've ever read... and I've read quite a lot. So... if someone decides to repeatedly rape and then murder a child its all the fault of their environment... or rather there is no fault at all... just physical action and reaction... and as a result there should be no consequences (good or bad) for any behavior. Which would of course lead to "justice" solely dealt out on a basis of "might makes right". The child murderer did nothing wrong... but neither di the parent who killed the child murderer.
Luckily - social rules and national laws tend to be formulated by reasonable, experienced and well balanced people. Yay to that.
Or I could have just said that.:yesnod:
1.) Forms of Killing
Moral decisions should be based solely on the value of their consequences. The difference between drowning a child in a pond, watching a child drown in a pond, and buying a bigger house instead of helping starving children in Ethiopia is orders of magnitudes smaller than people think. Applied to euthanasia, this means there's no difference between letting someone die and killing the person. In fact, killing might even be more humane because it is faster and painless.
And so... rather than wasting your time and money upon something as trivial as an on-line literature discussion board you will undoubtedly be spending all of your free-time raising the money needed to end world hunger, warfare, rape, racism, sexism, etc...
2.) Child Pornography
One should seriously consider to legalize virtual child porn. By this, I mean child porn with computer animated children, not produced with real ones. The only circumstance in which it shouldn't be legalized is if it can be shown empirically that it would encourage child molesting (but I highly doubt that, as with the 'killer-games leading to shool shootings')
Unfortunately, studies have shown the link between violent pornography, child pornography, and violence in film, music, and video games and behaviors acted out by certain individuals. Not all individuals are impacted to the point that they are likely to act out in a violent or sexual manner, but some will... and almost certainly everyone is impacted by such experiences. The corporations of the world spent billions and billions of dollars upon advertising and PR. They would not invest such wealth if they were not certain of a positive return... if they were not certain that such advertising and PR would have a measurable influence upon public behavior. Now if a 30-second commercial has this much influence you cannot state that the 2 hour movie or the endless hours spent in playing violent video games has no influence upon behavior. It is simply logic.
3.) Love
Love is a feeling that evolved because it benefits the individual's genes. In our ancestors, it ensured that effort was put into getting with the genetically suitable partner, and then, in the 'bonding stage', that the children would be cared for by mother and father, at least for a couple of years. Basically, love is hormones acting in the brain like drugs.
Never been in love, eh? Sad.
4.) Alternative for Democracy
One should research the practicality of a state ruled by 'philosopher kings' as suggested in Plato's 'Republic'. In fact, once circumstances will be ready (good education, no fundamentalism in the population), one should try out the idea.
And how do we go about this? Logistics please.
5.) Animal Rights and Experiments
An adult, healthy chimpanzee deserves more ethical consideration than a human infant or an Alzheimer patient (if they don't have caring friends or family that is). If experiments on chimps can be justified, they can be justified for human infants or late-stage Alzheimer patients, especially because it would be of higher medical use to us.
Another naive, inexperienced, dreamer who confuses fantasy for reality and should never be given the least position of responsibility or authority.
1.) Forms of Killing
Moral decisions should be based solely on the value of their consequences. The difference between drowning a child in a pond, watching a child drown in a pond, and buying a bigger house instead of helping starving children in Ethiopia is orders of magnitudes smaller than people think. Applied to euthanasia, this means there's no difference between letting someone die and killing the person. In fact, killing might even be more humane because it is faster and painless.
2.) Child Pornography
One should seriously consider to legalize virtual child porn. By this, I mean child porn with computer animated children, not produced with real ones. The only circumstance in which it shouldn't be legalized is if it can be shown empirically that it would encourage child molesting (but I highly doubt that, as with the 'killer-games leading to shool shootings')
3.) Love
Love is a feeling that evolved because it benefits the individual's genes. In our ancestors, it ensured that effort was put into getting with the genetically suitable partner, and then, in the 'bonding stage', that the children would be cared for by mother and father, at least for a couple of years. Basically, love is hormones acting in the brain like drugs.
4.) Alternative for Democracy
One should research the practicality of a state ruled by 'philosopher kings' as suggested in Plato's 'Republic'. In fact, once circumstances will be ready (good education, no fundamentalism in the population), one should try out the idea.
