My assignment was completed :joke:

You weren't able to make your case about the differences between animal behavior and human behavior, much less human value judgements. I called you to task, and you just basically said, it is what it is. That doesn't wash in Philosophy.

Until next time!

My assignment was completed :joke: — 3017amen

Actually, no it wasn't. You got an F. You failed to make my case for me, which would have demonstrated your comprehension of what I said. Your failure makes clear that you either did not read, or did not comprehend. I called you to task, and you just basically said I failed to break through your ignorance. That doesn't wash in Philosophy.

Until next time!

Hahaha! Don't take it personal :wink:

Otherwise, you might want to consider working on your people/emotional skills... . Oops, oh yeah, forgot, you're not human; according to your philosophy you're no different than an animal!!

So much for your theory :joke:
LOL

Don't take it personal :wink: — 3017amen

I don't. I'm used to it.

Otherwise, you might want to consider working on your people skills. — 3017amen

We're drifting off topic now, but since we are offering critique, you might want to spend a little more time formulating your questions. You know, rather than a rapid-fire slinging of shit on the wall to see what sticks, actually think about how you're formulating/asking of a question might solicit an answer that genuine intellectual curiosity would seek. Refinement might also avoid confusion, digression and misunderstanding. Try to find the "lead" from the get-go, rather than spending pages of two ships passing in the night. And then lead with that.

Carry on.

Yep. An old man who costs more than he contributes, or a baby that has potential, but it's speculative, a wage earner, etc. Crazy shit. By that metric alone, I could hunt a person down, kill them, gut them, skin them, quarter them, have them mounted on my wall and enjoy the trophy while dining over a plate of them. If anyone had a problem with it, I'd just pay them $X.XX and we'd all be good. Oh boy, man may not be separate, but he sure is different. — James Riley

So... what's stopping you?

You know, rather than a rapid-fire slinging of shit on the wall to see what sticks, actually think about how you're formulating/asking of a question might solicit an answer that genuine intellectual curiosity would seek. Refinement might also avoid confusion, digression and misunderstanding. Try to find the "lead" from the get-go, rather than spending pages of two ships passing in the night. And then lead with that. — James Riley

Wow. that's precisely what you did James !

How about this, just to show you I'm not blowing smoke, I'll offer you an olive branch. If you're so convinced you made a persuasive enough case, then start a thread and I'll be glad to debate you! Otherwise, I see you descending into a pit of ad hominem and/or getting way off topic here because of some emotional trip. (In other words, using logic, let's put your comments to the test!)

Alternatively, though at the risk of redundancy, you may want to consider your people (oops) animal skills here :joke:

"The temptation to belittle others is the trap of a budding intellect, because it gives you the illusion of power and superiority your mind craves. Resist it. It will make you intellectually lazy as you seek "easy marks" to fuel that illusion, [and] a terrible human being to be around, and ultimately, miserable. There is no shame in realizing you have fallen for this trap, only shame on continuing along that path."
— Philosophim

How about this, — 3017amen

How about you accept your assignment?

I see you descending into a pit of ad hominem — 3017amen

What's even worse than ad hominem is the anti-intellectual passive aggressive BS; and what's even worse than that is when you get some of your own medicine, you can't handle it. What does Philosophim have to say about your tactics?

You know what your assignment is. If you want to regain your credibility, do your work. Remember, you have to convince me you understand my clear argument (even if you disagree with it) before I can trust that you are not a mere troll and a waste of my time.

Last chance.

So... what's stopping you? — god must be atheist

$ and the fact that $ in equity is not the criminal law.

wisely said. In communist countries it used to be, especially after the revolution.

Times change. People don't. History repeats itself, if you wait long enough. The more things change, the more things remain the same... because the common denominator is the human spirit.

Well, we do have had quite radical cultural evolution and change. As species we are maybe 250 000 - 300 000 years old, and within that time period people's beliefs and knowledge have change absolutely crazily. We have changed from non-verbal apes to highly aware persons wondering about Plato, Socrates, Aristotle et al. It's only a bit under 200 years ago, when people really genuinely had absolutely bonkers beliefs about sex and gender etc. It's pretty hard to see that everything would have stayed the same as we have progressed (or changed) from hunter-gathering to agriculture to industrialism to post-industrialism. People are not static, nor non-changing.

That which makes us different does not make us separate; nor does it make us better. If we think the way we think makes us separate, it makes us mistaken. If we think the way we think makes us better, it makes us mistaken.

Just as the blind person may receive a boost in other sense(s), so too, our differences have given us a boost here and there. But we are still animals. Thinking that our thinking makes us separate, or better, not only makes us mistaken, it makes us more desperate. And that is the reason we are the way we are. — James Riley

I agree: our separation from the animal world is only a conceptual distinction, our superiority is also merely conceptual. We are conceptual beings, we inhabit narrative, inevitably. That constitutes a little difference between us and the other animals, which has grown into a vast gulf, at least on the side of wisdom, if not visceral actuality.

