Queen bans fox hunting!

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by GePap
First you say you see no difference between a 20 kiloton bomb and a 100 megaton bomb, which is a complete absurdity, and then you says this idiocy.

Yay! Misquoting me, and not even choosing something relevent, and then using it as an ad hominem!

Of course mammals feel pain- it is beyond obvious- it can be empirically proven- its called training animals- the whole notion of giving a shock to an animal as adverse training- that could never ever work if an animal did not feel pain- the point of this type of training is to make animals avoid an action because an unwanted stimulus will be given, and they learn this.

Read the thread. Don't be a dumbass.

I'm not even going to bother to repeat my arguments. I'll just let you be a ****ing moron for not even bothing to see that I've pointed out why this is completely irrelevent three or four times in this thread.

[Az]

well gee, maybe for you.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Yay! Misquoting me, and not even choosing something relevent, and then using it as an ad hominem!

Its not a misquote- you just could not form a good arguement.

Read the thread. Don't be a dumbass.

I'm not even going to bother to repeat my arguments. I'll just let you be a ****ing moron for not even bothing to see that I've pointed out why this is completely irrelevent three or four times in this thread.

You are wrong, That simple. You have NOT pointed out why its irrelevant, you have made an arguement, but that arguement is flawed.

A human being is no more aware of the meaning of pain that any other animal. Pain is a sensation telling the body something is very wrong, dangerous, and must be avoided. That is the same for people or animals. That human beings will be able to further trace the cause of the pain, or may decide to do something painful, which animals won;t do, are signs of a higher sentience. But your arguement is still non-sensical, because we are talking about an ethical concern.

Your arguement is nto particulalry strong on why the sensation of pain for an animal is different from yours. The most you can show is that a person can understand the pain more- but the point of pain is NOT understanding- it is a warning of danger.

[Kuciwalker]

A human being is no more aware of the meaning of pain that any other animal. Pain is a sensation telling the body something is very wrong, dangerous, and must be avoided. That is the same for people or animals. That human beings will be able to further trace the cause of the pain, or may decide to do something painful, which animals won;t do, are signs of a higher sentience. But your arguement is still non-sensical, because we are talking about an ethical concern.

Do you understand the meaning of sentience and self-awareness? It has NOTHING to do with intelligence (well, they may be correlated in reality, but there is no necessarry connection). Sentience is the feeling of touching something, the fact that you see the signals from the nerves in your eye. It's consciousness. It's what religious people call the soul. Animals are no more sentient than rocks or robots.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Do you understand the meaning of sentience and self-awareness? It has NOTHING to do with intelligence (well, they may be correlated in reality, but there is no necessarry connection). Sentience is the feeling of touching something, the fact that you see the signals from the nerves in your eye. It's consciousness. It's what religious people call the soul. Animals are no more sentient than rocks or robots.

I am sorry, but you are in the realm of utterly unproveable mumbo-jumbo, that or religion, which I thought you were not a supporter of.

In fact, I am really at a loss you could even consider this.

Animals,especially mammals, have complex nervous systems- to compare them to rocks is an absurdity. As for the robot comparison- but the fact is animals take in an experience sensual stimuli just like human beings: human beings evolved from apes, so you simply can not provide any evidence about this.

In essence, you are making a religious arguement, an article of faith. Well, i don't buy, and you have no evidence, and you sure as hell don't have a possible logical arguement.

[Kuciwalker]

I am sorry, but you are in the realm of utterly unproveable mumbo-jumbo, that or religion, which I thought you were not a supporter of.

Uh, no...

Unless you aren't sentient! that would be why you don't get it!

The experience of self-awareness is inherent to any self-aware being. You can't communicate it, any more than you can communicate what red looks like.

[Immortal Wombat]

Kuci, for someone with a good point, you're making a big ****ing mess of this.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


The difference is that a fox doesn't.