5.) Animal Rights and Experiments
An adult, healthy chimpanzee deserves more ethical consideration than a human infant or an Alzheimer patient (if they don't have caring friends or family that is). If experiments on chimps can be justified, they can be justified for human infants or late-stage Alzheimer patients, especially because it would be of higher medical use to us.
6.) God & Free Will
God most certainly doesn't exist. The human brain, including consciousness, is a product of evolution. We don't have 'magical free will', yet it does make sense to hold a majority of people responsible for their actions, simply because by doing so, one creates a deterrent and actually changes the behavior. People want to be responsible, and in the way it is worth wanting, we do have free will.
7.) Dark Matter
Dark matter is, IMO, the result of gravity leaking from clusters of matter in parallel universes into our universe. I think there are billions of universes, most of them much less than a milimeter away from us.
A genius of both theology and science, no less.:smash::sosp:
9.) Religion
I think the world would be a better place without it being practised (since it's wrong and potentially dangerous).
Yeah... the same idea made China, the Soviet Union, Cambodia, and Nazi Germany safe, idealistic havens in which to raise the kids.
10.) Religion & Children
There should be a minimum age for when children are allowed to be referred to as belonging to a particular religion. Indoctrination is child abuse, children should be presented the views objectively and choose, once they are of a certain age, i.e. 16, whether they want to belong to a particular religion or not. Before that, one should not refer to a child as a 'Christian child'.
Brave New World... the state shall decide what is best for the individual.
Although no stores in Western countries are likely to sell animated child pornography, it is produced quite regularly in japan, producing two major genres, loli and shouta, which you can wiki if you like. Those are illegal in Canada, but police rarely bother to charge people or seek it out unless someone also has real child pornography, or has been charged with assaulting a minor. I'm not sure how I feel about the existence of this animated porn, some studies have shown that it does lower the likelihood of some people to act out sexual fantasies. However, there is also a correlation between people who are likely to commit those acts, and those who consume that pornography.
As to conflating pedophilia with sexual orientation, this is not as enlightened as it seems. One thing we have to clear up, since Ginsberg's remarks about adolescent boys have been brought up, is there is a difference between finding a teenager sexually attractive occasionally, which is normal but acting on those urges is socially frowned on in our society. The question shouldn't be about whether or not pedophiles have a choice about being attracted to children, clinical test suggest they don't. It's the fact that pedophilia is non-consensual, and is directly harmful and exploitative of the minor.
I would suggest there are some pedophilic practices which may not be psychologically harmful. Tribes in New Guinea practice ceremonial insemination of pubescent boys around ages 13-14. The thing about this is that at that point the adolescents can make consensual sexual decisions, but it's generally wrong because of how vulnerable and easily manipulated these minors are. It's hard to say how this affects those people in the long run, but it's considered normal for them.
It's also a bit icky because 13 seems obscenely young to most of us with modern Western mindsets. I once had a history prof suggest that age of consent should be 13 though. I think 16 is a better marker for age of consent because the vast majority will have gone through puberty and be capable of consensual decisions.
There could be societal benefits for lowering the stigma against pedophiles, mainly because it has been shown that the best way to prevent one from harming a child is for them to be open about who they are and attend support groups that monitor their behavior. It would help prevent these crimes if someone could openly say they are a pedophile, so people could just keep their children away from them, without that person then being at risk of a lynching.
Edit: It should be noted though that not all cases of child molestation involve pedophiles, people occasionally sexually abuse children in order to humiliate them and harm them in a sadistic way rather than for their own sexual pleasure.
Edit2: @stlukes - Nazi Germany was not an atheist state, many religious organizations were plenty complicit in those atrocities.
stlukes - Nazi Germany was not an atheist state, many religious organizations were plenty complicit in those atrocities.
Hitler made various claims as to his religious beliefs but religion and religious institutions seems to have been useful only so far as they furthered his own ends... which seems to have gone against the tenets of any religion... although one might claim he sought to replace older religions with his own messianic cult that was something of a twisted interpretation upon ideas of Nietzsche among others. I agree that leaders and clerics of various religious organizations were indeed complicit in the Holocaust... and undoubtedly they would claim this was largely as a result of fear and the desire to escape the same fate as those earmarked as undesirables. Of course the main thrust of my comment was to point out that atheists, atheistic states, and those who would do away with religion are no less likely to engage in the same atrocities as anyone else... they simply carry out such atrocities in the name of the state or progress or some other ideal as opposed to carrying them out in the name of God, Allah, Jehovah, etc...
