Falling3

45 ms·

451.
by Falling3 10y ago
Sentience is where we draw the line. You're not replying to anyone who said "killing" is wrong. We're talking specifically about the slaughter of animals. Reducing it all down to just "life" is fallacious.
452.
by Falling3 10y ago
That's not the sentience we're talking about. From the article: >This is a non-standard usage of the word "sentience"...
453.
by Falling3 10y ago
No. I'm merely pointing out the absurdity of saying describing something as "okay" when it's anything but. The word has become meaningless in this conversation.
454.
by Falling3 10y ago
I definitely acknowledge it works sometimes. But it often does not. Even in your example, your family hasn't actually stopped eating chicken. So it really only proves my point. People continue to cling to their dissonance. I actually
455.
by Falling3 10y ago
Even if that someday is an incredibly small fraction of your natural life? Even as little as 1/100 of what you could live if you were well cared for? I take it that's not what you meant by "one day". If we accept that an
456.
by Falling3 10y ago
And when it is not necessary, it can't be considered ethical.
457.
by Falling3 10y ago
Why would we care if someone accepts the costs or not? I find our justice system to be incredibly flawed, but ultimately we jail people because we (as a society) don't want the action they committed to take place. The mentality you see
458.
by Falling3 10y ago
>I think that if someone was forced to have a pet pig for a while they'd probably stop eating pork Unfortunately, this is often not the case in my own experience. It certainly does for some people, but that course is by no means uni
459.
by Falling3 10y ago
Absolutely. All the more reason to point it out.
460.
by Falling3 10y ago
So, if we're willing to grant that non-human animals are worthy of ethical consideration and accept that we don't need meat to be healthy or happy, how can slaughtering them for food be considered ethical? >In the usual agricul
461.
by Falling3 10y ago
In what sense is it okay? What does "okay" mean? Responding to an action with a life prison sentence doesn't scream "okay".
462.
by Falling3 10y ago
In that case, your first and third statements certainly seem in conflict. You don't actually believe in any practical sense that people should be able to make their own (unhindered) decision on what to eat if you're going to punis
463.
by Falling3 10y ago
Is this really how you feel taken to its logical extremes? Do you think humans should be allowed to eat other humans? Other live humans? Eating is clearly a very personal thing, but it's silly to pretend that morality suddenly ceases a
464.
by Falling3 10y ago
Does that actually matter in and of itself beyond how it affects sentient individuals?
465.
by Falling3 10y ago
Agreed with everything up until your last sentiment. I assume it was hyperbole, but it's still a ridiculous notion that without this specific food item (that currently requires harming other sentient, intelligent individuals), that lif
466.
by Falling3 10y ago
Well self-awareness doesn't have a direct correlation with intelligence. I agree that it generally comes down to what/who we can easily empathize with, but I would argue it sentience matters more in that respect (as well as provid
467.
by Falling3 10y ago
Sentience - I really don't see any other sensible qualifier for moral consideration.
468.
by Falling3 10y ago
Wolves are irrelevant here. If we're talking about the morality of the way we treat animals, it's a logical fallacy to try to use wolf behavior to justify our own (and something I'm sure would never occur in any other discuss
469.
by Falling3 10y ago
In-vitro meat is looking like a more viable option by the day. And it has the obvious moral ground.
470.
by Falling3 10y ago
As the sibling comment points out, we're getting into ethics which obviously only applies to those who are capable to ethical reasoning. Personally, I see far better attributes as being measures of whether we should harm other individu
471.
by Falling3 10y ago
There is a certain disturbing factor of enjoying the practice of actively harming another individual. But from a view of amount of harm done, you're absolutely right. The scale of our atrocities towards animals is enormous.
472.
by Falling3 11y ago
It's actually very common in Oregon to be asked if you're over 21 before having alcohol served to you (without being proofed).
473.
by Falling3 11y ago
Google's definition (which is a good starting point) of intelligence: "the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills." As far as I know, we have very little if anything in the way of software that accomplishes general
474.
by Falling3 11y ago
>Do we understand, completely, at a molecular level, the physical and control systems of bird and insect flight? Or how fish swim? Probably not. That's an excellent point. But at the same time, we do have some level of understanding
475.
by Falling3 11y ago
I've been using Car2Go often for the past few weeks. That's $0.41/minute for me to driving myself. Granted, it would be more efficient if I could request a car wherever I happen to be, but I'm not we'd see such a tr
476.
by Falling3 11y ago
Both scenarios use the same session.
477.
by Falling3 11y ago
Shares them across all incognito tabs for me.
478.
by Falling3 11y ago
Plenty of pets and plenty of livestock. The xkcd biomass graph is a great example of how unnecessary this kind of thing is.
479.
by Falling3 11y ago
I'd love to see existing meat subsidies moved to either vegetables or lab-grown meat. That would certainly help to further shrink the market of people who need the "real" stuff.
480.
by Falling3 11y ago
I'm interested in this from the animal rights perspective. I don't doubt that a breakthrough in this area would help us bring about a drastic decrease in animals slaughtered for consumption so I welcome it.

More ›