Taliesin, well, I think that this _discussion_ is still interesting/relevant/decent enough that the sniping by a few can be overlooked and hopefully people can continue to express their opinions about the subject without regression into thread-killing posts.
Tut tut. You've been a bad boy lately, Virgil.Last edited by Scheherazade : Yesterday at 04:19 PM. Reason: name calling
Sorry, I couldn’t let this one go. I don’t believe we are different in the same way that fish are different from insects, I believe that we are different in the way that humans are different than both of those creatures.Originally Posted by “Scheherezade”
Re: Virgil’s post on the ‘nobility of man’: While (excluding my theism) I can’t say that mankind is “better” than any other species, I do stand by my earlier statement: We have special attributes, characteristics, and abilities which distinguish us from the rest of the animals on this planet.
We would be worthy of the pedestal if we weren’t such morons.
Right . . . and the jury is out on whether our completely distinct and special intellect, ingenuity, capacity for complex and abstract thinking, and reasoning skills are beneficial or worthy of the “pedestal.” If we weren’t so smart there never would have been gas chambers (that’s for you Taliesin and Logos), terrorism, the pulling of nails from fingers with the intention of revealing information, etc.
The ability to love, reason, and create is “superior” than the ability to breathe underwater, or fly.
How do we think the word “dehumanization” fits into all this?
I’m with it all the way, and if somebody tied me down (especially in that situation) I’d defend mankind and it’s characteristics as noble. You know the statement, “The world is a fine place, and worth fighting for?”
I still believe that mankind has the capacity, and has shown glimpses, but all in all we’ve failed miserably.
You can value anything as highly or as lowly as you like, obviously. Concerning the assumption, the original question could be clearer. It depends on the definition of “worth.”
I value animals highly. Especially after they have been killed, cooked, and had their tender carcasses placed on a plate in front of me.
I like dolphins as well. They squeak and have sex for fun.
Which is “worse”: 100 dolphins caught and killed, or 5 human children killed?
How about 100 dolphins to 1 human?
I only find it interesting in light of some of Scheherezade's comments above, and that recent article about the fundraisers set up for both a woman who was a victim of a cougar attack, and the cougar responsible. Naturally, the funds contibuted for the cougar's cause far exceeded those of the woman's.
Yes, I know that cuppajoe_9. I could see the quote you held above it.My point is that your statement had absolutely nothing to do with Turk’s.
It’s good to hear that. Your posts are usually (from what I can tell - which isn't saying much) the most thought out, reasonable ones around here.
I couldn’t agree with that . . . either one is equally valid. Both are “rational” to the same degree.
Or “Bunnicula.” We’re quite lucky that rabbits can't read.
How can you be sure that animals have no sense of an “ideal”? If they had an “ideal”, would the utter disparity between their faculties and ours play any part?
I’d like to see a bear launch a satellite. Or solve a calculus problem. Or ponder its own existence. Bears are not very clever at all. What you’ve described is an evolutionary adaptation, a product of years and years of instinct built up, I’d say.
Reminds me of the Fuzzies.
“As Kingfishers catch fire, dragonflies draw flame . . .”
Why disqualify the rush? I'm tabled. I'm tabled.
Meaningless questions anybody? Sorry Shouty, I've seen this trap before and I'm not about to degrade the value of human life by attaching a certain number of dolphins to it.
Killing humans arbitrarily=bad
Killing dolphins arbitrarily=bad
Happy?No, they are not.
Finding meaning in life means increased quality of life for me, so it is in my best interests. Moping menas decreased quality of life for me, so it is not in my best interests.I'd like to see you do that too.
Last edited by cuppajoe_9; 10-19-2006 at 02:40 PM.
What is the use of a violent kind of delightfulness if there is no pleasure in not getting tired of it.
- Gertrude Stein
A washerwoman with her basket; a rook; a red-hot poker; th purples and grey-greens of flowers: some common feeling which held the whole together.
- Virginia Woolf
As to value of animals, I no where said that animals did not have value. Everyone who has read my posts on dogs and wolves knows how much I love and respect them. But the question was whether humans sare pecial or mere animals, and I think I gave sufficient proof to show that humans are vastly different and special. Next time you sit at a table and have a cooked dinner on a plate and use forks and knives, consider that you didn't have to chase that animal down, bite it in the throat until it dies, tear apart its abdomen with your teeth, and stick your snout into its belly to feed.
That is sad, and is I beleive the reflection of a society that has endowed nature with some sort of pseudo religious quality.
Last edited by Scheherazade; 10-19-2006 at 06:44 PM. Reason: Flaming
LET THERE BE LIGHT
"Love follows knowledge." – St. Catherine of Siena
My literature blog: http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/
And, as I've said, the question is fundamnetally flawed. There is no reason why human beings can't be special and animals.
What is the use of a violent kind of delightfulness if there is no pleasure in not getting tired of it.
- Gertrude Stein
A washerwoman with her basket; a rook; a red-hot poker; th purples and grey-greens of flowers: some common feeling which held the whole together.