Electrons don't "feel" being pushed by electric charges. A robot doesn't "feel" a touch sensor being triggered. They are not sentient. Neither are foxes.

If dogs don't "hear", "see", "smell", "feel", and are not "aware", then explain this.


How can a dog be trained, through threat of violence, to sniff a scent, remember it, and then track it on command in order lead a person to it.

First, by being able to be trained through violence, the dog shows an awareness of the potential pain and an understanding of the abstract scenario created when a human will beat it for doing or not doing something that would otherwise not be in the dog's nature or interest.

Second, by being able to act on the commands given by a human, the dog shows recognition of specific sounds and the ability to learn a sound it has never heard before and then associate it with a meaning.

Third, the dog is likewise able to reconize a specific scent and remember it, and then filter out all other scents - even ones that would be instinctually compelling to it - and then track the scent.

Fourth, when tracking the dog is able to see and analyze it's surroundings and if, having gone out of sight of it's master, can stop or turn around and find the person again so that he can continue leading them.

[Kuciwalker]

Ludd, answer this then: if robots don't have rights and aren't sentient, how come they can be trained to respond to seeing certain things or feeling certain things?

I'm not saying dogs aren't intelligent, I'm saying they aren't self-aware, which is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. You seem to be completely incapable of comprehending this.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Ludd, answer this then: if robots don't have rights and aren't sentient, how come they can be trained to respond to seeing certain things or feeling certain things?

Robots can't be trained, they are built and programmed to a specific task. They are machines.

I'm not saying dogs aren't intelligent, I'm saying they aren't self-aware, which is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.

What does it take to be self-aware? Answer my question. Tell me what it is that allows a human to "hear" and a dog not to.

EDIT: Or better yet, tell me how a dog doesn't hear.

[reds4ever]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


I'm not saying dogs aren't intelligent, I'm saying they aren't self-aware.

So it's okay to torture them?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Unless you aren't sentient! that would be why you don't get it!

The experience of self-awareness is inherent to any self-aware being. You can't communicate it, any more than you can communicate what red looks like.

Christ!

Being self-aware is not the same as being sentient- sentient is feeling-feeling is experiencing sensual stimuli- slugs sense light-they have that much sentience.

Animals sense-that is a freaking scientifically proven fact- I don;t think any biologist worht a damn would ever say that an animal, specially a mammal, can't feel stimuli.

As for communitcating what red it- you know what? NO ONE CAN! That is the point of empathy. You seem to have gone on the same line as Descartes, but unwilling to go to the logical conclusion he reached, which is that you as a mind simply can't be sure of anything other than your own sentience.

The fact is that I really have no way of knowing what you see when something I see as red is flashed in front. I can only assume it is the same, but I will never really know, and language is the only thing that allows for bridging this gap. BUt in the end, all that we have left is empathy and sympathy and to assume that other people experience like we do.

That same empathy applies to animals and pain, because the only evidence I have is that animals experience pain like I do. For me to ignore this arbitrarily means I might as well pour acid on you,c ause for all I know, you have no more sentience than a rock.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Because they are a fantastically complex machine designed to react in a certain way to certain stimuli. It is not aware of the pain, in the sense of self-awareness. A robot that backs up and turns around when it hits something does not feel pain when it hits an object. It is not aware of pain. It simply senses an input.

This seems to be the basis of your argument, so lets look at it.

We have no way of knowing if a Robot would feel, thought I would say they don't feel.

Your mistake is to make PAIN just a simple sensation. It is not, it is a very complex sensation- after all, all sensory imput is not pain- pain develops as the sensory netorkw becomes capable of carrying more information and more complex information. There is a threshold when pain begins, and actully a treshold when pain ends, because pain by itself can kill you if it is too intense.

So you begin with a misunderstanding of pain, and then move on to a tortured arguement about sentience. Not good.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Ah. Interesting thread turns dull.

[GePap]

Would you prefer a continuation of the insults?