An Animals life is equal to Humans=Insanity.

Nekarsulm

How are we still alive, is right!
We probably do ourselves more harm from over use of cleaning products, but I still try and limit the fecal matter coming into the food prep area.

PS when did Boardsies last clean the filter in the dishwasher? Those things are filthy. And the Quick Wash or Economy programmes are just lower temperature washes.

borderlinemeath

Nekarsulm wrote: »

How are we still alive, is right!
We probably do ourselves more harm from over use of cleaning products, but I still try and limit the fecal matter coming into the food prep area.

PS when did Boardsies last clean the filter in the dishwasher? Those things are filthy. And the Quick Wash or Economy programmes are just lower temperature washes.

I do think we overuse cleaning products, and have bought into the marketing hype that we must be 99.9% germ free. A functioning immune system needs to be exposed to a certain amount of germs, a too clean house is far worse for our health than we think.

If you let your dogs lick the plates, there's bugger all build up in the dishwasher filter, I emptied mine out not so long ago, and it's mostly soap gloopy build up. I use a programme that goes on for 2 hours, actually depending on how full the dishwasher is it can be anything between 2.04 and 2.17 minutes, the quick wash at 45 minutes isn't any use.

pxdf9i5cmoavkz

I would like to argue that the life of an animal is greater to that of humans. They taste significantly better too.

Stonedpilot

Pac1Man wrote: »

You quoted an ancient scripture written thousands of years ago, translated multiple times before it reached English. This is proof?

I don't believe in an ounce of religion but it has it's place, reminding people of certain positive values which they can live by. All good stuff. But taking instruction from that ancient book is my own definition of insanity. Come up with your own ideas.

Like I said billions do and take Gods word seriously. To billions it's good enough and it's good enough for me.

To me saying the life of a gerbil has the same value as a baby's in insanity.
Plenty of fruitcakes out there believe that kind of garbage.

Spudmonkey

Stonedpilot wrote: »

Like I said billions do and take Gods word seriously. To billions it's good enough and it's good enough for me. .

And billions believe in other stuff too, doesn't make them right either!

Stonedpilot wrote: »

Plenty of fruitcakes out there believe that kind of garbage.

The ironing is delicious

Stonedpilot

Spudmonkey wrote: »

And billions believe in other stuff too, doesn't make them right either!



The ironing is delicious

It's not about being right, about knowing a humans life is worth more than a cat's or hamsters.


Ironing?.

StupidLikeAFox

MadamRazz wrote: »

If I was driving along and there was a dog on one side of the road and a person on the other, I would probably swerve to avoid hitting the dog. Just because we think we're more important, doesn't mean that we are.

I've read some crazy sh1t in my time but this is up there

Stonedpilot

StupidLikeAFox wrote: »

I've read some crazy sh1t in my time but this is up there

He/she can tell us of their virtue of saving a dogs life at the expense of a humans in prison.

Spudmonkey

Stonedpilot wrote: »

It's not about being right, about knowing a humans life is worth more than a cat's or hamsters.

And other than some reference to the book of genesis or whatever you haven't been able to say why, other than you know so.

So going back to my previous point. Using the criteria of scarcity or value to the planet, neither of which humans demonstrably satisfy, how can you say that they are inherently worth more than an animal which is above them in both of these? After all these are the criteria with which you'd use to determine value in most other things.

Just because "I say so" or "God says so" is not a good enough reason to be honest.

BrokenArrows

An animals life is not equal to most humans.
However some humans are worse than rats and should be treated like them.

Stonedpilot

Spudmonkey wrote: »

And other than some reference to the book of genesis or whatever you haven't been able to say why, other than you know so.

So going back to my previous point. Using the criteria of scarcity or value to the planet, neither of which humans demonstrably satisfy, how can you say that they are inherently worth more than an animal which is above them in both of these? After all these are the criteria with which you'd use to determine value in most other things.

Just because "I say so" or "God says so" is not a good enough reason to be honest.

The scarcity argument is a load of balls. We all go extinct eventually, it's just prolonging the inevitable. No man made intervention prevent animals for going extinct it's just nature. Let it take it's course.