We are the way we think we are, insofar as our thinking, our narratives, determine how we live. But that power of self-determining narrative is only possible when resources are abundant; as scarcity grows the predominance of the survival imperative will reassert itself, and then we will see how little difference there really is between us and the other animals.

Sure. we don't typically gravitate to such behavior. And of course, those types of barbaric acts in most cases depend upon the individual's value system. And that's whether or not they're starving. It just depends on the person. — 3017amen

You don't know that, in the extremity of desperate hunger, you would still not eat human flesh; no one does. You can't know that unless you've been in the situation.

Value is as beauty

Beyond the point in terms of cosmic value, ill bet its equal. Everything that exists is to do something and the absolute has a bet on everyone as long as you are in the universe you are "valuable".

Regards of ethical problem who to treat a child or dog, humans are social creatures it's part of us most reasoning comes from having to make a choice and not wanting, it's one side effect of being social creatures, it's just how universe is playing it's cards right now, there is no right or wrong only what could further enhance universe and right now it's cure the child.

Look beyond yourself.

fide

We still live in hierarchic societies; more blings, the higher your social status; higher social status, more chances to copulate with more attractive mates; major life events are so important that you gather all your friends and relatives from great distances even to witness it; burials and post-life celebrations indicate a caring for someone's memory (or spirit); religious gurus and other gurus are a source of knowledge, dependable information and counsel; wars are still fought, for the same reasons as in the past; the poor gets poorer and the rich gets richer until a revolution or rebellion rights this; people put each other in prisons; law and morality shape the behavour to be compliant with what the majority wants.

These, and many others, have not changed since the first human family, mutations from the pre-human ape ancestors, touched the ground.

Of course, I was not there when this happened 200-300 years ago, but the people on the south east pacific islands, who seemed to have forged societies from scratch within a handful of generations ago, give a good example how these things are done similarly to modern man's life.

Sure. we don't typically gravitate to such behavior. And of course, those types of barbaric acts in most cases depend upon the individual's value system. And that's whether or not they're starving. It just depends on the person.
— 3017amen

You don't know that, in the extremity of desperate hunger, you would still not eat human flesh; no one does. You can't know that unless you've been in the situation. — Janus

I am on a different opinion. All species produce the protein string that causes the Mad Cow Disease when they eat the proteins of their own species.

So it was an evolutionary mutation that stopped cannibalism. Those species that stopped cannibalism, had a better chance of survival, because the mad cow disease would strike less often. And those stopped cannibalism, which had a gene mutation that made cannibalism no longer a practice.

We still have cannibal behaviour in individuals who are not forced by extreme hunger or exposure to eat human flesh for survival. This is so because a counter-mutation may have counter-effected the no-cannibal behavour. More likely, there is no suriving individual with the anti-anti-cannibal gene; but the gene's dna was kinked at that section that contains the anti-cannibal (for short,) and it had no chance of affecting the cannibal person's behaviour.

I am on a different opinion. All species produce the protein string that causes the Mad Cow Disease when they eat the proteins of their own species. — god must be atheist

That's a sweeping claim; do you have evidence to back it up? I have heard of a tribe in New Guinea who consumed their dead (out of love and respect and to save them from being consumed by maggots). Some people of this tribe were found to be subject to a CJD like disease (mostly the women, who did most of the eating of the dead, and young children who received a few tidbits, apparently). The disease was found to be like BSE, caused by prions..It's a big leap though from that to claiming that this does or would happen to all species who eat their own.

BSE or Mad Cow's Disease was, unless I misremember, thought to be caused by eating sheep's brains (which were being added to their food) from Scrapie infected sheep, so it wasn't cannibalism in that case, and was transmission of a disease by consuming actually infected tissue.

Well, to my mind I have empirism to my side. Yeah, we obviously have many longstanding biological impulses, but we seem to be a hyper-cultural species at the same time. We have Lena Dunham co-existing with whatever fundamentalist imam or priest. It really hard to make the argument that nothing essential has changed when basically almost everything essential has changed. We are meaning giving species, we keep changing our beliefs and our understanding. We are not apes on the savannah no more...

We still have cannibal behaviour in individuals who are not forced by extreme hunger or exposure to eat human flesh for survival. — god must be atheist

GMA!

Why isn't cannibal behavior widespread? (Or us it just a genetic accident.)

Why isn't cannibal behavior widespread? (Or us it just a genetic accident.) — 3017amen

Cannibalism isn't widespread among animals or humans. That may be because is is counter-adaptive. In any case, why should it be widespread?