Quote:
Originally Posted by African_Love
You can do better than that . You can say the West should not, in the first place, lend money to countries whose governments are not democratically elected!
Quote:
As to conflating pedophilia with sexual orientation, this is not as enlightened as it seems. One thing we have to clear up, since Ginsberg's remarks about adolescent boys have been brought up, is there is a difference between finding a teenager sexually attractive occasionally, which is normal but acting on those urges is socially frowned on in our society. The question shouldn't be about whether or not pedophiles have a choice about being attracted to children, clinical test suggest they don't. It's the fact that pedophilia is non-consensual, and is directly harmful and exploitative of the minor.
I would suggest there are some pedophilic practices which may not be psychologically harmful. Tribes in New Guinea practice ceremonial insemination of pubescent boys around ages 13-14. The thing about this is that at that point the adolescents can make consensual sexual decisions, but it's generally wrong because of how vulnerable and easily manipulated these minors are. It's hard to say how this affects those people in the long run, but it's considered normal for them.
It's also a bit icky because 13 seems obscenely young to most of us with modern Western mindsets. I once had a history prof suggest that age of consent should be 13 though. I think 16 is a better marker for age of consent because the vast majority will have gone through puberty and be capable of consensual decisions.
There could be societal benefits for lowering the stigma against pedophiles, mainly because it has been shown that the best way to prevent one from harming a child is for them to be open about who they are and attend support groups that monitor their behavior. It would help prevent these crimes if someone could openly say they are a pedophile, so people could just keep their children away from them, without that person then being at risk of a lynching.
That's exactly right. What ginsberg was saying was that it is natural for some people to experience those sexual desires. He was not advocating that they should be acted upon. And neither was i. I do think paedophiles should be helped. They should be able to talk about how they feel without instantly being hated for it. We - as a society - need to approach the subject more objectively in order to both prevent children being harmed and to help somebody who, after all, cannot help the fact that he/she is attracted to children. I think we are too sensitive on the subject (which in many cases is understandable).
It costs money? Wasting your time is relative, I think rational debate, writing and reading literature is a good way to spend time. Books can change the way people think - positively. And since I'm 19 and soon go to college, I'm not earning any money yet. But if I ever make a comfortable living, I will indeed donate a lot of it to sensible charities.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
It's very possible that those people prone to such behavior are the ones who seek out the material in the first place. The studies have to eliminate that variable. If it's done properly and it shows that there is a significant correlation as you claim, I retract my point (as I said). I'm no expert on the effects of pornography/violence.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
Is that supposed to be an argument? And actually, I have.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
There'd have to be a curriculum, a detailed overview in philosophy and science that every candidate has to go through. The 'philosopher kings' would have to apply for the job, pass tests and eventually get chosen.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
The life of these 'kings' would be the opposite from the life of a normal king. They life comfortable, but no luxury and no fame. There should be nothing that corrupts them, no possibility for more power/money.
Then they make decisions for the state together. Maybe there still should be separation of power, in that case, a third would be 'supreme court', a third legislative and a third executive (but maybe that's unnecessary, I'm not sure about this, it needs research).
Every decision will be justified with a final report that goes out to the public. This means, the public can always read through the arguments of the greatest philosophical minds and understand why something was chosen. If people from the public want to veto something, they have to send in argumentative essays. Those are checked by the philosophers (or helpers thereof if there's a lot to do) and replies are sent back to the people.
That's just a rough draft. I'm not saying it must be done, all I'm saying it is worth research and even trying it out on small scale. Maybe in 100 years, the population of a small, wealthy and well-educated country would democratically vote for changing the system.
So self-righteous. Why do you resort to calling me a dreamer instead of providing arguments for your position?Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
Imagine you're an employer (architect) that gets applications. Would you reject all the women, because, ON AVERAGE, they are worse at spatial vision and math? Or would you look at the individuals and their personal qualifications?
