Baloo

Spin,

Humor me, please. I see no difference whatsover in physically harming the robot and harming the ant. One is a carbon-based entity that reacts to envirnmental stimuli in a preprogrammed way, the other is a silicone-based entity that reacts to environmental stimuli in a pre-programmed way. Is the ant more complex? Yes. Is complexity a stated basis for your morality? No. Your basis for morality is the ability to suffer. And until you explain, in concrete terms, in what way the ant suffers that the robot does not (and could not be made to suffer with certain technological enhancements), you have not validated your dismissal of the analogy, nor shown what is "extreme" or "weak" about it.

Mageth

What seems to be the core of finger-pointing and insult-throwing is mainly based on what I would consider people not analysing analogies, but being shocked by the connection with hard cruel world examples which are parallel to what people thoughtlessly do.

Nazi doctors did experiment on human animals just as "scientists" do experiment on other animals, so people see "Nazi" and stop thinking.

Jeffrey Dahmer ate human animals with what I consider the same sort of consciousness as some people eat other animals. The parallel was not disputed as being inappropriate. Some people simply didn't like being related to Jeffrey Dahmer. But all they had to do was to show that the parallel was inappropriate. Not a single person succeeded, and almost no-one tried.

What you don't seem to understand is that these are your opinions. I and others here obviouosly don't agree with your opinions.

I do not "thoughtlessly" eat meat as you accuse me of.

I do not "stop thinking" when I see "Nazi."

I am not shocked by your "hard cruel world examples." I do not think they are analogous or parallel, and I don't think you've demonstrated satisfactorily that they they are.

Even your claim "Not a single person succeeded" is a matter of your opinion. From my view, I think the arguments against your analogies were quite compelling, much more so than your arguments for them. But I admit that's my opinion, and you're free to hold yours.

I pointed this out to punkerslut earlier in the thread, when he maliciously criticized my use of "IMO" (in my opinion) often in my posts. When making an "opinion" statement in an argument, it's proper to qualify it for what it is. (note: I've seen you do this a few times in your posts, so I know you're capable of it).

That's the kind of attitude that you and punkerslut have displayed here that's generated ire on the part of us "wanton,", "brutal" meat eaters (in my opinion) )

Queen of Swords

Originally posted by SallySmith:
<strong>I do think, with the quality of the insults hurled, that spin showed restraint.</strong>

The (low) quality of spin's insults? Gosh, perhaps you're right about the restraint, and spin could have done even better?

SallySmith

Yes, perhaps he or she hasn't hung around the Sec Web enough yet.

Mad Kally

Sally,
You and tribalbeeyatch were just as obnoxious in the other Vegetarian threads.

scombrid

Seeing all this bickering I think everybody just needs a nice sausage smoothie to make it better, not the low fat version either.

Queen of Swords

<strong>Yes, perhaps he or she hasn't hung around the Sec Web enough yet. </strong>

Nah, that would only make him better at debating.

[ March 15, 2002: Message edited by: QueenofSwords ]</p>

Mageth

Sally:

I think your problem with hypocrisy is ridiculous, considering that I don't think anyone outside of this argument would try to say plants are conscious.

Punkerslut, in responding to kctan, made this statement on the first page of the thread:

"Plants are not conscious beings. They are not capable of emotions, nor are they capable of interests. This is a well-known fact."

This is an absolute statement - he calls it a "fact." In reality, it is his opinion, until he can prove it as a fact. It is difficult if not impossible to prove that plants don't have some form of consciousness. Indeed, no reasonable scientist would claim it as a fact - they would state their opinion on the matter, based on the evidence. Likewise, no reasonable scientist would claim as a "fact" that plants are conscious unless and until we have evidence to support such a claim.

In my arguments, I never argued that plants are conscious. I argued that we don't know as a fact that plants are not conscious. My opinion, based on the evidence I've seen, is that plants aren't conscious in the way we understand consciousness. But "consciousness" is not very well understood, and there's no universal definition of it, as far as I know. So it may be possible that plants have some form of consciousness, under some definition.

Oh, and by the way, there are lots of people "outside of this argument" who hold the opinion that plants have some form of consciousness.

[ March 15, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]</p>

scombrid

When you read this thread. Does any body else hear Elain (from Seinfeld) singing that Yankee Bean song she sang when feeding her older boyfriend after his stroke. Why am I hearing that song when I read this thread?

SallySmith

Likewise.