The black footed ferret is nearly extinct; is your life of less value than that ferret just because it's nearly extinct?. By your logic the ferret's life has more value than yours:rolleyes:

Spudmonkey

Stonedpilot wrote: »

The scarcity argument is a load of balls. We all go extinct eventually, it's just prolonging the inevitable. No man made intervention prevent animals for going extinct it's just nature. Let it take it's course.

Why is it? Like I said it's a measure of other things worth, why not use it in this case? Yes everything goes extinct eventually but a loss of biodiversity accelerates it in host of ways. Abstinence of man's activities can allow species to recover, see sea otters and Californian blue whales as an example.

Stonedpilot wrote: »

The black footed ferret is nearly extinct; is your life of less value than that ferret just because it's nearly extinct?. By your logic the ferret's life has more value than yours:rolleyes:

Obviously we are going to think we are worth more than anything else, but tell me why we should believe that a black footed ferret of which there are 1,200 of are worth less than one of the billion Chinese, or Indian?

Stonedpilot

Spudmonkey wrote: »

Why is it? Like I said it's a measure of other things worth, why not use it in this case? Yes everything goes extinct eventually but a loss of biodiversity accelerates it in host of ways. Abstinence of man's activities can allow species to recover, see sea otters and Californian blue whales as an example.



Obviously we are going to think we are worth more than anything else, but tell me why we should believe that a black footed ferret of which there are 1,200 of are worth less than one of the billion Chinese, or Indian?

You think a ferret's life is worth more than a Chinese or Indian person's???:eek::eek::eek:

Spudmonkey

Stonedpilot wrote: »

You think a ferret's life is worth more than a Chinese or Indian person's???:eek::eek::eek:

Oh FFS....

I'm asking you as to why you think you can attribute more value to one form or life-form rather than another.

Jesus this is tough.....

Stonedpilot

Spudmonkey wrote: »

Oh FFS....

I'm asking you as to why you think you can attribute more value to one form or life-form rather than another.

Jesus this is tough.....

It's exactly what you implied.

I believe man is higher than animals partly because it's God ordained partly because we are top of the food chain, partly because animals follow the same food chain, man has philosophy and reasoning etc etc.
Couple of reasons.

Nekarsulm

Could we try and keep God out of the discussion?
Especially an Old Testament God.

The one which demanded an animal sacrifice whendver you wanted to approch his inner temple.
And who would test a fathers love by making him choose between disobeying his God or slaughtering his son.

Actually, some posters here might find that an easier choice than others ....

Stonedpilot

Nekarsulm wrote: »

Could we try and keep God out of the discussion?
Especially an Old Testament God.

The one which demanded an animal sacrifice whendver you wanted to approch his inner temple.
And who would test a fathers love by making him choose between disobeying his God or slaughtering his son.

Actually, some posters here might find that an easier choice than others ....

No sorry dude, it's one of the reasons billions of people believe man is above animals and has dominion over them. It's quite relevant to the discussion if billions all over the World believe it to be one of the central reasons humanity is above all animals.

B0jangles

Stonedpilot wrote: »

No sorry dude, it's one of the reasons billions of people believe man is above animals and has dominion over them. It's quite relevant to the discussion if billions all over the World believe it to be one of the central reasons humanity is above all animals.

Xenophanes (c. 570 BC - 475 BC) wrote:

The Ethiops say that their gods are flat-nosed and black, While the Thracians say that theirs have blue eyes and red hair. Yet if cattle or horses or lions had hands and could draw, And could sculpt like men, then the horses would draw their gods Like horses, and cattle like cattle; and each they would shape Bodies of gods in the likeness, each kind, of their own.

You might say that gods have a strong tendency to look like those who worship them and oddly enough, tend to tell those people just what they want to hear.

harry Bailey esq

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

Why not? He's a bit of a sap.