In considering ethics, is it intelligence that matters? Should intelligent people be treated with more consideration than dumb ones? I highly doubt that, I think the capacity to suffer is what matters.
So when looking at chimps and human beings, should we always ignore the chimps because ON AVERAGE, their capacity to suffer is lower (less emotional suffering, reflecting)? That would be speciesist, which is no different from racism. A healthy chimp can suffer worse than a human infant or an Alzheimer patient.
And I never advocated experiments, I just said if they're justified on chimps, why the hell don't we do them on the fetus, small infants, late-stage Alzheimer patients? If that repells you, then why do you think torturing sentient chimpanzees is okay?
And for the record, if the medical benefit is enormous (i.e. cure for cancer), I think experiments on humans are justifiable. Yet they are certainly horrendous when done for just new cosmetic products (as has been done with chimps many times).
Argument?Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
Uhm, that's communism. And in the case of Nazi Germany it's an anti-semitic ideology based on the wrong assumption that the 'Arian race' (which is in no way a 'race' biologically speaking) is superior to the rest of humanity.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
Furthermore, I don't remember advocating the abolition of freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Stop the straw-men, and go research some history if you don't understand what communism is.
Not really, I don't see how there are parallels. The children can still choose eventually, they should just have a free choice. Have you ever looked on a world map based on religions? Isn't it odd that people tend to follow the religion of their parents? After all, if there are n relgions, at least n-1 of them are wrong! So why should we encourage children to adopt them for bad reasons? Why allow indoctrination and label children? Would you call the 5 year old child of neo-nazi parents a nazi?Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
I have to read more about the issue and this is a reasonable argument as far as legitimately acquired debt is concerned (despite the need to lower as much debt as is possible for humanitarian reasons) but the U.S and other Western countries were never justified in lending money to non-representative governments and expecting their citizens to pay for it.Quote:
And who is to absorb this debt? Its always easy to imagine some great evil faceless capitalist corporations that doesn't need any more money... but investments in the economic development of other countries must be paid for by someone and this someone includes not merely the corporate CEOs and high-stakes investors but many small investors, retirement plans, etc... If debt to all third world nations were eliminated who eats the financial loss? The taxpayers of the Western nations who had nothing to do with the investments or the corruption of the third world governments? And what will be the likely result? An immediate halt to all investment in developing nations. Who is going to take such a risk?
A sexual orientation is a pattern of sexual and romantic feelings towards a certain demographic. Relatives and corpses are not a demographic (and I don't see how someone can have romantic feelings for a corpse itself rather than the person they used to be) and rape is just forced/unwanted sex so I think these things are better thought of as 'fetishes' or preferences but still, I will apply the same logic. I see nothing wrong with consensual sex between adult relatives, who they want to be with is none of my business. Necrophilia would be harmless were it not for the demoralizing effect that it has on the deceased's friends, family members and members of the community in general, for that reason alone (and not a concern for the deceased) it should be discouraged. Rape is wrong because it causes suffering. If a man wants to fantasize about raping other people, I think this is unempathetic but thoughts are free. Rape fantasies are harmless as long as he doesn't act on them.Quote:
So incest, rape, necrophilia and every other sexual deviation should also be imagined as merely a variation upon the individual's sexual orientation?
I'm not interested in convincing you that not all children who have had sex with an adult become emotionally damaged as a result and that sometimes the effects are actually positive. Just tell me this - if hypothetically it could be guaranteed that a child having sex with an adult would not cause them to suffer, in fact, the experience would be pleasurable for them, would there still be a moral reason to discourage them from having sex with that adult? Why?Quote:
The notion that there is nothing inherently harmful about adult/child sexual relations is an absolute absurd statement that shows no knowledge at all about the emotional/psychological scars that such "relationships" leave.
