4 ms·

Why not draw the line at consciousness? don't eat animals that science has proven to have IQ that approaches human 1-3 year old IQ, like parrots, crows, dolphi

Why not draw the line at consciousness? don't eat animals that science has proven to have IQ that approaches human 1-3 year old IQ, like parrots, crows, dolphins, etc. all other animals are fair game.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 9y ago
So we can eat humans that also do not have that IQ, right? Thing about consciousness, in the philosophical sense that you clearly mean it, is that it is completely unempirical and therefore does not exist within the scientific model. I know I have consciousness because I experience it, I assume you have consciousness because you are very like me, you assume these low IQ animals don't have consciousness because they are not like you. There exists no objective measurement of consciousness.
- vasilipupkin 9y ago
  yeah, but there exist objective measurements of ability. As in my parakeet objectively cannot be taught to read and understand a book, for example. no, we wouldn't eat humans who do not have IQ of 1-3 year old, because we would recognize that they are human and don't have that IQ from disease or misfortune, not because of their inherent incapability of having it.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 9y ago
    Why should that matter? Your philosophy assigns a lower worth to beings that have lower IQ, the fact that they are biologically human is irrelevant.
    - vasilipupkin 9y ago
      it's relevant. My philosophy assigns a lower worth to beings, who are not human, who have low IQ. I assign low worth to individuals who belong to low IQ species, not to low IQ individuals.
      - AnIdiotOnTheNet 9y ago
        And I'm saying, why? What does it matter what species they are? Your original claim implied that you believe this is because lower IQ equates to a lack of consciousness, which as I've already described cannot be objectively determined and is therefore a poor metric. If I understand you correctly, you are now saying that it's really the species that determines consciousness, which is equally invalid. Either you are taking it on pure faith that certain species have consciousness and others do not, in which case there is little point in further discussion, or you are trying to claim that certain species are worth more than others because they seem to have a greater aptitude in certain categories. For some reason, this does not apply on an individual basis. How convenient for you, then, that these categories align perfectly with all the areas your species has great aptitude! I invite you to consider this possibility: Your belief is not based on rational reasoning, you are just rationalizing your behavior.
        vasilipupkin 9y ago
        you are engaging in semantics and sophistry. It can be objectively determined that cows are significantly less intelligent than humans, or even african grey parrots, or dolphins. I do not want to eat species that, as a species, exhibit intelligence level that is similar to human intelligence. The reason i wouldn't eat a dumb human is because I don't want to perform an intelligence test on every parrot or every human. Aggregate knowledge about the species is enough knowledge. You may say this is arbitrary, but to tell me I shouldn't eat a cow is even more arbitrary. Also, discussing whether or not I would eat a human is silly because I can't go to the supermarket and buy human flesh. So, let's keep this discussion away from meaningless hypotheticals.
        AnIdiotOnTheNet 9y ago
        If it is ok to eat less intelligent things then if you know for certain that a particular human doesn't meet the criteria (infants, for instance), why are they exempt? No testing need be performed. We know that the category of "infant humans" is going to have an IQ under your stated limit. You are not making rational logical arguments. You have started with your preferred conclusion and are employing rationalization to justify it. Every time I show you that your philosophy allows for things you find uncomfortable, you move the goalposts. Case in point: >Also, discussing whether or not I would eat a human is silly because I can't go to the supermarket and buy human flesh. So, let's keep this discussion away from meaningless hypotheticals. This is a copout that means "I am afraid of what my philosophy actually means, so let's just ignore it". You could easily acquire and consume an infant if you wanted. There'd be severe consequences for doing so, of course, but that doesn't mean you can't do it. People do do it. None of that is relevant to the question of whether or not it is morally permissible to do so, now is it? But you, you're not interested in making sense. You're uncomfortable, so you rationalize. Oh, it's not ok to eat infants even though they're well below my IQ threshold, even though it's completely possible, because they aren't sold in the grocery store! Please.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 9y ago

So we can eat humans that also do not have that IQ, right? Thing about consciousness, in the philosophical sense that you clearly mean it, is that it is completely unempirical and therefore does not exist within the scientific model. I know I have consciousness because I experience it, I assume you have consciousness because you are very like me, you assume these low IQ animals don't have consciousness because they are not like you. There exists no objective measurement of consciousness.

vasilipupkin 9y ago
yeah, but there exist objective measurements of ability. As in my parakeet objectively cannot be taught to read and understand a book, for example. no, we wouldn't eat humans who do not have IQ of 1-3 year old, because we would recognize that they are human and don't have that IQ from disease or misfortune, not because of their inherent incapability of having it.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 9y ago
  Why should that matter? Your philosophy assigns a lower worth to beings that have lower IQ, the fact that they are biologically human is irrelevant.
  - vasilipupkin 9y ago
    it's relevant. My philosophy assigns a lower worth to beings, who are not human, who have low IQ. I assign low worth to individuals who belong to low IQ species, not to low IQ individuals.
    - AnIdiotOnTheNet 9y ago
      And I'm saying, why? What does it matter what species they are? Your original claim implied that you believe this is because lower IQ equates to a lack of consciousness, which as I've already described cannot be objectively determined and is therefore a poor metric. If I understand you correctly, you are now saying that it's really the species that determines consciousness, which is equally invalid. Either you are taking it on pure faith that certain species have consciousness and others do not, in which case there is little point in further discussion, or you are trying to claim that certain species are worth more than others because they seem to have a greater aptitude in certain categories. For some reason, this does not apply on an individual basis. How convenient for you, then, that these categories align perfectly with all the areas your species has great aptitude! I invite you to consider this possibility: Your belief is not based on rational reasoning, you are just rationalizing your behavior.
      - vasilipupkin 9y ago
        you are engaging in semantics and sophistry. It can be objectively determined that cows are significantly less intelligent than humans, or even african grey parrots, or dolphins. I do not want to eat species that, as a species, exhibit intelligence level that is similar to human intelligence. The reason i wouldn't eat a dumb human is because I don't want to perform an intelligence test on every parrot or every human. Aggregate knowledge about the species is enough knowledge. You may say this is arbitrary, but to tell me I shouldn't eat a cow is even more arbitrary. Also, discussing whether or not I would eat a human is silly because I can't go to the supermarket and buy human flesh. So, let's keep this discussion away from meaningless hypotheticals.
        AnIdiotOnTheNet 9y ago
        If it is ok to eat less intelligent things then if you know for certain that a particular human doesn't meet the criteria (infants, for instance), why are they exempt? No testing need be performed. We know that the category of "infant humans" is going to have an IQ under your stated limit. You are not making rational logical arguments. You have started with your preferred conclusion and are employing rationalization to justify it. Every time I show you that your philosophy allows for things you find uncomfortable, you move the goalposts. Case in point: >Also, discussing whether or not I would eat a human is silly because I can't go to the supermarket and buy human flesh. So, let's keep this discussion away from meaningless hypotheticals. This is a copout that means "I am afraid of what my philosophy actually means, so let's just ignore it". You could easily acquire and consume an infant if you wanted. There'd be severe consequences for doing so, of course, but that doesn't mean you can't do it. People do do it. None of that is relevant to the question of whether or not it is morally permissible to do so, now is it? But you, you're not interested in making sense. You're uncomfortable, so you rationalize. Oh, it's not ok to eat infants even though they're well below my IQ threshold, even though it's completely possible, because they aren't sold in the grocery store! Please.