I think we are the endpoint, to be honest.

What a shitty place to put an endpoint. We're still just rudimentary creatures of blood and flesh! Fumbling in ignorance, we are.

But, seriously. Hell no. We've still got redundant organs and bits that are phasing out and we've still got some seriously fucked up issues that like to impede progress.

Which, begs the question.

Let's just assume that we do something constructive with our collective asses and reach the end all be all for sentient life.

Could you even call that being human anymore?

Quote from: DAS B00T WILL RISE AGAIN on July 04, 2015, 09:35:13 PM

Seeing as we don't consider a lion immoral for eating a wild gazelle

i do

lions are repugnant and evil and useless

just because they're biologically too stupid to realize what they're doing, doesn't make what they're doing okay

Even if they did realize what they were doing they can't stop it or they would die. A carnivore can't go from eating meat to eating plants.

Quote from: DAS B00T WILL RISE AGAIN on July 04, 2015, 09:58:01 PM

Quote from: Snake Wilson on July 04, 2015, 09:42:54 PM

We are more intelligent than lions and can question whether what we do is wrong or not, for one.

And assuming we were a purely carnivorous race we should just remove ourselves from existence based on that alone? That doesn't even begin to make sense.

I think the argument is that we have reached a stage in our existence where even if we were carnivorous, we could still survive without killing other animals. Science has come a long way, and it is probably entirely possible for a carnivore to survive on supplements and substitutes for actual meat.

Are there documented studies of this? It's not really something I look into on a regular basis.
All I know is that a pure liquid-and-pill diet will mess up a human's bowels after a while.

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.

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

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.

You people are confusing sentience with sapience, and you should stop it.

Sentience isn't what gives us our intelligence or capacity to think "abstract thought".
That's sapience. It's what separates us from other sentient species, but it doesn't make us better than them.

The dolphin rape thing is apocryphal at best. Never heard of the drowning thing.

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.

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.

Once again, pain is objective.

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

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.

Arguing with nature seems stupid.

I mean, might as well fight death.

Quote from: SuperIrish on July 05, 2015, 10:57:50 AM

Arguing with nature seems stupid.

Describing nature as precisely what it is--stupid and messy and wasteful--is probably a good idea.

Yep. Face it for what it is, cruel, retarded in some cases, and horribly inneficient.

But hey, it works. Most of the time on Earth, anyway.

Quote from: SuperIrish on July 05, 2015, 11:02:31 AM

Yep. Face it for what it is, cruel, retarded in some cases, and horribly inneficient.

But hey, it works. Most of the time on Earth, anyway.

you can't say that something is inefficient in one breath, and say that "it works" in the sense

You can though. Inefficient work is still work, despite the energy wasted.

Quote from: Verbatim on July 05, 2015, 11:05:31 AM

Quote from: SuperIrish on July 05, 2015, 11:02:31 AM

Yep. Face it for what it is, cruel, retarded in some cases, and horribly inneficient.

But hey, it works. Most of the time on Earth, anyway.

you can't say that something is inefficient in one breath, and say that "it works" in the sense

You can though. Inefficient work is still work, despite the energy wasted.

"it's work" =/= "it works"

Quote from: DAS B00T WILL RISE AGAIN on July 05, 2015, 11:07:21 AM

Quote from: Verbatim on July 05, 2015, 11:05:31 AM

Quote from: SuperIrish on July 05, 2015, 11:02:31 AM

Yep. Face it for what it is, cruel, retarded in some cases, and horribly inneficient.

But hey, it works. Most of the time on Earth, anyway.

you can't say that something is inefficient in one breath, and say that "it works" in the sense

You can though. Inefficient work is still work, despite the energy wasted.

"it's work" =/= "it works"

A convoluted and inefficient system can still produce desirable results.