As far as health insurance, tax benefits, medical decisions etc. are concerned, why should a romantic partner have these benefits anymore than a close family friend? Why do romantic relationships warrant greater respect than platonic ones? Isn't it strange how when an immigrant marries a native born citizen they have to prove to a government official that their relationship is genuine rather than a scam to acquire citizenship? How do you prove love and why should love be a legal issue? Why is it any more important to the government that people have a right to bring lovers from other countries into their own and not friends or extended family members?Quote:
Not likely to happen. You are asking for the protection of the government in guaranteeing your rights as a spouse in matters of health insurance, tax benefits, social service benefits, death benefits, inheritance, etc... but you want the government to have no say as to what relationships they will or will not recognize. Yes, homosexual marriage should be recognized... but polygamy? I have great health benefits through my employer. Perhaps I should be able to declare that I am married to ten or 15 women guaranteeing them all access to my health benefits (perhaps at a small cost to them)? Or perhaps I should be allowed to marry my dog and claim she has the same rights to free health care?
And I do think that domesticated, non-human animals should receive free medical care if the 'owner' can not afford it, since human society is responsible for their existence.
We can't walk on egg shells but we can avoid wiping out 90% of West Africa's original forests. Entire species are extinct because of human behavior.Quote:
You really do live in a fantasy land, don't you? So whenever we need to build further housing we need to get permission from the rabbits, frogs, tadpoles, and gnats who live there? Whenever we wish to tear down a home or building that has become unsafe or unusable we need to think about the rights of the rats, mice, and ****-roaches that call that building "home"?:crazy:
Ask yourself, when you hear of a man raping a woman, are you primarily angry because he had the audacity to break social rules and to violate somebody else's rights or are you upset because an innocent person was made to suffer? If instead of being raped that woman was in a car accident that left her paralyzed from the neck down,would you still care, since there's no one to be blamed for her misfortune? It's possible to feel empathy for the victim without feeling anger towards the victimizer. We don't need to blame people for their actions in order to want to prevent anti-social behavior anymore than we need to be able to blame the weather in order to want to prevent tsunami's or floods. The child murderer did do something 'wrong', he just can't be blamed for it.Quote:
Thats got to be one of the dumbest things I've ever read... and I've read quite a lot. So... if someone decides to repeatedly rape and then murder a child its all the fault of their environment... or rather there is no fault at all... just physical action and reaction... and as a result there should be no consequences (good or bad) for any behavior. Which would of course lead to "justice" solely dealt out on a basis of "might makes right". The child murderer did nothing wrong... but neither di the parent who killed the child murderer.
If I've given the impression that I'm generally a kind or empathetic person, I'm not. I have the deepest contempt for most human beings. I'm just giving you my opinion on what I consider to be ethical or unethical.
This is also a good point. In regards to one of the other posts, I don't believe any distinction should be made between healthy, adult chimpanzees, human infants and elderly humans with Alzheimers.Quote:
Edit: It should be noted though that not all cases of child molestation involve pedophiles, people occasionally sexually abuse children in order to humiliate them and harm them in a sadistic way rather than for their own sexual pleasure
Maybe the original poster wasn't clear, or maybe I just slightly agree and disagree. Marriage should NOT have anything to do with government. If you want to get married, go to your church, but it's not something that should have legal emphasis around it.
Right, because marriage automatically protects you from STDs.Quote:
Originally Posted by dafydd manton
Whilst I might agree in principle, there is a slight hole in the argument in that in many places the Church and State are all but the same thing. Religious leaders chosen by parliament, churches wielding extreme power..... church leaders in governmental seats!Quote:
Originally Posted by Butosai
And that is the sad reality of the world. Government function has many implications in peoples personal lives where it should not.Quote:
Originally Posted by dafydd manton
This point gets a little more complicated, because now I can apply that to plants and bacteria etc... If we assume all mammals are sentient then morally we would basically have to stop nearly all animal testing and there would be alot at stake for the "truly" sentient humans. So I think this importance "weighting" gets more complicated. In an equation it might look something like this..........if such a thing could be put to an equation....Quote:
Originally Posted by African_Love
(Percent Certainty of Sentience) * (Suffering of Animal)(2) = (Benefit to Human/Humanity or Anti-Suffering of Human/Humanity)
With a balanced equation being of neutral morality.
Implicit in this equation would be the idea that if an animal (or other "being") is sentient than it has to be treated within the same moral framework as a human.
So anyway I think this is the big issue with such a discussion is how certain is certain enough (in my equation 50% certain would be the threshold) and also how do we reliably gauge our own certainty... that is "what criteria would make me able to comfortably say that I am in fact 50% certain."