Ah he ain't so bad, I have a subscription to 'The Idler' and his contributions are usually top notch.

mickrock

Stonedpilot wrote: »

I believe man is higher than animals partly because it's God ordained partly because we are top of the food chain, partly because animals follow the same food chain, man has philosophy and reasoning etc etc.
Couple of reasons.

So, if some aliens came to Earth who were more advanced and intelligent than humans and they became top of the food chain, their lives would be more valuable than ours—correct?

Discodog

Why is it now only possible to have black & white opinions ? Either animal life is equal or not, you can't like animals & not be vegan etc etc. The latest appears to be that you can't condemn vigilantes without supporting paedophiles.

It's like some weird top trumps as people decide which animals are more important.

WHIP IT!

MadamRazz wrote:

If I was driving along and there was a dog on one side of the road and a person on the other, I would probably swerve to avoid hitting the dog. Just because we think we're more important, doesn't mean that we are.

After years and years of searching, we've finally done it... we've finally found the dumbest person on boards.ie

"What do they win, Alex??"

Wibbs

How we view ourselves over time is an interesting subject. We've mostly arrived at this in the West:

Spudmonkey wrote: »

And other than some reference to the book of genesis or whatever you haven't been able to say why, other than you know so.

So going back to my previous point. Using the criteria of scarcity or value to the planet, neither of which humans demonstrably satisfy, how can you say that they are inherently worth more than an animal which is above them in both of these? After all these are the criteria with which you'd use to determine value in most other things.

Just because "I say so" or "God says so" is not a good enough reason to be honest.

A backlash to this earlier position:

Stonedpilot wrote: »

Egotism my arse.

No it's not, it's ordained from God almightly himself. Genesis 1:26.

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

God said it so it's good enough for me.

Now perhaps you don't believe in God but billions do (many people far smarter than you or I, I may add) and they accept his word on it. :cool:

It would be my humble that the pendulum has over swung. For me the notion that we're not very important at all is just as daft as thinking we've the god given right to be the best. We lost self confidence when the gods were largely discarded and over did the sack cloth and ashes for past viewpoints.

The plain and demonstrable fact is that the human species is about the most incredible life form that nature has come up with. For a start we are aware of our place in existence and can describe it and change it. No other life that we yet know of has done that. Only here, only the once. Even previous human species were "incomplete" on this score. In the three billion years or so of life on earth, many different species came up with swimming and flight and crawling and filled every nice there is many different times, yet in all that time only once has an intelligence like ours come along. And if we vanished tomorrow(as some seem to find attractive to think on) the chances of it happening again are extremely slim to none.

I would say there are too bloody many of us and worse that's getting. The herd needs thinning.

Spudmonkey

Wibbs wrote: »

It would be my humble that the pendulum has over swung. For me the notion that we're not very important at all is just as daft as thinking we've the god given right to be the best.

I normally try to take the centrist position on most things as I find that's where most of the sane people are. I'm probably pushing the pendulum slightly further out on this topic as it is a little more emotive for me.

Wibbs wrote: »

The plain and demonstrable fact is that the human species is about the most incredible life form that nature has come up with. For a start we are aware of our place in existence and can describe it and change it. No other life that we yet know of has done that. Only here, only the once. Even previous human species were "incomplete" on this score. In the three billion years or so of life on earth, many different species came up with swimming and flight and crawling and filled every nice there is many different times, yet in all that time only once has an intelligence like ours come along. And if we vanished tomorrow(as some seem to find attractive to think on) the chances of it happening again are extremely slim to none.

No arguing with any of that, I wholeheartedly agree. However the OP's point was on a question of value or worth. What does this mean? Does this mean that intellectual complexity is the way this should measured? I don't deny that we are further along the evolutionary tract than other species but to further your example, what if we were surpassed in the morning by a more intelligent species, do they then become more worthy than us? Also contrary to what you think I don't get off on imagining the human species vanishing.

Wibbs wrote: »

I would say there are too bloody many of us and worse that's getting. The herd needs thinning.

I like Burr's take on it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wq_edHqpdA

Stonedpilot

mickrock wrote: »

So, if some aliens came to Earth who were more advanced and intelligent than humans and they became top of the food chain, their lives would be more valuable than ours—correct?

