Quick man, make a youtube channel for it or your family will literally fall apart.

Quote from: Sᴏʟᴏɴᴏɪᴅ on July 05, 2015, 11:20:11 AM

The point of this wall of text, is that physical pain isn't the worst part of being in pain, it's the emotional response that animals are incapable of. Dying isn't the worst part of death, it's the mourning by loved ones that animals don't do.

I disagree, infinitely. Dying is the worst part of death. Suffering is the worst thing, ever, and we have an ethical responsibility of preventing it when we can.

I don't care that animals don't mourn. At all.

Dying is a natural part of life and there's no point of putting it off.\

Like I said, you're just biased because you can't wrap your head around a mental state with no emotions because you're projecting, which is massively narcissistic.

Quote from: Sᴏʟᴏɴᴏɪᴅ on July 05, 2015, 10:40:14 AM

Eh you're getting confused.
Subjective pain would be something like psychosomatic pain.

Says who?

Quote

Sentience is not simply the ability to feel something, it's the ability to feel something in response to something that isn't literally happening. A lot of people would say a dog mourns for their master, but really the dog knows, "That man scratches me behind the ears and feeds me, staying with him is a good thing." Animals don't have these abstract feelings that are subjective rather than objective, and that's what makes someone sentient.

Let's pretend for a moment that you're right. You're wrong, completely, but let's pretend for a moment that you're not wrong.

The fact that other organisms feel "objective pain" is precisely why it's wrong to torture and eat them. That's everything. Their capacity to suffer, regardless of their sentience, is the deal-breaker. It's wrong to harm animals. I mean, I feel like I'm talking to a preschooler, but I guess it's necessary sometimes.

Quote

Subjective feelings are an abstract thought, and most animals are not capable of abstract thought.

Who cares?

Verb, if you're going to ignore centuries of philosophical work and pre-established definitions, then I just can't help you and you're actively making the choice to be ignorant.

But in regards, to whether or not animals are capable of abstract thought, which is what makes something sentient, if something is not sentient then nobody will mourn for it or care about the fact that it is gone, because of the fact that its family are of the same species and same cognitive capabilities.

You give away a cat's kittens at birth and the cat gives zero fucks.
It isn't capable of abstractly processing what could have been with those kittens.

It wouldn't matter to momma cat if you turned around and made kitty cat stew.
The humans might care, because cats are an animal we form emotional attachments to, but you don't see me eating dogs like the Chinese, do you?

That's why sentience matters, not because of the subject, but because of the subject's peers.

But that only applies to death.
As far as pain is concerned, if an animal is in physical pain, they don't begin suffering emotionally like a human would.
And I don't really see why physical suffering matters, unless the animal can form an emotional connection to that pain.

Basically you're just projecting yourself onto those animals and wondering "what if I was in that position?" and then reeling because of all of the emotional terror that you can contrive. But the animal can't. It's an egotistical approach to the world that forces you to put yourself in the position of others and assume they feel the same way you would.

You're biased about suffering because you suffer in an extremely different way than animals do.

The point of this wall of text, is that physical pain isn't the worst part of being in pain, it's the emotional response that animals are incapable of. Dying isn't the worst part of death, it's the mourning by loved ones that animals don't do.

Quote from: PSU on July 05, 2015, 10:42:32 AM

Quote from: Verbatim on July 05, 2015, 10:29:17 AM

Quote from: PSU on July 05, 2015, 10:27:20 AM

Obviously it's niggers.

And when I say niggers, I mean people who contribute nothing to society, commit crimes, and lack education. Regardless of race.

then why not just say that, then

idiot

Cause if I didn't explain it plebs like you would think I'm referring to all black people.

Dumbass

When I see the word nigger I think blacks. Not your made up definition.

But I guess you're right. Anyone who doesn't get your personal references before you've even explained them is obviously an idiot.

That's not what I think of.
The word is undergoing rebranding and if you haven't heard of the new definition then you've been living under a rock since the 90s.

Listen to more Chris Rock.

Quote from: Sᴏʟᴏɴᴏɪᴅ on July 05, 2015, 10:14:48 AM

Animals feel and suffer objectively, not subjectively.

...So do humans. When you stab a human in the eye, they are going to suffer just as much as a dog would, or a pig, or a cow, etc.

Quote from: Verbatim on July 05, 2015, 10:01:26 AM

Once again, that's objective pain, it has nothing to do with sentience.

Yes, it does. There is no way to experience pain "subjectively". Pain is a feeling. The definition that you stated from Wikipedia states that sentience = FEELING. Pain is a negative feeling.

You're getting 2+2 wrong here. This is simple arithmetic logic, and you're getting it wrong.