- Virginia Woolf
Before everything i would like to explain something about this. I really don't care if "you picking on" me. And do you really think i mind to make an 18 years old "anarchist" child who's trying to prove himself with his "deep" philosophical thoughts? I don't think. Go, keep watching "Fight Club".
And at the end i would like to say everything i told is leans on historical stuff. If you don't know about history, sorry but it's not my mistake. Read a little about religion and historical/philosophical background of Nazizm and USSR. If it's too hard for you then at least look at the world's situation. Thousands of people dying because of starvation in Africa, Iraq, Latin America, but i don't think u care about them since they are just animals according to you. I couldn't completely understand why western people this much selfish and unconcerned about people who's dying because of imperialism of western states but now i understood it, since i realized you think human is something like dog or pig, being pig is result of thinking human is something close to pig i guess. And btw, it wasn't me the one who say "If there's no God everything is permissible". That was Dostoevski's saying. Since you all seem much wiser than Dostoevski i think i shouldn't argue about it anymore.
As Mawlana Jalal-Ad Din Rumi said; "no matter how much you know, they will understand from what you say as much as they know".
Should I have said, “I’d like to see (warning – arbitrary number upcoming) 1,000 bears put their minds together and design an object, put it into space, where it will then collect data and transmit it back to earth, so that the bears can then interpret it”?
“Mankind” was obviously implied.
I thought that humans and animals were the same?
How about not degrading dolphin lives by attaching a number of humans to it?
You’ve said:
The literal meaning of this sentence is that the worth of animals and humans in your eyes is dependent on what they can do for you . . . is there anything else to qualify it?
This is what it comes down to? Finding some kind of temporary meaning to increase your quality of life? Similar to doing what it takes to wrap yourself up in a nice warm blanket, it seems to me. I wouldn’t deride or praise that practise any more than what you’ve called “moping”, nor would I call it any more rational.
“As Kingfishers catch fire, dragonflies draw flame . . .”
Why disqualify the rush? I'm tabled. I'm tabled.
Neither Hitler nor Stalin nor those responsible for the starvation in Africa, Iraq and Latin America believe anything I have said. Hitler and Stalin thought they were gods, not people. The imperialists who refuse to rectify the situation that makes third-world economic advancement impossible, including the leaders of my country, I am very ashamed to say, are generally Christian, and therefore do not accept my views. Dostoevski was a genius, but on that point he was mistaken because neither I, nor any other atheist I have ever met or read, think that 'everything is permissible'. I never claimed to be wise, but I know enough to make an argument without resortinting to insults.
I happen to think that all human beings are of equal worth, and that the fact that we happen to share a biological kingdom with apes and insects does absolutely nothing to diminish that fact.
What is the use of a violent kind of delightfulness if there is no pleasure in not getting tired of it.
- Gertrude Stein
A washerwoman with her basket; a rook; a red-hot poker; th purples and grey-greens of flowers: some common feeling which held the whole together.
- Virginia Woolf
Look bro, today's world controlled by a materialist ideology in almost every place of the world. That's why i mentioned about starvation of Africa.
And about Stalin and Hitler, you already know what Hitler have done, and Stalin; he killed millions of people by intentional famines. That's why i mentioned'em. And all in all they all feed by Materialist-Darwinist thoughts. Everything i told is related to each other, even sometimes i can't tell clearly what i want to tell actually. You'r too young, i understand your youth excitement but try to be a lil controlled and still, remember you'r 18, maybe your thoughts will change in future, so be a lil more self-possesed and read a lot if you want to develop. As Balzac said "to be master of knowledge you have to be slave of working", keep it in your mind. That's all...
And btw, i'm a Muslim so i believe Christianity has changed but even i don't think leaders of west are true Christians.
Just jokes, man, just jokes.Humans are different from other animals, but we are animals. There's no contradiction here.Well one could say that humans are better because we've achieved civilization and wars and New York and so on, but that's hardly an objective critera. We're inventing those criteria because it's what we're good at.A bit harsh, but that's basically it, yeah. All increases to quality of life are temporary, and all meanings of life come from yourself. You can either find one or become apathetic, and apathy does no good to anybody.
What is the use of a violent kind of delightfulness if there is no pleasure in not getting tired of it.
- Gertrude Stein
A washerwoman with her basket; a rook; a red-hot poker; th purples and grey-greens of flowers: some common feeling which held the whole together.
- Virginia Woolf
By 'materialism' do you mean 'consumerism' or the doctorine that nothing exists except matter and motion? I am steadfastly opposed to the first, and the second is hardly in control of the world.
What is the use of a violent kind of delightfulness if there is no pleasure in not getting tired of it.
- Gertrude Stein
A washerwoman with her basket; a rook; a red-hot poker; th purples and grey-greens of flowers: some common feeling which held the whole together.
- Virginia Woolf
It was just a friendly advice, since i know i was wrong about many things when i was 18.
Dismissing my entire argument because I was born in 1987 is friendly?
What is the use of a violent kind of delightfulness if there is no pleasure in not getting tired of it.
- Gertrude Stein
A washerwoman with her basket; a rook; a red-hot poker; th purples and grey-greens of flowers: some common feeling which held the whole together.
- Virginia Woolf
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