No because

a) It won't happen and

b) It's not ordained by God.

Stonedpilot

Wibbs wrote: »

How we view ourselves over time is an interesting subject. We've mostly arrived at this in the West:


A backlash to this earlier position:

It would be my humble that the pendulum has over swung. For me the notion that we're not very important at all is just as daft as thinking we've the god given right to be the best. We lost self confidence when the gods were largely discarded and over did the sack cloth and ashes for past viewpoints.

The plain and demonstrable fact is that the human species is about the most incredible life form that nature has come up with. For a start we are aware of our place in existence and can describe it and change it. No other life that we yet know of has done that. Only here, only the once. Even previous human species were "incomplete" on this score. In the three billion years or so of life on earth, many different species came up with swimming and flight and crawling and filled every nice there is many different times, yet in all that time only once has an intelligence like ours come along. And if we vanished tomorrow(as some seem to find attractive to think on) the chances of it happening again are extremely slim to none.

I would say there are too bloody many of us and worse that's getting. The herd needs thinning.

Amazing when people think this they always assume others are the herd, your part of it too.

Start with yourself so maybe some will follow your lead, you never know.

pilly

Stonedpilot wrote:

Even if the person is evil (subjective) their life is still worth more than a Jack Russell's.

Why? Explain your logic there?

Even if someone was a child killer there life has more value than a dog?

Makes no sense except for your emotional reaction so how is the opposite emotional reaction any more illogical?

pilly

After reading the thread I retract my question. No logic involved here.

WUM folks.

Wibbs

Spudmonkey wrote: »

I normally try to take the centrist position on most things as I find that's where most of the sane people are.

Agreed.

I don't deny that we are further along the evolutionary tract than other species

I wouldn't say further along SM. That kinda suggests an endpoint for me. Though one might argue that intelligent self aware life that breaks from the bonds of evolution is an endpoint of nature. We(or similar out there) may even end up being the "reproductive system" of the universe itself. We're pretty advanced but baring disaster we'll become more advanced, maybe even build our own replacements rather than wait for the time heavy hand of evolution to do it for us and those replacements will go far beyond particle accelerators and the like and could become advanced enough to create new universes in the "lab". They would essentially become like "gods". I mean if you were to land in a helicopter in Palaeolithic Europe bringing all your box of modern tricks with you, 1) you'd look physically different to the locals, 2) you'd have a level of understanding of reality they couldn't begin to comprehend and you would likely be seen as a demigod of sorts. Now fast forward another 100,000 years, or a million. Imagine how so very different our descendants will be.

but to further your example, what if we were surpassed in the morning by a more intelligent species, do they then become more worthy than us?

Pretty much yes. Chances are that they would feel that too even with the best of intentions. Every time in history when a technologically or socially more advanced group encounter a lesser, the lesser is either absorbed or wiped out.

Stonedpilot wrote: »

No because

a) It won't happen and

b) It's not ordained by God.

The first part is likely true. At least for the foreseeable and with current understanding of technology and science. The distances and time are unimaginable in their vastness. And that's assuming that an alien civilisation exists now, is capable of such travel, is close enough to us and is interested enough to make the journey.

As for the "Devine"? As I am not hardline atheist - who generally seem to take issue with specific gods and can be nearly as grounded in the human as the various faiths and their faithful - I would have no great issue with the belief that it may exist. I would be a strong agnostic in that sense. However I would take issue with the notion of subjective, localised and very human reflected gods and goddesses, whose narratives and pronouncements are all too banal and limited. Not much of a god for me. But hey, whatever floats your boat. So long as it doesn't seek to sink anyone else's.

Stonedpilot wrote: »

Amazing when people think this they always assume others are the herd, your part of it too.

Start with yourself so maybe some will follow your lead, you never know.

Unlike you it seems, I didn't say I wasn't and more, didn't automatically jump to that conclusion. I'm not nearly so egotistical, or subjective about my place in things. Though an easy mistake to make for the ego that assumes others think like them.