Why isn't cannibal behavior widespread? (Or us it just a genetic accident.) — 3017amen

Janus already answered that. Here's a bit of a padded reply; padded with explanation

Those species that stopped cannibalism, had a better chance of survival, because the mad cow disease would strike less often. And those stopped cannibalism, which had a gene mutation that made cannibalism no longer a practice. — god must be atheist

BSE or Mad Cow's Disease was, unless I misremember, thought to be caused by eating sheep's brains (which were being added to their food) from Scrapie infected sheep, so it wasn't cannibalism in that case, and was transmission of a disease by consuming actually infected tissue. — Janus

I don't have any statistics or scientific evidence to show. I garner all my knowledge from hearsay and from posts and newsclips and headlines without reading the articles, and information nuggets.

I'll research this, however, because now I am curious myself.

This is what I found:

Theories suggest — and research supports said theories — that mad cow disease is the result of an abnormality that presents in the prion, a protein typically found on the surface of cells. Though the why is still unclear, researchers believe that when the protein mutates, it begins to feed on the tissue of the nervous system, such as the brain and spinal cord.

As a degenerative disease, BSE grows progressively worse in a relatively short period. Maybe because the destructive prion is “biological,” so to speak, the body of the sick cow does not know it is there. As a result, the body doesn’t know to trigger an immune response against the disease. —

I definitely heard the theory of mammal cannibalism being the root cause. They sent researchers or envoys or some humans to Papua-New Guinea, to ask them to stop eating each other. The envoy cited the reason, which was that MCD is caused by C. The cannibals were cannibals, but not some backward stupid ignorant people, they understood the reasoning, and stopped the practice.

This is how far I got in listening to other people talk about it.

It is conceivable that they fed some bs to each other, because they knew I was evesdropping. I was not very popular in those circles, either.

As you can see, there is no conclusive evidence over what it is that causes the prions to mutate. One theory to name the cause for the disease is eating infected sheep's brains; the other is cannibalism. I guess they did not investigate very much, the scientists were happy that the whole thing was behind us.

Hi Janus.

It was not rhetorical in the sense that it should be widespread. Obviously it's not. I considered it a thought experiment.

But let's assume for a moment it was widespread and considered normal and natural. In the context given from the OP, it seems to me one has to parse the differences between human value systems, and primate or lower life-form behavior (the OP poodle) that emerges from instinct.

In either case, if there are little or no behavioral differences between lower life-forms and higher life-forms, then killing the OP's poodle for any reason whatsoever (including for consumption) becomes something more natural and acceptable as either a source for prey, or alternatively does not violate any other behavioral or ethical norms as part of our value systems.

And so in this simple way, humans then are, or become no more valuable, than other lower life-forms or other primates, animals, etc. and in this case, poodles. That's because we would hypothetically not know anything different, and neither would any other other animals know the difference. We would all act the same and would not bat an eye to cannibalism either. But since we know higher life-forms do know these behavioral differences, we value humans differently from poodles.

Dude, I have little idea what you are talking about. When you say

we know higher life-forms do know these behavioral differences — 3017amen

which are the higher life forms you refer to, and why would not referring to them as "higher" be a case of assuming the conclusion you are supposed to be arguing for?

Oops. You may be more right than I.

I gave it some thought and realized that women (edit: and gay men) do swallow a lot of human protein. Not all women, but enough women to warrant the springing up of the disease should the cannibalistic theory hold water.

Then again, the human protein women swallow are in Zygotes, therefore contain half chromosome pairs, so maybe that is enough to make a difference?

This is way above my pay grade.

This is way above my pay grade. — god must be atheist

LOL,above mine too!

which are the higher life forms you refer to, and why would not referring to them as "higher" be a case of assuming the conclusion you are supposed to be arguing for? — Janus

I know Amen well enough to answer this question, but I'm not answering for him.

I think (not a fact but a conjecture) that 3017Amen calls those life forms higher, that believe in Jesus Christ the Savior. This includes or may include some Catholics, Evangelists, all kinds of protestants, and then the occasional and better educated noble beasts, such as Dolphins, Sperm Whales, German Shepherds, and the majestic Bald Eagle. In the past the two-headed eagle, unicorns, and some special species of Gargoyles also made the grade, but historical records of those are now under skeptical scientific scrutiny.

Of course not. That's a total human egoist perception. Something to making think that his existence actually matters and superior others form of life. The antidote to death for human. Imagine you are an alien looking above why the fuck you would think that people this form of life in Earth is something special or its lives worths more than coakroaches for example. In all that chaos that is going on in Universe sorry but I wouldn't give a fuck about people if I were to alien's position.

Sorry to break it to you champ, but humans ARE animals.

Sorry to break it to you champ, but humans ARE animals. — Seditious

Everyone who forgets that just needs to think about it next time they are taking a shit.

Everyone who forgets that just needs to think about it next time they are taking a shit. — James Riley

True, and / or when they are talking shit. (That's how I first read your post... very true either way.)