Anyway I would suggest a book (and not jsut with regards to this issue) entitled "Natural Born Cyborgs" by Andy Clark. An argument counter to sentient animals regards their lack of language (or their lack of brain stuff that allows them to acquire language) precluding self-referentiality / memory, which is posited as a requisite or even possibly the defining characteristic of consciousness.
Right but just because a nervous system produces consciousness says nothing about whether other systems can also give rise to consciousness. How would we define our current consciousness? Reactions against the environment and the remembrance of those actions for later reactions etc... Or do we need to actually experience qualia etc....To remember and have later access to that qualia? Is it still qualia if I'm only remembering it?Quote:
Originally Posted by African_Love
I would suggest checking out "The Web of Life" by Fritjov Capra. It provides interesting ideas about why bacteria, plants etc... could be considered conscious, as well as larger systems such as communities, societies, the world etc.. Though be warned it is a difficult if you do not come from a science background, and maybe even if you do.
But anyway I would seriously urge you to check out both these books, as gauging by your opinions I would think you would really enjoy them. Also they are not so narrow as I have described them here but are in fact very broad.
Also of your book rec's which do you suggest as the better or more informative read?
Hmm well this thread shows how the pursuit of freedom is one of the most dangerous things known to man.
Oh and as for the Child Porno thing, sorry Affrican love and Breathtest but I have to disagree based on personal experience. I have noted that when I watch Porn, I am more likely to get laid when I go out, as my sexual desire considerably increases and I am far more likely to take risks ( flirting) and act upon my sexual desire. So in my opinion child porn, makes pedoe's more likley to act upon it.
As to abolishing animal testing, as with almost everything we are in a huge moral gray area. I do agree animal testing on cosmetics should be abolished, however if they don't test it on animals and their first tests are on humans, several women each ear shall have permanent disfigurations due to bad reactions. At which point, the question is difficult, which is the lesser evil ? Oh and animal testing for developing new medicines is a necessary evil ( I know that the term "necessary evil" has been used in the past to commit some of humanities greatest atrocities which sometimes shame us of being part of this race) But I do believe that while we should try to be as human and empathetic with these creatures during the experimentation, it must be done. At the end when we have to choose between the death of a chimp and a loved one, we all know who we would rather make it. Is it evil ? yes, is stopping it a greater evil ? probably.
I think a general system of misconception in regards to all GOVERNING toddies is that there is a good way. In regards to governing bodies there isn't, all ways are evil, just some are less evil than others, and here is the irony, that evil is necessary.
Oh and for the abolition of religion, I totally disagree. Religion is necessary, in fact taking away religion from man, is something cruel, very cruel, it would cause an amount of suffering which would be unprecedented. For many people religion is the ONLY comfort and beacon of light in their lives, would you take that away from them ?
Besides banning religion would only increase it popularity dramatically. Human nature I believe. Baby one has a toy which he doesnt consider, baby two comes and takes said toy, all of a sudden baby one desperately craves his toy back.
Oh and to the opinion of love that it was only an basic evolutionary concept controlled by neurons...so what ? If you have been in love you will know that that bit of information is worth jackship, who cares what causes it ? It is one of the most beautiful emotions which really does give meaning to life.
Oh and I have to more opinions
1) There are two types of people in this world; those who admit their hypocrisy, and those who don't.
2) the attempt to force ones opinions on others is wrong is wrong, from hitler to jesus, no matter if they be good or bad, the second you try to convert others to your mode of though you are in the wrong.
My point actually was that Ginsberg was referring to ephebophilic feelings, i.e. feelings toward minors in the legal sense who are post-pubescent, which is considered normal by psychologist. The standards of age of consent vary between cultures, in Canada an adult can pursue a relationship with a 16 year old legally, in some parts of the US as well, but in California the age is 18. Not that I generally approve of adults who date older teenagers, I just don't think it is immediately impossible for such a relationship not to be exploitative, nor is any participant in the relationship at any great risk of mental anguish.Quote:
Originally Posted by breathtest
The rest I mostly agree with, frankly just because I think such an approach would lower the number of victims.
Exactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander III