These are my actual beliefs.
As soon as we have the capacity to inhabit another planet we have the responsibility for the continuation of life. — Lif3r
Could it be argued that extinction isn't only not unethical, but the only way to guarantee the removal of unethical practices? — JacobPhilosophy
It is simply nature. — Grievous
Not all prisoners should be experimented on, just the worst. — Gitonga
The world would therefore be entirely abstract and meaningless if there was no objective truth. — Gregory
They have very simple needs, so long as their stomach is full of either nuts or grass they're happy. — Gitonga
I don't have a time machine, but I suspect sexual activity hasn't always been the free-for-all it currently seems to be. — Bitter Crank
Due to the pressures of natural selection, genes that enable their "gene machines" to reproduce with fated partners do not propagate through the gene pool. — Key
You seem to be approaching this from a organism-centric model of evolution which has been outdated since at least the mid-70s when Dawkins published his work known as "The Selfish Gene" and established gene-centric evolution as the dominant hypothesis. — Key
I don't follow how being limited to reproducing at one rate or another makes it "[...]more important [...] to be more selective regarding their mating partners[...]" — Key
Is there a literary work done by an evolutionary biologist you can source? — Key
"Asymmetrical biology of reproduction"?
Please explain; to my knowledge 50% of genetic material is sourced from both parents in homo sapiens. — Key
A. Women account for 53/(866 + 53) = 6% of ALL Nobel Laureates.
B. Women (Marie Curie) form 1/4 = 25% of two-time Nobel Prize winners
C. Women (Marie Curie) make up 100% of Nobels won in two different fields. In other words no man has achieved a Nobel in more than one discipline.
It appears that
D. In general, men are smarter than women
E. Women are more versatile — TheMadFool
That root fact essentially being "less women will become sexually assaulted if dressed modestly and remain sober". If it is a fact and by communicating it to multiple people less women become victims of sexual assault... I ask you. Is that a service or a disservice?
There is no church state now. No moral guidelines for raising children. If people want to embrace the worst traits of humanity to get ahead they will. It is simply the world we live in. So again. Is such a statement that prevents countless sexual assaults a service or a disservice? — Outlander
It's a disservice, as you're framing it as the victim's responsibility to refrain from acceptable behaviour as a means to lessen the chance of being victimized rather than the perpetrator's responsibility to refrain from unacceptable and criminal behaviour.
Should a gay couple refrain from holding hands in public where there are known to be homophobes? Should a Muslim family refrain from practicing their religion where there are known to be Islamophobes? — Michael
If the net effect of the anaesthetic is that the (non-)experience makes no impact on post-op me whatsoever, sure. — Kenosha Kid
Most humans have empathy in that we can put ourselves in the shoes of other people and know what harm we can cause them. However a person with empathy can never put himself in the shoes of a psychopath because an empathetic will never know what it's like to be a person without empathy (psychopath). — Wheatley
a[title="Politics and Current Affairs"], a[title="Politics and Current Affairs"] + div { transform: scale(0); }
I was pointing out an inconsistency that arises from the vegan/animal rights premiss of reducing suffering. — DingoJones
I was comparing the suffering experienced by farm animals to the suffering of animals in the wild. Thats not a dichotomy, its a comparison. — DingoJones
Well it seems strange to save an animal from suffering by ensuring it will suffer. Frying pan or fire? And thats besides the fact that most animals cannot make an ethical social contract. Its protecting an animal from suffering and death by sending it off to..suffering and death. (Presumably the alternative to being a farm animal is living in the wild). — DingoJones
Not breeding them in the first place is a fair point but doesnt address what to do with the ones that have been bred already. — DingoJones
Also, regardless of what we do with the current stock of farm animals doesnt change the fact that animals, anywhere, live harsh and short lives that end in various horrific deaths. Thats the point I was making. There is no significant ethical difference between the suffering of farm animals and the suffering of animals in general. — DingoJones
It IS strange, as under your paradigm one should be out rescuing animals from the wild as well. — DingoJones
Well isnt preventing suffering what grants the moral highground? Suffering isnt being prevented by not eating meat, in fact id say that it causes more suffering just by the sheer numbers of individual suffering (unless you want to claim those lives are less significant somehow, but again that is the exact same calculus a meat eater is making). — DingoJones
Well it seems strange to save an animal from suffering by ensuring it will suffer. Frying pan or fire? And thats besides the fact that most animals cannot make an ethical social contract. Its protecting an animal from suffering and death by sending it off to..suffering and death. (Presumably the alternative to being a farm animal is living in the wild). That doesnt seem odd to you? — DingoJones
Take vegans and vegetarians. In order to grow the food they eat, animals still have to be slaughtered en masse. Those fields of fruits or veggies result in countless deaths and plenty of suffering from displacement and starvation. If you want to say rodents and insects dont count or count less, then you are making the exact same calculus a meat eater is making. The moral high ground held by vegans or vegetarians is an illusion. — DingoJones
Ive always found it strange when animal rights people talk about the suffering from farms and human consumption of meat. Do they not realise the suffering that exists in the natural world? Its a non-stop horror show of pain, suffering and death. — DingoJones
I actually think we can come together on antinatalism.. it can be a sort of rallying cry for the living. 1) Recognize the situation of suffering we live in and 2) do something about it together by not breeding. — schopenhauer1
I don't think it can be. Humans don't experience absence and they don't experience non-existence. — unenlightened
If utilitarianism dictates that the greatest policy of ethics is to minimise suffering, wouldn't the most ethical position be the extinction of all existence? — JacobPhilosophy
One of the major arguments for the acceptance of homosexuality is the fact that a person cannot choose to be homosexuals. — NukeyFox
Sounds like a complete nightmare, unjust, punitive, unsafe, inhuman. — unenlightened
Look at nature. Everything acts with purpose. One known purpose of life is to survive and evolve. But why would life need to do that? Why would there need to be constant improvement? If life was just some random occurrence why does it evolve? If we look at different ecosystems there are many lifeforms that play specific roles and have a specific purpose to survive in their ecosystems. All life has a purpose. — Grey
The reasons I think there is a creator based on all this is the fact that humans are so complex. I don't mean to suggest that I can't comprehend the fact that the human body and mind could be a random occurrence. But there is no reason for us to exist if life was a random occurrence. Life doesn't need to be as complex and imperfect as humans to exist. If life simply only needed to exist it would have been much more optimal to create something other than humans. — Grey