Quote from: Verbatim on July 05, 2015, 10:01:26 AM

Once again, pain is objective.

It's also a feeling, making it a part of sentience.

Eh you're getting confused.
Subjective pain would be something like psychosomatic pain.

Sentience is not simply the ability to feel something, it's the ability to feel something in response to something that isn't literally happening. A lot of people would say a dog mourns for their master, but really the dog knows, "That man scratches me behind the ears and feeds me, staying with him is a good thing." Animals don't have these abstract feelings that are subjective rather than objective, and that's what makes someone sentient.

Subjective feelings are an abstract thought, and most animals are not capable of abstract thought.
Rather, if they are, there isn't any evidence and it is therefore illogical to assume they are.
You don't see me eating the two or something that are, do you?

You can choose to ignore subjectivity vs objectivity when it comes to feeling, but that just makes you ignorant.

Yes, it is, considering that we have the ability to consider our actions and deem them unethical (which they are). Ants can't do that, because ants are stupid. Let's not be like the stupid ants. That sounds really dumb. Like, really really really dumb.

Ants are incredibly smart as a hivemind, perhaps not indiviually though.

That would make you an evil, solipsistic sociopath.

I don't see why that isn't the way all people should think, and subconsciously, a lot of people do. Most people don't genuinely care care for people who haven't endeared themselves to them in any way. But I won't refute that I'm probably a sociopath of some sort, as there are a lot of other normal human emotions that I don't identify with, like love, which I think I may be incapable of.

I'm not saying they have abstract thought. That's not what sentience means. It just means that you can feel. They suffer. That's the whole point.

Sentience is the ability to feel, perceive, or experience subjectively (Wikipedia) Animals feel and suffer objectively, not subjectively. If a thought is subjective, I consider it abstract.

Stab a dog in the eye and see how much it appreciates it.

Once again, that's objective pain, it has nothing to do with sentience.

Except there's observable scientific evidence to suggest that, yes, many animal species can in fact and DO in fact feel intense pain when you stab them in the eye.

Denying that is just like a religious kook denying evolution.

It's that insane.

Once again, pain is objective.

Quote from: Sᴏʟᴏɴᴏɪᴅ on July 05, 2015, 08:38:41 AM

This is the point where vegans and vegetarians like to pretend animals are sentient

They are. Pretending that they're not is just a convenience for you. It would probably psychologically destroy you if you were to account for one moment all of the suffering that is endured by all sentient non-human species in the wild and especially those kept in factory farms.

Quote

In all, humans evolved eating animals, it's not something new. It would adversely impact the ecosystem if we stopped.
In fact, we evolved mass-murdering each other, and it's already impacting the ecosystem adversely, it's something we need to go back to doing, and get over our moral qualms about it.

you need to be more subtle with your trolls

I'm not even joking, "humane" treatment to others, and animals, is ruining the planet.
It's something you, as an anti-natalist, can't understand, because you don't see any problem with humanity disappearing in just one generation.

Ignoring the circumstances we evolved under is causing over-population, and as people are a part of the environment, the way that we evolved interacting with other species is just as important.

We eat other animals, we farm other animals.
Ants also farm other animals.

The fact that we do it more efficiently is nothing to be ashamed of.

And I don't care about the struggles of other humans, much less the struggles of sub-human animals.
Many sub-primate humans lack the communicative abilities to demonstrate abstract thought, and you therefore cannot claim that they have abstract thought.

It's the same as the god argument, you can't make a case for an unobservable construct.
You make the statement that animals are sentient in the same faith that a religious person believes in god, and there is nothing logical about it.

Endgame: kill others in total war or overpopulate the planet, eat animals or destroy the ecosystem.

Oh, I should also mention that if we went back to total war factory farming would no longer be necessary.

Cheat.

qoq

qoq

qoq

qoq

qoq

Considering that there is nothing wrong, and really an immense number of pros to getting nutrition from eating animals, I don't see how it matters whether or not we're purely carnivorous, we have the capacity to consume animals and thrive.

It can't be immoral if there are no cons.

This is the point where vegans and vegetarians like to pretend animals are sentient or have souls, but that's up for debate.

In all, humans evolved eating animals, it's not something new. It would adversely impact the ecosystem if we stopped.
In fact, we evolved mass-murdering each other, and it's already impacting the ecosystem adversely, it's something we need to go back to doing, and get over our moral qualms about it.

War should be total war, civilians and all. If someone invaded the US I wouldn't expect to be let live.

Zealous and exaggerated morals are killing the planet, and destroying natural selection.
It's like affirmative action for evolution.

But did the wounds heal?

Yes, but only with skin grafts because due to the severity of his burns, his wounds, they would not heal.